The Low Countries at the Crossroads: Netherlandish Architecture as an Export Product in Early Modern Europe (1480-1680) (Architectura Moderna) 9782503543338, 2503543332

Citation preview

The Low Countries

at the

Crossroads

ARCHITECTURA MODERNA Architectural Exchanges in Europe, 16th-17th Centuries Vol. 8

Series Editors: Krista De Jonge (Leuven) Piet Lombaerde (Antwerp)

Advisory Board: Howard Burns (Vicenza/Pisa) Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann (Princeton) Jean Guillaume (Paris) John Newman (London) Konrad Ottenheym (Utrecht) Ulrich Schütte (Marburg)



The Low Countries

at the

Crossroads

Netherlandish Architecture as an Export Product in Early Modern Europe (1480-1680)

Edited by Konrad Ottenheym & Krista De Jonge

H

F



Cover illustrations: Lviv (Ukraine), St Andrew’s church, 1602–1630, (photograph Konrad Ottenheym). Praestø (Denmark), country house Nysø, 1674, (photograph Merlijn Hurx). This research was carried out with the financial support of the Vlaams Nederlands Comité (VNC), a joint initiative of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) and the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen (FWO).

© 2013, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2013/0095/141 ISBN 978-2-503-54333-8 Printed on acid-free paper

Contents

Forewordix Part One. The Low Countries at the Crossroads1 1.1 Introduction  Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge 1.2 The Architecture of the Low Countries and its International Reception, 1480–1680: A Bird’s Eye View Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge 1.3 ‘Ces fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique’. The Historiography of the Influence of Netherlandish Architecture in Europe  Dirk Van de Vijver, Krista De Jonge

3

15

31

Part Two. Personal Relationships and Networks of Patronage and Commerce 51 Introduction 

53

2.1 Travelling Architects from the Low Countries and their Patrons Konrad Ottenheym

55

2.2 The Diaspora of Netherlandish Sculptors in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century Ethan Matt Kavaler

89

2.3 Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser Konrad Ottenheym

103

2.4 The Steenwinckels: The Success Story of a Netherlandish Immigrant Family in Denmark Hugo Johannsen

129

2.5 The Van den Blocke Family in Gdan´sk and in Central Europe Jacek Tylicki 2.6 The Expansion of Gdan´sk and the Rise of Taste for Netherlandish Sculpture in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Franciszek Skibin´ski

143

159

v

Contents 2.7 The Cross-Influences in Architectural Patronage between Spain and the Low Countries as Revealed in the Letters of Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia (1598–1621) Bernardo J. García García 2.8 Amsterdam and the International Trade in Stone, Brick and Wood Gabri van Tussenbroek

177

195

Part Three. Influential Models209 Introduction211 3.1 Foreign Architects in the Low Countries and the Use of Prints and Books Konrad Ottenheym

213

3.2 Netherlandish Models from the Habsburg Sphere: From Spain to Germany and Denmark Krista De Jonge

237

3.3 Promising Enterprises and Broken Dreams: An Early Incident of Netherlandish Architectural Import in Sixteenth-Century Denmark  Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen

263

3.4 Building for a Career at the Spanish Court and Building in the Manner of Hans Vredeman de Vries in the Weser Region Heiner Borggrefe

277

3.5 Joris Jorissen Frese and the Origins of Renaissance Sacral Architecture in Livonia  Oja¯rs Spa¯rı¯tis

287

3.6 Paper Architecture: Mechanisms for the Migration of Architecture from the Low Countries to England Anthony Wells-Cole

301

3.7 Classicism in Berlin and Brandenburg: Architects, Entrepreneurs and the Restoration after the Thirty Years’ War (1648–1688)  Gabri van Tussenbroek

311

3.8 Models of Modesty and Dignity in the Age of Absolutism Konrad Ottenheym

333

Part Four. Military Engineers and Urban Design357 Introduction359 4.1 Fortifications and Waterworks: Engineers on the Road Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym

vi

361

Contents 4.2 Exporting Urban Models from the Low Countries to Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, and Northern Germany Piet Lombaerde 4.3 Sweden 1521–1721: Town Planning and the Low Countries  Nils Ahlberg

379 393

Part Five. Epilogue and Conclusions407 Epilogue: Paradigm Change in the Early Eighteenth Century  Dirk van de Vijver

409

Conclusions: Shifts in Time and Place Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge

431

Bibliography441 Photo Credits

504

Index505

vii

Foreword Krista De Jonge (KU Leuven – University of Leuven) “Spain shows foreign visitors San Lorenzo de El Escorial; France shows them Fontainebleau; Venice and Saxony show them their treasure cabinets; but Denmark, this castle [Frederiksborg]...”, Johan Adam Berg writes in 1646.1 Netherlandish artists and ­craftsmen were prominently present on all mentioned sites, but especially the Escorial Palace and Fredriksborg would have looked quite different without their presence. The tall, s­late-covered roofs of the Escorial – still a novelty in mid-sixteenth century Spain – were built by e­ xperienced ­carpenters from the Low Countries, whose names were recorded in the accounts, while on the Fredriksborg construction site third-generation Netherlandish immigrants played a crucial role. Not only the very competitive, early modern world of the courts relied on expertise from the Low Countries, but also the intricate urban network of trading cities which ­connected Antwerp, centre of artistic exchange in the sixteenth century, with Northern, Central and Southern Europe; contemporary sources such as the Florentine Lodovico Guicciardini, ­writing in 1567, found it necessary to remark upon this as an ­essential quality of Netherlandish art. Shifting political alliances, ever-changing commercial interests, and the rise of the Reformation evidently led to changes, but from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, when Amsterdam and the Dutch Republic gained new prominence, the mechanisms remained the same: ­migrating artists and craftsmen, import and export of b ­ uilding materials, mass-production of prints, the growing book market, and the international outlook of well-travelled patrons. This book offers a first approach to this multi-faceted phenomenon, the complex nature of which cannot easily be caught in single terms such as ‘influence’, ‘exchange’, ‘assimilation’, or even ‘transculturation’ and ‘appropriation’. The word ‘crossroads’ in the title aims at s­uggesting this complexity. Its geographical range, however broad – from Sweden to Spain and from England to Russia – does not include the colonial empires of the period, which naturally ­leaves a whole world open to further exploration. The present book is the result of almost eight years of research, carried out jointly from 2006 under the direction of Konrad Ottenheym at Utrecht University and of myself at the University of Leuven. It is, in fact, the companion volume to the fifth volume in the series Architectura Moderna, Unity and Discontinuity. Architectural Relations between the Southern and the Northern Low Countries 1530-1700, published in 2007, and thus a particularly fitting addition to the series, which will number eleven volumes by the end of the year 2013. Unity and Discontinuity explicitly addressed the lack of a joint architectural history of the Southern and Northern Low Countries, which roughly correspond to the present-day states of Belgium and The Netherlands, for the early modern period, and sought to bring together the ­separate Belgian and Dutch historiographies on the subject. Similarly, the present book tackles the thorny problem of national identity in those historiographies, especially where they touch upon the architectural production of other European countries. Like the architectural ­relationships between the Southern and Northern Low Countries, those between the Low Countries – ‘Flanders’ and ‘Holland’ – and Spain, the Scandinavian states, or the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, were constructed by authors writing in the nineteenth and early ­twentieth   “Hispanien zeigt frembden Leuten seine Laurentius Kirche; Franckreich seinen Blaeu Brunnen; Venedig und Chur Sachsen ihre Kunst = und Schatzkammer; Dännemarck diese Burg”. Johan Adam Berg, Kurtze

1

und ­eigentliche Beschreibung Des fürtrefflichen und weitberühmten Königlichen Hauses Friedrichsburg, Copenhagen 1646, [12]. Courtesy of Kristoffer Neville, with my thanks for this rare source.

ix

Foreword century, and often coloured by nationalistic agendas. As a result, the question of the ‘Netherlandishness’ of the architecture and sculpture discussed in this book is a very complex one. Within the series Architectura Moderna, the book had a forerunner in Badeloch Noldus’s Utrecht dissertation Trade in Good Taste: Relations in Architecture and Culture ­between the Dutch Republic and the Baltic World in the Seventeenth Century, published as the second volume in 2004, while Kristoffer Neville’s Princeton one on Nicodemus Tessin the Elder. Architecture in Sweden in the Age of Greatness, published as the seventh volume in 2009, opened up the intricate question of ­multiple ‘influences’, from Italy to France and the Low Countries, in the formation of a new style. From 2006 to 2009 the project ‘The Low Countries at the Crossroads’ was financed by the Vlaams-Nederlands Comité (VNC), which was a joint initiative of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) and the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen (FWO); the studies by Dirk Van de Vijver and Pieter Martens ­originated in this context, as did the editors’. In October 2008 the first results were ­publicly ­presented in the homonymous international symposium at Leuven, also financially supported by the VNC. The editors greatly benefited from the insightful comments of all the ­presenters and participants, many of whom are fellow authors of the book. A project of this scale ­naturally depends on the cooperation of specialists from many different areas and from many ­different European regions; without the collaboration of our fellow authors, many ­crucial topics would have been missing, even if the book does not aim at covering the whole field exhaustively. Special thanks should go, in addition, to Luc Duerloo, Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Badeloch Noldus, Juliette Roding, and Barbara Uppenkamp, who could be relied upon for critical remarks in the early stage of the research. But many other colleagues also generously contributed to the book, by facilitating visits in far-off venues, by discussing ­findings, by finding literature and rare sources, or by allowing them to test early results upon a willing audience. Our collective thanks go to them, with our hope that they find the result interesting – and discover an incentive for further research, that will augment, complete, or contradict the present work! Particular mention should thus be made of our fellow authors Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen and Hugo Johannsen, with reference to their successful ­conference Reframing the Danish Renaissance (National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, and Museum Fredriksborg, 28 September–1 October 2006), and Bernardo J. García García, with reference to the conference El legado de Borgoña (Fundación Carlos de Amberes, Madrid, 28 November–1 December 2007), which kick-started our writing; to the organisers of the many study trips to points north, south, west, and east, specifically those to Mecklenburg and Gdan´sk, Southern Poland and Ukraine, Frankenland, Bavaria, and Tirol, Bohemia, Hungary and Transsylvania, East Anglia, and Aragón: Uwe Albrecht, Barbara Arciszewska, Richard Biegel, Peter Fárbaky, Stephan Hoppe, Deborah Howard, Maurice Howard, Javier Ibáñez Fernández, Wolfgang Lippmann, Cristina Purcar, and of course Jean Guillaume, who inspired them; and for hospitality enjoyed during on-site research: Gordon Higgott (London), Rebecka Hietink Forsberg (Stockholm), Stanislaw Mossakowski (Warsaw), and Charles Wemyss (Hill of Invermay). Finally, the authors thank the staff of all the research libraries, archives and institutions they visited while working on the book.

x

Part One The Low Countries

at the

Crossroads

1. Map of Europe indicating the most important sites discussed in this volume (drawing by Gabri van Tussenbroek).

Chapter 1.1 Introduction Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge (Utrecht University, KU Leuven – University of Leuven) And furthermore from here [Antwerp] master artists have spread out all over England and Germany, and especially in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Poland and other northern countries, going as far as Moscow, without mentioning those who went to France, Spain and Portugal, most of them enticed there by rich rewards of princes, republics and other potentates, which is no less ­wonderful than it is honourable….1 (Guicciardini 1567) The Florentine-born merchant and chronicler Ludovico Guicciardini (1521–1589) was a privileged witness to the migration of artists from the Low Countries to the rest of Europe, namely to England, Germany, the countries of the North (including Denmark, Sweden, Poland and even Russia), and Southern Europe (including France, Spain, and Portugal).2 According to Guicciardini, most of these artists could command a significantly high fee. Antwerp, the hub of this commerce, was a city Guicciardini knew well because he had followed his older brother Giovan Battista there in 1541 and never left. Guicciardini originally conceived his famous Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi (the source of the above quote) as a description of Antwerp (see page 358). At the time of the book’s publication in 1567, Guicciardini was fully integrated in the m ­ ulti-cultural milieu of Antwerp’s merchant class.3 The phenomenon he described, and the multilingual ability of the city’s inhabitants, were part of the international image of the metropolis.4 Emigration was hardly new when Guicciardini penned his description of Antwerp. From as early as the second half of the fifteenth century, foreign patrons had been attracting building masters from the Low Countries to work abroad as specialists in their field.5 From then until the late seventeenth century, the architecture of current Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemburg served as a source of inspiration for other Europeans. Roughly speaking, in the early period interest came primarily from Spain. After the second half of the sixteenth century, the German territories, England, the Scandinavian kingdoms, and the Baltic regions became the main centres of interest in the architecture of the Low Countries. Once they had settled abroad, these building masters introduced new architectural ideas into their new homelands and thus ensured the diffusion of architectural ideas and forms from the Low Countries over wider parts of Europe. This phenomenon is not unknown   “Et di qui poi si spargono maestri per l’Inghilterra, per tutta l’Alamagna, & specialmente per la Danimarca, per la Suetia, per la Norvegia, per la Pollonia, & per altri paesi Settetrionali, insino per la Moscovia, senza parlare di quelli que vanno per la Francia, per la Spagna, & per il Portogallo, il piu delle volte chiamati con gran’ provvissione da Principi, da Republiche, & da altri Potentati, cosa non meno maravigliosa che honorata…”. Guicciardini 1567, 101. 2  Nephew to the better-known historian Francesco Guicciardini, ambassador of Pope Leo X and Clement VII, and counsellor to Cosimo I de’ Medici until he fell out of favour. Biography in Guicciardini 1987, 5–8, and Aristodemo 1991. 1

  On Guicciardini’s friends and relations, see Sorgeloos 1991, 66–78. 4   Also promoted by Goropius Becanus and by Mylius at the time, see Van Hal 2010 and Frijhoff 2010. 5  In this period the profession of ‘architect’ in a modern sense did not exist. When the word is used in this volume it means the designer and supervisor of a building project. In many cases this person was a stonemason by trade, sometimes a carpenter, but quite often also a sculptor. ‘Building masters’ is the general term for this group used in this book. See Hurx 2009; Hurx 2010; Hurx 2012; De Jonge 2010f. 3

3

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge in art history, but when studying the publications of the last century in detail, several serious problems come to the fore. Firstly, notwithstanding the large scope of these migrations and their impact, as a factor in the development of the Northern Renaissance they are usually overshadowed by the phenomenon of travelling architects from Italy. Without denying the importance of Italian artists for the development of European architecture in general, the current book wants to correct the italocentric perspective on the early modern period common to most older literature. Secondly, in the past the diffusion of Netherlandish architecture has almost always been described in a unidirectional way instead of as a complex form of artistic exchange between multiple countries and regions. Past analyses are mainly based on the model of the artistic centre and its peripheries, with sixteenth-century Antwerp and seventeenth-century Amsterdam as the main centres of creativity and with building sites in Scandinavia and in the Baltic regions as dependent cultural provinces. Here also, the book wants to offer another point of view, which might lead to a new paradigm. In fact, migration of building masters was only one of the mechanisms of diffusion of architectural ideas and models from the Low Countries. Foreign architects and patrons visited the Low Countries to study architecture while books and prints from Antwerp and Amsterdam were creatively used in other European regions as well, to mention only some of the other important other pathways along which architectural knowledge from the Low Countries was transmitted, received and transformed. These mechanisms constitute the main subject of the present book. In view of the wide range of the subject, it does not lay any claim to encyclopaedic completeness; but it is hoped that the different case-studies will illustrate the possibility of a new approach to the field. In this introduction basic questions concerning the various mechanisms will be discussed, starting with the scale of migration. Migrating artists: facts and figures Sketching the scale of migration, however approximately, is useful since it offers a context for the broader phenomenon of artistic exchange in Europe. Unfortunately, Guicciardini did not provide more specific facts and figures regarding Netherlandish emigration, even though he possessed first-hand knowledge of the terrain. How many people were actually involved in this diaspora is difficult to know, as shown by the available literature on migrating artists from the Low Countries. In 1986 Wilfrid Brulez, a historian at Ghent University, published a comprehensive overview of the relationships between economy, society, and culture in early modern Europe, which remains the best available source on the mobility of European artists between 1400 and 1800.6 He and his students from Ghent University copied over 26,000 names, or every third name, from the complete Thieme-Becker’s Künstler Lexikon to compile statistics on artists that included painters, sculptors, architects, goldsmiths, terracotta workers, etc. Nevertheless, Brulez’s study was flawed because he did not compensate for the bias inherent in the Künstler Lexikon’s main sources.7 Not all countries are equally represented in the main   Brulez 1986.  Similarly, Kelly & O’Hagan 2005 and O’Hagan & Hellmanzik 2008 took the Oxford Dictionary of Art as basis for their analysis of the clustering of prominent visual artists in the period 1200–1945. Suspecting a country bias in their source, they cross-checked with the Reclams Künstlerlexicon and also with the Grove Art Online database in an attempt to compensate. Nevertheless, all the aforementioned lexica share the same bias (also with the Thieme-Becker) when 6 7

4

it comes to early modern art and architecture. The foregone conclusion, that Italy produced the largest number of prominent artists between 1200 and 1500, could have been predicted without cluster analysis by any art historian knowing the historiography of the field.

Introduction repertories. Rather, the available information favoured Italy and France, because their art was studied more extensively and hence was better r­epresented in the literature than the art of the ‘outskirts’ of Europe.8 Additionally, not all fields of art received equal attention. Ever since Vasari’s Lives of the artists (1550 and 1568), painting has overshadowed sculpture and architecture, as well as many areas perceived as peripheral or ‘applied’, such as tapestry and goldsmith’s work. Consequently, more painters were known, studied, and inventoried than stonecutters – one of the guilds bringing forth building masters – and sculptors. Thus the sheer quantity of available information was skewed in favour of painters. These shortcomings must be kept in mind when interpreting the following data, which are approximate at best and serve only to suggest the scale of the phenomenon.9 According to these statistics, between 1400 and 1800 almost twenty percent of all artists mentioned in Thieme-Becker migrated, making a total of c. 15,000 European artists.10 Brulez further analysed the nationalities and professions of the migrating artists. These lists confirmed common expectations. Draughtsmen and painters apparently constituted the largest group of migrating artists. Compared to other disciplines, draughtsmen and painters could, and often did, become established elsewhere with relative ease. On the other hand, sculptors, and especially architects, faced significant risk in migrating and founding new workshops abroad. For them, working abroad was a high risk endeavour requiring secure financial backing and relationships with future patrons and stone traders to ensure success. The distribution of the migrating artists according to their country of origin reveals the importance of the Low Countries in the international exchange of artistic ideas. ThiemeBecker recorded comparable numbers of artists migrating between Germany, France, Italy, and the Low Countries. These numbers far exceed those of neighbouring countries, which is significant even given the biased nature of the source.11 According to these figures the migrations between these four regions account for approximately 80 percent of all recorded migrations. In spite of their shortcomings, Brulez’s statistics thus show that there was a complex network of multi-national artistic exchange with multiple pathways connecting the North to the South. Artists migrating within Europe between 1400 and 1800, ordered by country of origin:12 Germany and Austria 25.0 Low Countries 21.5 Italy 19.7 France 15.5 Switzerland   3.7 Spain   3.4 England   3.3 others   7.9  On the issue of the neglect of the Baltic area, see Kaufmann 2003 and Kaufmann 2004a, and of Scandinavian early modern architecture, see Neville 2009, 1–21. 9  Other criticisms on Brulez 1986 in the review by Bok 1988. 10  Brulez 1986, 40–43. Brulez and his assistants ­counted 4,726 migrant artists in their sample taken at random from one third of all artists listed in ThiemeBecker 1908–1950, indicating an overall number of c. 15,000 migrating artists between 1400 and 1800. 11   Brulez counted 5644 artists for Germany, 5,579 for Italy, 4,716 for France, 4091 for the Low Countries, 8

% % % % % % % % 1,785 for Spain and for all other countries less than 1,000. To get a rough idea of the total figure, these numbers should be tripled since Brulez took 33,3% of all names in Thieme-Becker related to this period. Brulez 1986, 41, fig. 7. 12   Brulez 1986, 40–41. This does not include ‘national’ migration within Italy, France and Germany according to current boundaries. In the given period transfers from Munich to Hamburg or from Venice to Naples were of course also regarded as ‘international’ migrations (the use of modern national states as places of origin of artists of this period is one the shortcomings of this study, admitted by Brulez himself).

5

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge These statistics include c. 12,000 Netherlandish artists, of whom nearly 25 percent, or 3,000 artists, went abroad.13 These numbers were not equally spread over the four ­centuries under consideration. Rather, Brulez’s time schedule is arranged in sections of fifty years, according to the years of the artists’ births. The emigration numbers were modest in the ­fifteenth and early sixteenth century, but increased rapidly during the late sixteenth and seventeenth century, up to ten times the figures of the previous century. In the eighteenth century, emigration diminished dramatically. Total number of artists emigrating from the Low Countries between 1400 and 1800, ordered by year of birth:14 1400–1450:   60 artists 1450–1500:   90 artists 1500–1550: 375 artists 1550–1600: 600 artists 1600–1650: 900 artists 1650–1700: 415 artists 1700–1750: 290 artists 1750–1800: 160 artists The (threat of) war is usually given a lot of weight in any analysis of emigration. Brulez’s figures show that the scale of migration in general increased significantly between 1550 and 1650, during the iconoclast uprising (Beeldenstorm) of the 1560s and the following two decades of war in particular. The threat of war and its negative impact on artistic economy indeed must have been important stimuli to go abroad. However, these statistics also illustrate that the emigration of artists from the Low Countries was not restricted to the aforementioned period, as is often presumed. The phenomenon existed already in the fifteenth century and would continue in the centuries after the Revolt. Therefore other ‘push’ factors that were at work during the period of cultural and economic flourishing of the Low Countries will have to be investigated as well as probable ‘pull’ factors. As for the latter, foreign patrons who invited building masters at their courts or to their cities for the most prestigious projects might have played an essential role. With the help of Brulez’s figures one may try to give at least an indication of the number of migrating building masters from the Low Countries. Approximately 26 percent of the 3,000 artists who emigrated from the Low Countries were painters, 23 percent were sculptors, and 17 percent were artists working in metal. Building masters accounted for approximately 19 percent of the total, an estimate based on comparing the relative percentages of 600 architects and stonemasons to almost 700 sculptors.15 Nevertheless, the distinction between building masters and sculptors was not always clear in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Generally, 50 percent of emigrating sculptors were also presumably engaged in building projects. Thus, between 1400 and 1800 nearly 1000 artists from the Low Countries emigrated abroad to participate in various building projects, including fortifications and water engineering, a specialty of the Low Countries not visible in these statistics. Most of these artists lived and worked during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the period of chief concern here. However, these figures do not account for the ‘multiplicator effect’ typical of building projects. Only building masters of a certain standing and reputation left the paper trail necessary for their inclusion in the archival sources and scholarly studies referenced by   Brulez 1986, 41, fig. 7. His numbers are tripled here to get an impression of the total range of emigrants. 14  Excerpted from the overview by Brulez 1986, 42, fig. 8. Again his numbers are tripled here. 13

6

 For the Low Countries no specific numbers of ­ uilding masters are given in this overview. Brulez b mentions 19.2% as the European average part of ­building masters among the emigrating artists from all countries. Brulez 1986, 41. 15

Introduction Thieme-Becker. Accordingly, the numerous common craftsmen needed for actual building construction were not represented in these statistics. Nevertheless, they were often recruited in the Low Countries. In fact, foreign patrons were known to send reputed artists home to recruit dozens of craftsmen. Thus, the actual number of immigrants involved in building crafts would have far exceeded the numbers mentioned here. In total, Brulez’s study offered only a rough indication of the volume of reputable building masters emigrating to other parts of Europe. However, Guicciardini should not be suspected of hyperbole; the phenomenon still maintained its quantitative importance. Despite the natural conditions – such as the availability of building materials, limited transport, and the knowledge of local materials – tying architecture to its terroir, mobility was integral to the Netherlandish building master’s practice just as it was to the painter’s practice. Other mechanisms and pathways of transmission The aforementioned statistics regarded merely one among many aspects of mobility. Indeed, Guicciardini touched upon only the most evident component: the migration of building masters from the Low Countries (and, by extension, their crews of specialist craftsmen). However, architectural practices travelled in other, more indirect ways as well.16 Thus, the direct transmission of Netherlandish architecture by actual migration as described in the previous section should be distinguished from the more indirect transmission achieved through working with models from the Low Countries. Both foreign artists who had received some training in the Low Countries as well as foreign artists who knew Netherlandish models from printed sources only could be influenced by Netherlandish architecture. In the past, research questions have been limited because they centred on naming the architects of important buildings. Past research has especially focused on finding well-known names in efforts to create new art heroes. Instead, the main question here is not who served as architect of a particular building, but how Netherlandish sources were introduced and adapted.17 Contrary to the statistics for migrating Netherlandish building masters, there are no comparable numbers available for these other mechanisms. An accurate estimate of how many people actually visited the Low Countries to study architecture is impossible; only partial approximations seem feasible.18 Consequently, the analysis of this mechanism will be based on incidental case-studies. The impact of books and prints from the Low Countries is also difficult to gauge. Few inventories of architects’ libraries from this period have survived; as with the data on migrating architects, the available data on print media are too scanty to create reliable statistics. Thus, a quantitative analysis similar to Brulez’s study was not attempted in this book. However, a qualitative analysis raises different questions, specifically ones concerning the networks underpinning the transmission of Netherlandish architecture. Historians of early modern technology and specialists in early commercial networks have concurred – the travel routes of technical inventions and trade coincided.19 This had been the case already in the previous centuries, but from c. 1500 onwards the scale and distance of international trade increased significantly. Commercial routes created by patrons, agents, artists, engineers, craftsmen, as well as their technical inventions and their luxury goods  On the travel of Netherlandish art in general, see Kaufmann 2006b. 17   Interesting parallels in Navarro Brotóns 2006. 18  For instance, according to Weilbach’s Dansk Kunstnerleksikon, eight Danish architects and one Danish engineer visited the Low Countries in the late 16

sixteenth and early seventeenth century (compared to nine Danish painters and three engravers). Weilbach 1994–2000. 19   On the transmission of technical knowledge and its status, see Long 1997; Popplow 1998.

7

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge generated innovations in style, taste, and architecture, which was the ultimate ­‘consumer good’.20 Accordingly, similar mechanisms disseminated Netherlandish models in court circles and in the urban milieu.21 Any differences in the mechanisms appeared to be chiefly matters of scale if the different goals of representation (dynastic goals vs. the self-fashioning of coming men) and the different motivations for conspicuous consumption were removed from consideration.22 In this respect, a higher degree of liberty and access apparently distinguished the networks of princely courts – characterised by marriage alliances and ties of kinship that were framed by rituals such as gift-giving – from the networks of private commissioners in the urban context.23 This assertion is somewhat simplified considering that court society was international by definition, and engendered mobility of persons and goods. Princely patrons certainly possessed more liberty to engage artists than the average small-town burgher, who was situated some distance from the main trade routes.24 The greater liberty found in court society permitted an increased access to artists, even considering that engaging foreign craftsmen was subject to rules, however freely interpreted.25 Thus, the courtly élite had the best access to top-tier artists – that is, if their financial resources permitted it – and the richest merchants (such as those comparable to the Fuggers) were probably similarly privileged, if the rules governing building in the cities did not limit them. The middle range of patrons and the lower nobility were likely more dependent on the local supply of artists, which featured a limited capacity and quality. However, the presence of a highly skilled artist should not be underestimated; once present in town, his studio responded to the demands of less privileged patrons as well. Questions and reflections This raises various sets of questions, first about the travelling building masters from the Low Countries. For instance, what were the conditions underscoring a building master’s decision to migrate from the Low Countries? Did he receive a princely invitation, or was he embarking on a commercial enterprise? Was he associated with a well-functioning family network already established abroad?26 Did other factors such as religious persecution, crisis, and the Revolt of the Low Countries influence his decision?27 Secondly one may ask how an immigrant building master from the Low Countries actually functioned abroad. What was his position in his new homeland and what was his support network? What was the building master’s relationship to the trade in materials used for architecture and sculpture, both local and international? To what degree were the Netherlandish models from home adapted to local circumstances, including adjustments that accounted for local building materials, climate, and social habits?28  We found Ramada Curto & Molho 2002, especially its introduction (3–17) extremely useful, as well as the review articles Martines 1998 and Ormrod 1999. For a particular case arguing this see Romano 1993 (on Venice). 21  See the case-studies in North & Ormrod 1999 ­relating patronage to the commerce of art, ­especially Wim Blockmans, ‘Manuscript acquisition by the Burgundian court and the market for books in the fifteenth-century Netherlands’, 7–18, Mari-Tere Alvarez, ‘Artistic enterprise and Spanish patronage: the art market during the reign of Isabel of Castile (1474–1504)’, 45–60; and Guido Guerzoni, ‘The Italian Renaissance courts’ demand for the arts: the case of d’Este of Ferrara (1471–1560)’, 55–69. 22   See for Italy Goldthwaite 1993; Guerzoni 1999. 20

8

 Exemplary studies in Pérez de Tudela & Jordan Gschwend 2001; Buettner 2001. 24   de Vries 1984. 25   In his essay Cipolla 1972 posits that “What makes an environment responsive [to innovation ­introduced by immigrants] and what does not is one of the most formidable problems posed for the historian” and blithely concludes that “tolerance” is the chief pre-condition. 26   Brosens et al. 2012. 27  Belfanti 2004 explicitly sees the refugees fleeing from persecution in the Low Countries as a motor for technical innovation. 28   See Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann’s ‘Introduction’, in Kaufmann & Pilliod 2005, 1–19. 23

Introduction A third series of questions concerns the role of Netherlandish architectural models studied by foreign architects. Which kind of architect studied in the Low Countries and what kind of buildings attracted his attention most? Which architectural prints and books from the Low Countries were used by local masters abroad without direct intervention by the Netherlandish immigrants? Finally there are questions concerning the commissioners and their networks. If the architecture of the Low Countries enjoyed such high esteem, who were the foreign patrons seeking to emulate these examples?29 What was their relationship with the Low Countries? How did they know about these models? Had they travelled to the Low Countries previously and acquired the necessary experience?30 How were they introduced to Netherlandish masters who could be encouraged to emigrate? Who were the agents, brokers, and ‘cultural intermediaries’?31 What other ways could the patrons have attained their goals? What role did the patrons’ network play? These questions have ultimately led to the main issue of this book: Why were experts from the Low Countries called upon and what made them successful abroad? Did they possess technical expertise not available among local masters? Were their design skills merely a spinoff of other, more important arts such as hydraulic engineering and fortification?32 Or did Netherlandish architecture possess particularly compelling traits that could also be studied by foreign architects? If so, did the attraction lie in qualities that were explicitly perceived as ‘Netherlandish’? Or were the Netherlandish examples regarded as favourite models of an international architectural style desired by the rulers, nobility, and civic authorities who sought to keep up appearances among their peers? On ‘Influence’ and ‘Culture of exchange’33 Architectural relationships between the Low Countries and other European countries have not been neglected in art history. Nevertheless, the subject has not been adequately studied in terms of its multi-national connections during several centuries. A few isolated case studies have been addressed in surveys of bilateral cultural exchange, such as the various Europalia exhibition catalogues dedicated to the Low Countries and one other European country, and the celebrated Mercator series on the historical relations between the Low Countries and other European nations.34 Numerous monographs on internationally known migrating architects such as Hans Vredeman de Vries and Tilman van Gameren comprise another category of detailed research in the field.35 For some European countries, the immigration of Netherlandish building masters was seen as a defining moment in their architectural history. Consequently, the term ‘Netherlandish’ (or the pars pro toto ‘Flemish’) gained a particular weight in the national historiography of these countries, as was the case, for instance, in late fifteenth-century Spain and late sixteenth-century Denmark. Yet the history of early  For context, we refer to studies on (Renaissance) patronage such as Eisenstadt & Roniger 1980; Kent & Simons 1987; Thomson 1993; Kettering 2002. 30   Interesting parallels in Tönnesmann 2005; specifics on the counts of Hesse in Bender 2005. 31   See amongst others Cools et al. 2006. 32   Long 1997, 4. 33  With the latter term we gratefully quote the title to an (unpublished) international seminar ­organised jointly by the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Leuven in 1999. It could be taken to 29

mean ‘cultural transfer’, a concept which implies reciprocal ­ ­ relationships. See Bender 2005 and Kaufmann 2006a. 34  For more details on these series, see chapter 1.3. For particular studies reconnoitring the field see Slothouwer 1924 on Denmark; Louw 1981 on England; Chueca Goitia 1986, 195–215 on Spain (Chapter XI: ‘La influencia de los Países Bajos en la arquitectura ­española’); and Bartetzky 2001 on Gdan´ sk. 35   Exh. cat. Lemgo 2001 and Antwerp 2002, respectively Mossakowski 1994; Ottenheym 2002a.

9

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge modern Netherlandish architecture has emphasised the relationship with Italy, which was typically interpreted as a one-way Italian influence on the Low Countries. Similarly, in sculpture, which was a field of training for many early modern architects in the Low Countries, travellers to Italy who returned home were perceived primarily as absorbing rather than as contributing to the Italian artistic context.36 The authors’ own 2007 survey of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century architecture in the Low Countries primarily examined the manifold reactions to the new way of building all’antica emerging from Italy but it did not examine the traffic which might have flowed the other way.37 Jacob Burckhardt began the trend of associating the term ‘Renaissance’ with change and modernisation emanating from one particular area in Europe: Central Italy (namely, Florence and Rome).38 Thus, thinking about the Renaissance forced the architectural historian to face problems of influence and reception, tradition and innovation, centre and periphery, dispersion and diffusion, as well as theories of cultural hegemony.39 Recently, scholars have replaced linear relationships of ‘influence’ between the architecture of Italy and the rest of Europe with more complex notions such as assimilation, cultural transmission and transfer, and reception and cultural exchange, all of which were concepts borrowed from linguistics, the social sciences, and, especially, anthropology.40 In 2007 Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann proposed ‘acculturation’ as a useful tool for addressing the thorny issue of cultural – in this case, artistic – change resulting from dynamic external impulses.41 Similarly, he proposed the term ‘transculturation’, which referred to ‘processes of cultural mixing and the resulting effects’ that were first used to discuss Latin American cultures.42 In a similar trans-disciplinary vein, during the last decade the term ‘appropriation’ borrowed from literary history and anthropology has gained currency in art history as an alternative to ‘influence’, expressing the more active side of ‘acquiring’ elements from ‘other’ cultures.43 The case studies in this book have not eschewed the term ‘influence’. Rather, ‘influence’ is used flexibly and with caution. Many pitfalls concerning international artistic relationships are unveiled by late-twentieth-century postcolonial critique and the deconstruction of nationalists discourses.44 For instance, early twentieth-century French scholars claimed their genius abroad with programmatic series such as L’art français à l’étranger and Histoire de l’expansion de l’art français.45 In Mussolini’s Italy the state started a systematic inventory of Italians working abroad. The Italian Ministry of External Affairs published this series, titled L’opera del genio italiano all’estero, from 1933 until 1962.46 Originally it would contain 12 series with several volumes each, including one series dedicated to Italian artists and architects in Europe (series I, ‘Gli Artisti’) as well as series on writers and musicians, and on military engineers (‘Gli Architetti Militari’, series IV), alongside series on military leaders, industrialists, princes and politicians, scientists, saints and missionaries as well as a final series on ‘I Banchieri, I Mercanti,  Many cases in point in Dacos 1997. Arguing for another approach: Kaufmann 1995. 37   De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007. 38  Burckhardt’s vision of the north-south divide is discussed by Boucher 2005. 39  See for instance Burke 1998, especially its Introduction, 1–17; Guillaume 2000; Guillaume 2003a; Guillaume 2005. 40  For instance, see Langer & Michels 2001 and in particular Middell 2001; Alexander-Skipnes 2007, ­ or for cultural transfers between Italy and Portugal, Lowe 2000. 41  Kaufmann 2007. See also Kaufmann 2004 and Kaufmann & Pilliod 2005, 1–19. This definition of 36

10

‘acculturation’ is taken from Glick & Pi-Sunyer 1969, an early attempt to combine history and anthropology (specifically on the subject of Spanish history). 42   Ortiz 1940, placed in context by Millington 2007. 43   See Ashley & Plesch 2002, 1–15 and Schneider 2003 for useful overviews of the different meanings. 44  Information on these French authors kindly ­provided by Dirk Van de Vijver. 45   Réau 1946; Lespinasse 1929; Réau 1931; Réau 1922; Reau 1926. 46   Some twenty volumes were actually published. See in particular Maggiorotti 1933–1939, on architects and military engineers; Hermanin 1934 on architects in Germany.

Introduction I Colonizzatori’ (series XII). Even though their work was realised abroad, the ‘Frenchness’, respectively ‘Italianness’ of these emigrant artists and their oeuvre was taken for granted. The military connotations in these titles are reminiscent of cultural imperialism, even when making allowances for the context of the time.47 Recent art history has sought to defuse the ideological minefield inherent in the ‘geography of art’ by explicitly addressing issues of nationalism and regionalism and by turning to concepts taken from other disciplines. Scope and limits The current book is not meant to be a contemporary L’opera del genio fiammingo all’estero, to play on the title of the series mentioned above that celebrated the ‘Italian genius’ abroad. Rather, this volume focuses on understanding the long tradition of migrating Netherlandish building masters and the mechanisms transferring their architectural knowledge; the authors had no intention of establishing a complete catalogue of masters involved in the process. In the convoluted web of pathways connecting the Low Countries to other parts of Europe, Italy has retained its place, albeit not its usual central location. Undeniably, numerous Italian artists spread antiquity-inspired architecture throughout Europe. However, these artists were not the only travellers; in some areas (not only in painting) competition with the Netherlanders was fierce.48 The goal is not proving the ‘importance’ of Netherlandish architecture but to contribute to the pluricentric or multi-polar view on early modern art and architectural history. The questions raised in the previous section have been examined from the late fifteenth century, when the first Netherlandish building masters were invited abroad, until the late seventeenth century, when the French court style superseded the Low Countries’ position as a desired model in Northern Europe. Therefore, this volume does not focus on the history of one specific style or period, but rather follows the mechanisms diffusing architectural inventions diachronically across the usual boundaries of periodisation. These periods include, as stylistic phenomena, the rich Brabantine Late Gothic, the rise of all’antica architecture in Antwerp in the sixteenth century, the modern antique inventions added to the classical grammar in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and, finally, Dutch Classicist architecture based on the examples of Palladio and Scamozzi. This approach considers not only buildings such as palaces, churches, and private houses, but also fortification and urban planning, as well as micro-architectural objects such as funeral monuments, rood screens, and pulpits. These isolated objects were often the first examples of new architecture in a region, and sometimes paved the way for introducing new forms in larger-scale buildings. The geographical scope treated here is as broad as the period under review. All European regions where Netherlandish elements were found are included in the book: from Spain to Scandinavia and from Scotland to Transylvania, to trace the diagonals of the area under survey. Colonial architecture and fortifications outside Europe are on the contrary not discussed here, although the settlements by the Dutch East and West India Trade Companies and by Flemish missionaries in the New World constituted a specific mechanism diffusing architecture around the world.49 These kinds of architecture belong to other kinds of mechanisms, with close ties to decision making headquarters at home that ordered and in 47  The vocabulary is typical of the time, also in countries which perceived themselves ‘under attack’ from foreign impulses: also in the Low Countries, for instance, the introduction of Italian Renaissance motifs in Netherlandish architecture was described in military terms (Leurs 1946).

  See for instance Jordan 2000 on the choice between Flanders and Italy offered to Portuguese collectors. 49  See the exhaustive survey on Dutch colonial ­buildings by Temminck Groll 2002. 48

11

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge many cases also approved the designs to be built in the colonies. This situation differs completely from that of architects travelling in Europe and working for foreign patrons. Also examples of architectural diffusion on a regional level have mostly been excluded from this book. Regional exchange between the Low Countries and their immediate neighbours, like Westphalia in the east and Northern France in the south, persisted throughout history. Only the creation of nineteenth-century national borders transformed this interregional migration into ‘international’ migration. Notwithstanding its close relationship with architecture, garden architecture has also been omitted. Flemish and Dutch gardeners were important for early modern garden history; many of them were invited to all parts of Europe. Detailed studies are available on this topic, such as those treating Spain, Germany, Sweden, and Russia, but a comprehensive overview is still needed.50 Interior decoration is similarly closely related to architecture. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires, Netherlandish ornamental motifs travelled far and wide, from Goa to Macao, Ecuador, and Mexico. The use of Flemish and Dutch tiles and other forms of interior finishing, such as wall coverings in gold leather and precious pieces of furniture and tapestry, has been well studied, yet an analysis integrating these décors would be welcome.51 Some details of interior architecture are included in this book but, as with the gardens, a fuller treatment was not possible here. Whether second or even third generation artists with Netherlandish roots were included in the current study depended on how they were assimilated in their new homeland. Those who had successfully adapted without maintaining any contact with the Low Countries are not included in this study, such as Friedrich Sustris (c. 1540–1599) or Jan de Witte (1709–1785). Sustris, son of the Flemish painter Lambert Sustris, was born and educated in Italy. From 1573 he served the Bavarian court as painter, ‘Kunstintendant’ and even formally as architect, introducing Vasari-like architectural schemes into Munich.52 As far as is known, he never visited the Low Countries. The same can be said of Jan de Witte. Although his name is quite Dutch, he had no relation to the architecture of the Low Countries of that period. His father was from Dordrecht and had migrated to Russia as a military man. Jan de Witte became artillery officer and fortification engineer in the Polish army in the mid-eighteenth century as well as an important architect of churches for the Dominican order in Lviv and other cities in today’s Ukraine.53 On the other hand, the brothers Hans and Laurens van Steenwinckel in Denmark are discussed in this volume even although they represented a third generation of Netherlandish émigrés. To complete their education in the early seventeenth century the brothers were sent to the Low Countries, the land their father had left as a young boy with their grandfather. Consequently, references to contemporary Netherlandish architecture can be traced in their later work as royal Danish architects. Even if they combined Netherlandish elements with other sources in such a way that their work could not be properly called ‘Dutch’ or ‘Flemish’, enough common elements were present to include them in this survey. Structure of the book The significance of the architecture of the Low Countries and its international ­distribution between 1480 and 1680 is perhaps not evident to all potential audiences of this book. Therefore, the second chapter of this introductory first part offers a brief overview of this history (chapter 1.2). In chapter 1.3 the historiography of the topic is discussed, including  See, among others, de Jong 1981; de Jong 1996b; Noldus 1998; Postma 1995. 51   Scholten 1989; Fock 2001. 50

12

  Maxwell 2011 (on Sustris’s contribution ­architecture esp. 128–130, 148–150). 53   Hornung 1995. 52

to

Introduction the conscious or unconscious moral claim on cultural hegemony, or even territorial expansion, attributed to similarities in ­ architectural style. This ­phenomenon began in the nineteenth century and reached its nadir in the 1930s. The migration of Netherlandish building ­masters is presented in the current volume as a key mechanism ­ diffusing architectural ideas and forms originating in the Low Countries. This migration is discussed at length through various case studies in part two. In addition foreign architects travelled to the Low Countries to acquaint themselves with the region’s architecture and to execute this knowledge in their architectural practices at home. These foreign architects in the Low Countries are discussed in 2. Elsinore, Denmark, trapezoid funeral stone of the royal part three, along with the role master mason, Hans from Antwerp, and his wife Marine Peters of books and prints in diffusing from Alkmaar, 1600 (formerly in St Mary’s church, now in the Netherlandish models. Books Town Museum; ­photograph Badeloch Noldus). and engravings, the mass media of the period, helped those foreign masters who lacked the means to investigate the architecture of the Low Countries in situ to apply specific formal interventions. This part also contains case studies on the role and use of specific architectural models, building types, and ornaments. Part four presents case studies examining the expertise in fortification, urban planning, and engineering associated with building masters from the Low Countries. The period under review ends in the late seventeenth century. After the 1680s, France gained the attention of Europe, even in countries where Netherlandish models had been appreciated and adopted for over a century. Yet the diffusion of ­ ­architectural knowledge from the Low Countries did not end abruptly. The epilogue, part five, provides a sequel addressing the changing role of the Low Countries in the early ­eighteenth century.

13

1. Leuven, town hall, by Matheus de Layens, 1448–1463 (photograph Merlijn Hurx).

Chapter 1.2 The Architecture of the Low Countries and Reception, 1480–1680: A Bird’s Eye View

its International

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge (Utrecht University, KU Leuven – University of Leuven)

The questions raised in this book concentrate on diachronic mechanisms of diffusion rather than on problems of style. Nevertheless, an abridged chronological backbone of the main architectural developments in the Low Countries and their international reception will be useful. The timeframe covered here, from 1480 until 1680, can be subdivided into four phases. Each phase corresponds to a period in which the architecture of the Low Countries exhibited a distinct character that had a significant impact abroad. The phases include the Burgundian-Brabantine Late Gothic (1480–1530), the all’antica works (1530–1580), modern antique inventions (1580–1640), and strict Classicism (1640–1680). Although both the Southern and Northern Low Countries are represented in all four phases, the epicentre of cultural life in the Low Countries shifted over time from the South to the North, with Antwerp as the main hub in the sixteenth century, and Amsterdam in the seventeenth century.1 While this overview does not offer a complete history of Netherlandish architecture of the period, it does map the context of the case-studies addressed elsewhere in this book. Burgundian splendour as a model In the fifteenth century, the splendour of the Burgundian court, its ceremonies, f­estivals, conspicuous consumption, and its art, was admired by all who encountered it, making it a point of reference for other European rulers.2 The Burgundian territory encompassed the old duchy of Burgundy (which was actually a fief of the French king), Franche-Comté (that formally belonged to the Holy Roman Empire) as well as the greater part of the Low Countries. In the late fourteenth century, Duke Philip the Bold of Burgundy acceded to the title of count of Flanders through his marriage to the heiress Margaret, daughter of Louis of Male. Flanders, the greatest prize in the contemporary marriage stakes, included the prosperous cities of Ghent and Bruges. Thereafter, four successive generations of dukes of Burgundy steadily increased their possessions in the Low Countries with eight territories including, among others, the duchy of Brabant and the county of Holland.3 This assembly of lands proclaimed the duke of Burgundy ‘Lord of the Low Countries’ (Heer der Nederlanden). After the death of Charles the Bold in 1477, the last duke of the house of Valois, the title passed to the house of Habsburg through the marriage of Charles’s sole heir Mary to Maximilian I of Habsburg, king of the Holy Roman Empire (crowned Emperor later). The Burgundian dukes tried to transform their territories into a sovereign monarchy,   For a detailed analysis of this phenomenon on the architectural plane see De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007. 2   Painted in broad strokes by Belozerskaya 2002. See also Vanderjagt 2003. 3  The new acquisitions formally belonged to the Holy Roman Empire: the duchies of Brabant and 1

Limburg (1404), the county of Namur (1421), the counties of Holland, Zeeland, and Hainault (1428), and the duchies of Luxembourg (1451) and Gueldres (1473).

15

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge but this ambition never succeeded due to opposition from both the French king and the German emperor. Nevertheless, the court’s conspicuous display of luxury expressed greatness and the claim of the house of Burgundy’s superiority.4 Its splendour and art attracted attention from all peers and became a ­beacon to ­others possessing similar ambitions. After the Burgundian heritage passed into the hands of the Habsburgs, the myth of its greatness was consciously kept alive by Maximilian I and his descendants in a such way that the Burgundian splendour set a standard for several decades to come.5 The court was not the only creator of splendour in the visual arts and architecture of the Low Countries. The cities, especially those in the Southern Low Countries, ­contributed significantly as well. The rise of a vast territory increasingly unified under Burgundian ­ rule marked the end of old regional rivalries and bitter fights in the Low Countries, which ­encouraged economic growth, international trade, and prosperity. In the fifteenth century, the wealth of the cities in Flanders and Brabant created opportunities for magnificent civic building projects. New city churches such as those in Mechelen and Antwerp surpassed cathedrals of the time. Town halls such as those in Brussels and Leuven set a new example with their rising spires, splendid sculptural decoration, and refined tracery gracing the f­açades (fig. 1).6 In Brussels, a new ducal residence was begun on the Coudenberg in 1431. The palace feat­ ured sumptuously decorated living quarters for the duke and his wife, and an Aula Magna paid for by the city that rivalled residences elsewhere in Europe.7 When the splendour of the Burgundian court, its art, and its stately ceremonies became a model for other courts abroad, the architecture of the city’s churches and town halls was included in this image of Burgundian superiority, even though these structures were originally built to express civic pride. The kingdom of Castile was among the first countries to emulate the Burgundian example intentionally.8 In 1430, Jan van Eyck, the Burgundian court painter, travelled to the Iberian peninsula as a diplomat on behalf of Philip the Good to visit the courts of Castile and Portugal. Thereafter, the Castilian king Juan II began buying Flemish art. His daughter Isabella, who inherited these paintings, would enlarge the collection even further in the second half of the century.9 From the mid-fifteenth century onwards, monumental sculptured wooden altars from Brabant were exported to Spain and Portugal as well as to England, Germany, and Scandinavia.10 These altars depicted finely carved biblical scenes encased in richly ornate Gothic frames, which in their refined detail and complexity of architectural invention far surpassed contemporary architecture in stone, albeit the exuberant ‘micro-architecture’ of sacrament towers and rood screens came close. In Spain, the oldest recorded purchase of a sculptured Netherlandish altar dates from 1455, marking the beginning of a permanent stream of commissions up to the late sixteenth century when painted altar pieces became more fashionable.11 These movable objects were produced in the Low Countries, especially in Antwerp and Mechelen, and transported as one piece or, for the more elaborate works, in parts. For large-scale altar projects, like those in Toledo, Seville, and Coimbra (Portugal), as well as for choir screens and stalls, artists from the Low Countries were invited to create the works in situ. For example, in 1479,   Blockmans & Prevenier 1999.   Schütz 1992; Exh. cat. Vienna 2011. 6  De Jonge et al. 2009; Coomans 2009; Coomans 2011. 7  Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991; Smolar-Meynart 1998; Smolar-Meynart 1999; De Jonge 2003a. 8   Belozerskaya 2002, 160–179. 9  Exh. cat. Innsbruck 1992, 214–225; Bermeyo 2002; Silva Maroto 2004; Checa & García García 2005. On 4 5

16

court life and its Burgundian connections, see in general Domínguez Casas 1993. 10  Périer-d’Ieteren 1989; Jacobs 1998; Op de Beek 2000; García García & Grilo 2005. 11  For Aragon, see Álvaro Zamora & Borrás Gualis 1993. For export to La Palma, see Exh. cat. Madrid/ Ghent/Santa Cruz de la Palma 2004.

The Architecture

of the

Low Countries

and its International

Reception, 1480–1680

Pieter Danckaert from Mechelen created the main altar in the apse of Seville Cathedral. Francisco de Amberes (‘from Antwerp’) constructed the altar in Toledo between 1499 and 1512.12 Olivier de Gand and Jean d’Ypres made the main altar in the Old Cathedral (Sé Velha) of Coimbra in 1499–1500 (fig. 2). A Flemish artist Machim (Maxim), together with French and German colleagues, carved the choir stalls in the church of Santa Cruz in the same city from 1513 to 1518.13 In the mid-fifteenth century, as the taste for modern Gothic and richly detailed architecture spread among the Spanish court élite, Castile welcomed artists and architects from the Low Countries and from other parts of Northwestern Europe whose artworks could match the high standards of the Burgundian Netherlands.14� During this period, Juan de Colonia (Hans von Köln) and his son Simon worked in Burgos. The sculptor-architect Koeman van der Eycken and his brother Jan from Brussels moved to Toledo where their names were translated into Egas Cueman and Hanequín de Bruselas.15 They were likely invited to 2. Coimbra (Portugal), main altar in the Old Cathedral (Sé Spain by Juan de Cerezuela, archbishop Velha), by Olivier de Gand and Jean d’Ypres, 1499–1500 of Toledo, to add finishing touches to the (photograph collection Utrecht University). almost completed cathedral. Among the members of the building team accompanying them were Pierre/Pedro Guas from Saint-Pol de Léon (Brittany) and his son Jean/Juan Guas, who would become a leading architect in the second half of the century, often in cooperation with Egas Cueman. Their most prominent royal commission was the new church and adjacent cloister of San Juan de los Reyes in Toledo in 1480 (fig. 3).16 Cueman became the founding father of a dynasty of sculptors, stone masons, and painters working in Spain for at least three generations until the second half of the sixteenth century. Cueman’s two sons, Antón Egas and Enrique Egas, succeeded their father and Juan Guas (who died in 1495 and 1496, respectively) as architects to the court of Queen Isabella. Enrique Egas even became maestro mayor of Toledo Cathedral, the most important position in Spanish ecclesiastical architecture. His most prestigious commission was the royal mausoleum in Granada, the Capilla Real, which marked the triumph of Christianity and the conclusion of eight centuries of reconquista (fig. 4).17   Op de Beek 2000.   Dacos-Grifò 1991. 14   Marías 1989; De Jonge 2005a; In general, see Exh. cat. Antwerp 1995.

  Martínez Burgos 2002; Chueca & Navascués 2002.   Navascués Palacio 2002, 331–355. 17  Pita Andrade 1981; overview (albeit without ­bibliography) in Henares Cuéllar 2001.

12

15

13

16

17

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge Artistic exchange between Spain and Italy was plentiful in the first decades of the sixteenth century. Italian Renaissance architecture was well known in the Spanish court and increasingly used for prestigious commissions, sometimes in the form of Genoese ready-made sculptures. For example, in 1509, Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Cenete, ordered a two-tiered portico in Carrara marble, prefabricated in Genoa and shipped to Spain, for the courtyard of his castle at La Calahorra.18 Nevertheless, apparently King Ferdinand did not prefer his royal mausoleum in Granada a lo romano (as the ‘antique’ manner was called) but rather desired the modern, that is Late Gothic, fashion expressive of royal splend­ our and status. Thus, the king did not hire an Italian architect to design the final monument of his reign but instead commissioned 3. Toledo, San Juan de los Reyes, by Egas Cueman the job to Enrique Egas. Construction lasted and Juan Guas, 1480 (photograph collection for nearly fifteen years, fraught with diffiUtrecht University). culties and changes in the original design. Nevertheless, the final piece, finished in 1521, appeared as a condensed adaptation of the church of San Juan de los Reyes in Toledo, with a single nave of two bays, a crossing, and a polygonal apse.19 The detailing was executed in the same modern, richly decorated Gothic style, with flamboyant star vaults, complex mouldings of the pillars, and refined tracery in the windows as well as in the exterior balustrade. The only a lo romano details in the chapel were the sarcophagus, with the gisants of Ferdinand and Isabella, made in Genoa by Domenico Fancelli in 1517, and the tomb of their suc4. Granada, Capilla Real, by Enrique Egas, cessors, Joanna of Castile and Philip the 1506–1521 (photograph Karel Greven). Fair, fashioned after the same model by Bartholomé Ordóñez in 1519.20� The preference for the modern Gothic style shown here in such an important religious building, may also be rooted in the pious character attributed to the Gothic in the sixteenth century. Proof of this statement may be found in Michelangelo’s well-known scornful phrase about the tear-jerker quality of Flemish painting, pleasing only to devout but naive people.21 His comment can also be interpreted in a positive sense: In   March 1951; Kruft 1972; Marías 1990–1992.   Marías & Serra 2002, 42–44. 20  Gómez-Moreno 1983 (1941); Lenaghan 1993; Estella 1999, 52–54. 18 19

18

 In his famous conversation with Franceso de Holanda (F. de Holanda, Diálogos de Roma, ed. Lisbon 1955, 15–19). 21

The Architecture

of the

Low Countries

and its International

Reception, 1480–1680

sacred art, early sixteenth-century devout patrons such as the kings of Spain and Portugal favoured the refined and exquisite art as practised in the Burgundian countries also because of its pious connotations, and this probably also included its architecture.22 From 1512 until 1522, a comparable project was under construction in Brou (Bourg-en-Bresse); Margaret of Austria, daughter of Maximilian I of Habsburg and regent of the Low Countries at that time, commissioned a monastic mausoleum for her late husband, her husband’s mother, and herself.23 In 1509, Margaret refused the proposal by the French court artist Jean Perréal to design a church according to the antique 5. Brou, St Nicolas’ church, by Loys van Boghem, 1512– manner (“with the antique forms I have 1522 (photograph Merlijn Hurx). seen in some parts of Italy”).24� Instead, she sent a building team from Brussels 800 km southward to Brou, supervised by Loys van Boghem. Like the Capilla Real in Granada, the church was built in a refined, decorative style accentuated by the entrance portal, the choir screen and the funerary monuments, all executed with elaborate layers of modern Gothic stone tracery (fig. 5).25 Renaissance ornaments appeared mainly on the dress and cushions of Conrad Meyt’s life-size effigies on the tombs.26 Other courts competed with the court life, conspicuous spending, and artistic ­expression of the Burgundian-Habsburg model, which was often cloaked in Netherlandish guise. Multiple connections existed – and persisted beyond the collection of artefacts – ­between the Burgundian, and later the Habsburg, world and Portugal.27 Generally, English court culture under the last kings of the house of York and under the early Tudors reflected this strong Burgundian influence.28 Edward IV used the Burgundian ceremonial, which Olivier de la Marche wrote down expressly for this purpose, as inspiration to organise his court.29 The brothers of Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy, familiarised themselves with the Netherlandish way of building during their exile in the Low Countries (1470–1471) under the protection of their sister. Indeed, the first Tudors and their courtiers did not break with the extensive use of brick in English royal residences begun under Edward IV.30 For instance, from 1497 onwards, the bricklayers, joiners, and glaziers working at Richmond, Henry VII’s new palace in Surrey, were Flemish. The palace’s tall glazed windows were imported readymade from across the Channel. However, questions concerning closer typological relationships – such as the connection between the Burgundian long gallery and   Pimentel 2005.   Cahn 1979; Hörsch 1994; Poiret 1994. 24  “Sy me suis mis apres … et ay revyr … mes ­pourtraitures au moien des choses antiques que j’ay veu es parties d’Italie pour faire de touttes belles fleurs ung troussé bouquet, dont j’ay monstré le jet audit Le Maire, et maintenent fait les patrons que j’espere aréz en bref”. Bruchet 1927, 192, note 11; Kavaler 2004, 129. 25   Kavaler 2000; Kavaler 2004; Kavaler s.d. 26   Burk 2005; Burk s.d.; Eikelmann 2006. 22 23

 Everaert & Stols 1991; Paviot 1995; Jordan 2000; García García & Grilo 2005. 28  Visscher-Fuchs 1995; Belozerskaya 2002, 147–160; Cassagnes-Brouquet 2004. In general, Kipling 1977. 29   Paravicini 2003, 93–94. 30   Kipling 1977, 3–7; Howard 1987, 171–175; Thurley 1993, 15–37; Airs 1995, 114–117. 27

19

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge the Tudor one – must provisionally remain open.31 The same model seemed even more imposing to the King Christian II of Denmark, who was married to Elizabeth, sister of Charles V. Eagerly adopting the Burgundian court style, between 1513 and 1523 Christian II invited artists and craftsmen from the Low Countries to transform his ­residence in Copenhagen accordingly.32 Some elements of Burgundian-Habsburg court architecture even survived stylistic changes in their transference to dissimilar contexts in the late ­sixteenth century.33 All’ antica as the imperial court style However, during the reign of Charles V the court eventually left the modern style behind and evolved into the foremost champion of the all’antica style.34 In 1519 Charles V, king of Spain since 1517, also became king of the Romans and lord of the Low Countries. Charles continued, to some extent, the stylistic pluralism that characterised his aunt Margaret of Austria’s patronage.35 Yet in the late 1520s, Charles was persuaded by a faction at his court in Spain to adopt a more ‘antique’ guise, even growing a beard to enhance his resemblance to antique imperial portraits.36 Finally, in 1530 he was crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, emulating and surpassing his Roman predecessors through the extent of his reign, as expressed by his devise of PLUS ULTRA, beyond the columns of Hercules.37 His new styling found the perfect architectural expression in the new palace of the Alhambra at Granada, with its circular courtyard believed to be characteristic of ancient imperial palaces.38 With the Alhambra, Charles reconnected with his grandfather Maximilian I, who had used the antique manner for promoting the Habsburg reign as successor to the Roman Empire.39 Nevertheless, the Burgundian heritage constituted a forceful influence in Spain, and the ‘Roman’ image of the emperor was soon tempered by his role as the defender of Christianity, which was increasingly emphasised in the aftermath of the conquest of Tunis (1535).40 In the end, the new a lo romano palace in Granada was left unfinished and unused. At the Brussels court, Mary of Hungary, who became regent of the Low Countries in 1531, was an ardent promoter of the antique style who was eagerly followed in this pursuit by the upper strata of society, some of whom experienced the style firsthand through their travels in the Emperor’s suite in Italy and Spain.41 For the high nobility in the Low Countries, the new repertory of forms may initially have had political overtones, as it had in Spain, suggesting loyalty to the new Empire, but the style soon became a matter of taste.42 However, the new fashion affected artists’ mobility. Skilled Italian artists were invited to other parts of Europe for prestigious design commissions such as funeral monuments for the nobility, court architecture, and the new bastioned fortifications that were originally developed in Italy.43 Accordingly, local artists adapted to the new market, often with versatility. For   Coope 1984; Coope 1986; De Jonge 2010b.   See the contribution of Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen to this volume, chapter 3.3. 33   See the contribution of Krista De Jonge to this volume, chapter 3.2. 34   De Jonge 2007b; De Jonge 2007c. On the transition see also Zalama 2004. 35   On her patronage, see Eichberger 2002. 36  Most recently, Checa Cremades 1999, 113 and ­following; Checa Cremades 2000, 29–31; Madonna 2000. 37   Adopted from 1516. Rosenthal 1971 and 1973. 38   Tafuri 1988; Rosenthal 1988; Tafuri 1992, 255–304; Exh. cat. Granada 2000b; Marías 2000a; Marías 2000b; Rodríguez Ruiz 2000.

  Schütz 1992; Polleroß 2006.  Deswarte 1998. On the difficult relationship of Charles V with the (antique) arts and architecture, see Eisler 1983 and De Jonge 2001. In general, García García et al. 2010. 41  van den Boogert 1993b; Cupperi 2004; De Jonge 2008b. 42   van den Boogert 1992; van den Boogert 1993a. 43   On military architecture, see van den Heuvel 1991 and Martens 2009.

31

39

32

40

20

The Architecture

of the

Low Countries

and its International

Reception, 1480–1680

instance, Loys van Boghem built the new staircase with an ‘antique’ ­triumphal arch in the Brussels Coudenberg palace ­ (1538–1539).44 Laureys Keldermans, who belonged to the main dynasty of ­ architects, stonemasons, and entrepreneurs of the Brabantine Late Gothic, created the all’antica dormers of the King’s House on the Grand’ Place in Brussels (1529–1534).45 In Spain, the three sons of Enrique Egas (Pedro the painter, Diego the sculptor, and Enrique II the stonemason and architect) achieved fame by working in the new classical style, like the Hospital de Santa Cruz in Toledo, started 1514 (fig. 6). However, their father had not changed with the times. Enrique Egas’s design for the cathedral of Granada (1523) was apparently inspired by the Gothic cathedral of Toledo. In 1528, when only the lower parts of the choir perimeter wall were realised, Egas was replaced by Diego de Siloé, who transformed the design into one of Spain’s first monumental Renaissance churches.46 The main challenge was acquiring the necessary new knowledge, for which travel provided the best access firsthand. Siloé travelled to Italy and worked with Ordóñez 6. Toledo, Hospital de Santa Cruz, by Enrique de Egas, in Naples on the Cappella Caracciolo di 1514–1544 (photograph collection Utrecht University). Vico at San Giovanni in Carbonara (1516).47� Painters and sculptors exhibited greater flexibility than many builders in this way, since for building masters it was much more difficult to start a career abroad. In the complex world of construction the various building crafts operated in a rather integrated way. As a result the success of a building master relied on particular networks of expertise and stone trading that were not easy to establish abroad. Above all, the role of patrons was of prime importance. Netherlandish artists known to have travelled included, for instance, the painter Jan Gossaert called Mabuse, who accompanied Philip of Burgundy, admiral of the fleet and later bishop of Utrecht, to Italy in 1508 and 1509;48 Lambert Lombard, the painter and connoisseur of antiquity who travelled with Cardinal Reginald Pole and gained the support of Érard de la Marck, the prince-bishop of Liège;49� and possibly the sculptor Jacques Du Broeucq, who may have been sent to Genoa to inspect the marbles that his patron Jean de Hennin-Liétard, premier et grand écuyer to Charles V, had acquired there.50   De Jonge 1994, 113–114; De Jonge 2007b, 23–24.  De Jonge 2010b, 19–24. On the Keldermans ­dynasty, see Janse et al. 1987. 46   Rosenthal 1961. 47   Wethey 1943; Pane 1977, vol. 2, 177–178 ; GómezMoreno 1983 (1941), 25–29; Abate 1989; Marías 1989, 278–281.

  Exh. cat. New York 2010.   Denhaene 1990, 15–19, 65–75. 50   De Jonge 1997, 170; De Jonge 2007c, 76. According to his disciple Giambologna, Du Broeucq had gone to Italy (as recorded by the former’s biographer Raffaelo Borghini in 1584). Dhanens 1956, 16, 376–377.

44

48

45

49

21

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge Many followed in their wake, as suggested by Guicciardini in his Descrittione (1567).51 Du Broeucq’s and other artists’ travels paved the way for international careers for artists such as Jean de Boulogne, otherwise known as Giambologna, who professed to be Du Broeucq’s disciple.52 Born in Saint-Omer in the early years of the century, Du Broeucq belonged to the reservoir of talented sculptors from the southernmost border regions of the Low Countries, such as the De Nole family from Cambrai and many others, who later travelled north and east to build their careers (see below). However, only a few names of travellers and their patrons are known today, particularly from the first decades of the sixteenth century. Little has survived of their work, and the motivation of their patrons remains equally unknown. In one exceptionally documented case, in 1536, Baron Sandys purchased a tomb for his burial chapel in Basingstoke from Arnoult Hermassone, “native of Amsterdam in Holland at present living in Aire in Artois”. Personal experience of the Low Countries may have been the reason Sandys used Hermassone. In another later case, Lord Paget hired Jan Carlier from Bruges to construct a family tomb at Lichfield.53 All’ antica ready-mades exported from the Low Countries In the mid-sixteenth century, Antwerp became an important and vibrant centre for northern Renaissance arts.54 As a hub in the trading networks of Northwestern Europe, Antwerp, and by extension the Low Countries, soon functioned as a conduit of Renaissance objects and specialised antique knowledge. The city offered an abundant supply of trained artists to the prospective client, all of whom were well versed in the antique language, either due to their own travel experience or to the numerous manuals and prints of antique ornament that were available on the market. Indeed, the first mention of antyck snyder as a profession in the Antwerp guild books dates from 1529.55 Moreover, the translation of the first manual on the five classical column orders truly internationalised the Antwerp milieu. In 1539, Sebastiano Serlio’s Book IV (first published in Venice in 1537) appeared in Flemish as Generale reglen der architecturen, spawning translations in French and German in 1542/1543 and still later in English. The translator, painter Pieter Coecke van Aelst, who travelled to Venice and Constantinople as an agent for the Antwerp tapestry entrepreneurs, was subsidised both by the city and the city’s humanist élite.56 Learned and powerful patrons, nobility of both the robe and the sword who lived in the town and were connected with the court in Brussels, sought out artists fluent in the antique manner, as did their agents and the civic élite, many of whom had ties to other prosperous cities in the Low Countries. Canon Willem Heda authored an inventory of antique finds, owned an extensive library, and built one of the first ‘antique’ style houses in the city, dubbed the ‘House with the Diamonds’ (Karbonkelhuis), shortly before his death in 1525 (fig. 7). He was connected to the court of Gossaert’s patron Philip of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht, who was an antique collector for whom Heda acted as arbiter in artistic matters.57 Similarly, Érard de la Marck, prince-bishop of Liège (which   “I quali dipintori, Architettori, & Scultori m ­ entionati sono stati quasi tutti in Italia, chi per imparare, chi per vedere cose antiche, & conoscere gli huomini eccellenti della loro professione, & chi per cercar’ ­ ­ventura, & farsi conoscere, onde adempiuto il desiderio loro, ritornano il piu delle vole alla patria con ­esperienza, con faculta & con honore”. Guicciardini 1567, 101. See also Scholten 2007. 52   Dhanens 1956; Avery 1994 (1987). 53   Examples quoted by Llewellyn 2000, 191. 51

22

  Burke 1993; Tijs 1993; Vermeylen 2000; Kaufmann 2002. 55  Pauwels Ackerman is mentioned as such in the Antwerp ‘Liggeren’ of St. Luke’s guild in 1529. Duverger et al. 1953, 27–51. 56   De Jonge 1998e; De Jonge 2007e. 57  Langereis 2001, 50–51, 97–104; Van Langendonck 2002; Tournoy & Oosterbosch 2002. See Heda’s role in the matter of the screen of Saint Martin’s chapel in Utrecht Cathedral, Coster 1909; Exh. cat. Amsterdam 1986, vol. 1, 11–23; Van Miegroet 2001. 54

The Architecture

of the

Low Countries

and its International

Reception, 1480–1680

was not part of the Habsburg Low Countries at the time), maintained a town residence with Early Renaissance elements.�58 Demand for the antique soon exceeded supply, if sculptors such as Claudius Floris and Willem van den Borch were to be believed. Confronted with a complaint from the guild in 1538, they claimed they needed to employ foreign specialists in their workshop (vremde uuytlandige gesellen) to ex­­ ecute antique works, implying that few such ­specialists were available locally.59 The diffusion of all’antica architectural inventions from the Low Countries to other parts of Europe began with the export of micro-architecture. During the first half of the sixteenth century, the market in altarpieces shifted from wooden carvings to sculptured white alabaster reliefs.60 While Mechelen was the production epicentre, the centre of trade in alabaster was located in Antwerp, which served as the main harbour receiving imports of rough alabaster stone hailing mainly from England, as well as shipping exports of finished reliefs and complete 7. Antwerp, ‘Karbonkelhuis’, the urban residence ensembles such as altars.61 Most of these of Willem Heda, before 1525. carved reliefs were mass produced in large studios for anonymous buyers. In many cases the alabaster panel was sold and shipped without the architectural framework, which needed to be created in situ either following a drawing that travelled with the sculpture or through the design invention of local artists. Additionally, unique works of art on a larger scale could also be procured from the Low Countries, like the rood loft of Sankt Marien im Capitol in Cologne, created in 1523 in Mechelen (see chapter 2.1).62 With proven experience in preparing complex works of art for clients abroad, Netherlandish sculptors in the Low Countries in the 1550s were fully equipped to use the classical vocabulary for various architectural objects, usually related to an ecclesiastical context. Some objects were delivered in a finished state, like the bronze ­ ­baptismal font with its strapwork decoration made in Utrecht in 1554 by Hendrik Willems and Adri Hendriks for the great city church of Holy Mary in Gdan´sk (where now only a plaster copy remains; fig. 8). However, larger architectural ensembles with a civic purpose could be provided as well. Lord William Cecil had ‘little pillars of marble’ and even a complete classical gallery in stone sent from Antwerp in 1563 during the first building campaign at Burghley House.63 His contemporary, Sir Thomas Gresham, virtually imported an entire building, the famous Royal   Grieten 2014.   “alderhande anticse wercken (…) sekere ­constenaers, welcke constenaers, vremde uuytlandige gesellen”. Duverger et al. 1953, 68–69 (doc. XV). 60   Lipin´ska 2006; Lipin´ska 2007.

  Dubelaar 2009.   Matthes 1967. 63  Husselby 2002, 27. With thanks to Maurice Howard.

58

61

59

62

23

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge

9. London, Royal Exchange, constructed 1566–1569 by Hendrick Fleming, alias Hendrik van Passe (Paessche) with prefab building materials from the Low Countries (engraving by Wenzel Hollar 1644, photograph British Museum).

Exchange (1566–1569), from Antwerp. The masons and carpenters led by Hendrick Fleming, alias Hendrik van Passe (Paesschen), a master mason who had previously worked on the Antwerp town hall, as well as building materials such as bricks and slate, finished components such as stone columns, wooden panelling, and ironwork, and the statue of the Queen placed above the entrance all came from Antwerp (fig. 9).64 Earlier records also noted Flemish masons, specifically itinerant ones active in East Anglia, who created tombs and chantries in terracotta.65 The more complex and elaborate objects obliged the masters to travel in person. For example, in 1551 Philippe de Vries created the choir stalls in the Jéronimos monastery in Belém, Portugal, in cooperation with Diogo de Çarça, and introduced Cornelis Bos-like ­grotesque ornament there (fig. 10).66 Albert van den Brulle received a comparable commission in 1596– 1598 for the choir stalls in Palladio’s San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice. The Antwerp sculptor Willem van den Broecke (alias Guilielmus Paludanus) obtained various important commissions from Spain. In 1571, the duke of Alva ordered stalls for the San Leonardo chapel in Alba de Tormes, and in 1572 Benito Arias Montano awarded a comparable commission for a chapel in the neighbourhood of Salamanca.67 For reasons unknown, neither project was executed. The Reformation in Northern Europe certainly affected the export of Netherlandish sculptured architectural objects to the northern part of the continent. The rise of Lutheranism in Denmark and Sweden in the 1520s and the dissolution of the English monasteries in 1535 abruptly halted the export of carved wooden altars, although the Lutherans neither destroyed nor removed the sculptured and painted altarpieces. Both the clients and the commissions changed as the ruling monarchs and the nobility became the most important patrons of art. For

8. Gdan´sk, baptismal font in St Mary’s church, made in Utrecht in 1554 by Hendrik Willems and Adri Hendriks (plaster copy, original lost in World War II).

 Murray 1985, 298; Imray 1997, 26–35; Saunders 1997. With thanks to Maurice Howard. 65   Llewellyn 2000, 68. 64

24

66 67

  Dacos & Serrão 1991, 43–45.   Duverger & Onghena 1942, doc. IX.

The Architecture

of the

Low Countries

and its International

Reception, 1480–1680

their court chapels and private enclosures, they ordered alabaster reliefs, preferably with scenes of the life of Christ and the Last Judgement. Funeral monuments became the most important commissions for Netherlandish artists. Protestant princes and nobles, who rejected the luxurious finishing of Catholic churches, spent great sums to immortalise the memory of their greatness and power.68 Complicated stone and marble objects, such as the funeral monuments of the Queens of Sweden in Uppsala (1550) by the De Nole workshop in Utrecht, were prepared at home in separate pieces and shipped as a prefabricated building kit.69 Both funeral monuments resembled an antique sarcophagus, a rectangular volume with decorated pilasters on the corners and without gisants on top (fig. 11). The grotesque decoration of the corner pilasters of the monument of Gustav Vasa’s second wife, Margareta Leijonhufvud, most closely resembled Colijn de Nole’s well10. Belém (Portugal), the choir stalls in the known works in the Low Countries, such as Jéronimos monastery, by Philippe de Vries and the chimneypiece in the Kampen town hall Diogo de Çarça, 1551. (1547) and the decorated pilasters of the Utrecht town hall (1546).70 Most commissions for princes were rather large and complex compositions, produced over several years. At the time, Cornelis Floris was the most influential specialist in this art with the largest international network. During the second half of the sixteenth century, he and some of his former journeymen played a crucial role in diffusing Netherlandish sculpture and architecture in Northern Europe.71 The most exquisite 11. Uppsala (Sweden), tomb of Queen Katharina, and magnificent funeral ­ monuments, with 1550, by the De Nole workshop from Utrecht coloured marble architecture combined (formerly in the cathedral). with sculpture in white stone, alabaster, or marble, were a specialty of Antwerp and Mechelen. The three-colour scheme constituted the most exquisite materialisation of an all’antica funeral monument in the imperial manner, evocative of the coloured marble interiors of Roman palaces described in classical texts and therefore considered to convey magnificentia.72 These objects frequently remained isolated examples of the new antique style   Chipps Smith 1994, 127–197.   Schéle 1958; Alm et al. 1996, 117, 299. 70  Casteels 1961. For the decoration of the Utrecht town hall, see van Santen 1989.

  See chapters 2.2 and 2.3.  For example in Plinius Major, Naturalis historia, Book 36. Netherlandish precedents in De Jonge 2005c, 135–136.

68

71

69

72

25

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge in their more traditional surroundings. Nevertheless, in Scandinavia, northern Germany, and the Baltic area these examples of classical (micro-) architecture stimulated stylistic changes in larger-scale architecture. The expertise necessary for executing such projects had to be imported into these regions, usually from the same places where the objects had originated. From the 1550s onwards many Netherlandish sculptors and stonemasons, who also performed as architects, travelled all over Northern and Central Europe as specialists in all’antica design. The wide diffusion of Netherlandish artists into Northern and Central Europe began in the 1540s and 1550s. Contrary to stated beliefs, the diffusion was not caused by the iconoclast rebellion of 1566 and the repression following the arrival of the duke of Alva in 1567. Actually, the iconoclast riots initially generated new, important church commissions to replace the demolished altars. Nevertheless, the revolt of the late 1560s and the ensuing years of war caused sculptors to leave the Low Countries to work in the German courts, to emigrate to Denmark or Sweden, or to settle as a free master in one of the main commercial cities along the North Sea and the Baltic seaboard, including 12. Long Melfort (Suffolk, UK), monument to Sir William Cordell, London, Hamburg, Gdan´sk (Danzig) attributed to Cornelius Cure, 1580s (photograph Merlijn Hurx). and Riga. Many of these sculptors have remained anonymous to this day, but several were mentioned in the archival sources. For some, the emigration from the Low Countries gave rise to a genuine success story. For example, in London, William Cure from Delft, his son Cornelius, and Maximilian Colt from Arras were the sculptors most in demand around 1600 (fig. 12). In 1608, Colt was appointed ‘master carver of the court’ and received the commission for the royal tomb of the late Queen Elizabeth in Westminster Abbey as a pendant to the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots by Cornelius Cure. The next year Colt created the funeral tomb to Robert Cecil, earl of Salisbury, in St Ethelreda’s Church near Cecil’s major country residence, Hatfield House (fig. 13).73 In this case the Nassau monument in Breda was obviously a major source of inspiration. Other central figures included Anthonis van Opbergen, who moved to Denmark and later to Gdan´sk; Hans van Steenwinckel the Elder, who became royal architect in Denmark; and Willem van den Blocke, who began a successful sculptural   Llewellyn 2000, 171.

73

26

The Architecture

of the

Low Countries

and its International

Reception, 1480–1680

workshop in Königsberg and later in Gdan´sk. Both Van Steenwinckel and Van den Blocke founded a true dynasty of building masters, architects, and artists.74 Modern Antique inventions from Antwerp and Amsterdam A major contribution of Northern European artists to the revival of antique architecture in the sixteenth century was the enrichment of the repertory of the five orders with new ornaments, in addition to the antique-based grotesques, candelabra, balusters, and acanthus scrolls imported from Italy.75 In early sixteenth-century Spain, 13. Hatfield (Hertfordshire, UK), tomb of Robert Cecil, by France, Germany, and the Low Countries, Maximilan Colt, 1609–1616. antique ornamental forms were easily integrated into the rich and playful decorative patterns of the contemporary modern Gothic. Stonemasons and sculptors freely created unprecedented combinations of antique and modern forms and even new decorative patterns in pure all’antica settings. For example, in the early years of the century additional ornament applied to the classical column shaft was developed in Northern Spain. A particular variant – a ring around the lower third of the shaft, decorated with candelabra ornament and arabesques – spread from Aragon to the Low Countries, where it became a staple of all’antica work from the late 1520s, and was eventually assimilated into Vredeman de Vries’s canon of the orders.76 From the 1540s onwards, additional ornamental displays were also inserted between the orders: grotesques, strapwork, scrolls, and cartouches inspired by the artists of Fontainebleau, as received and developed in Antwerp by Cornelis Bos and Cornelis Floris. Thus, Cornelis Floris and, in his wake, Hans Vredeman de Vries brought new variations to Serlio’s system of ornamenting the five orders. The combination of the classical orders with newly invented, non-figurative architectural ornaments, virtuoso sculptured elements, and statuary conveyed an impression of extraordinary richness. Such inventions were praised in contemporary theory as a useful tool to distinguish the status of various buildings by imparting them with the correct degree of decorum.77 This effect spread and became quite influential abroad, as will be discussed later. The new Great Arsenal in Gdan´sk (1600–1612) is an illustrious example of this splendid use of sculptural ornament. The building team in Gdan´sk included three men of Netherlandish o ­ rigin: Peter van Egen, the city’s building master; Wilhelm Barth the Younger (also called Wilhelm van der Meer), who was the most important sculptor and stonemason working on the project; and Abraham van den Blocke, who succeeded   See chapters 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5.   On the grotesque, see Dacos 1969. On the b ­ aluster column, see Llewellyn 1977, especially 294–297; Davies & Hemsoll 1983. On the candelabra column, see Guillaume 1993. 76   Characteristic of the work of Jean Mone, it is often called the ‘Mone’ column. De Jonge 2010e; De Jonge 2011c; De Jonge 2013. 74 75

  Their ‘correctness’ remained a matter of debate to Serlio who in his Libro extraodinario (Lyon 1551) ­explained that although some sculptural ­interventions into the classical system were incorrect, like rustication around columns, broken pediments and ­ heavy ­ keystones, they nevertheless could give the building a more magnificent appearance. 77

27

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge Wilhelm Barth as stonemason after 1606.78 Only the master mason, Hans Strakowski, was from Gdan´sk, but he had some years of professional training in Holland. The architectural sculpture of the arsenal was exceptional, surpassing the town hall and all other public buildings in town. The arsenal demonstrated the city’s prestige, military strength, and, above all, its status as a semiindependent city republic (fig. 14).79 In the early seventeenth century, the central figures of the next generation continuing the artistic ideal of invention were Hendrick de Keyser in Amsterdam, Lieven de Key in Haarlem and Jacques 14. The Great Arsenal in Gdan´sk, 1600–1612, view from Francart in Brussels.80 They used welloutside the old city (photograph R.T. Kuhn, c. 1900). known patterns from Vredeman de Vries’s prints and also renewed the repertory by introducing and modifying the inventions of Michelangelo, Bernardino Radi, and others. In 1631, De Keyser was posthumously praised for his capacity to please the eye of the beholder with brilliant novelties never seen before. From 1595 until his death in 1621, he was Amsterdam’s master sculptor and architect. His workshop became almost as important as Cornelis Floris’s workshop had been in the mid-sixteenth century, attracting apprentices and journeymen from across Northern Europe.81 While the actors who introduced the rich variety of sculptural ornament in Northern and Central Europe were usually Netherlandish, the new manner was not restricted to Dutch and Flemish artists. German masters also possessed great careers abroad, especially in Poland, Denmark, and Sweden. For instance, Kristler from Strasburg was invited by Jacob de la Gardie to build his suburban palace at Makalös and worked at the German church in Stockholm. The German mason Hans Ferster and the sculptors Heinrich Wilhelm and Heinrich Blume worked for the Oxenstierna family in Sweden.82 These German masters sometimes used designs or prints from the Low Countries. However, from the early decades of the seventeenth century onwards, they also introduced a typically German modern ornament, which exhibited a more organic interpretation of the strap and scroll pattern, the so-called Ohrmusschel Stil, that was not present in the contemporary work of Netherlandish craftsmen. Classicism from Holland While the inventions of Hendrick de Keyser continued to inspire sculptors and stonemasons in the Dutch Republic and beyond, architecture in Holland turned elsewhere. In the 1630s, the painter-cum-architects Jacob van Campen (1596–1657) and Salomon de Bray (1597–1664) strived for a more classical style based on contemporary interpretations of Vitruvian principles as exemplified in the works of Palladio and Scamozzi.83 What began   Bartetzky 2000, 142–168.   Bartetzky 2000, 169–201. 80   De Vos 1998; Ottenheym 2007a, 111–136. 81   See chapter 2.3. 78 79

28

  Axel-Nilsson 1950, 175–184, 312–314; Flodin 1974.  Terwen 1979; Huisken et al. 1995; Barbieri & Beltramini 2003; Ottenheym 2010. 82 83

The Architecture

of the

Low Countries

and its International

Reception, 1480–1680

15. The Hague, Noordeinde palace, the urban residence of the Prince of Orange, by Jacob van Campen and Pieter Post, 1639–1647 (photograph collection Utrecht University).

as a movement of a rather limited group of ­intellectuals soon developed into a court style due to the strong support of Constantijn Huygens (1595–1686), who was a diplomat, musician, poet, and secretary to the Prince of Orange.84 From 1640 onwards, Classicism became regarded in Holland as the most fitting style for the prince and his court, government institutions, financial magnates, prosperous merchants, and all who shared the wealth and power of the flourishing young republic (fig. 15). Thus, classical architecture in Holland was not the privilege of a particular élite, as it was in England for instance. Classicism was not strictly a court style (although the use of classical language at court stimulated the desire to imitate the style in high bourgeois circles), nor was it an expression of specific republican, anti-Orangist inclinations; rather, rival political factions used the same architects. Nor was Classicism limited to the ruling Calvinist group. Wealthy Catholics, Baptists, and Jews all had their houses designed in the same classical manner. Classical architecture, with or without pilasters, served those of a certain standing who wished to express their financial or social position as well as demonstrate their refined taste. In this mercantile world of civic patricians and prominent merchants, property and wealth determined social status, and the upper level of urban society, dominated chiefly by nouveaux riches, deployed external appearances in their competition for superiority. This quality made Classicism universally applicable, especially the astylar manner that was popularised almost simultaneously with the application of the orders.85 This austere ‘less is more’ ideal, which began to dominate during the second half of the century, corresponded to the classical concern with rational order, well-balanced proportions, and the limited use of exterior decorations. In the seventeenth century, Amsterdam was the centre of international trade with Southern and Northern Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The city became the economic and cultural capital of Northern Europe, culminating in the decades after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the officially recognised independence of the Dutch Republic. The   Ottenheym 2008.   Not only Scamozzi’s sober villa designs but above all the austere, bare façades from Genoa as ­published 84 85

by Rubens in his Palazzi di Genova may have been a source for this abstract classicism in Holland. Ottenheym 2002b.

29

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge prosperity of Holland, the most powerful province of the Dutch Republic, reinforced old cultural ties with the North. The northern ruling class seeking to integrate with the new international standards of luxury and representation found in Amsterdam almost anything they desired to fill their libraries, furnish their interiors, and design their stately new homes. England, Scotland, and the rising powers around the Baltic Sea, such as Brandenburg, Sweden, and the Polish Commonwealth, looked to the Dutch Republic – its wealth, world-wide trade, military successes, and art – with a mixture of envy and admiration. Visitors to the main cities of the Dutch Republic 16. Amsterdam, Herengracht, with seventeenth-century were surrounded by a Classicist scenery of houses of various sizes. pilasters, pediments, and cornices (fig. 16). These buildings showed how Italian examples from Palladio and Scamozzi and Vitruvian rules could be transformed and adapted to the demands of the northern climate. These architectural examples must have offered a ­powerful medium for those wanting to equal the standards of Dutch civic culture and prosperity in their home countries – not because it was Dutch but because it was Classicism adapted to the northern geophysical conditions and, as such, fit international standards of decorum and representation. These cases highlight questions that are further investigated in this volume. Nevertheless, some of these have been discussed in art history for over a century. Before actually turning towards the problems of travelling building masters and the diffusion of architectural models from the Low Countries, the historiography of the topic will be analysed in the following chapter.

30

Chapter 1.3 ‘Ces fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique’. The Historiography of the Influence of Netherlandish Architecture in Europe Dirk Van de Vijver, Krista De Jonge (Utrecht University, KU Leuven – University of Leuven)

This chapter addresses the historiography of the influence of Netherlandish ­architecture in Europe from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. The chapter serves a double purpose: first, it offers a perspective on the central research questions by presenting an overview of the major works and scholars involved as well as their different methods and approaches. Second, the chapter focuses explicitly on the close relationship between Netherlandish architecture and narratives of national identity. Netherlandish influence – like Italian inspiration – has been used throughout history to promote underlying ideas, constructs, and mechanisms of nation and identity building. Almost without exception, an author’s treatment of the subject can expose these hidden agendas. A close reading reveals the narrative in its time, place, and political constellation, allowing the identification of different, and sometimes remarkable, relationships. This chapter will focus on the crucial role national constructs played in shaping the position of Netherlandish architecture in Europe. The international activities of local architects, engineers, and artisans became an object of pride in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Belgian and Dutch architectural historio­ graphy. However, both countries had their own particular national identity.1 Consequently, historians concentrated on phenomena pertaining to different European regions. In the extreme, a Northern European focus on the Netherlands can be distinguished from a southern focus on Belgium. In regions with ‘architecturally active’ artists of Netherlandish origin, the identification with this heritage is of a different nature. Rather, Netherlandish heritage is constructed as closely embedded in local history and often considered as ‘local production’ for a ‘local patron’. In this way, the Netherlandish origin of the artists, or even of their styles, did not hinder the appreciation of their work. On the contrary, the foreign origin of Netherlandish work demonstrated the connoisseurship of the patron. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century historicist architecture outside the Low Countries, especially in Scandinavia and Gdan´sk, often evoked the historic buildings created in these countries by Netherlandish artists. The identifi­ cation with these local buildings even inspired many nineteenth- and twentieth-­century architects to go one step further. Aligning with the imperatives of early modern Netherlandish artists, nineteenth- and twentieth-century architects used sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Netherlandish architectural prints and buildings as sources of inspiration to design anew in ‘their local Renaissance’ style. Yet Spain, and especially Castile, constituted an exception because the term ‘Flemish’ was identified there with a particular stylistic phenomenon, the Flamboyant Gothic (flamígero) of the Isabeline period (late fifteenth and early sixteenth century). From the early twentieth century, ‘Flemish’ was used as a quality label for all arts. However, a proprietary connotation to the term emerged due to the historic relationship between the Low Countries (Flandes) and Spain, which were united under one rule from the beginning of the sixteenth to the early eighteenth century. This case is herein compared to 1  On the use of architectural history in nation-­ building in Belgium versus The Netherlands, see De

Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, Introduction, 1–14.

31

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

the national historiographies of Belgium and The Netherlands. In this chapter these very different milieus, from Scandinavia to Iberia, are presented in a loosely chronological order. Schoy and the quest for a national style in Belgium Since the rise of architectural history in the nineteenth century, architectural historians in Belgium and the Netherlands have commented on the resemblances between their own sixteenth- and seventeenth-century architecture and that of Scandinavia.2 Important turning points in Belgian and Dutch historiography have revealed topics, trends, and shifts that are relevant to this subject. A close reading of key texts illuminates the mechanisms and politics at stake in the construction and conceptualisation of Netherlandish-Baltic and Scandinavian architectural relationships. By 1878, awareness of Netherlandish art in Scandinavia had already inspired the Belgian architect, architectural historian, and member of the Belgian Royal Academy, Auguste Schoy (1838–1885) to request government funding for research on the influence of Netherlandish art.3 He defined the Netherlandish influence more precisely in relation to the expansion of the so-called Antwerp School. Schoy’s quest was based on his observations as a connoisseur of local architectural history and as a collector of architectural drawings and treatises. For instance, monuments represented in Mandelgreen’s coloured drawings of old Norwegian interiors presented at the world exhibition of 1867 seemed to Schoy to belong to the ‘Flemish Renaissance’.4 He observed a similar phenomenon when he consulted Den Danske Vitruvius (1746–1749) by Laurids Lauridsen de Thura. In 1870 and 1880, respectively, the Belgian scholars Louis Galesloot, a Brussels archaeologist, and Pierre Génard (1830–1899), city librarian of Antwerp, wrote an essay on a Danish work by Cornelis Floris: the monumental tomb for King Christian III of Denmark in Roskilde Cathedral (1568–1575).5� In 1877, at the industrial art exhibition at the Volksvlijt Palais in Amsterdam, Schoy saw an unpublished study by Vilhelm Klein ­(1835–1913) on the “flat ornament (ornementation lisse) in Denmark from the sixteenth to the seventeenth century”.6 This notable study obtained the first prize at the exhibition. Furthermore, as an important collector of architectural treatises, Schoy was aware of the marble gallery print of Frederiksborg castle published in 1631 by Cornelis Danckerts in Architectura Moderna.7 Schoy also had personal contacts with Scandinavian scholars and architects whom he had encountered as a leading Belgian architectural authority on the international scene. Between 1870 and 1872, the attorney Herman Odelberg, who was Stockholm’s correspondent member of the Belgian Academy of Archaeology, published an article in the society’s journal, the Annales de l’Académie d’archéologie de Belgique, on the wooden retable of Strängnäs in Sweden that was imported from Brussels in the fifteenth century.8 Two years later Odelberg joined forces with E. Eichhorn, the librarian of the Royal Library at Stockholm, to publish in the same journal a monograph on the painter, sculptor, and architect Wilhelm Boy (c. 1520–1592) – a man “who by the diversity of his talent and the thoroughness of his knowledge merits without doubt a distinguished place amongst the Belgian artists of the sixteenth century”.9 In Schoy’s view, all these elements clearly showed Flemish influence on Scandinavian architecture, which led him to suggest that the Belgian government send out   Van Impe 2008.   Saintenoy 1914–1920; Hennaut 1989; Celis 2003a. 4  They were destined to be published in the ­monumenta scandinaviae (Group I, Class II, no. 2). 5  Galesloot 1870; Génard 1880. For the work of Cornelis Floris (1514–1575), see recently: Huysmans et al. 1996; van Ruyven-Zeman 1998; Johannsen 2004. 2 3

32

  Millech 1949; Holst 1995.   Schoy 1872, 105. 8   Odelberg 1870. 9   “… par la diversité de son talent et la solidité de ses connaissances, il [Boy] mérite sans doute une place distinguée parmi les artistes belges du XVIe siècle”. Eichhorn & Odelberg 1872, 132. 6 7

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

1a-c. The Belgian, Dutch and Danish pavilions in the Rue des Nations at the Paris World Exhibition of 1878 (from: S. De Vandières, L'exposition universelle de 1878, Paris 1879).

scholars, artists, and archaeologists “to add these far away flowers to our splendid artistic crown and to inform the learned public of those Flemish masterpieces”.10 In fact, the close stylistic resemblances between the Belgian, Dutch, Danish, and Prince of Wales pavilions in the Rue des Nations at the Paris World Exhibition in 1878 triggered Schoy to formulate his research program (figs. 1a-c).11 As an active participant in and critic of this international event, Schoy was struck by how the character of each pavilion reflected aspects of sixteenth-century Netherlandish (or, as Schoy would say, ‘Flemish’) architecture even though the architecture of these pavilions was meant to express each country’s respective national heritage. Schoy’s familiarity with Netherlandish Renaissance architecture and architectural prints led him to notice that the Belgian pavilion was based on the prints by Cornelis Floris (1514–1575) and Hans Vredeman de Vries (1527–1607); the Dutch pavilion evoked the sixteenth-century town halls of The Hague and Leiden; the pavilion of the Prince of Wales was in a ‘pure Elisabethan style’; and the Danish pavilion was inspired by the Exchange of Copenhagen.12 In an article analysing the Belgian façade designed by the a­rchitect 10  “Au point de vue artistique, l’influence flamande dans les contrées scandinaves est aujourd’hui positivement établie […] Les faits indiscutables […] ­ ne devraient-ils pas déterminer notre gouvernement à députer ­quelques chercheurs, artistes et ­archéologues, pour rattacher ces fleurons lointains à notre s­ plendide diadème artistique et apprendre au public lettré ce que recèlent encore de chefs-d’oeuvres flamands, le Danemark, la Suède et cette vieille Norwège Gamle Norge, contrées aux Sunds profonds, aux îles ­verdoyantes, où, sous les rutilants rayons des aurores boréales, les eaux paisibles des fjords semblent de lave ou d’airain liquide”. Schoy 1872, 105; also quoted in Schoy 1878, 250.

  De Vandières 1879; Gautier & Desprez 1878, 33–45; Schoy 1878, 237–268; Allard 1878, especially 62–64 (‘Faits divers’); Secondary literature: Morris 1989, 46–50; Ingang 1986, 191–215; Wörner 1999, 28–33. 12  Schoy 1878, 241: “Nous avons déjà fait remarquer les liens de parenté étroits qui unissent la façade Danoise, exécutée d’après des motifs de la Bourse de Copenhague, bâtie sous Christian IV (1619–23); la façade Néerlandaise rappelant le charmant Hôtel-de-Ville de La Haye (1564–65) ou celui de Leijden (1599); non moins que le Pavillon de S.A.R. le prince de Galles en pur style Elisabeth. L’Allemagne et l’Autriche auraient pu s’y joindre si elles n’eussent préféré mettre un faux masque italien à leur art national de l’Ecole de Nürnberg”. 11

33

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

­ harles-Emile Janlet (1839–1919), Schoy reflected on the influence of the Antwerp School in C the Northern Netherlands, England, and especially in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.13 He pitied Germany and Austria because they had preferred a ‘false Italian disguise’ and had not built in their national manner, which was the Nuremberg School. Schoy then listed examples of the Antwerp School influence in the Palatine: Alexandre Colyn (Alexander Colijn) in Heidelberg, Innsbruck, and Prague; Pierre de Witte (or Candid) and Hubert Gerhard in Munich; Guillaume Vernickel (Wilhelm Vernukken) in Cologne; and Hubert Gerhard again in Augsburg.14 He also stressed the importance of prints, such as those by Floris and Vredeman, in the diffusion of Netherlandish architecture. Although Schoy observed the relations between the Flemish Renaissance, the Dutch variant, the so-called ‘style Christian IV’ and the ‘Elisabethan style’; he did not think them identical or interchangeable.15 Schoy was convinced that a well-informed person could distinguish the peculiarities of each idiom. As a connoisseur and purist himself, he strongly protested against including in the Belgian pavilion a porch inspired by Hendrick de Keyser (1565–1621), the Amsterdam architect who worked a generation after the golden age of the Flemish Renaissance. Schoy’s search for a new national Belgian style provides the context for his reflections. This nascent style, ‘style néo-flamand’ or ‘style Léopold II’, would be rationally developed from examples of the ‘Antwerp Renaissance circle’ (such as Floris and Vredeman), reference the heritage of Rubens, and remain clearly distinct from the Italian Renaissance.16 Schoy’s method was twofold. First, he collected as much data as possible on artists working abroad, their oeuvre, and their patrons. Second, he conducted formal analyses of the artistic productions to deduce what had been the ‘Flemish inspiration’. Formal analysis led to Schoy’s observation of common roots in the national revivalist styles on display at the Exposition universelle in 1878. This formal analysis and observation linked Scandinavia with England, Germany, and Austria. Schoy’s approach was thoroughly embedded in a programmatic Belgian nationalism. A secondary objective was to gain a place in art history for new Belgian architecture by identifying a local Renaissance and claiming its presence in other countries. This objective aligned with Pierre-Jacques Goetghebuer’s (1788–1866) work during the Kingdom of the Netherlands.17 No public or private reaction to Schoy’s objective is evident in Belgium. Neither the Belgian government nor Belgian architectural historians took him up on his challenge. Only Paul Saintenoy (1862–1952), a biographer writing for the Biographie nationale, published an article in the Annales de l’Académie royale d’Archéologie de Belgique in 1906 on Flemish architects in sixteenth-century Northern Germany.18 However, instead of referencing his own research, this article was based on another article published a year earlier in the Deutsche Bauzeitung by the German scholar Georg Cuny.19 The Biographie nationale, begun in 1866 by the Royal Academy of Belgium to collect biographical notes of important ‘Belgians’, did not include ‘Flemish’ artists working abroad. Cornelis Floris and Vredeman de Vries were   Vandendaele 1980, 231–237; Stynen 1998, 238–241; Celis 2003b. 14   Schoy 1878, 241. 15   Schoy is very critical about the role of Christian IV. He does not believe in Christian IV as a “véritable architecte” of his Frederiksborg residence, position defended in the Danish catalogue of the 1878 World Exhibition. Schoy states: “Nous croyons qu’il n’y a là qu’une tradition populaire dont l’origine remonte à l’époque où tout était considéré uniquement comme moyen de rehausser la majesté royale et où l’on 13

34

r­apportait sans partage au monarque la gloire des monuments élevés sous son règne”. Schoy 1878, 249. 16   Schoy 1878, 268. On the neo-Flemish Renaissance see for instance Willis 1984, 106–109 (Schoy) and 138–145 (Janlet and Schoy). Schoy was also an h ­ istorian of the Italian influence on Belgian ­architecture: Schoy 1879. 17   Goetghebuer 1827. Van de Vijver 2001. 18   Saintenoy 1907; Van Doorslaer 1923; Lacoste 1962; Hennaut 2003. 19   Cuny 1904; republished as Cuny 1906. On the same topic see also Cuny 1910a.

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

among the few artists with a significant foreign – in their case German and Scandinavian – architectural oeuvre who were honoured with an entry.20 Floris and Vredeman de Vries were among the few artists who were still occasionally studied by Belgian scholars.21 For example, Van den Blocke, Van Steenwinckel, and Van Opbergen do not appear in Belgian historiography. During the nineteenth and twentieth century, heritage studies abroad substantially enriched knowledge on Netherlandish ‘export works’ and on the work of Netherlandish artists abroad. Regional pride and identification with the local patrimony produced a wealth of information that substituted for the lack of systematic Belgian research demanded by Schoy. In this process, many major European works of art became known as ‘Netherlandish’ – that is, as work of Netherlandish artists. For instance, in 1849, Cornelis Floris was identified as author of the Christian III monument in Roskilde, which had been earlier attributed to Jacob Binck.22 Other major works by Netherlandish artists were published in national heritage collections. For instance, see the in-folio photographs of the Denkmäler der Renaissance in Dänemark by Ferdinand Meldahl in 1888.23 German scholars on Netherlandish architecture abroad At the turn of the twentieth century, German scholars played a leading role in the historiography of the Netherlandish influence in Northern European architecture. The reci­ procity between German and Netherlandish sixteenth-century art, especially in Northern Germany and Gdan´sk, stimulated German scholars to write the first in-depth studies on Netherlandish Renaissance architecture.24 Georg Galland was the first of these authors. He wrote two major books on Dutch architecture: Die Renaissance in Holland in ihrer geschicht­ liche Hauptentwicklung (1882) and Geschichte der holländischen Baukunst und Bildnerei im Zeitalter der Renaissance, der nationalen Blüte und des Klassizismus (1890). In Der Grosse Kurfürst und Moritz von Nassau (1893), Galland studied the relationship between the Great Elector of Brandenburg and Count Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen. Here, Galland was the first to examine the architectural relations between Holland and Brandenburg during the second half of the seventeenth century. Galland’s method of formal analysis became an important research tool for Robert Hedicke in his monumental monograph published in 1913 under the title Cornelis Floris und die Florisdekoration: Studien zur niederländischen und deutschen Kunst im XVI. Jahrhundert. Hedicke’s monograph demonstrated the focus on major artists typical of the period.25 In this approach, major works required a single, notable author. Minor works had to be in ‘Stil’ or ‘Kreis’ lest they risk omission from the canon beyond (in the German tradition) the systematic inventories of artistic and monumental patrimony. Alongside the ‘Floris-Colynstil’, Hedicke identified contemporary stylistic idioms, such as the ‘Gossart-Orley-Stil’, the ‘Pseudo-­BlesKreis’, the ‘Gossart-Orley-Vellert-Stil’, the ‘Colynstil’, the ‘Coecke-Colynkreis’, and the ‘CoeckeStil’.26 Hedicke also included various works abroad, especially in Germany, that were attributed to Floris or to his former pupils. Georg Cuny’s publications on Gdan´sk represented a third   Génard 1880–1883.   Génard 1880–1883. For further Belgian research on these topics (with attention to the ‘foreign work’ of the artists), see for instance: Roggen & Withof 1942 and Roggen & Withof 1943. For a long time major studies were foreign, cf. Hedicke 1913; Mielke 1967, or on the Van den Blockes et al.: Gasiorowksi 1976, Bartetzky 2000, etc.; exceptions like De Ren 1982 on the Robijn-Osten family notwithstanding.

  Huysmans et al. 1996, 95–96.   Meldahl 1888. 24   Haencke 1911. 25  For the historiography on Cornelis Floris and Vredeman de Vries, see Verpoest 2002. 26  Respectively: Hedicke 1913, 266, 266, 269, 227, 157, 163 and 321.

20

22

21

23

35

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

pillar of turn-of-the-century German scholarship on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century ­travelling architects from the Low Countries. Cuny’s Danzigs Kunst und Kultur im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (1910) offered a first overview of the numerous craftsmen and artists who originated from the Low Countries and worked in the city’s building organisation. Although his study was based mainly on archival sources, Cuny introduced new attributions when written evidence for authorship was missing. Thus, he consciously created architectural heroes based on uncertain oeuvres. For instance, Cuny presented Anthonis van Opbergen as the most prominent among these immigrant artists, calling him “the most outstanding architect” with superior character and qualities (den fürnehmsten Baumeister, diese Herrennatur).27 Henceforth, all anonymous major buildings in Gdan´sk from 1600 onward would also be attributed to Van Opbergen. Not until Bartezky’s study on the Gdan´sk Great Arsenal in 2000 would Van Opbergen’s oeuvre and influence be reduced to a more reasonable scale.28� Unsurprisingly, a few years later these studies led to the inclusion of Netherlandish buildings abroad in two volumes of the influential series Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft. Both Martin Wackernagel’s Die Baukunst des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts in den germa­ nischen Ländern (1915) and Albrecht Haupt’s Baukunst der Renaissance in Frankreich und Deutschland (1923) included chapters on the Low Countries and discussed work by Netherlandish masters in Germany. According to Wackernagel, the mutual geography, climate, and race reflected only minor differences between the various regions within the Germanic territory, which, according to his understanding, also included Holland and England: “All over the Germanic coastal region [i.e., all along the shores of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea] the main steps of progress and development of architectural expression follow the same time sequence”.29 Therefore, the architectural activities of Netherlandish immigrants were not perceived as ‘foreign’ but as evidence of internal exchange. A few years later, Albrecht Haupt stated it even more clearly: “Architecture remains the most evident and obvious sign of tribal kinship. Any art by members of the Flemish or Frisian people therefore can only be regarded as a branch of the Germanic stem, even in the French parts of Flanders”.30 In the 1930s, when the nationalist views on Northern European history had been transformed into fascist geopolitical goals, the activities of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Netherlandish artists were interpreted as part of a millenary cultural brotherhood. Most illuminating was Otto Glaser’s Die Niederländer in der Brandenburg-Preussischen Kulturarbeit (1939). His publication featured many quotes from original historical sources dating back to the twelfth century. These sources were included to accentuate the perceived century-old contribution of Dutch skills to the greatness of Brandenburg-Prussia. The whole book may be regarded as propaganda to gain Dutch support for the Third Reich on the eve of the war. No such arguments are evident in post-war Germany, for obvious reasons. Anxious not be regarded as a follower of Nazi propaganda, authors like Wilhelm Sahner in 1948 remained close to the archival data, leaving all interpretation open to their readers.31 Within his broader chronological timeframe, Sahner discussed architectural relationships in the later seventeenth century and beyond. The exhibition held in 1999 and 2000 in Krefeld,   Cuny 1910b, 36.   Bartetzky 2000. 29   “Die angegebenen Hauptetappen des Fortschreitens, der Entfaltung und Abwandlung der architektonischen Ausdruckweise behalten durch das ganze germanische Kunstgebiet hindurch ziemlich dieselbe Zeitfolge”. Wackernagel 1915, 5–6. 30   “Die Baukunst bleibt eben das ­ deutlichste und unverkennbarste ­ Kennzeichen der 27 28

36

Stammeszugehörigkeit, und, soweit die Bevölkerung der Niederlande der vlämischen oder friesischen Familie zugehört, kann ihre Kunst nur ein Zweig der ­germanischen bleiben, selbst bis tief nach Frankreich hinein in dem französischen Flandern”. Haupt 1923, 161. 31   Sahner 1948.

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

Berlin, and Apeldoorn, titled Onder den Oranje-Boom. Dynastie in der Republik. Das Haus ­Oranien-Nassau als Vermittler niederländischer Kultur in deutschen Territorien im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, examined the cultural relationships between the court of Orange and German courts. Under supervision of Thomas Hoeps and Horst Lademacher, this exhibition marked the revival of contemporary German research on Netherlandish artists.32 In the last decade, this new interest has brought forth a slew of important research, such as Anna Jolly’s study of ­sixteenth-century sculptors, Stephan Schönfeld’s analysis of protestant churches, and Katharina Bechler’s work on the palace of Oranienbaum.33� Dutch research in the early twentieth century In the early twentieth century, Dutch architects and architectural historians revived the work initiated by their Belgian colleague Auguste Schoy in the 1870s. These studies contributed to the image-building of the Dutch nation, which emphasised the central position of the Republic on the international scene, especially during its seventeenth-century ‘Golden Age’. Architectural historians may have benefited from the turn-of-the-century government program established to map the archival sources pertinent to the history of the Low Countries in Scandinavia and the Baltic.34 In the summer of 1900, the Netherlandish government ordered University of Amsterdam professor Gerhard Wilhelm Kernkamp (1864–1943) to visit Lund, Linköping, Stockholm, and Uppsala in Sweden; Kristiania in Norway; and Copenhagen in Denmark.�35 Kernkamp was to discover archival sources on the diplomatic and economic relations between the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands.36 He included few documents on art and architecture in his reports. Kernkamp only mentioned Goldmann’s manuscripts and Post’s prints of the Mauritshuis in the royal library of Copenhagen.37 A second mission in the winter of 1906–1907 began in Copenhagen and ended in Köningsberg with stops in Kiel, Lübeck, Wismar, Rostock, Stralsund, Greifswald, Stettin, and Gdan´sk. This tour revealed the special importance of the Gdan´sk archives to the relations between the Low Countries and the Baltic, in general, and for architecture, in particular.38 His 1909 publication even contained a separate section on Netherlandish artists, art agents, architects, and engineers in Gdan´sk.�39 General interest within Dutch architectural circles for contemporary German and Scandinavian brick architecture stimulated publications on the so-called ‘Dutch’ influences on historic Scandinavian architecture. Delft Polytechnical School professor Henri Evers’s (1855–1929) manual on architectural history published in 1911 included key buildings from Denmark, such as Frederiksborg and Rosenborg, as well as architecture from Gdan´sk.40�   Lademacher 1999.   Jolly 1999a; Schönfeld 1999a; Bechler 2002. 34  This work was a part of a vast short inventory research project on foreign archival sources for the history of the Netherlands. Other historians involved in this series of publicaties were P.J. Blok (1897), Conrad Busken Huet (1900) and J.S. van Veen for Paris, P.J. Blok for Italy (1901) and Germany (1886, 1887 and 1888), C.C. Uhlenbeck for Russia (1891), and P.J. Blok and H. Brugmans for England (1891, 1895). Kernkamp 1903. 35  Kernkamp 1903. On Kernkamp see Blaas 1983; Dorsman 1990. 36   Kernkamp 1903, 371 (‘Kunstgeschiedenis. Architectuur’). See also his publication of Swedish 32 33

archival sources in: Kernkamp 1902 (with attention to brick production and lime kilns). 37   For a short description of Goldmann’s manuscripts in the Royal Library of Copenhagen see Goudeau 2005, 532–537 (mss. 7–9). 38   “Voor de Duitsche Oostzeesteden levert juist Danzig het belangrijkste material voor onze ­ geschiedenis” (Kernkamp 1909, XII). He continued his work with a research stay in Stockholm. Kernkamp 1908. 39   Kernkamp 1909, 354–355 (‘XI. Nederlandse kunstenaars, kunstkoopers, bouwmeesters en ­ ingenieurs te Danzig’) with mention of Regnier of ­ Amsterdam, Johan van Wensbeeck, Cornelis Boch and Joris Standart. 40  Evers 1905–1911, II, 437, 439–440, 443–444, 451–452, 461–462. On Evers, see Timmer 1997.

37

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

Evers translated the then current ideas of German art historians dividing Germany into ­separate spheres of influence: the south and southeast, that is, Southern Germany, Bohemia, Silesia, Bavaria, and Austria, which were strongly ‘controlled’ by Northern Italian artists and art; the west, ‘penetrated’, at least in some works, by the art of France; and the north, where the Low Countries were most influential.41 In Heidelberg, the influence “alternated between Netherlandish and Northern Italian forms”.42 In 1917, Abel Antoon Kok (1881–1951), architect of public works in Amsterdam, published articles on ‘Netherlandish architecture abroad’ (Nederlandsche bouwkunst in den Vreemde) in the journal Het Zoeklicht, which was founded in 1913 as a publication of the Polytechnical Bureau of the Netherlands (Politechnisch Bureau Nederland). These articles were republished in 1918 as Nederlandsche bouwkunst langs de Oostzee (‘Netherlandish Architecture along the Baltic Sea’).43 These seven small chapters on Denmark, and one on Gdan´sk, did not offer much new art historical data.44 Rather, most elements could already be found in the volume published in 1888 by Ferdinand Meldahl (1827–1908), Denkmäler der Renaissance in Dänemark, from which Kok also took his illustrations.45 The section on Gdan´sk did not contain any more information than already extant in German manuals on Renaissance architecture.46 In short, Kok synthesised and translated German texts for a Dutch audience while emphasising the Flemish and Dutch artists involved. However, Kok’s discussion in the introduction and conclusion of the book proved noteworthy. He urged scholars of “old national brick buildings” to look outside the Netherlands, especially to the “pure Netherlandish architecture of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century” in Denmark. He argued that Denmark could offer more important buildings than the Netherlands because the Danish kings addressed themselves to Flemish or Dutch artists and artisans, and because, once established, this architecture was protected from foreign Italian influences, unlike the situation at home. In Kok’s view, these artists contributed as much to the notoriety of the Low Countries as Holland’s military fame and trade overseas.47 This idea percolated at least ten years earlier in the local architectural practice of the Netherlands and Belgium, as evidenced by buildings such as the Seat of the University of Groningen (Academiegebouw), designed in 1909 by rijksbouwmeester Johannes Antonius Willebrordus Vrijman (1865–1954). The new building of the Leuven University Library, designed and built from 1921 onwards by the American architect Whitney Warren (1864–1943), further demonstrated that the fashion continued to flourish afterwards (fig. 2).48 Both buildings were clearly inspired by the Danish Renaissance buildings.  Evers 1905–1911, II, 439–440: “Zuid-Duitsland, Bohemen, Silezië, Beieren, Oostenrijk worden sterk door de Noord-Italiaansche kunst en kunstenaars beheerscht.… In het westen dringt de kunst van Frans I in sommige werken door; in het Noorden die van Nederland”. 42  Evers 1905–1911, II, 443–444: “beurtelings aan Neederlandschen en Noord-Italiaanschen invloed”. 43   Kok 1918. On Kok see Beek 1984. 44  Table of contents: I. Introduction; II. Kronborg in Helsingör; III. Frederiksborg in Hilleröd; IV. Rosenborg in Copenhagen; V. Less important castles; VI. The Exchange of Copenhagen; VII. Churches of the Danish Renaissance; VIII. Buildings in Gdansk. 45   Meldahl 1888. 46   Galland 1890. 47   “[...] onzer zuiver Nederlandsche zestiendeen vroeg-zeventiende eeuwsche bouwkunst in 41

38

de Skandinavische landen. De bouwkunst der Hollandsche renaissance, uit de periode van voor de overwegend Italiaanschen invloed heeft – ­merkwaardig genoeg – in den vreemde belangrijker werkstukken ­ voortgebracht dan in de Nederlanden zelf”. (Kok 1918, 5); “... [er] aandacht op te vestigen dat zij, die studie wenschen te maken van de ­oudvaderlandse baksteenbouw, hun material niet uitsluitend moeten zoeken in Nederland’s oude steden en stadjes. Verder ook om te doen weten dat in de zestiende en ­zeventiende eeuw niet alleen Holland’s krijgsroem en handelsgeest over de zeeën ging, ­ doch ook de ­kunstenaren en ­belangrijk aan hebben ­meegewerkt den Hollandschen en Vlaamschen naam in alle werelddeelen een goede klank te geven” (Kok 1918, 71). 48   Coppens et al. 2005.

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

Dirk Frederik Slothouwer’s Bouwkunst der Nederlandsche renaissance in Denemarken published in 1924 offered more substantial fare.49 Slothouwer became fascinated with Danish Renaissance architecture during a sponsored trip to Denmark after winning the Dutch Prix de Rome for architecture in 1909. He drew the Kronborg palace in an ‘envoi de Rome’ manner in 1910, which later appeared in the frontispiece of his book. He developed a close bond with the country: He married a Danish lady and continued to spend several weeks in Denmark each year. Slothouwer’s book, which was also his dissertation at Delft Technical University, used available Danish scholarship – he was in close contact with Emil Hannover (1864–1923) and especially with Francis Becket (1868–1943) – but Slothouwer also added architectural analyses of the monuments. After an historical introduction, he discussed the Van Steenwinckel and Van Opbergen families and studied their works more closely, including Kronborg, Frederiksborg, Rosenborg, and other buildings. He stressed not only the Flemish and Dutch origin of the architects involved, but also the prints used (here the influence of Robert Hedicke’s 1913 book on Cornelis Floris was evident) and the architectural 2. Leuven University Library, designed 1921 by Whitney books possessed. The book was carefully Warren (photograph Arjen Stilklik). illustrated with Kristian Hude’s photographs of Roskilde, and with architectural drawings, plans, and elevations. Summarily, the book made ‘Dutch Renaissance architecture on Danish soil’ and the Danish scholarship on it more widely available to a Dutch audience. Around 1930, the cultural contacts between Denmark and the Netherlands intensified with interesting results. In 1930, the Bibliotheca Danica was created as a loan of the society Dansk Samfund I Holland to the University Library of Amsterdam.50 Four years later, during an exhibition on Danish art in Amsterdam, the Danish art historian Vilhelm Lorenzen (1877–1961) from Copenhagen lectured at the society Arti et Amicitiae on the life and work of seventeenth-century Netherlandish architects and city planners in Denmark.51 He listed the architects Hans van Steenwinckel, Willem Cornelissen, lands-bouwmeester Leonard Blasius, and the engineers Eggert Speerfork, Johan Sems, Abraham de la Haye, Isaac   Slothouwer 1924.  Godfried 1990; Amsterdam University Library (UvA), Catalogus van de Bibliotheca Danica, 1939, and Ibidem, Catalogus van de Bibliotheca Svecica en 49 50

van de overige Zweedse werken aanwezig in de Universiteitsbibliotheek van Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1948. 51   Lorenzen 1933–1934.

39

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

van Geelkerk (Norway), Hendrik Ruse (fortification engineer of Amsterdam), and Joost van Scholten. Lorenzen asserted that “some of the best Netherlandish architecture was produced in Denmark” and that the influence of these Dutch artists on Danish architecture, especially in the seventeenth century, was crucial.52 ‘Netherlandish architecture abroad’ remained a topos in the cultural and economic history of the Netherlands.53 In a broadly ranging, three-volume overview of Dutch architectural history, Frans Vermeulen dedicated a twenty-page chapter in the second volume (1931) to the ‘Netherlandish Renaissance in Denmark and in the Baltic’. The ‘expansion of Dutch Baroque’ became a short chapter in volume three (1941).54 Vermeulen’s text is based primarily on information from Galland and other earlier authors. Like Wackernagel and Haupt, he presented these buildings as part of the common North-Germanic building tradition. Vermeulen became a vehement believer in a ‘greater Germanic culture’ dominating all of Northern Europe. To him, Netherlandish building masters working along the Baltic coasts were exemplary of the Dutch genius working abroad but among distant kinsmen. Yet Vermeulen saw the growing French influence on Dutch architecture in the late seventeenth century as detrimental to national authenticity and reflecting an artistic decline caused by the disastrous foreign influences of ‘the French and the Jews’.55 Consequently, during World War II he accepted a leading position in the Dutch fascist ministry of propaganda and art.56 After 1945 the construct of ‘Netherlandish architectural influence’ remained very much alive in Dutch historiography, maintaining a strong focus on these northern relationships but without any allusion to the earlier fascist viewpoints. For instance, the Atlas van de Nederlandse Beschaving (Atlas of Dutch Civilisation) compiled by J.J.M. Timmers and published by Elsevier in 1952 contained a map charting the influence of Dutch art in the seventeenth century (fig. 3).57 On the map of Europe, Cleves, Münster, Potsdam, Emden, Bremen, Friedrichstadt, Copenhagen, Elsinore (Helsingør), Gdan´sk, and Stockholm are indicated as “centres of architecture inspired by Netherlandish examples or influenced by Dutchmen working abroad”. The absence of Spain, Portugal, and even England during the period of William and Mary is remarkable. Among the ‘Dutch’ architects named, only Giovanni/Jan van Santen (Vasanzio) is indicated as working in Southern Europe.58 In fact, the numerous artists of the Low Countries, such as painters, sculptors, and architects, who emigrated to Italy and were also known as fiamminghi at the time, were not understood as part of the same phenomenon. Rather, they were considered artists on a study trip to Italy. Further, as Netherlandish art historiography suggested repeatedly, when these artists continued their careers in Italy, they ineluctably became part of Italian art history, and of no further concern to Flemish/Dutch art history.

 “[dat] verschillende van de beste Nederlandsche architektuur in Denemarken liggen”; “Het feit dat de Nederlanders zooveel invloed hebben uitgeoefend op de Deensche architektuur, in het bijzonder in de 17de eeuw, is toch wel van zooveel belang, dat het in de herinnering moet worden gebracht van de ­tegenwoordige landgenooten”. Lorenzen 1933–1934. 53  The architectural topos of Dutch architects in Denmark is also found in studies on Dutch-Danish literary relations: Hoed 1929, 6–7; or in studies of cultural history: Huizinga 1963, 144; Daalder et al. ­ 1998, 121–123. 54  Vermeulen 1928–1941, vol. 2, 458–499 (‘De Nederlandsche Renaissance in Denemarken en in de 52

40

Landen aan de Oostzee’); Vermeulen 1928–1941, vol. 3, 408–433 (‘De expansie der Hollandse barok’). 55   Vermeulen 1928–1941, vol. 3, 436. 56   In 1942 he became head of the cultural propaganda section of the ministry of public information and art (department van volksvoorlichting en kunsten). Bosman 1998, 75–76. 57  ‘Uitstraling der Nederlandse Kunst in de 17de eeuw’. Timmers 1952, Map 35. 58  The other names are: Willem Cornelisz, Hendr. Ruse, H. Van Steenwinckel d. J., Laurens van Steenwinckel, Simon de la Vallée, Nicod. Tessin d. J., Justus Vingboons.

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

3. Map charting the “influence of Dutch art in the seventeenth century”, from: J.J.M. Timmers, Atlas van de Nederlandse Beschaving, 1952.

 lamígero es flamenco. The historiographical problem of Spain’s new ‘Flemish’ F Gothic 1450–150059 ‘Flemish’ immigrants – as the artists of the Low Countries, Flandes, were systematically called – took a central place in Spanish art historiography. The art and architecture of the early decades of the twentieth century during the reign of the Catholic Kings Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon acquired the label hispano-flamenco. Originally, the term signified the art produced by immigrant Flemish masters (such as the painter Juan de Flandes) and their Spanish disciples, or, more strictly defined, the art produced by Spanish masters influenced by Low Countries imports such as altarpieces and paintings.60 Applied to the architecture of that period, hispano-flamenco also meant ‘Flamboyant’, or flamígero. The flamboyant ornament was believed to have been imported from the Low Countries in the mid-fifteenth century, merging   This paragraph has been written by Krista De Jonge on the basis of De Jonge 2005a, and is indebted in particular to Van Hoofstat 2005. 59

 Didier 2000, 115–116, with overview of earlier literature. 60

41

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

with the Moorish decorative systems already present in Castile.61 This innovation was ascribed to Hanequín Cueman de Bruselas, author of the famous Lion’s gate on the south side of Toledo Cathedral (fig. 4) and master of Juan Guas, the Breton-born main protagonist of the style who built San Juan de los Reyes, its masterpiece (see fig. 3 in ­chapter 1.2).62 Paradoxically, early twentieth-century Belgian scholars, such as the architectural historian Stan Leurs in the 1930s, unhesitatingly attributed the earliest ‘Flamboyant’ works in the Low Countries to Spanish influence, thus inverting the Spain-Flanders connection. When comparing ornamental forms such as the tri-lobed arches found on the San Gregorio College in Valladolid (fig. 5) and in the tomb of Margaret 4. Toledo Cathedral, the Lion’s gate, by Hanequín Cueman of Bourbon in Brou, Leurs found their simide Bruselas (photograph collection Utrecht University). larity just too striking for coincidence. This ‘Mannerist’ variant of Brabantine Late Gothic, which was the dominant variant since the late fourteenth century as many of the biggest and most influential building sites were situated in Brabant, had to be Iberian in origin because, in Leurs’s view, it was incompatible with Brabant’s inherent architectural character.63 Leurs’s characterisation of the Late Gothic in the Low Countries as ‘Iberian’ has all but disappeared from Belgian scholarship today.64 On the contrary, Spanish historiography continued placing the antecedents of Queen Isabella’s preferred building manner in the northern artistic world, even while stressing the influence of mudéjar formal preferences on its typically proliferating ornament.65 The first tentative reconstruction of the Cueman family’s genealogy dates from 1912.66 Decades later, the historian José Luis de Azcárate, who wrote many notable studies on the works of Egas Cueman, Hanequín de Bruselas, Juan Guas,67� Enrique and Antón Egas, and Gil de Siloé from the 1950s, coined the term hispano-flamenco. In 1948, Azcárate was the first to study the archives in Toledo, thus establishing a factual basis for Hanequín Cueman de Bruselas’s work in that city 68 and connecting Hanequín’s arrival in Toledo with the patronage of Archbishop Don Juan de Cerezuela.69 On the other hand,  See Silva Santa-Cruz 2004 with references to the earlier literature. The definition is standard in Spanish historiography, see de Azcárate 1951, 308 and de Azcárate 1990, 113. 62   de Azcárate 1961–1962. 63  “This course change comes together with foreign, more particularly, southern influences. One should however not think of Italy in the first place, because the reception of the Italian Renaissance formal repertory is preceded by a current of influence from the Iberic peninsula, which for the moment still completely moves in Late Gothic direction. It is striking indeed to what extent the Flemish Late Gothic – we mean the Mannerist current which emerges around 1500 – shows characteristics which are also common to the Spanish Isabeline style, and occasionally also with the Portuguese Manuelino, two variants of Late Gothic from the Iberian countries. It is al the more striking 61

42

because in those days, similar elements to these could be found in the architectural repertory of the Low Countries, elements which one will not as easily find in the Late Gothic of other regions”. Leurs 1936–1937, I, 523–524; Leurs 1946, 69–70. 64   See for instance Coomans 2003 and Coomans 2011. 65   Chueca Goitia 1965, 597 and following; Konradsheim 1976; Checa & Navascués 2002. The historiography was examined by Leen Van Hoofstat, see Van Hoofstat 2005, 6–36. 66   Rubio Cebrián & Acemel 1912. 67   de Azcárate 1950; 1951 and 1956. 68   de Azcárate 1948. 69  de Azcárate 1948, 117; de Azcárate 1958, 13; de Azcárate 1990, 115. Taken up in later scholarship, see Konradsheim 1976, 127–128; further exploration in Van Hoofstat 2005, 12–19.

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

5. Valladolid, San Gregorio College (photograph collection Utrecht University).

6. Brussels, town hall, left wing 1401–1420 by Jacob van Tienen, tower 1449–1455 by Jan van Ruysbroeck, right wing 1444–1448 (photograph Merlijn Hurx).

Cueman’s possible antecedents in Brussels were examined no earlier than 1998 by Dorothee Heim and Amalia María Yuste Galán, who looked at the list of Brussels stonemasons that had been published by Jozef Duverger in 1933 and was well known in Belgian scholarship.70 In an article published in 1995, Rafael Domínguez Casas traced the careers of Hanequín’s brother, Egas Cueman, and other members of his family in Castile.71� This literature had been similarly ignored by contemporary Belgian architectural history, with the exception of the exhibition catalogues dedicated to the connections between Flanders and Spain (see below). Can the paradox be resolved?72 On the surface, Leurs’s point was valid; the richly flamboyant tracery of hispano-flamenco architecture, the stellar vaults and, especially, the tri-lobed accolade arches, butterfly, and bell shapes that supposedly originated in the north had no obvious parallel in the mid-fifteenth century architecture of the duchy of Brabant. However, exceptions should be noted in the main façade of Our Lady at Tienen (work underway in 1375), designed by Jean d’Oisy, ‘founding father’ of the Brabantine High Gothic, and the main façade of the town hall of Brussels (begun in 1401), designed by d’Oisy’s main disciple, Jacob of Tienen (fig. 6). Both façades were remarkable for their statuary niches, which  Heim & Yuste Galán 1998. On the list, see Duverger 1930. See also Van Hoofstat 2005, 9–11 en Hurx 2010, 161, 171–186 on the professional milieu of the Cueman/Coeman family (phonetic spelling in Brabantine dialect for Cooman). 70

  Domínguez Casas 1993.  The following is discussed at length in De Jonge 2005a. 71 72

43

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

were crowned with baldachins and used as the wall’s main structural element set within a modular raster of thin, perpendicular mouldings. In the 1460s and 1470s, the Toledan masters deployed this formula to great effect in, for instance, the chapel of Don Álvaro de Luna and the aforementioned puerta de los Leones of Toledo Cathedral. Here the Cueman family betrayed its Brussels origin. Extending the field to include micro-architecture such as carved altarpieces, rood screens, sacrament towers, and monstrances, revealed multiple connections with Flanders. Castile and Leon imported many Netherlandish, especially Brabantine, multiwinged altarpieces throughout the fifteenth and early sixteenth century while offering opportunities to northern wood carvers who worked in notable sculptor’s workshops in the country. The works circulating in this voracious common market, which directly linked Flanders and Spain, constituted an essential missing link, leaving no boundaries to cross regarding design. Rather, micro-architecture was designed according to the same principles as true architecture.73 The greater ductility of wood and metal allowed avant-garde designs to be more easily realised a few decades ahead of monumental stone works. Micro-architecture imported from the Low Countries, or produced in Spain by immigrants, served both as a laboratory for new forms and as a means of diffusing these forms in a milieu that proved especially receptive to its ornamental richness. The same substratum produced the first ‘Flamboyant’ monumental works in the Low Countries in the early years of the sixteenth century. Belgian art history before and after 1950: from nation to region Until very recently Belgian architectural history remained strongly interconnected with the conservation and restoration of the national built heritage. Consequently, it focused almost exclusively on works located in Belgian territory, although overviews sometimes extended into ‘lost’ territories that once belonged to the former Southern Low Countries or the prince-bishop­ric of Liège. The masterpieces created abroad by ‘Belgian’ artists were forgotten for a long time. The monumental single-volume synthesis L’Art en Belgique, edited by Paul Fierens just before World War II, demonstrated this interpretation of ‘Belgian art’, which was also reflected in the title, as ‘art on Belgian soil’. In his chapter on sixteenth-century architecture and sculpture, the architect and architectural historian Simon Brigode discussed only the main protagonists.74 In contrast with Brigode’s ‘Belgian history’ stood Duverger’s and Onghena’s treatment of sixteenthcentury sculpture in the Southern Low Countries published in a three-volume manual on the art of the Low Countries that first appeared in 1935 and was edited by Van Gelder and Duverger. The international exchange of artistic ideas and the migration of artists were included without obviously nationalistic remarks or restraints, perhaps because this text was a joint BelgianDutch venture.75 The same pre-war period also produced Stan Leurs’s Geschiedenis van de Vlaamsche Kunst, a team effort uniting “almost all Flemish art historians” as its editor stated in the introduction.76 The political situation in post-war Belgium revived interest in the work of Netherlandish artists abroad. Two ambitious publication projects were a product of the intellectual and cultural component of the Flemish emancipation movement. The fifteen volumes of the encyclopaedia Twintig Eeuwen Vlaanderen (‘Twenty Centuries of Flanders’) produced between 1972 and 1978 by the Heideland-Orbis p ­ ublishing firm constituted an ambitious scientific enterprise. The volumes were meant to present, no less,   Point more fully argued in De Jonge 2011b. 74   Brigode 1944 (2nd edition). 73

44

 Duverger & Onghena 1954 (3rd revised edition), especially the chapter ‘Zuidnederlandse kunstenaars in het buitenland’, 383–386. 76   Leurs 1936–1937, vol. 1, 9–12. 75

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

a history of Flanders, the Flemish movement, the Flemish community, and its art, science, personalities, and visions.77 This publication cannot be understood outside the context of Belgian institutional reforms of the time. The Flemish-French linguistic border took its definitive form in 1962 and 1963, and was incorporated in the so-called first state reform (staatshervorming) of 1970 after long negotiations. Within its new official geographical limits, ‘Flanders’, henceforth understood as the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, comprised most of the old county of Flanders, a part of Hainaut (Halle and its surroundings), and the greater part of the duchies of Brabant and Limburg. The new history of ‘Flanders’ offered an alternative to official Belgian national history textbooks such as Henri Pirenne’s Histoire de Belgique (1900–1932) by showing historical continuity within the newly defined Flemish region. Paradoxically, the reconfigured region also included parts of its long lost historic predecessors, such as the southern part of the county of Flanders which had become French under Louis XIV. The encyclopaedia’s chapters on the history of sculpture and architecture, written by Hans Vlieghe and Roger Van Driessche respectively, recalled the contribution of ‘Flemish masters’ to ‘world art history’, enumerating the most famous cases of foreign artworks realised by Flemish-born artists. Hans Vlieghe’s chapter discussed and illustrated sculptural works such as the monumental tomb of Margaret of Austria in Brou, the Hackeney rood screen of Sankt Marien im Kapitol in Cologne, the tombs of Duke Albrecht of Prussia in Königsberg and of King Christian III of Denmark in Roskilde by Cornelis II Floris de Vriendt, the tomb of Edo Wiemken in Jever, attributed to Hein Hagart, and the bas-reliefs by Alexander Colijn for the funeral monument of Emperor Maximilian I in the Innsbruck Hofkirche. Roger Van Driessche’s chapter on the architectural history of Flanders addressed the works of well-known Flemish building masters working abroad, such as Hanequín de Bruselas (called Jan van der Eycken), one of the most famous Flemish masters active in Spain. A discussion outlining the influence of Cornelis Floris’s Antwerp town hall in England and in Northern Germany was followed by two pages listing the most famous Flemish emigrants related to the expansion of the Vredeman de Vries style, which was perceived as chiefly motivated by religious persecution.78 In this context Van Driessche mentioned Scandinavia, the Baltic area, England, and Northern Germany – particularly Bremen (Weserrenaissance), which was considered to have been influenced primarily by Holland, and Gdan´sk, influenced mainly by Flanders. Familiar names appeared again: the Van Opbergen, Steenwinckel, and Van den Blocke dynasties, and Hendrik van Paesschen as well as Joris Robijns (Georg Robin) from Ypres with his work in Mainz and Würzburg. The emigration to the Northern Low Countries, especially Holland, was considered part of the same phenomenon, as exemplified by the treatment of Ghent-born Lieven De Key (ca. 1560–1627), designer of the Haarlem Meat Hall. Van Driessche’s architec­ tural history incorporated major international influences, from Iberian inspiration in Late Gothic architecture to Italian and French influences on later periods. While this vision of Flemish architectural history emulated Duverger’s and Onghena’s 1954 synthesis, the Iberian reference revealed the volume’s even larger debt to Leurs’s earlier survey. The Walloon mirror publication was published between 1977 and 1979 with the title La Wallonie, Le Pays et les Hommes. Lettres – arts – culture. Addressing only sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sculpture and architecture, La Wallonie lacked the triumphant perspective touted by Twintig Eeuwen Vlaanderen because fewer artists emigrated from there.79 Instead, the publication focused on Walloon artists and artisans who hailed from Liège, Hainaut, and Brabant, and played a role in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century French art. The major names in architecture naturally included Jacques Cuvilliés and Jean-François de Neufforge.80   Lamberty et al. 1972–1978; Vlieghe 1978 (­sculpture); Van Driessche 1978 (architecture). 78   Van Driessche 1978, 273–275. 77

  Lejeune & Stiennon 1977–1979.   Stiennon 1978. For Cuvilliés see also the notice in the Biographie nationale: Fredericq-Lilar 1982. 79 80

45

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

The volume also addressed the Liège carpenter Rennequin Sualem, who from 1681 until 1688, in collaboration with Baron Arnold de Ville, built the hydraulic system that drew water from the Seine to the gardens of Versailles.81� The recent conference Les Wallons à Versailles (2007) and its eponymous volume of proceedings showed that these subjects have remained topical. Additionally, the use of Walloon marble abroad, especially the rouge de Rance has emerged as a new related theme.82 Recent developments In the last three decades, scholars from Belgium, the Netherlands, and abroad have published new studies in the field, thus vastly increasing factual knowledge of the diaspora. A better understanding of the architecture created or inspired by Netherlandish masters – and related problems – has been in the making. Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann’s bibliography on Central European art and architecture between 1550 and 1620, which was published in 2003, has been a particularly helpful guide to this vast amount of information.83 The literature can be divided into three major categories: 1) monographs on individual artists and artistic families; 2) publications dedicated to bilateral exchanges; and 3) studies on mechanisms of architectural exchange or diffusion. Leo De Ren’s 1982 monograph on the Robijn-Osten family addresses an important group of sculptors, engineers, and architects from Ypres who worked for the archbishop of Mainz.84 In 1991, Juliette Roding published her dissertation on the architecture and urbanism of King Christian IV of Denmark at Leiden University. Based on Danish archival sources, Roding’s research offered a chiefly iconological reading of the material.85 Roding refused to identify Danish architecture with Netherlandish, instead stressing both the presence of architects of other nationalities and the role of the king.86 Nevertheless, in other work she emphasised the continuing influence of Netherlandish architects on Danish architecture centuries after the famous buildings by the Van Opbergens and the Van Steenwinckels.87 Stimulated by the exhibitions of 2000 and 2001 in Antwerp and Lemgo and their related conferences, a surfeit of new scholarship has appeared in the last decade on the travelling architect, engineer, painter, and ornament designer Hans Vredeman de Vries.88 Yet in his monograph on the Gdan´sk arsenal, Arnold Bartetzky warned scholars against overemphasising the importance of artists such as Vredeman de Vries and Van Opbergen because most of the buildings realised in Gdan´sk were not the creation of a single genius inventor but rather reflected an entire team of masters.89 Anna Jolly’s 1999 article in Simiolus has remained the most comprehensive overview of Netherlandish sculptors in sixteenth-century northern Germany and their patrons.90

 Lejeune & Stiennon 1977–1979, vol. 2, p. 362. See tradition of research on this subject: Balau 1895; Dwelshauwers-Déry 1906; Poncelet 1934; Rorive 1992. 82  Carpeaux 2007; Mouquin 2007 (rouge de Rance); Groessens & Tourneur 2007; Tourneur 2007 (marbre wallon). 83   Kaufmann et al. 2003. 84   De Ren 1982. 85   Roding 1991; Roding 1999. 86  “Christian IV used Flemish and Dutch architects, as well as Danish, German and Swiss ones, to give shape to his own political and dynastic ideals. The same is true for the engineers, whom he needed because of their specific technical knowledge. Out 81

46

of this an architecture arose which fully deserves the name ‘Christian IV style’.” Roding 1990, 353. 87   See her article on the eighteenth-century architect Philip de Lange (Roding 2003), in which she also draws attention to Evert Janssen, architect of the navy (see also: Norregaard-Nielsen 1984). On De Langhe see also Elling 1927–1928; Elling 1931; Tønnes 1997. 88  Mielke 1967; Fuhring 1997; Exh. cat. Lemgo 2001 and Exh. cat. Antwerp 2002; Zimmerman 2002; Lombaerde 2005; Ruszkowska-Macur 2006; Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005. 89   Bartetzky 2000, 142–168. 90   Jolly 1999a.

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

Engineering expertise held a special place within this category. The Dutch contribution to land reclamation and drainage through the creation of polders, dykes, sluices, and other water works all over Europe had long constituted a central component in Dutch identity, as did its windmill technology.91 Dutch engineering has been a recurrent theme since Jacobus Korthals Altes’s pioneering studies dating to the 1920s that offered a survey of Dutch activities in Italy and England.92 Cornelis Vermuyden (1590–1670) was the iconic figure of the Dutch engineering theme.93 Although comparable overviews for the seventeenth-century Southern Low Countries have not been evident, similar hydraulic engineering expertise was present in the south and enjoyed international fame. Wensel Cobergher, the ‘architect-general’ to the Court, led the most famous enterprises such as the draining of the Moeren (1619–1627) and the digging of the canal between the Meuse and the Rhine, the so-called fossa Eugeniana (1626).94 In 1624, the Infanta Isabella, governor of the Southern Low Countries, recommended some of her engineers (Abraham Melin, Adrian Zele or Cele, Pedro Baes, and Jacques De Beste) to the Spanish king who needed a river bed straightened. On the other hand, the success of Dutch military engineering abroad was personified by Baron Menno van Coehoorn (1641–1704), who stood against Vauban. He transformed the ‘old Dutch manner’ of fortification into the ‘new Dutch manner’, which had a profound impact on military engineers well into the eighteenth century – not least through the treatise he published in 1685, which was translated into several languages.95 Another group of monographs addressed foreign architects who were inspired by Netherlandish models. For example, Alison Stoesser-Johnston wrote several articles on the Dutch influence on the English architect and scientist Robert Hooke, who was a close colleague of Sir Christopher Wren.96 Recent studies on the two leading architects of mid-­ seventeenth-century Sweden – Claes Ellehag’s publication on Jean de la Vallée and Kristoffer Neville’s dissertation on Nicodemus Tessin the Elder – also illuminated Dutch connections.97 Biographical dictionaries on artists provided additional information. In the Saur Allgemeines Kunstler-Lexikon intriguing names appeared, such as the architects Juan Bautista Egidiano (Gillis) (Ghent 1596–Cuzco 1675) and Juan Ramón Coninck (Mechelen 1623–Lima 1709) in Peru, and the military engineer Francisco Ficardo (Antwerp c. 1658–Cartagena 1693) in Columbia. In the second historiographic group, Kuyper’s and Louw’s early 1980s publications on the seventeenth-century exchange of architectural models and ideas between England and the Dutch Republic were among the first to show a renewed interest in bilateral cultural relationships.98 The jubilee of the Glorious Revolution in 1989 revealed a new perspective on the exchange in court culture during the reign of William and Mary. Architecture was envisioned as part of that exchange along with the formal repertoire of Daniel Marot and the Dutch parterre gardens evoked in Peter Greenaway’s film The Draughtsman’s Contract (1982).99 Among the publications on bilateral cultural exchanges, the series Flandria extra muros published by the Mercator Fonds held a prominent position. Their interest in the international diffusion of Flemish art was expressed in lavishly produced volumes on the cultural and artistic relationships between Flanders and other regions and countries such as England, Portugal, and South America, and by reference works documenting the presence of Flemish   Davids 1990.   Korthals Altes 1924b; Korthals Altes 1928. 93   Korthals Altes 1925. 94  Exh. cat. Brussels 1998, 121–122, 197–198 (cat. ­entries 273, 156–157 by Piet Lombaerde); Bragard 1998. 95   Nieuwe vestingbouw…, Leeuwarden 1685, ­translated into French (The Hague 1706) and German 91 92

(Wesel 1708). Schütte 1984, cat. no. 30; Treu 1982; Wieringen 1982. 96   Stoesser-Johnston 2000. 97 Ellehag 2003; Neville 2009. 98   Kuyper 1980; Louw 1981; Louw 2009. 99   Hunt & de Jong 1988.

47

Dirk Van

de

Vijver, Krista De Jonge

paintings in famous foreign museums and collections.100 For example, in a 1985 volume on the ­relationships between Flanders and England, John Murray described phenomena such as the London Exchange built by Antwerp craftsmen, land reclamation, the importation of Netherlandish brick and the migration of sculpture workshops to London.101 Other similar publications were primarily associated with exhibitions and academic conferences. The international arts festival Europalia was founded in 1969 in Europe’s capital, Brussels, to celebrate one invited country’s cultural heritage every two years.102 In the epochal art and history exhibitions, and especially in their exhibition catalogues, Belgian and foreign scholars combined forces to study the artistic and cultural relationships between Belgium and the invited guest. Some festivals, such as Europália 91 Portugal, contributed crucially to the field of architectural exchanges in early modern Europe.103 The collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and the fall of the Central European communist regimes inaugurated a renewed interest in historical ties with Western Europe. From the 1990s onwards, several conferences were organised in Poland, the Baltic States, and Russia on the historic exchange of art and culture with the Low Countries. The first of these meetings, Niderlandyzm w stuce polskiej was organised in 1992 in Torun, in Northern Poland, by the Uniwersytet Nikolaja Kopernika. The meeting resulted in two studies treating the impact of Netherlandish artists on Gdan´sk architecture around 1600.104 In 1996, an exhibition on Dutch interactions with the early years of St Petersburg resulted in substantial new information, especially in garden history.105 In 2003, the University of Wrocław organised a Southern Polish counterpart.106 The official visit of H.M. the Queen of the Netherlands to Latvia in 2006 encouraged the Dutch embassy to produce a large volume, which included many entries related to architecture, on eight centuries of exchange between Latvia and the Low Countries.107 The third category of recent historiography concerned mechanisms of architectural exchange. Ed Taverne’s dissertation (1978) on Dutch urban planning in the early seventeenth century, titled In ‘t Land van belofte: in de nieue stadt. Ideaal en werkelijkheid van de stad­ suitleg in de Republiek 1580–1680, was the first scholarly work on this subject in post-war Holland.108 The dissertation included a chapter on Dutch engineers in Denmark and Sweden, such Johan Sems (1572–c. 1656) and Isaac van Geelkerk.109 For the first time in Dutch historiography, urban aspects were analysed in detail. However, because extensive Danish monographs were already available for both engineers,110 Taverne’s main contribution was the ‘translation’ of foreign knowledge and its contextualisation. Taverne was also the first to stress the international importance and reach of the so-called Duytsche Mathematique, the college for military engineers and land surveyors founded in Leiden by Maurits of Nassau in 1600.  Originally funded by the Banque Paribas, the Mercator Fonds had its seat in the eighteenth-century Osterrieth house on the Meir at Antwerp and cultivated a strong ‘Antwerp cultural identity’. Castelfranchi Vegas 1984; Murray 1985; Balis et al. 1987; Everaert & Stols 1991; Vlieghe et al. 1992; Stols & Bleys 1993. 101  Murray 1985. On East Anglia: Cudworth 1937; Cudworth 1939. On brick import see also Arntz 1947. 102  It is financed by Belgium’s governments (federal and regional) and by the guest country, and ­sponsored by private companies. The list of Europalia’s themes: 1969 Italy, 1971 Netherlands, 1973 Great Britain, 1975 France, 1977 Federal Republic of Germany, 1980 Belgium, 1982 Greece, 1985 Spain, 1987 Austria, 1989 Japan, 1991 Portugal, 1993 Mexico, 1996 Victor Horta, 100

48

1998 Czech Republic, 1999 Hungary, 2000 Brussels, Crossroads of Culture, 2001 Poland, 2002 Bulgaria, 2003 Italy, 2005 Russia, 2007 EU-27, 2009 China. 103   De Jonge 1991b. 104   Grzybkowska 1995; Wozniak 1995; Tylicki 1993. 105   Kistemaker et al. 1996; de Jong 1996b. 106   Harasimowicz et al. 2006 107   Brand et al. 2006. 108   Taverne 1978. 109  Taverne 1978, 81–109 (‘De werkzaamheden van Nederlandse ingenieurs buiten de Republiek’). 110  Widerberg 1924; Lorenzen 1937. Recently see also Ahlberg 2005. See the contribution of Piet Lombaerde and Nils Ahlberg to this volume, chapters 4.2 and 4.3.

Ces

fleurons lointains à notre splendide diadème artistique

Ronald Stenvert discussed the pathways available through the trade in stone between Northern Germany and the Northern Netherlands in a survey article published in 1996.111 A year later, Anthony Wells-Cole explored the use of Flemish prints in certain English milieus in the Elizabethan era.112 Mechanisms of architectural and cultural exchange between the Dutch Republic and Sweden formed the main topic of Badeloch Noldus’s dissertation at Utrecht University, published in 2004 with the title Trade in Good Taste: Relations in Architecture and Culture between the Dutch Republic and the Baltic World in the Seventeenth Century.113 The dissertation featured a strong methodology distinguishing four mechanisms of Netherlandish influence: the activity of Netherlandish artists, the use of prints (and their attested presence at the time), the role of Netherlandish patrons, and the role of cultural agents. In including the latter, Noldus broadened the horizon of architectural exchange. Comparably, in recent years Gabri van Tussenbroek wrote scholarly articles – as well as an accessible overview for a general audience – on Dutch architects and building constructors in seventeenth-century Brandenburg.114 Conclusion The question of Netherlandish architectural influence in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth century can be traced back to the pioneering phase of Belgian architectural historiography. With a remarkable mixture of factual knowledge and intuition, Auguste Schoy formulated the question in the 1870s as the ‘expansion of the Antwerp school’ of the sixteenth century, including both the work of Netherlandish architects abroad and the use of Netherlandish prints. In Dutch architectural history, the Netherlandishness of this architecture without the Netherlands became an integral part of the historical phenomena that was repeatedly recuperated for nation-building purposes – on a par with canals and windmills – yet were mostly centred on the ‘Golden Age’ of the Republic in the seventeenth century. In Germany, from the earliest years of the twentieth century, Netherlandish influence was subsumed within the art of the Low Countries into a common art history of the lands bordering the North Sea and the Baltic – but not without questionable political overtones in the period before World War II. The 1970s new encyclopaedia on ‘Flemish art’ grappled anew within the problem without offering a systematic or comprehensive approach, sadly so as the author of a recent survey noted,115 while the contemporary Walloon standard overview preferred not to emphasise the issue. The importance of Netherlandish influence for ‘the spread of the Flemish Renaissance’ (or variously, ‘Dutch’, ‘Netherlandish’, etc.) had meanwhile become an accepted topos. Bewilderingly – at least to the foreign reader – artists with a more chequered career path fluidly changed identities in these books, becoming ‘Netherlandish’, ‘Belgian’, ‘Dutch’, ‘Flemish’, ‘Walloon’ or even ‘Frisian’ depending on the author; Hans Vredeman de Vries was exemplary of such. Foreign scholarship from the Baltic States to Spain had in the meantime not only strengthened the factual basis of this research area, but had also recuperated the works concerned here in various ways, thus adding still other layers of meaning to the term ‘Netherlandish’ (or ‘Flemish’, or ‘Dutch’). Most of this architecture and sculpture, when extant, had also been declared national heritage. As the case-studies in the following chapters will show, these layers of connotations have to be kept in mind when envisioning a new history of this art.

  Stenvert 1996.   Wells-Cole 1997. 113   Noldus 2004. 111 112

  Amongst others van Tussenbroek 2000, 2005 and 2006. 115   Van Vlierden 1991, 253. 114

49

Part Two Personal Relationships

and

Networks

of

Patronage

and

Commerce

1. Bucˇovice (Moravia), residence of Count cˇernohorský, Kaisersahl, vault and lunette decoration by Hans van Mont of Ghent (attributed), 1568–1582.

Introduction Why did Netherlandish architects and building masters leave their homeland? What was their destination? Who were their new clients? Building artists such as architects, sculptors, and stonemasons – unlike painters – did not leave their home country easily, especially when home provided a reasonable means of support. Building was an expensive pursuit that left patrons unwilling to involve unknown architects. Establishing the right networks and finding reliable partners who could afford building projects was a time-consuming venture. Additionally, successful architects needed extended networks linking them to master craftsmen and reliable traders in building materials. Leaving a flourishing architectural workshop in order to begin an international career abroad would have amounted to professional suicide for most. In prosperous, or even average, times, only those unable to withstand the competition in vibrant artistic centres such as mid-sixteenth century Antwerp and Mechelen, and mid-seventeenth century Amsterdam emigrated. Larger numbers of emigrating building masters only occurred in times of war and economic recession, such as the last three decades of the sixteenth century. The destinations of emigrating artists were strongly connected to the requirements of their new clients. During this period, for some specific jobs, foreign patrons, rulers, noblemen, and members of the urban patriciate eagerly sought artists and craftsmen who were unavailable (or scarce) in their home countries (fig. 1). Accordingly, Netherlandish building masters emigrated to new rising powers and older courts lacking a strong tradition in the arts rather than to countries, like Italy and France, which possessed long and rich architectural traditions. In periods of war and economic decline when many people were interested in better professional possibilities abroad, foreign patrons encountered little difficulty in finding suitable building masters in the Low Countries. For example, during the expensive naval war against the British (1652–1654), Matthias Dögen, the representative of Brandenburg in Amsterdam, wrote to Berlin that masons and carpenters asked him daily about jobs in Germany.1� When work opportunities at home were plentiful, foreign patrons attracted master builders with high fees. Still, patrons often had to be content with masters of second rank. In 1661, when work on the second part of the ring of canals in Amsterdam had just begun, Count Carl Gustav Wrangel invited the architect Justus Vingboons to Sweden for a major project, possibly the north wing of Skokloster and its enormous reception hall.2 Vingboons, who previously travelled to Stockholm between 1653 and 1656, declined the offer, stating that he was too busy finishing the ‘Trippenhuis’, the seat of the Trip brothers in Amsterdam. He suggested another Dutch master builder. This man, who was not named in the sources, demanded one rijksdaalder or rixdollar per day, a salary twice that of a Swedish architect, to be paid all days except Sundays, beginning from the very first day he set off for Sweden. Accordingly, the invitation was cancelled. This part discusses the various mechanisms of migration linking building masters from the Low Countries with their patrons abroad. Chapter 2.1 will set the stage for more detailed case studies in the Baltic region and in Spain. Finally, the international connections related to the trade in building materials will be considered.   “Täglich kommen mich bei dieser kümmerlichen Zeit alhier, Mäurer- und Zimmerleute anlauffen, und fragen ob sie nicht bei Ew. Churfl. Durchl. konnten Werck haben”. Letter of Matthias Dögen in Amsterdam to the Elector, 3 December 1652 (Geheimes Preußisches

1

Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, PK1 HA Rep 9). Galland 1911, 37. 2  Trotzig to Wrangel, 16 August 1661. Stockholm, Riksarchiv; Skoklostersamlingen E 8502. (Noldus 2004, 114).

53

1. Weikersheim (Germany), the residence of Count Wolfgang II von Hohenlohe, b ­ rother in law of William of Orange, south wing 1596–1605, probably based on designs by Joris/Georg Robin.

Chapter 2.1 Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

Konrad Ottenheym (Utrecht University)

This chapter is dedicated to the various mechanisms diffusing Netherlandish architects into other parts of Europe, beginning with the role of foreign patrons, their relationships to the Low Countries and amongst themselves, and some of their major commissions. Some of these foreign rulers engaged intermediaries as cultural agents who advertised and selected artists in the Low Countries. Most documented cases of Netherlandish architects abroad concerned invitations by monarchs and noblemen. However, these cases have been misleading because larger numbers of artists travelled abroad without such precious invitations, but finding these ‘free’ travellers in the archival sources has proven much more difficult. For these migrating artists, family networks abroad were essential bridges to their success. The ­migration of merchants from the Low Countries who, once settled abroad, became patrons of architecture reflected another mode of diffusing architectural inventions. Finally, mail functioned as a mechanism of diffusion as well. Not all architects who received foreign commissions travelled to the actual building site. Some simply mailed their design drawings, which were then realised by local craftsmen. Patrons’ networks and connections to the Low Countries Many ties connected European nobility – who became patrons of Netherlandish architects, sculptors, and stonemasons – with the Low Countries. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the court in Brussels was a major centre of exchange between foreign noblemen and the arts of the Low Countries. Nevertheless, the lines of communication were not always evident. No written evidence verified the mid-fifteenth century connection between Koeman van der Eycken and his brother, and the Toledo cathedral authority. Yet the archbishop of Toledo, Juan de Cerezuela, presumably played a major role in this relationship. More information has been made available about the situation in the sixteenth ­century. The earliest thoroughly documented invitations to Netherlandish craftsmen and building masters originated during the reign of Christian II of Denmark. He was married to a sister of Charles V and had experienced the qualities of the Brussels court himself. In the early 1520s, Christian II eagerly attempted to mirror the Netherlandish examples in Copenhagen by ­inviting Netherlandish building masters to modernise the medieval royal castle Christiansborg (see the contribution by Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, chapter 3.3). A few decades later, the Danish royal court became the epicentre of interwoven connections between ruling families in Northern Europe who shared an appreciation of Netherlandish artists. In 1523, Christian II was dethroned in favour of his uncle Frederick I (1471–1533), duke of Schleswig and Holstein. Frederick’s daughter Dorothea married Albrecht of Hohenzollern, duke of Prussia (1490–1568), while his other daughter Elisabeth married Ulrich III of Mecklenburg-Güstrow (1527–1603). Both Albrecht of Prussia and Ulrich of Mecklenburg became leading patrons of Netherlandish artists. In the late 1540s, Albrecht of Prussia sent the Danish court painter Jakob Binck to the Low Countries, which resulted in Cornelis Floris’s first commission from this circle of ruling families.1 Ulrich of Mecklenburg began rebuilding his residence at Güstrow, first by   Meganck 2005.

1

55

Konrad Ottenheym members of the Parr family from Northern Italy, followed somewhat later by Philip Brandin from Utrecht and a Netherlandish crew. German noblemen at the Brussels court also played an important role in the ­patronage of Netherlandish artists. After his stay in Brussels, Otto von Schaumburg engaged Arend Robijn for a fountain and overmantels in his castle in Stadt Hagen. In 1562, Duke Erich II of Braunschweig, stadholder of Philips II in the Northern Low Countries, sent various craftsmen from the Low Countries to the Weser region to rebuild his castles at Uslar (begun in 1559) and Hannoversch Münden (begun in 1560).2� Although both residences no l­onger exist, both became the examples par excellence in the Weser region for the use of modern antique ornamentation as had been developed in Antwerp during the previous decade (see the contribution of Heiner Borggrefe, chapter 3.4). While still one of the most esteemed courtiers at the Brussels court, William of Orange entertained many of his German kinsmen in his own palaces in Brussels and Breda. Many of these noblemen supported him after he led the revolt against Habsburg rule in 1568. The nobility maintained their allegiance with the OrangeNassau court, with many of them assuming high ranks in the Dutch army. During their stay in the Low Countries, these men became acquainted with Netherlandish building masters as well. William of Orange’s brothers-in-law paved the way for one architect’s career in Germany. In 1573, Günther von Schwarzburg (1529–1583), who married William’s sister Catharine of Nassau, invited Joris Robijn from Ypres to work on his castle in Arnstadt. Simultaneously, Albrecht von Schwarzburg, who married William’s sister Juliane in 1575, asked Robijn to work on his residence in Rudolstadt. Finally, Robin was appointed court architect to the archbishop of Mainz. Yet he continued his association with the Nassau-Orange clan; in 1583, he made preliminary designs for Count Wolfgang von Hohenlohe, another brother-in-law of William of Orange, for the renovation of the castle of Weikersheim (fig. 1).3 The dynastic policy of the House of Orange-Nassau in the seventeenth century connected them to the great ruling families in Northern Europe; in 1639, Frederik Hendrik of Orange’s son and heir, William II, married Mary Stuart, daughter of King Charles I of England. The English connection became important in the history of architecture during Cromwell’s Commonwealth in the 1650s when noble royalist refugees and their staff remained in Holland for many years. Back home, after the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, several English architects began executing their knowledge of recent Dutch buildings. Surprisingly, the ­personal union between England and the Dutch Republic in the late seventeenth century during the reign of William III and Mary did not foment any great architectural exchanges between the two countries. With few exceptions, the two architectural worlds remained mostly separate (see chapter 3.8). On the other hand, the marriages of Frederik Hendrik’s four ­daughters to German princes proved to be a rather important aspect of diffusing Netherlandish architecture. Marriages outside of ruling courts served to strengthen connections with the Low Countries as well. In 1638, Herman Wrangel, a leading Swedish nobleman during the youth of Queen Christina, and by then already an old man, ­ married Maria of Nassau-Siegen, the younger sister of Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen. Consequently, both families maintained close relations – with the requisite visits back and forth. Johan Maurits’s seat in The Hague, the Mauritshuis, was ­ completed in 1644 and became, especially for Sweden, an important model for a new type of nobleman’s residence. Additionally, d ­ iplomatic visits provided key opportunities to learn the latest Netherlandish architecture. For example, in 1643, the Swedish chancellor Axel Oxenstierna visited Amsterdam and was received by Joan Huydecoper in his new house, built in 1638 by Philips Vingboons. It was an early example of a   Kreft & Soenke 1986, 32 and 287.

2

56

3

  De Ren 1982, 32–38.

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

private house with a stone façade featuring superimposed Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian pilasters.4 Huydecoper was an active supporter of his architect; he presumably praised Vingboons’s qualities to his Swedish guest as well. Ten years later, when Oxenstierna continued the building project of the Riddarhus in Stockholm, he invited Philips’s brother Justus Vingboons, apparently after first trying to get his elder brother Philips for the job, as will be discussed later. Family ties and diplomatic functions were not the only obligations that brought foreign dignitaries to the Low Countries. In the early decades of the sixteenth century 2. Cologne, rood loft in Sankt Marien im Capitol, 1523, Georg Hackeney and his brother Nicasius, made in Mechelen. for instance, were patricians from Cologne with strong connections to the Habsburg court. They represented Maximilian I in Cologne as councillor and tax officer, and also kept in contact with the court of Margaret of Austria in Mechelen. Presumably Georg Hackeney (d. 1523) stayed in the Low Countries between 1515 and 1522 when he ordered a magnificent rood loft in Mechelen executed in blue stone and black marble from Namur with white limestone, for the church of Sankt Marien im Capitol in his native city.5 It is a Late Gothic construction of three arches on eight columns and an upper balustrade with statues of saints and reliefs depicting stories from the Old and New Testament framed in all’antica baluster columns (fig. 2). Some visited the country on personal trips or as students. Several important rulers of the Catholic Church studied at Leuven University during the final phase of their education, including Julius Echter of Mespelbrun, who later became bishop of Würzburg and a patron of Joris Robijn. Adolf of Schaumburg (who died in 1556) and his brother Anton (who died in 1558), both archbishop of Cologne, also studied at Leuven. In 1556, their epitaphs were commissioned to Cornelis Floris in Antwerp and installed in Cologne Cathedral in 1561 (see page 280, fig. 4). In the seventeenth century, the university in Leiden, founded by William of Orange in 1575, became a scholarly centre for the Protestant parts of Northern and Central Europe. Hundreds of students from Scandinavia, Northern Germany, and the Baltic region enlisted at Leiden University, or at one of the later Dutch Republic universities in Utrecht, Franeker, Harderwijk, or Groningen. The high nobility of Sweden and Brandenburg were well represented among these foreign students; several of them later became important patrons of architecture with an evident taste for Dutch design. For example, the Swedish counts Carl Gustav Wrangel and Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie both studied in Leiden, in 1630 and 1640–1643, respectively. Wrangel’s famous country house Skokloster (1653–1665) was built by Jean de la Vallée and Nicodemus Tessin the Elder, but Wrangel had also tried to engage Vingboons in this project. The interior rooms showcased Dutch furniture and chimneypieces.6 In later years, De la Gardie commissioned Vingboons to design the renovation of his residence in Stockholm. In 1633, the future Great Elector of Brandenburg studied in Utrecht. Upon his return in 1636, he witnessed the planning of the Maliebaan, a grand   Ottenheym 1989, 37–42.   Matthes 1967, 9–12.

4

6

  Andrén 1948.

5

57

Konrad Ottenheym avenue on the outskirts of the city lined with six parallel rows of lime trees and which likely became the model for Berlin’s Unter den Linden. The Baltic civic elite also studied in Leiden. For example, various councillors from Riga who were responsible for the city’s building ­company – such as Johann Witte who graduated in 1636 and later became head of the city library and supervisor of the city’s building company – studied in Leiden. Lorenz Zimmermann graduated in 1665 and became general secretary of the city and chief building master.7 Some Catholic nobles from Poland travelled to Leiden as well, to study mathematics and fortification: for instance, hetman Jerzy Lubomirski (in 1633 student in Leiden) and Jan Krasinski (in 1656 student in Groningen). Both became important patrons to Tilman van Gameren from Utrecht, the favourite architect to the Polish high nobility during the last decades of the seventeenth century. Artists profited from the many interwoven personal and political connections of their patrons. Once established in a court position abroad, artists also received commissions from the patron’s family members as well as from his peers at other courts. For example, the histories of migrating Netherlandish artists in the sixteenth century illustrated this kind of exchange between the courts of Copenhagen, Königsberg, and Mecklenburg, as well as the mobility between various courts in central Germany such as Wolfenbüttel and Kassel, and Mainz and Würzburg.8 In the last decades of the sixteenth century, many building masters and engineers found their way to the three major commercial cities on the Baltic southern shore: Gdan´sk, Riga, and Tallinn. Specialised craftsmen were warmly welcomed there, especially when complex or prestigious civic projects were anticipated. While local expertise was available in most cases, civic authorities often requested additional specialists from the Low Countries. For example, in 1600, many locally renowned artists and masters cooperated on the new arsenal of Gdan´sk, the most prestigious public building in town (see page 28, fig. 14). Until 1606, sculptor and stonemason Willem Barth (van der Meer) supervised the sculptural decoration and was responsible for all the ground floor decorations. The project lacked the number of stonemasons necessary to execute the work in due time. As had happened previously at the royal building sites in Denmark and Sweden, Barth travelled to Lübeck and Holland to recruit another twenty stonemasons.9 Quite frequently, these building and engineering experts moved onwards from one city to the other. In fact, many Netherlandish specialists in Riga came from Gdan´sk, while those further east, in Tallinn, came from Gdan´sk or Riga. For example, the hydraulic engineer Jakob Joosten, who was born in Holland and lived in ­Gdan´sk, was invited to Riga in 1662. Sometimes the move from Gdan´sk further eastward to Riga or Tallinn occurred over a generation, such as when the sculptor and architect Arend Passer emigrated to Tallinn from Gdan´sk while his father had roots in The Hague (see chapter 2.3). Inviting sculptors and their crews Some travelling artists from the Low Countries were exceptionally talented sculptors specialised in the most esteemed arts – freestanding bronze statues and ­plaquettes in high relief – whose works were often associated with architectural design. The well-­documented stories of these ­sculptors illustrated the invitation process. For example, in 1562 the wellknown sculptor Alexander Colijn received a visit in Antwerp by two fellow sculptors, the Abel brothers, who urgently needed assistance with the funeral monument of Emperor   Brand et al. 2006, 264.  For example: Adam Liquier from Beaumont, alias Adam Liquier Beaumont worked at both the courts of

7 8

58

Kassel and Wolfenbüttel. Joris Robin, court architect in Mainz, was also engaged in Würzburg. 9   Cuny 1910b, 86; Bartetzky 2000, 87.

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

Maximilian I in Innsbruck.10 Indeed, Colijn travelled to Innsbruck in 1563 where he became the main sculptor for the Habsburg family, c­ ontributing to the most important funeral monuments of the dynasty in Innsbruck as well as in Prague.11 Entire teams of Netherlandish building masters were invited for prestigious projects. In Kassel, the sculptor Adam Liquier Beaumont invited craftsmen from Brussels and Antwerp to assist him, as attested by a contemporary source.12 Sweden provided another example. The kingdom of Sweden regained its independence from Denmark in 1521 by the revolt of Gustav I Vasa, who reigned from 1523 to 1560. From the mid-sixteenth century onwards, Sweden grew as a significant power in the Baltic region. Gustav Vasa’s building activities concentrated on reinforcing his medieval castles and building new strongholds along the Swedish-Danish frontier. While the young kingdom grew in power and importance in the region, Gustav Vasa’s sons and successors, Erik XIV (r. 1560–1568) and John III (r. 1568–1592), enhanced the realm with royal monuments and ­buildings. As in Denmark, royal funeral monuments and royal residences were the first concerns. The kings followed their Danish rival’s strategies for upgrading the courtly arts and architecture in order to keep up appearances. In the last years of his life, Gustav Vasa began inviting artists from the Low Countries. In 1558, he asked the court teacher to attract different masters and artists from the Low Countries (divers maîtres et artistes des Pays Bas).13 Accordingly, Willem Boy from Mechelen was appointed painter at the Swedish court. Although only a few portraits may be attributed to him, Willem Boy functioned as a leading sculptor and architect at the court until his death in 1592.14 He remained closely associated with the Low Countries even while working in Stockholm. Boy even travelled back to the Low Countries for several years and began a workshop in Antwerp to execute his first p ­ restigious project, the tomb for Gustav I Vasa in Uppsala Cathedral, which was ­commissioned in 1562 (fig. 3). Between 1562 and 1570, he and his assistants created the freestanding, rectangular tomb in white alabaster topped with the gisants of the late king and his two wives, and cornered with four obelisks.15 Financial disputes between the city of Antwerp and the Swedish crown delayed Boy’s delivery of the monument to Uppsala for six years; it was finally installed in the cathedral in 1576. After completing the project, Boy stayed in Sweden to serve the court as its sculptor, painter, and, from this time onwards, architect. His combination of figurative sculpture with classical architectural details was demonstrated at a second funeral monument, also located in Uppsala Cathedral, that he built between 1583 and 1590 for King John III’s wife, the Polish princess Katarina Jagellonica.16 The rectangular tomb with the gisant of the queen featured four gilded bronze columns at its corners (fig. 4). The semi-freestanding monument, with its shorter end against the wall, was decorated with a huge arch supported by two marble Doric columns. Epitaphs and royal tombs, the prime commissions for sculptors, were micro-architectures not too distant from ‘real’ building elements such as chimneypieces, entrance gates, window frames, staircases, and rood lofts. Such ‘architectural pieces’ elegantly enhanced even crude residential buildings, such as the castle of Vadstena, mainly a military fortification   Schönherr 1890, 212–264; Scheicher 1986, 359–426.  Maximilian I’s tomb, 1563–1584; the monuments of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria and his ­morganatic wife Philippine Welser, 1588–1596. In 1570–1589, while working in Innsbruck, he also created the ­cenotaph for the choir of Prague Cathedral with the effigies of the emperors Maximilian II and Ferdinand I and the latter’s wife Anna. 12  “Ebenermassen hatt zu Cassel M. Adam Liquier ein Epitaphium auffgericht und dazu viele Steinmetzgergesellen von Brüssel und Antwerpen 10 11

gefordert und kommen lassen …”. Kramm 1936, 333 (document published by R. Hallo in Hessenkunst 1926, 50 note 15). This was the funeral ­monument of Count Philip in St Martin’s Church in Kassel. 13  Message of 1558 from King Gustav Vasa to the court teacher Jean de Herbouille; Hahr 1910, 22. 14   Hahr 1910; Nordberg 1931; Alm et al. 1996, 43–113 and 291–367. 15  Hahr 1910; Hedicke 1913, 134 note 3; Alm et al. 1996, 300–307. 16   Alm et al. 1996, 307–313.

59

Konrad Ottenheym

3. Uppsala cathedral, tomb of King Gustav I Vasa, by Willem Boy, 1562–1570.

4. Uppsala Cathedral, tomb of King John III’s wife, the Polish princess Katarina Jagellonica, by Willem Boy, 1583–1590.

that guarded the east shore of Vättern Lake. The first fortress was erected between 1545 and 1554 with four artillery towers and with earthen ramparts. After the late 1550s, the complex was gradually enlarged with a proper residential wing that served as the residence of Duke Magnus, a younger son of King Gustav Vasa (fig. 5). A long rectangular wing with a central entrance tower was created between the two existing corner towers.17 Jacob Richter from Germany was the first architect of the project (working on the ground floor). In 1559, he was succeeded by Arendt de Roy, who added the first floor as well as the stair towers in the courtyard. Classical window frames and portals sculpted in stone following Serlio’s models further enhanced the building’s symmetry. The main gate (1563) by Pierre de la Roche, a stonemason from Brabant, demonstrated an extremely refined sculptural quality exhibiting freestanding Doric columns at the rear accompanied by pilasters that delicately follow the entasis of the column shafts (fig. 6).18 De la Roche emigrated to Sweden in the 1540s to work at the castles in Stockholm and Uppsala. From 1555 until his death in 1599, he worked on Vadstena. (The upper storey of this castle with its scrolled gables and the chapel topping the entrance tower were added in the early seventeenth century; they will be discussed in chapter 2.3.) Special commissions: the great works Invitations to Netherlandish sculptor-architects mainly involved isolated objects like the funeral monuments mentioned previously. Nevertheless, the prestige of such monuments influenced the development of architecture in the region, as did the building sites dominated by architects from the Low Countries. The size and complexity of these projects   Unnerbäck 1986.

17

60

18

  Ångström-Grandien 2003, 40.

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

5. Vadstena castle (Sweden), 1545–1612 by Jacob Richter, Arendt de Roy, Pierre de la Roche and Hans Fleming.

6. Vadstena castle, entrance gate by Pierre de la Roche, 1563.

attracted dozens of experienced craftsmen, who by default created genuine epicentres of Netherlandish architecture abroad. Simultaneously, these Netherlandish building masters and stonemasons also received commissions from local noblemen for smaller projects that further stimulated diffusion of the Netherlandish architectural vocabulary in the region. Kronborg and Tre Kronor Both the Danish and Swedish kings were rather eager to invite not only ­sculptors for their funeral monuments but also building masters and engineers for their prestigious royal castles and military strongholds. Kronborg, Frederick II of Denmark’s new castle at Elsinore (Helsingør) at the Sound (1574–1586), was the first of these important building projects. Not much later, the King of Sweden began modernising the castle of Stockholm, called Tre Kronor (‘Three Crowns’), which became a second centre of Netherlandish architects in Scandinavia. The demand for Netherlandish expertise at both the Danish and Swedish royal castles was remarkable because residences of this scale had not been built in the Low Countries for decades, after work at the palaces of Breda and Boussu (see page 236, fig. 1) had been provisionally terminated in the early 1550s. The Antwerp town hall (1561–1565) was the only grand building project that may have generated contemporary fame for the Netherlandish building masters. With its palace-like scale it could in any case demonstrate quite well what a palace in the latest ornamental style would look like. Kronborg is a true royal residence with façades cladded in stone and surrounded by strong, modern artillery fortifications (fig. 7). It is a four-wing complex with a square courtyard. The royal apartments are located in the north wing while the court chapel and the great hall above are situated in the south wing. The connecting west wing contains

61

Konrad Ottenheym several other state rooms while the east wing is merely a covered passage from the royal apartment to the chapel wing. The richly sculpted entrance gates with refined columns, the dormer windows with strapwork and cartouches inspired by well-known prints from Antwerp, and the building’s towers and spires are indicative of the building’s architectural splendours. The east façade of the south wing, with a huge gable facing the Sound, is the climax of the residence’s architectural display. The façade exhibits a classical superposition of Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and composite half columns, constructed between 1578 and 1580 (the top decora­ 7. Kronborg, the royal Danish castle at the Sound and its tion of this gable was altered during earthen rampart in the foreground, 1574–1586, by (among others) Hans van Paesschen, Anthonis van Opbergen and re­storations in the seventeenth century). For Hans van Steenwinckel. over a decade, the building site became a major centre for sculptors, stonemasons, and other craftsmen from the Low Countries supervised by building masters such as Hans van Paesschen, Anthonis van Opbergen, and Hans van Steenwinckel (see the contribution of Hugo Johannsen, ­chapter 2.4).19� After the castle was finished in 1586, Elsinore remained one of the important centres of Netherlandish immigrant craftsmen. For many newcomers from the Low Countries, the site was a temporary stop before continuing travel to Scandinavia and the Baltic region.20 The architectural decoration of Kronborg castle became a point of reference for the modernisation of country houses and castles for the Danish nobility. Many of these works were executed by members of the royal workshop at Kronborg.21 At less prestigious building sites, the members’ contribution was limited to isolated architectural objects, like gates and chimney pieces, installed in a much cruder, if not vernacular, architecture. Elsewhere in the Baltic region, the castle was regarded as a model for truly royal ­architecture, a conception first practised by the King of Sweden. In contrast to their father, Gustav Vasa’s sons Erik XIV (r. 1560–1568) and John III (r. 1568–1592) both possessed a strong interest in the arts and in architecture, believing in its powerful function as royal ­representation. Erik XIV kept several architectural treatises in his library, while John III was an active amateur architect himself, writing elaborate instructions to his architects specifying the details of his building projects.22 Willem Boy, who had been appointed by Gustav Vasa as a court artist, turned to architecture during this period. In 1577, he became the architect of Tre Kronor, the royal castle in Stockholm.23 At the time, the castle was still a medieval stronghold adapted by Gustav Vasa to modern artillery warfare with ramparts and gun towers. John III wanted to transform the castle into a permanent royal residence by creating a new series of royal apartments in the eastern wing of the old ‘High Castle’ as well a new, large northern forecourt (fig. 8; see also page 260, fig. 19). The pointed w ­ indows of the old structure were replaced   Johannsen 2010b.   Tønnesen 1985; Tønnesen 2003. 21   Johannsen 2010b. 22   Ångström-Grandien 2003, 32–54. 19 20

62

 For a detailed history of the rebuilding of the Tre Kronor castle during the reign of John III see Olssen & Nordberg 1940, 103–169. 23

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

by rectangular ones specially ordered by the king himself “in the architectonic manner”.24 In the early 1580s, Willem Boy built new wings along this forecourt for another series of royal apartments. The decoration of these new rooms was executed with an astonishing splendour – copper partly covered the richly carved ceilings and gilded details enhanced the sculpted stone overmantels. One of the royal rooms exhibited pilaster herms between the windows bearing a frieze with gilded cartouches. A new court chapel, a Hallenkirche with two rows of eight marble columns in the Doric order decorated with stucco and bronze elements, was installed 8. Stockholm, the royal residence Tre Kronor, model in the northern wing of this courtyard.25 of the situation in the m ­ id-seventeenth century, with The south façade of the new courtyard, the medieval keep, the old royal apartments and the opposed to the chapel wing, showcased State Hall on the right and the new forecourt of the late the rich residential architecture via three sixteenth and seventeenth century on the left (Stockholms rows of open arches and a double open Stadsmuseum). staircase facing the court.26� Seventeenthcentury descriptions and depictions of the exterior of Tre Kronor castle in Stockholm suggested that the royal Danish castle Kronborg must have been a point of reference for visitors – and for the Swedish king. The chapel, with its astylar exterior, pointed windows, and interior Doric columns, could be ­compared to the chapel in Kronborg. After 1588, the opulent decorated gable of the Hall of State (Rikssalen) in the south wing of the Tre Kronor castle faced the city and contrasted with the almost plain exterior walls (fig. 9), yielding a similar effect as the sculpted east façade of the main wing of Kronborg. The building activities concerning the royal castle in Stockholm remained the nucleus of royal ambitions. John III’s successors invited architects from abroad primarily to complete this prestigious project.27 In 1622, Kaspar Panten (1585–1630) emigrated from Amsterdam to become the new royal architect.28 While working on the royal castle in 1624, he – ­following in the footsteps of his sixteenth-century predecessors – returned to Amsterdam to recruit capable men and tools for various building crafts. He returned to Sweden with forty-two craftsmen and artists, including carpenters, masons, sculptors, and glass painters. Unfortunately, little of the old Tre Kronor castle survived the devastating fire of 1697. Only a few fragments remain today as a witness to the opulently carved decoration in a style close to printed examples from the Low Countries. In addition, parts of the remaining castles outside Stockholm offer a visual impression of the original sculptural qualities of Tre Kronor’s exterior and interior decorations. The virtuoso sculpted wooden ceilings in Gripsholm may give an impression of Willem Boy’s praised ceilings (fig. 10) while the scrolled gables on the short end façades of Vadstena castle refer to the mighty gable that once accentuated the exterior of great State Hall in Stockholm castle. Later projects, such as country castles and funeral monuments, by   Ångström-Grandien 2003, 45.   Hahr 1910; Olssen & Nordberg 1940, chapter 12. 26   Depicted in Dahlberg’s Suecia antiqua et hodierna.

  Olsson & Nordberg 1940, 230–242   Nordberg 1931, 107–126; Olsson & Nordberg 1940, 232–242.

24

27

25

28

63

Konrad Ottenheym the architects and craftsmen who built the royal residence in Stockholm must also be regarded as derivative of their original work at the Tre Kronor castle. The Riddarhus

9. Tre Kronor castle with the gable of the State Hall (Rikssalen). Painting by Govert Camphuysen, 1661, detail (Stockholms Stadsmuseum).

10. Gripsholm castle (Sweden), sculpted wooden ceiling of the king’s cabinet or council room, second half of the sixteenth century.

  Hallendorff 1926; Ellehag 1999.

29

64

The Riddarhus in Stockholm introduced new architects and a new ­ architectural vocabulary to the North in the mid-seventeenth century.29 During the second quarter of the seventeenth century, Scandinavian architectural hegemony moved from Denmark to Sweden as an after effect of the Thirty Years’ War. Following the battlefield death of King Gustav Adolf of Sweden in Germany in 1632, the country was governed by powerful noblemen on behalf of his young daughter Christina. Accordingly, by the 1630s noble residences rather than royal castles became privileged building sites and the guiding projects for the entire Baltic region. The ambitions of the noble patrons were reflected in their procedures for inviting notable architects from Holland according to the royal custom. In 1637, Field Marshall Åke Tott invited Simon de la Vallée from The Hague. La Vallée belonged to a well-known French building master’s family that worked on the construction of Maria de’ Medici’s Palais de Luxembourg. He left Paris in 1634 to become architect to the court of Prince Frederik Hendrik of Orange in Holland. He contributed to the prince’s country residence Honselaarsdijk and his summer retreat Ter Nieuburg. Johan Andersson, the Swedish resident in The Hague, negotiated La Vallée’s transfer to Sweden three years later.30 In 1637, Frederik Hendrik granted La Vallée permission to withdraw from his position as architect to the Orange court and move to Sweden. Tott asked him to bring a good sculptor, painter, carpenter, and bricklayer. Tott’s new country estate Ekolsund was supposed to be the main project. However, after Tott’s appointment as governor of the Swedish territories in Finland, his patronage of La Vallée waned. Fortunately, La Vallée was soon engaged by other noblemen. La Vallée was not an example of a Dutch travelling architect. Rather, he presumably migrated to Holland to introduce French court models to The Hague. In Sweden, most of his residential designs reflected the French examples of Du Cerceau and   Nordberg 1970, 89.

30

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

De Brosse with enclosed courtyards, wings, central reception rooms, symmetrically arranged apartment systems, and façades framed by pilasters and rustica bonds. His most prestigious design included the new Riddarhus, the parliament of the Swedish nobility and, as explained above, the centre of power in those decades. The importance of the building was reflected in the statement by Councillor (riksråd) Klas Flemming, who in 1642 argued that the new Riddarhus 11. Preliminary design by Simon de la Vallée for the needed to become an example of superior new Riddarhus in Stockholm, 1641 (coll. Riddarhus, architecture: “If we were to build, then we Stockholm). should have a house so magnificent that its fame reflects upon us”.31 La Vallée’s grand proposal for this building featured an H-shaped palace with its detailing referencing Frederik Hendrik’s Huis Ter Nieuburg and its combination of pilasters and rustica bonds, which, in turn, were inspired by Parisian examples such as the Petite Galerie of the Louvre and the Luxembourg Palace (fig. 11). Nevertheless, his proposal was rejected. After La Vallée’s unfortunate death in 1643, the German sculptor Heinrich Wilhelm, who also serviced the Oxenstierna family, became the new architect, but the project progressed slowly. After Wilhelm’s death in 1653, the walls of the rectangular corps de logis were advanced only one meter above ground level. Pursuing his quest for a ‘magnificent’ building, Chancellor Oxenstierna ordered Peter Trotzig, the Swedish representative in Amsterdam, to hire a qualified architect. Trotzig turned to Justus Vingboons, who was the younger brother of the more famous Philips Vingboons known for the publication of a selection of his best designs in 1648.32 Justus, who was likely working in his brother’s studio at the time, had not yet had any major works attributed to his name. Accordingly, Trotzig may have initially attempted to invite Philips Vingboons who, refusing to leave his booming workshop in Amsterdam, probably suggested his younger brother Justus for the job. Justus’s designs made in Stockholm for the Riddarhus, as well as the final result of his activity there (fig. 12), resembled Philips’s rejected designs from the Amsterdam town hall competition ten years earlier (the role of these designs as a model for other architects will be further discussed in chapter 3.8). In 1653, Justus Vingboons arrived in Stockholm with a crew of three sculptors and six stonemasons, which was remarkable because Swedish craftsmen were not scarce at the time.33 For example, the list of apprentices and assistants working in the shop of the master mason Hans Ferster, who himself was of German origin, showed that in 1645 his Stockholm workshop employed dozens of trained men, apparently all Swedes.34 Ferster was a specialist in complex brick vault construction in the German tradition. The decorated stone sculptures associated with his work showed a vivid interpretation of the latest Schnorkelstil ­ornament related to contemporary German art. However, stonemasons who were trained in the strict execution of classical orders according to Scamozzi were necessary for Vingboons’s Riddarhus; thus the architect brought them from Amsterdam. In 1656, when the first threeyear term passed, the building had been constructed up to the cornice but Vingboons’s contract was not renewed. The Swedish officials concluded that the Dutch architect was too   Noldus 2004, 46.   Ottenheym 1989. 33   Noldus 2004, 35. 31

  Flodin 1974, 133–135 (list of pupils and journeymen).

34

32

65

Konrad Ottenheym

12. Stockholm, the Riddarhus, façade by Justus Vingboons, 1653–1656.

expensive and did not work hard enough. More importantly, Swedish architects, such as Nicodemus Tessin the Elder and Jean de la Vallée, who were well trained in this kind of architecture were now available. The younger La Vallée became the final architect of the Riddarhus, constructing the roof and designing its interiors. Even after Vingboons left, knowledge regarding the correct execution of classical details remained in use, as shown in the works of Tessin the Elder and La Vallée. The Riddarhus played a prominent role in the development of architecture in Sweden and adjacent regions as a model for both private noble residences as well as public buildings. Cultural agents

Inviting architects, master builders, and stonemasons abroad was a major ­mechanism diffusing architectural knowledge throughout Europe. The invitation process presented a range of complications, especially when details like working conditions and fees were ­communicated over long distances. Project leaders, usually of Netherlandish origin, were sent to the Low Countries to manage these details. Sometimes special intermediaries were appointed to fulfil this role permanently. Occasionally, the intermediary was a court artist who could discuss artistic qualities with the Netherlandish masters and judge the final results. In other cases, internationally operating merchants from the Low Countries were summoned by foreign courts. In the mid-seventeenth century, all Northern European courts retained ­professionals in Amsterdam who managed economic and cultural relations. Court artists as agents Jakob Binck (1500–1568), who was among the first well-known court artists in the North, advised and organised important commissions in Antwerp. He was born in Cologne and may have been a pupil of Albrecht Dürer. As a painter and engraver, Binck was experienced with the latest Italian engravings; however, whether he actually visited Italy is uncertain. In 1546, he became court painter to the king of Denmark. Because of the close family ties between the courts in Copenhagen and Königsberg, he also worked for Duke Albrecht of Prussia. Binck was responsible for initiating Cornelis Floris’s international career. When Duchess Dorothea of Prussia, sister to the king of Denmark, died in Königsberg in 1547, Binck was sent to Antwerp in 1548 to commission an epitaph for Königsberg Cathedral. Binck travelled from Königsberg through Copenhagen to Antwerp. In Copenhagen, he was asked to order a funeral tomb for the king’s father, the late Frederick I, who had died in 1533 but was still missing a proper monument in the cathedral of his formal duchy of Schleswig. Apparently, both the duke of Prussia and the Danish king, having no particular artist in mind, ordered him to find a capable sculptor for these commissions. Binck chose Cornelis Floris.

66

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

These two funeral monuments introduced Cornelis Floris’s qualities to the leading circles around the Baltic Sea; as such, several other commissions followed (fig. 13) (see chapter 2.3). The splendour of refined sculptural statues in their all’antica setting of polished columns, exquisite architectural ornaments such as caryatids, masks, and cartouches, and the interplay of white, red, and black marble created a new taste that influenced other masters from the Low Countries who arrived in the northern regions in the following decades. Cultural agents like Binck were also responsible for paying the artists recruited from the Low Countries. Hans Willers (also called de Wilna), a goldsmith and jeweller at the court in Königsberg, was Binck’s successor in this position. In 1568, he travelled to Antwerp to hire Floris for three more important funeral monuments for the courts of Königsberg and Copenhagen: a wall tomb for Duke 13. Schleswig (Germany), cathedral, tomb for Albrecht and the epitaph for Albrecht’s Frederick I of Denmark, 1551–1553, by Cornelis second wife Anna Maria in Königsberg Floris. Cathedral, as well as a freestanding funeral monument to Christian III of Denmark (who died in 1559) for the royal mausoleum at Roskilde. Four years later, the two monuments for Königsberg were installed but the grand monument of Christian III faced serious obstacles due to difficulties importing alabaster from England and due to financial problems. Here the role of Willers as a financial agent became crucial; Floris claimed to be missing a payment of 2000 Thaler while officials in Königsberg asserted to have sent the money to Willers. Whether Willers engaged in fraud was unclear, but his financial transactions with Cornelis Floris were indeed insecure and caused a great delay. The tomb, one of Floris’s masterpieces, was only finished in 1575, just before the artist’s death. In the early seventeenth century, the painter Pieter Isaacsz (1568–1625) was central to artistic connections between the court of Christian IV of Denmark and the Low Countries. In fact, he could be said to personify the mutual relations between Denmark and Holland.35 Born the son of a Dutch merchant in Elsinore in 1568, Isaacsz and his family emigrated to Amsterdam in 1578 where he was trained as a painter in Cornelis Ketel’s workshop. In the 1580s, he travelled to Italy where he worked in Hans van Aachen’s studio. In 1593, Isaacsz was back in Amsterdam, occasionally cooperating with Karel van Mander, Vredeman de Vries, and Hendrick de Keyser. He travelled to Denmark several times and settled there ­permanently in 1615. Isaacsz was appointed court painter to Christian IV and Dutch commissioner for the Sound Toll, a position he inherited from his father. In Denmark, he maintained lively relations with the Swedish government, and in the last five years of his life he also   Noldus & Roding 2007.

35

67

Konrad Ottenheym spied for the Swedish chancellor Oxenstierna. As a court artist, Isaacsz was involved in the artistic fine tuning of royal building projects, especially in the selection of sculptors for commissions. Most likely it was he who involved De Keyser in creating the statues and reliefs in the Frederiksborg gallery in 1619 (see chapter 2.3). Mediating travellers and professional agents Merchants as well as artists acted as mediators. For example, in 1573, Willem de Vos, a merchant from Mechelen, worked for Duke Julius of Braunschweig-Lüneburg. He asked the city authorities of Dordrecht to send him two specialists – one in fortifications and the other in artillery. When suitable engineers could not be found or were not willing to move, De Vos was forced to present another solution to please his patron. Finally, he introduced Willem de Raet (c. 1537–1583), who was qualified in both disciplines, to Duke Julius in Wolfenbüttel.36 De Raet remained architect and engineer to the duke until 1577, when he migrated to Lucca and worked there until his death in 1583 (see chapter 4.1). Joachim Pötter from Stockholm was another example of a merchant acting in the Low Countries on behalf of a foreign government. Pötter was of Swedish origin, though he lived in Holland as a boy where he worked for the Trip Company at an early age. In 1651, he became an important merchant in Sweden, still working in close cooperation with the Trip brothers. To the Swedish government he represented a kind of trait d’union between Sweden and the Dutch Republic. In 1654, the Swedish government sent him to Holland to encourage the immigration of craftsmen and industrious traders “to ensure in a proper way the influx of skilled masters, craftsmen and civil servants into the Empire for the benefit of industry”.37 By 1668, Pötter’s new residence in Stockholm on Södermalm was built by Johan Tobias Albinus in a style resembling the Classicist private houses in Holland.38� One of the most intriguing figures in the international exchange network in the early seventeenth century was Theodorus (or Dirk) Roodenburg (c. 1570–1644).39 His father was a leader of the protestant alteration of 1578 in Amsterdam. He became a playwright as well as an agent, and the representative of various international patrons. Among others things, he was an agent of the city of Emden in London and the official spokesman of the Dutch merchants in Spain. He also acted on behalf of King Karl IX of Sweden to attract Dutch ­immigration to his new city Göteborg, and in the last years of his life he became the ­representative of the Hanseatic League in Bruges and Antwerp. He also represented (though not as a formal ambassador) the duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp in the Low Countries, a function that was stimulated by the large numbers of Dutch Remonstrant refugees who settled in Friedrichstadt in Schleswig in 1621. In 1619, the Danish king accepted Roodenburg’s proposal to found various industrial firms and trade companies. The same year Roodenburg visited Holland once more seeking capable artists who were willing to emigrate to Denmark and join the king’s works. During this trip, he also visited Hendrick de Keyser’s workshop in Amsterdam. Roodenburg informed King Christian IV about De Keyser’s best journeyman Geraert Lambertsen who was willing to travel to Denmark: I spoke to him noticing he was eager to migrate from Holland to Denmark if he could be employed in Your Royal Majesty’s works. I did not respond to this proposal and instead I requested him to carve me something in wood after his own invention in order to see how he creates a statue and in which position   De Smedt 1964.   Stockholm, Riksarchiv; Kommerskollegium, huvudarkiv, D1, 14 July 1654. Noldus 2004, 47. 36

38

37

39

68

  Noldus 2004, 84–86.   Worp 1895.

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

he put it. I brought this little statue with me to show it to Your Royal Majesty asking whether this person may be appointed in your service.40 Indeed, Lambertsen emigrated to Denmark, where he worked at Fredriksborg and was paid for two great sculptures in 1623.41 Notwithstanding his many patrons and assignments, Roodenburg’s career as a freelance mediator between the Low Countries and foreign authorities was not entirely successful. Probably due to his rather problematic character and pompous self-representation, none of his self-created jobs lasted for long. Nevertheless, he exemplified the new kind of cultural agent that would become more common in the mid-seventeenth century. These professional agents lived in the Low Countries and earned their wages by writing weekly reports to their clients at home. Whereas political agents were usually based in The Hague, close to the court of the stadholder, the government of Holland, and the States General, commercial and artistic agents had no official diplomatic position. They were mainly based in Amsterdam and reported on business news as well as recent developments in art and the art market. If necessary, these agents also shopped for their noble clients abroad, buying pictures, books, furniture, clothes, building materials, and anything else desired. Agents created and maintained vast networks of art dealers, artists, architects, and booksellers, all to fulfil the wishes of their patrons abroad.42 In the mid-seventeenth century, Sweden boasted numerous economic and cultural reporters in the Dutch Republic such as Peter Spierinck, Michel le Blon, and Harald Apelboom.43 Remarkably, no such non-political agents existed in Paris or London at that time. Peter Trotzig (1613–1679), who worked in Amsterdam as a commercial and artistic agent for the Swedish high nobility from 1646 until 1667, was critical to the architectural exchange between Holland and Sweden.44 He acted on behalf of Oxenstierna, Wrangel, La Gardie, and even Queen Christina. Like his colleagues, he advised in the purchasing of art, furniture, precious textiles, mirrors, and clothes.45 Apparently, he maintained a good reputation in architectural matters as well. He shipped building materials, architectural books, and designs to Sweden. He negotiated on behalf of Chancellor Oxenstierna with Justus Vingboons regarding his work for the Riddarhus. In 1661, he asked Vingboons once more to travel to Sweden, this time for Count Wrangel’s Skokloster. In 1667, he came back to Stockholm to become the city’s burgomaster, a position in which he maintained good relations with Amsterdam. In the same year, the Lutheran community of Amsterdam begged Trotzig for financial support to build the new Lutheran church at the Singel, which was designed by Adriaan Dortsman. Accordingly, the copper roof of the church’s impressive dome was a gift from Sweden. Other countries kept their own ­representatives in Amsterdam as well. For example, Joachim de Wicquefort ­(1596–1676) acted as an agent in Amsterdam for various German Lutheran rulers. He was from a Lutheran family and was highly regarded in Holland’s cultural life. He was member of the so-called Muiderkring, a group of friends and amateurs of poetry and music revolving around P.C. Hooft. De Wicquefort was the agent for Duke Jakob Kettler of Courland who had a more than average interest in the organisation of  “(…) En ick, met hem sprekende, bemerckten wel uyt zyn reden, dat hy van resolutie was om hem van Hollandt na Denemarcken te transporteren, als hy versekert in U. Ko. Mats. wercken ghebruyckt mocht werden. Ick heb daer zonderlings niet op gheantwoordt; maer heb hem yets voor my zelven in houdt laten snyden, van zyn eyghen inventie, om zyn handeling en stelling van de figuuren te moghen zien, hetwelck ick met my hebbe ghebracht, om

40

aen U. Kon. Mat. ootmoedelyck te vertoonen, op avontuur of so een persoon dienst zoude kunnen doen.” Kernkamp 1902 (no. 19: ‘Geraert Lambertsen, beeldhouwer’). 41   Beckett 1914, 263; Slothouwer 1924, 39. 42   Cools et al. 2006. 43   Noldus 2004. 44   Noldus 2004, 111–119. 45   Noldus 2003; Cools et al. 2006.

69

Konrad Ottenheym the Dutch economy and mercantile system and tried to establish his own mercantile fleet and trade company, and even a colony, in Tobago.46 Matthias Dögen was the agent of the Great Elector of Brandenburg. He was born in Pomerania and travelled to Holland in 1627 to study mathematics (and presumably fortification) at Leiden. In 1647, he published a scholarly treatise on fortification, Architectura Militaris Moderna, that helped to build his reputation. He became the agent and advisor of the Elector in Amsterdam when the latter 14. Hamburg stock exchange, by master ­ carpenter launched his initiative to reconstruct his Jan Andriesen from Amsterdam, 1577 (engraving by country with the help of Dutch colonists J. Dircksen). after the disastrous Thirty Years’ War. As the elector’s agent in Amsterdam, Dögen helped organise the migration of farmers and workmen to Brandenburg (see the chapter by Van Tussenbroek, chapter 3.7). His message to the Great Elector in 1652 – that many people in Holland were willing to migrate to Brandenburg because of the First Anglo-Dutch War – has been quoted in the introduction to part two. Migration without invitation While numerous architects and sculptors from the Low Countries were summoned by cultural agents, others seeking employment opportunities abroad emigrated without any formal invitation. In most cases, the former life and work at home of these travelling artists and the individual reasons for their emigration remain unknown. Often, the migration of artists has been mentioned only incidentally in the sources, with their eventual successes or failures abroad left undocumented. Generally, only those who began new workshops or joined guilds appear in the archival documents. The routes chosen by various artists differed in individual cases; yet a general pattern can be discerned. Those who were not invited by a court initially moved to a larger city, like Norwich, London, Emden, or Hamburg, that possessed good connections with the Low Countries. Some artists found professional opportunities in these cities and stayed. Laurens van Steenwinckel the Elder and his son Hans moved to Emden in 1567 and became the architects of the city’s new town hall, evidently referencing the magnificent structure in Antwerp as a model. The master carpenter Jan Andriesen from Amsterdam migrated to Hamburg where he became the architect of the stock exchange in 1577 (fig. 14). This wooden structure, with an open gallery of Doric columns on the ground floor and little Ionic columns between the windows of the upper storey, was one of the first all’antica structures in town.47 Naturally, not all refugees could be employed in the closest cities. After a temporary stay, most immigrants moved further along to, for example, the Netherlandish community in Elsinore at the Sound or east to Gdan´sk or Riga. Emigrants from the Low Countries found these free cities more attractive than the Scandinavian cities of Copenhagen and Stockholm. While the reasons for this preference were not documented, perhaps both capital cities were   Brand et al. 2006, 72.

46

70

  Bracker 1997.

47

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

reluctant to receive foreign craftsmen without royal invitation. Whatever the case, major ­mercantile cities like Hamburg, Gdan´sk and Riga had the advantage because they were not dominated by a single court. Instead, patricians and prosperous merchants offered a broader circle of future clients to migrating artists. In the last decades of the sixteenth century, the stream of Netherlandish artists emigrating to Gdan´sk increased when the Vroom, Van den Blocke, and Van der Meer (alias Barth) families arrived from the Southern Low Countries. They assumed various functions within the city’s building team and founded genuine dynasties of sculptors, stonemasons, and architects that would dominate the city’s architecture for the next century.48 Little is known about the international mobility of ordinary craftsmen from the Low Countries, the probable difficulties inherent to becoming a member of the local guild, and the struggles associated with working in local building teams. For architects, especially in comparison to painters and sculptors, employment in a foreign country was nearly impossible without a network of patrons, family members, traders in stone and wood, and a reliable team of craftsmen. Acceptance came only with extraordinary qualities that attracted the attention of new patrons. Therefore, in the second half of the sixteenth century, architects promoted themselves as specialists in a new style, as experts in disciplines related to architecture such as water engineering, military engineering, or stone trading. Even name dropping proved useful. In the mid-sixteenth century, the commercial success of the workshops in Antwerp, Mechelen, Utrecht, and elsewhere selling all’antica objects such as fonts, tombs, altars throughout Europe inspired other artists to move forward and offer their services in situ to foreign patrons. From the late 1540s onwards, two decades before the uprising in the Low Countries, sculptors, stonemasons, and other artists and craftsmen from the Low Countries travelled abroad to establish careers as specialists in Renaissance work. The advertising was rather direct. In 1548, a certain Paul van Hof wrote to the city council of Lübeck, offering “to make here some buildings in the antique manner since the antique style which is now ­generally regarded as the highest art, is rather absent in this town”.49� While the result of this proposal has remained unknown, this unique document revealed the conscious selfpresentation of these artists from the Low Countries as specialists of an antique style that was apparently a necessary requirement for success. Commissions for freestanding statues and grand-scale tombs were rare; most sculptors earned a living making chimneypieces, rood lofts, decorative carvings, and smaller monuments for the local elite. Not all of these sculptors were ­successful or famous. Yet some were at least mentioned by name, as was the case with Garret Hollemans, who in 1592 was called a ‘Dutch carver’ when he delivered two overmantels for Kyre Park in Worcestershire.50 Hans Vredeman de Vries (1526–1609) encountered problems typical of roving artists searching for new clients. He was born in Friesland and lived and worked in Antwerp and Mechelen from the 1540s onwards.51 During his stay in the Southern Low Countries, he worked for the local authorities, patricians, and nobility as a painter, designer of ephemeral all’antica structures, fortification engineer, and architect. He was sixty years old when he left the Low Countries in 1586 after Spanish troops recaptured Antwerp. In the next two decades, he tried in vain to acquire a tenured position from a noble patron or civic authority. First, he travelled to Frankfurt am Main; the next year, in 1587, he went to Wolfenbüttel to serve Duke Julius von Braunschweig-Lüneburg. There he promoted himself not only as an architect supervising   Cuny 1910b.   “... um allhier einige Gebaude in antiker Weise zu machen, welche Antiken man jetzt für die höchste Kunst erachte, von welcher Kunst man aber hier 48 49

in der Stadt nichts finde”. Zaske & Zaske 1985, 88; Kaufmann 1995, 60. 50   Girouard 2009, 194. 51   Exh. cat. Antwerp 2002, 14–38.

71

Konrad Ottenheym transformations and ongoing building projects at the duke’s residences but also as an engineer. He maintained the cays along the river and continued the canal project between the Elbe and the Weser rivers that was earlier proposed by Willem de Raet. Two years later, when Duke Julius died, Vredeman de Vries was dismissed by his successor Heinrich Julius who sought to clear the financial situation of his court. De Vries then went to Braunschweig where he managed his own workshop for two years. Apparently, he wished to maintain the connections he had created to the nobility and cities in the duchy. Nevertheless, finding new clients proved more feasible in the major trade city of Hamburg, which became his home in 1591. In 1592, Vredeman de Vries’s talents as a fortification engineer were rewarded when the city council of Gdan´sk invited him to participate in a competition to design improvements for the city’s fortifications. Both he and Anthonis van Opbergen were contracted for one year to create a proposal. In 1593, Van Opbergen’s solution was chosen and he was appointed the city’s fortification master. Vredeman de Vries’s loss was compensated with various commissions from the city council for paintings in the town hall and in the merchants’ hall, the ‘Artus court’. He did not receive any major architectural commission and thus returned disappointed to Hamburg in 1596. However, the next year he tried his luck in Prague where he delivered designs for fountains and an art gallery within the complex of the imperial palace on the Hradcˇany.52 Here, too, results failed to materialise, and in the fall of 1598 he once again returned to Hamburg. He finally moved to Amsterdam in 1600, where he produced his treatise Perspective that presented his accumulated knowledge in the field as a painter of architectural perspectives. In 1604, he dedicated this publication to Maurits of Nassau while applying for a position as professor in mathematics at Leiden University, which also did not materialise. In 1606, he left Amsterdam and returned to Hamburg where he died in 1609. His appointment in Wolfenbüttel (1587–1589) turned out to be his last official position as an engineer and architect. He spent the remaining twenty years of his life earning a living through his paintings and engravings while seeking in vain permanent employment as an engineer, architect, and even professor of mathematics. Unfortunately, he was no longer regarded as such. While in the mid-sixteenth century these disciplines were frequently combined within the oeuvre of a single artist, fifty years later each had already become a separate specialised field. In the seventeenth century, many artists combined two of these, like water engineering and fortification, fortification and architecture, architecture and painting, or sculpture and architecture. However, Vredeman de Vries was the last to offer to his clients all these arts and sciences combined. Good connections with international networks of noblemen, diplomats, and other artists of esteemed reputation were, of course, critical to beginning a successful career abroad. However, few architects were born into this kind of privilege. Charles Philippe Dieussart (c. 1625–1696), son of the famous sculptor François Dieussart, was one of these few. In the 1640s, he lived in Holland where his father was the favourite sculptor at the court of Orange. The young Dieussart learned the principles of classical architecture from his father, his father’s friend Constantijn Huygens, and other courtiers and artists in their circle. The younger Dieussart knew the works of Jacob van Campen and Pieter Post, and he likely met these architects regularly in person. As an adult, Charles Philippe Dieussart moved to Hamburg where he lived from 1653 until 1657. His career as a private architect in Hamburg is not well known. In 1657, he was appointed court architect in Mecklenburg working for Duke Gustav Adolf von Mecklenburg. After twenty-five years, he moved to the court in Berlin. In Mecklenburg and Brandenburg, he practised his knowledge of Dutch Classicist architecture while designing various noblemen’s country houses (see chapter 3.8).   Muchka 1991.

52

72

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

When personal reputation and relationships were absent in the new hometown, an immigrant architect referred to renowned projects to which he had contributed or to famous masters with whom he had worked. For example, in 1661, Peter Willer applied for the city’s building master position in Gdan´sk, introducing himself as a former assistant of Jacob van Campen at the Amsterdam town hall.�53 However, verifying Willer’s claim is impossible because, with few exceptions, the building accounts of the town hall were all consciously destroyed when the building was ready. No other sources associate Willer with the town hall. Yet dozens of capable stonemasons, carpenters, and masons worked at the site. Thus, Peter Willer may have plausibly been one of them. The construction of the building began in 1648. In 1655, when only the ground floor and the first floor were finished, the town hall was inaugurated with pomp and circumstance. Thereafter, its fame as the Eighth Wonder of the World spread across Europe. In 1661, when Willer wrote his letter, the building was nearly finished and, indeed, many of the craftsmen employed at the site began looking for other professional opportunities. The most remarkable aspect of this case was not that a building master of the town hall went to Gdan´sk, but that he believed that name dropping would be helpful even at a distance of nearly one thousand miles. However, he was right; Peter Willer was awarded the job and remained in service to the city of Gdan´sk until his death in 1700. Evidently most building masters who migrated from the Low Countries during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries found their final destination near the North Sea and the Baltic Sea – a few settled in Central Germany and Silesia, and, from there, a small number went to Southern Poland. Examples of architects who migrated to the Mediterranean in this period are rare in contrast to their fellow painters and sculptors. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many painters and sculptors from the Low Countries remained in Italy for several years; some of them even built great careers there. The most famous examples are Jehan de Boulogne (Giambologna) at the Medici Court in sixteenth-century Florence and François Duquesnoy in mid-seventeenth century Rome.�54 Even with such influential compatriots at hand, almost no Netherlandish architects went to Italy. Even the most talented in this discipline were not known to have practised architecture there. For example, in 1598, Wensel Cobergher, who was appointed architect to Archduke Albrecht of Austria and to the Infanta Isabella in Brussels, lived in Rome and Naples for over twenty years as a painter.55 To gain acceptance as an architect and assume responsibility for expensive projects seemed possible only for second generation immigrants such as Luigi Vanvitelli, son of the painter Caspar van Wittel. He was born and raised in Italy surrounded by his father’s Italian network, which did not include professional connections to the Low Countries. Vanvitelli cannot be regarded as an architect from the Low Countries and, thus, has not figured in this study. However, Jan van Santen (Vasanzio) and Frans Geffels proved exceptions to the rule.56 Van Santen emigrated from Utrecht to Rome in the late sixteenth century. In the second decade of the seventeenth century, he became architect to Cardinal Scipio Borghese and to Pope Paulus V. His best known works were the façade of San Sebastiano at the Via Appia and the Villa Borghese in Rome. He must have remained in contact with Holland, perhaps through visiting artists from the Low Countries, because some of his architectural designs were posthumously published in the ­addendum to the Amsterdam Vignola ­editions of 1643 and 1647 (fig. 15). Nevertheless, Jan van Santen’s success in Rome was also related to his capacity to adapt his style completely to the ­contemporary Roman ­manner. Although he may be called ‘Netherlandish’, his architecture cannot. The same may be said about the work of Frans Geffels (1625–1694), an   Cuny 1910b, 59–61.   Boudon-Machuel 2005.

53

55

54

56

  Meganck 1998.   Hoogewerff 1928.

73

Konrad Ottenheym architect from the Southern Low Countries who in 1659 settled in Mantua to become court architect and engineer (prefetto delle fabriche ducali) in 1663.57 Family networks Artists who gained prominent positions abroad became anchors to the newly arrived and were often willing to help their fellow ­countrymen. Giambologna attracted gifted Netherlandish s­ culptors such as Adriaan de Vries, Hubert Gerhard, and Hans Mont to his studio in Florence.58 Jacques Bylevelt from Delft was the Medici’s master goldsmith who supervised all studios in the Uffizi. Like Giambologna, Bylevelt became an important resource for other gifted countrymen in sixteenth-century Florence.59 Some masters with a tenured position abroad also recommended their countrymen to other foreign patrons. From the 1570s, Joris Robijn from Ypres (1522–1592) had a fixed position in Mainz. In 1589, he introduced his former associate Gilles Cardon (1520–1591) from Douai to various German noblemen. However, Cardon who was still in the Low Countries, did not accept their offer and instead went to Emden in 1590.60 Family relations and kinship abroad were necessary for success and to estab15. Design by Jan van Santen, as lish oneself firmly in a new community. Successful published in the 1643 Amsterdam masters abroad attracted younger brothers, cousins, edition of Vignola’s Regola. and nephews as assistants. Thus, new Netherlandish clans were founded, for example, when Joris Robijn invited his brother Jan Robijn the sculptor (c. 1525–after 1600), his nephew Peter Osten ­(c. 1545–c. 1600), and his stepson Georg Lipphart to join him. Once establishing a successful career abroad, many architects stayed and became founders of local dynasties of architects and craftsmen that lasted for several generations. The van den Eycken (Egas) family from Brussels who settled in Toledo in the mid-fifteenth century was one earlier example (see chapter 1.2). Sixteenth-century examples include the family Keur (Cure) from Delft who settled in England and the Steenwinckels in Denmark. Family ties among artistic Netherlandish families in Gdan´sk gained importance during the late sixteenth century. The Van den Blocke family is an exceptional case (see chapter 2.5 by Jacek Tylicki). At the same time, the family Hendricks/Vroom arrived in Gdan´sk as well. They originated in Haarlem and Amsterdam, and, in the mid-sixteenth century, the family was oriented around three brothers. Cornelis Hendricksz, a manufacturer of faience dishes, stayed in Holland and became the father of the seascape painter Hendrick Cornelisz Vroom. In 1567, his brother Frederik Hendricksz Vroom emigrated to Gdan´sk.61� He was invited by the Gdan´sk city authorities and offered a bonus of 300 Thaler to work there.62 He became building master of   Girondi 2013.   Scholten 2007. 59   Fock 1974. 60   De Ren 1982, 39.

  Oszczanowski 2006.   Cuny 1910b, 15. Since he arrived too late he only received 100 Thaler.

57

61

58

62

74

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

the city working as a water engineer, land surveyor, and sculptor. In 1577, he was promoted to city architect. Although he served the city for 27 years, until his death in 1594, no buildings can be attributed to him with certainty. Meanwhile, in 1578, shortly after he was appointed head of the city’s building company, his elder brother Gerard Hendricksz emigrated to Gdan´sk as well. He came from Amsterdam and was thus called ‘Gerard Hendricksz van Amsterdam’. He emigrated with his son who bore the same name. They left Holland in 1572, travelling first to Kiel. Gerard Hendrickz also became a master builder in Gdan´sk, where he probably worked in cooperation with his brother. His son Gerard Hendrick (1559–1615) left Gdan´sk in 1585 and went to Wrocław (Breslau) where he established an important sculpture workshop.�63 In the following decades, he and his studio completed various commissions for the Silesian nobility, including funeral monuments, pulpits and sculpted entrance gates to churches and castles, for instance in 1603 at the castle of Oles´nica (Oels) (fig. 16).64 Immigrant families also acted as both building masters and commercial entrepreneurs. In 1596, Willem de Besche (1573–1629) emigrated from Liège to Sweden on invitation by King Karl IX to develop Sweden’s mining industry. He became a leading entrepreneur in iron mines, industrial plots, and weapon production factories. Impressed by his qualities as an organiser, in 1604 the king appointed De Besche as supervisor of the new fortifications of Nyköping. Willem de Besche had three younger brothers who later followed him to Sweden and profited from their brother’s royal connections. In 1616, the three brothers, Hubert, Gilles, and Gerard de Besche, were appointed royal building masters by Gustav II Adolf. Hubert was mostly engaged in the royal castle in Stockholm where he added another two wings.65� Between 1613 and 1619, his brother Gerard created three new spires for Uppsala Cathedral (fig. 17) that were in the style of the spire of the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam (1563–1565, by Joost Jansz Bilhamer). The De Besche brothers were not just ordinary craftsmen. Like their elder brother, they invested in various economic activities. However, combining activities as an investor with a position as royal master mason was not looked upon favourably; they were dismissed in 1622. Determining the specific kinship between Netherlandish masters abroad with the same family name has not always been possible. For instance, Joris Robijn’s family relation to Jasper Robijn, the architect-sculptor of the Detmold castle gallery, sculpted works in Stadt Hagen, overmantel friezes, and a fountain, has remained unclear. Another probable connection may have existed between Gert van Egen, former assistant of Cornelis Floris from 1576 who worked as royal sculptor in Denmark, and Peter van Egen, building master at the forti­ fication of Weichselmünde near Gdan´sk in 1600.�66 Family connections such as these have not yet been reconstructed in a secure manner. Stonemasons and building masters in the Low Countries traditionally operated in family clans but sharing names does not always imply a blood tie. Only in the case of specific family names (excluding those indicating merely a family’s place of origin like ‘De Vries’, ‘Brabander’, or ‘Fleming’), kinship might be prudently assumed to some degree. The families of Van Duerne (Van Doren), Van den Blocke, Van Egen, and Van Opbergen all originated in Mechelen. They successfully maintained their close ties abroad whilst living and working in Northern Europe, especially along the route of Mechelen-Denmark-Gdan´sk.67 This might explain the professional success of this group. They   Oszczanowski 2002.  He is said to have travelled through France, Italy and Southern Germany. He was also working for the count of Oles´nica (Oels). In 1603 Hendricks made a pulpit in the court chapel as well as the stone gate of the castle. In c. 1599 he created the portal for the Holy Trinity church in Z´  migród. Both architectural projects 63 64

were realised together with the German architect Hans Schneider. His best known funeral monument is that of Melchior von Redern in Frydlant (Bohemia). Oszczanowski 2001. 65   Olsson & Nordberg 1940, 230–232. 66   Bartetzky 2000, 158. 67  Skibin´ ski 2012a.

75

Konrad Ottenheym

16. Oles´nica in Silezia (Poland), castle gate, 1603, by Gerard Hendrickz and Hans Schneider (from: Hans Lutsch, Bilderwerck schlesischer Kunstdenkmäler, 1903).

17. Uppsala Cathedral, with its new spires of 1613 and 1619, by the De Bessche brothers (detail from an engraving in Suecia antiqua et hodierna I).

all earned their money as sculptors, architects, fortification engineers, and stone traders, thus keeping control of the shipping and delivery of their building materials as well as securing the best training for their sons by sending them as journeymen to related workshops. In addition to connections between the Netherlandish workshops abroad, many of these families also maintained communications with their home country. Families sent their apprentice or journeymen sons to relatives in the Southern or Northern Low Countries or to other renowned masters. Thus, the second generation of emigrants, who were often born abroad, became acquainted with their father’s homeland and its art and architecture. The travels of Jacob van den Blocke (1577–1653), for instance, are well documented.68 He was a son of Willem van den Blocke and born in 1577 in Königsberg. He was trained as a carpenter and in 1588, at the age of eleven, he travelled to Emden to work with master carpenter Arnold Sachse for four years. In 1592, he returned to Gdan´sk and during his journey years from 1595 to1600 he travelled to Holland, Copenhagen, Königsberg, and Elblag (Elbing). When he returned in Gdan´sk in 1600, he was accepted as a master in the guild. Even the third generation of the Van den Blocke family stayed in contact with the Low Countries by completing their professional training in Holland. In 1634, Jacob van den Blocke the Younger sailed from Gdan´sk to Amsterdam where he expected to train as a carpenter; unfortunately, he died on the voyage.�69 The final phase of the education of Hans and Laurens van Steenwinckel was   Cuny 1910b, 49–50.

68

76

  Cuny 1910b, 50.

69

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

comparable. After their father Hans the Elder, the royal Danish building master, died in 1600, the brothers were sent abroad for several years with royal permission before they were qualified to take over their father’s position. They also stayed in Holland for some time during this period (see the contribution of Hugo Johannsen, chapter 2.4). In the late seventeenth century the Dutch architect to the Polish court, Tilman van Gameren supported the career of his young fellow Dutchman Christof Marselis ­(c. 1680–1731).70 Marselis was probably born in Warsaw. His father was a Dutch immigrant and secretary to the Polish royal court. When he died in 1687 the Polish magnate Stanislaw Lubomirski became the young orphan’s guardian. Since Lubomirski was also an important patron of Tilman van Gameren, it was apparently his decision to put the education of Christof Marselis in Van Gameren’s hands. In the mid 1690s Van Gameren sent his pupil to Holland for further training in the profession, with a letter of recommendation to Jacob Roman, architect to the court of William III of Orange. Marselis went to Holland and must have come into contact with Roman. Some of Marselis’s interior designs show a close resemblance to the refined drawing technique of Roman with its conscious use of gray wash.71 In later years he also kept in touch with Pieter Roman, the court architect’s son. From 1696 onwards he stayed for several years in Italy and Vienna. In the early eighteenth century he achieved a remarkably international architectural career by working as an architect and architectural draughtsman at the royal courts of Denmark (1702–1716) and Russia (from 1719 till his death in 1731). Nevertheless, by that time it was not his connection to Dutch architecture that favoured his high position but his capacity to work in the Italian and Austrian ‘grand manner’ now desired by his royal patrons. Netherlandish patrons abroad Not only travelling artists, also merchants and courtiers leaving the Low Countries and becoming patrons of architecture abroad figured in the diffusion of architectural ideas. Only few newcomers possessed the means to build their own house. Merchants and industrialists, even the wealthy among them, invested first in their companies; most rented existing, though handsome, houses. Those who could eventually afford to build a new house generally engaged a local master to build in the local manner. Nevertheless, a few Netherlandish patrons abroad desired to replicate the imposing examples from home. The best way to realise a Netherlandish style and quality building in a foreign land was to bring along one’s own architect and building crew. Margaret of Austria’s church in Brou is an early example of such a project – although in this case the patron remained at home in her residence in Mechelen. In fact, this approach reflected how the East and West India Trade Companies operated in their colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Within Europe, only a single example existed of a Netherlandish patron travelling with his own building crew abroad. Count Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen, who was appointed master of the Order of the Knights of St. John by the Great Elector in Brandenburg in 1652, sought to recover the properties of the order along the river Oder after the disasters of the Thirty Years’ War. His first initiatives focused on restoring agriculture. He built several new farm complexes with stables, barns, and offices, all in timber frame construction.72 After ten years, the situation improved enough to rebuild the old seat of the order, the castle of Sonnenburg (in today’s Słonsk, Poland).�73 The count, a renowned amateur architect, designed the building himself at home   Mossakowski 1994, 50–51; Langberg 1998–2001.   See for instance his drawings for Peter Swan’s house in Copenhagen (Langberg 1998–2001, vol. 2, 39). 70 71

 Ottenheym 1999. Designs for these model farms are preserved in the archive of the Order of St. John (Brandenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv, Potsdam). 73   Terwen 1979, 104–116; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 76–82. 72

77

Konrad Ottenheym in The Hague, probably with some professional advice by the court architect Pieter Post. The transformation of the old ruin into a modern country seat was executed by a Dutch building team of twelve craftsmen, including Cornelis Ryckwaert, who accompanied Johan Maurits in 1662. Ryckwaert remained as an architect to the courts of Brandenburg and Anhalt when the castle was finished in 1667, but the fate of the other craftsmen is unknown (see chapter 3.7). The case of Sonnenburg remained an exception. In the seventeenth century, other Netherlandish patrons abroad hired local architects and master craftsmen. Early examples included the building activities of Louis de Geer (1587–1652). He was born in Liège, and as a nine year old boy he moved with his family to Dordrecht in Holland. After he inherited his father’s company in 1615, he settled in Amsterdam and became one of the most influential industrial magnates in Northwestern Europe. De Geer invested extensively in exploring copper and iron mines in Sweden, building forges, and other industrial plots. He invited specialised labourers and experienced senior craftsmen from the Southern Low Countries to his so-called ‘Walloon ironworks’ in the area of Norrköping and in the province of Uppland (north of Stockholm). He moved to Sweden in 1627 to escape the high taxes at the Sound Toll, and thus became an official Swedish citizen with his main seat in Norrköping. He built a great brick house in Norrköping and minor residences in Uppsala and Leufsta in Uppland, all surrounded with elaborate gardens in the Dutch style, planted with Dutch plants, and maintained by Dutch gardeners.�74 In the 1630s, he spent several years in Amsterdam where he witnessed the rise of classical architecture as propagated by Jacob van Campen and Philips Vingboons. Back in Sweden in 1641, he achieved the rank of nobleman, which gave him the right to buy and own the property he had merely leased before. His new status prompted a move to Stockholm where he bought a great house on the southern island Södermalm, which was a rather suburban area at that time. Between 1643 and 1646, he built a new house next to the old dwelling that was executed by the master bricklayer Jürgen Gesewits and the stonemason Joost Henne according to his own sketches, evidently with the Mauritshuis in The Hague in mind (fig. 18). With its display of colossal Ionic pilasters all over the façade, the house introduced to Sweden the new Dutch taste for classical architecture based on the principles of Palladio and Scamozzi.75� De Geer’s building masters were both of German origin but presumably they knew recent developments in Holland. In 1637, the stonemason and sculptor Henne had visited Holland while purchasing building materials for a precious funeral monument.76 At that time, some of the most notable Classicist buildings in The Hague and Amsterdam were either already completed or under construction. De Geer’s neighbourhood in Stockholm, the island of Södermalm, became a centre for affluent immigrants from the Low Countries. At least three of note built their suburban residences according to the current Dutch Classicist manner.77� Jacob Momma (1625–1679) emigrated to Sweden in 1647 to join both his brothers Abraham and Willem who had arrived a few years earlier.78 They founded a trade company in iron work, brass work, and cannon. Between 1663 and 1668, Momma built his new house on Södermalm, which was designed by the Swedish architect Johan Tobias Albinus as a freestanding rectangular building enhanced by Doric pilasters detailed according to Vignola (fig. 19). The front façade is seven bays wide with a central projection of three bays. The resemblance to Dutch models was even more striking when the original entrance was still one level higher, with an exterior stair in front. A few years later, Thomas van der Noot built his new house not far from Momma’s. Van   Noldus 1998.   Noldus 2004, 62–77. 76  For his funeral monument for Magnus Brahe in Västerås Cathedral: Axel-Nilsson 1950, 301–303; Alm et al. 1996, 330–331. 74

77

75

78

78

  Noldus 2004, 86–92.   Müller 1995.

Travelling Architects

18. Stockholm, Louis de Geer’s house, 1643–1646.

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

19. Stockholm, house of Jacob Momma, by J.T. Albinus,1663–1668.

der Noot was of Dutch origin but he was raised as the stepson of a Swedish nobleman and developed a career as a courtier and military officer in Sweden. His house in Stockholm was ready in 1672, and was probably designed by Matthias Spihler, the son-in-law of Jean de la Vallée.79� His house featured a nine-bay façade, with Scamozzi’s Doric pilasters on the central three bays and more abstract strips on the flanking bays. The walls between the Doric pilasters of the central projection were decorated with the heavy sculpted garlands and cartouches that were popular in Holland. In other cities boasting a significant population of Netherlandish immigrants, the most fortunate built new houses, whether as their own private residence or as a commercial enterprise with a clear reference to their homeland. In Hamburg, the activities of the Dutch doctor of medicine Theodoor Kerckrinck (1638–1693) influenced the city’s architecture greatly. He previously had lived in Amsterdam and achieved notoriety with his anatomical studies there. After 1673, he and his wife travelled extensively through Flanders, France, and Italy. In the late 1670s, they finally settled in Hamburg. A new street, called Neuer Wandrahm, had been created on the former site of the city’s building company that soon became a distinguished area with spacious houses. In 1678, the city began selling building plots at the site, each 32.5 feet wide. Kerckrinck bought six plots and he commissioned the Hamburg engineer and architect Johann Jakob Erasmus to erect three costly, double-wide houses, all in brick with sculpted stone elements.80 His own house, completed in 1679, was six bays wide – an even number which made designing a decent central entrance difficult – and featured colossal Corinthian pilasters covering the façade. The main entrance was nevertheless in the very centre of the façade and pierced through the central pilaster (fig. 20), a rather unconventional solution that went against all classical rules (although whether that was the original situation in 1679 is unclear). The other two houses were sold to friends. They were both seven bays wide, creating a much more balanced façade design with a central projection on the central three bays crowned by a pediment (fig. 21). The outer corners as well as the edges of the central projection were accentuated by colossal Corinthian pilasters, which was not a usual solution in Amsterdam at that time. No architect has been linked with these houses, but the façades  At least Spihler designed the stucco interiors, executed by Italian craftsmen, Carlo and Giovanni Carove. Ellehag 2003, 207. 79

  Neuer Wandrahm nos. 5, 6 and 17 (all demolished). Meyer-Brunswik 1990, 129–163; Bracker 1997, 156–157. 80

79

Konrad Ottenheym

20. Hamburg, Neuer Wandrahm 17, house of Theodoor Kerckrinck, 1678–1679 (drawing by Ebba Tresdorp c. 1884).

21. Hamburg, Neuer Wandrahm 6, 1678–1679 (photograph 1865).

at least might have been designed by Kerckrinck himself. His three double-wide houses were a major contribution to the city’s ambition to create a stately residential area. Other houses on the street were built on just a single plot and had façades featuring high gables while the three Kerckrinck houses with their colossal Corinthian pilasters and crowning classical entablatures echoed contemporary double-wide houses at the ‘Golden Bend’ of the Herengracht in Amsterdam. Another Dutch immigrant residence that dominated the neighbourhood architecture was the house of Ernst Metsu built in Riga in 1696.81 Metsu was a timber merchant and entrepreneur from Amsterdam who owned factories, sawmills, and a shipyard in Riga, which was a Swedish province at that time. When the Swedish king ennobled him, he changed his name in ‘von Dannenstern’ (‘fir tree star’), a clear reference to the origin of his fortune. His new house in Riga was built in the tradition of the great merchant houses of the city, with a steep roof containing various attics, parallel to the street (fig. 22). The novelty was the stone façade to the street, seven bays wide, d ­ ecorated with colossal Corinthian p ­ ilasters, and enhanced by two one-bay wide projections on the second and the sixth bay. Here, two entrance gates enforced the impression that Metsu sought to erect his own ‘Trippenhuis’ in his new realm. The architect of this residence was most likely Rupert Bindenschuh, a building master of German origin who was most capable of realising Metsu’s desire for a classical façade.82 Several Dutch immigrants in Berlin who belonged to high ranks at court and in society initiated building projects according to examples in the Low Countries. For   Brand et al. 2006, 180.

81

80

  Campe 1944; Anca¯ne 2010.

82

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

example, Benjamin Raule became general director of the Brandenburg navy. Before 1695, he built his summer retreat called ‘Schloss Rosenfelde’ close to the capital (now the central part of castle Friedrichsfelde in the Berlin Zoo) (fig. 23a-b). According to Christoph Pitzler, a German architect who closely studied Dutch architecture during his visit to Holland in the late seventeenth century, the house and garden of Rosenfelde were made auf Holländische manier.83 Indeed, the rectangular building seemed inspired by the Mauritshuis, with colossal Ionic pilasters and a central projection just five bays wide.84 Most remarkable in the history of Netherlandish patrons abroad were the four daughters of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia. The weddings of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia’s ­ children were arranged to strengthen the position of the House of Orange within the network of Europe’s rul22. Riga, House of Ernst Metsu (‘von ing nobility. Their son, Willem II, married Dannenstern’), 1696. Mary Stuart, daughter of King Charles I of England, as mentioned previously. The four daughters all married German noblemen.85 In 1646, the eldest daughter, Louise Henrietta (1627–1667), married Friedrich Wilhelm von Hohenzollern, the Great Elector of Brandenburg (1620–1688). In 1652, the second daughter, Albertine Agnes (1634–1696), wedded Count Willem Frederik of Nassau-Dietz, the stadholder of Frisia and Groningen. In 1659, the third daughter, Henrietta Catharina (1637–1708) married Johann Georg II, Fürst of Anhalt-Dessau (1627–1693). The youngest of the four, Maria (1642–1688) married Count Ludwig Heinrich Moritz of Simmern-Lautern (1640–1674), who was not a ruling prince but being a relative to the Count Palatine he had at least a decent pedigree. All four sisters inherited their father’s passion for building and their mother’s love for exquisite interiors. They all built their country seats with references to their ancestral residences in Holland. The names of their building projects recalled the ‘Oranje Sael’ in The Hague, their mother’s Witwensitz (now called Huis ten Bosch): Oranienburg, Oranienstein, Oranienbaum, and Oranienhof.86 The two in central Germany, Oranienstein and Oranienhof, did not show a specific Dutch architectural habit. Oranienhof at Kreuznach was a former monastery that in 1684 was converted into a residence without major architectural transformations.87 Oranienstein in Dietz was built between 1672 and 1676 by German architects as a U-shaped residence on the ruins of a mediaeval monastery. The residence followed the architectural customs of Central Germany without specific Dutch elements until the changes wrought by the interior modernisations of 1707–1709 designed by Daniel Marot and executed by Jean Coulon.88 On the other hand, the Orange residences in Brandenburg and   Pfitzler 1695; Lorenz 1998, 46.   Broebes 2000 (1733), figs. 23–24. 85   Lademacher 1999.

  Bechler 2002.   Bechler 2002, 130 and 143–155. 88   Ozinga 1938.

83

86

84

87

81

Konrad Ottenheym

23a-b. Schloss Rosenfelde, Brandenburg, built for Benjamin Raule before 1695; groundplan and perspective view (from: Broebes 2000/1733).

Anhalt, Oranienburg and Oranienbaum, were influential examples of the dissemination of Dutch court architecture in the north-eastern region of Germany. Oranienburg became Louise Henrietta’s favourite country seat (fig. 24). Beginning in 1652, she transformed the former castle of Bötzow into a modern, Classicist country house ­following the example of her ancestral summer retreat Huis Ter Nieburg.�89 Leading ideas came from the princess herself. “All my amusement is at Oranienburg where I hope to change eve24. Oranienburg in 1652, by Johann Georg Memhardt, modern model of the situation rything”, she wrote in 1661 when work on in 1652. the interiors continued.90 The ­architect was Johann Georg Memhardt, who spent several years in Holland (see chapters 3.1 and 3.7). Originally, before its scale was doubled in the late seventeenth century, the residence consisted of a rectangular main block flanked by two minor cube pavilions connected by small galleries. A vestibule and double staircase filled the central space of the corps de logis while comfortable rooms were situated along the side walls, comparable to the ground plan of Ter Nieuburg. Unlike the ancestral example, however, the exterior walls were astylar, ­economically erected in various stones and bricks united by a plaster layer. In its plain cubic exterior appearance, Oranienburg resembled more recent grand country houses in the Dutch Republic such as Huis ten Bosch. Oranienbaum, located some twenty miles east of Dessau, was founded in 1681 by Henrietta Catharina and built within five years by Cornelis Ryckwaert (fig. 25).91 Originally, it featured a rectangular corps de logis fronted by a courtyard flanked by two freestanding service wings in timber-frame construction. The exterior walls of the main wing are plain except for the Ionic pilasters framing the main entrance at the courtyard side. The entrance at the garden side is enhanced by a loggia of freestanding Doric columns supporting a balcony,   Boeck 1938.  “Tout mon divertissement est Oranienburg où j’espère tout de changement”. Boeck 1938, 24. 89 90

82

  Bechler 2002.

91

Travelling Architects

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

like the entrance of Honselaarsdijk Castle, the former main residence of her parents outside The Hague. The ground plan of the corps de logis reflects the main wing of the same castle. The central part of the corps de logis of Oranienbaum contains a rectangular vestibule connected to a double open staircase to the rear (in wood rather than stone as was the case in Honselaarsdijk), leading to the upper hall and grand saloon that overlooks the garden and framed the main road from Dessau, which is situated 25. Oranienbaum (Dessau, Germany), garden front by on the central axis of the complex, like Cornelis Ryckwaert, 1681. the avenue view once created in front of Honselaarsdijk. The princely apartments were situated to the right and left of these central spaces. Oranienbaum was enlarged between 1698 and 1702. New wings were added between the rectangular corps de logis and the two service buildings, which created a composition of various attached rectangular volumes alongside the courtyard, similar to Het Loo. A gallery was created in one of the new wings (as was the case in Honselaarsdijk) and was decorated with gilded leather. The far end wall featured a display of various pieces of bone china according to the new interior fashion at the court in Holland that Daniel Marot introduced in the late 1680s. Collecting china ware was already a specialty of their mother, Amalia van Solms, who created one of the first Asian lacquer cabinets decorated with a sumptuous collection of porcelain. All four daughters followed this example and thus introduced the phenomenon of the porcelain cabinet into the German residence culture.92 Architectural designs sent by mail Sending drawings had always been an important exchange mechanism. Cornelis Floris sent drawings of his models for approval to his international patrons, while the actual work was executed in his studio in Antwerp. When finished, the work was shipped in parts to its destination accompanied by one of his journeymen. In the seventeenth century, the same practice continued in the workshop of Hendrick de Keyser. In the second half of the seventeenth century, more examples of architectural projects designed at a distance by architects who did not visit the actual building site were evident. Contacts between the architects and their patrons were maintained by mail. Drawings were delivered by special couriers, regular agents, or official mail services that existed between the Low Countries and important cities around the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. These services were fairly efficient and reliable. For example, a letter from Amsterdam to Stockholm took about one month to arrive at its final destination. Consequently, the sender of the letter could expect a reply within two months.93 Just after 1650, Philips Vingboons became one of the first architects in Amsterdam with international clients. In 1648, he published his first book, which included over sixty engravings of his own designs.94 This publication brought him international fame and in the following years the range of his patrons extended widely, including commissions from ­noblemen, from cities in the eastern and northern provinces of the Dutch Republic, and   Fock 1997; Fock 2005.   Droste 2006.

92

94

  Vingboons 1648; Ottenheym 1989.

93

83

Konrad Ottenheym from abroad. Sending drawings was essential to maintaining this kind of contact. Projects for architectural objects, such as mantlepieces, were constructed in Amsterdam under the architect’s supervision and shipped in pieces, as was the custom in the Low Countries a hundred years earlier. In 1667, Philips Vingboons received a commission for new chimneypieces for Chancellor Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie’s residence in Stockholm, called ‘Makalös’.95 This almost suburban palace located opposite the royal palace was built in 1643 by his father Jacob de la Gardie. In the 1660s, a great modernisation campaign of the interior decoration resulted in the removal of the existing chimneypieces from the 1640s, which were relocated to Venngarn, one of De la Gardie’s country houses. Peter Trotzig, De la Gardie’s agent in Amsterdam, ordered new marble chimneypieces. In April 1667, Trotzig sent three drawings by Vingboons to Sweden: a side elevation, a ground plan, and most probably a front elevation. Only the side view has survived today. These drawings were just a first proposal for the chimneypiece. For the final design, the stonemason and the architect required more exact information regarding the size and other details: The stonemason and the architect Vinckeboom desire that a ground plan or profile be sent so they may see whether they are entirely round columns and how far they are from the pilasters. And also whether the chimneypiece should have its side embedded in the wall or how far the mantelpiece should project from the wall.96 After approval by De la Gardie, the designs were executed in marble in Amsterdam and shipped in parts. The contact between De la Gardie and Vingboons was not made by Trotzig but by Steven de Geer, a son of the late Louis de Geer, who managed the Amsterdam branch of the family business emporium. He also managed Vingboons’s fee and the transport of the drawings. The marble was supplied by Peter Simons, another Swedish agent in Amsterdam with a special connection to the international marble trade.97 Not only could architectural objects such as mantlepieces be ordered by mail. Designs for complete buildings could be ordered as well. In such cases, the building’s realisation was not prepared in Amsterdam but rather entrusted to local craftsmen. In 1649, shortly after the publication of his famous book, Philips Vingboons was asked to design a house in Hamburg for the two brothers Borchers on a forty-foot wide building plot on Grimm Street, the back of which extended to the water side of the Nikolaifleet (figs. 26, 27).98 Vingboons’s original design was printed in his second architecture book of 1674.99 The design featured a three-bay wide façade with superimposed Doric and Ionic pilasters crowned by an attic zone. Photographs and other documentation from before its destruction in 1943 during World War II revealed that this design had been adapted to local traditions. The ground floor was made much higher because of the typical Hamburger Diele, the main trade space for storage of goods as well as for commercial activities. Vingboons sent his designs to Hamburg to be modified and executed by local building masters.   Noldus 2004, 116.  “... wort van de Stienhouwer ende Architecq Vinckeboom gedesideert dat een grondt Ris ofte profijll dient overgesonden te worden om te sien oft heel ronde Colommen, ende hoe veel dat sij van vande Pilasters staen, sijn. En oock oftet aende sijde de Schoorsteen inde muur sall comen oft hoe ver datse verheven uijt de muur comens all”. Stockholm, Riksarchiv; De la Gardie samlingen, E 1585 (letter received on 19 April 1667); Noldus 2004, 116. 95 96

84

 Scholten 1993. In 1675 Simons sold brown and white marble floor tiles and two marble mantlepieces to Magnus de la Gardie. The Italian (white) marble was purchased from the famous marble work shop of Willem de Gooyer. Stockholm, Riksarchiv; De la Gardie samlingen, E 1556, Simons to De la Gardie, 2 February 1675. Noldus 2004, 35 and 117. 98   Ottenheym 1989, 128–130. 99   Vingboons 1674, figs. 11–13. 97

Travelling Architects

26. Hamburg, Grimm 25, design for a house for the Borchers brothers, by Philips Vingboons, 1649 (Vingboons 1674, plate 13).

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

27. Hamburg, Grimm 25, photograph of the early twentieth century (Hamburg Stadt Archiv).

In 1652, Philips Vingboons finished four drawings for a new forecourt to the castle of Breitenburg in Holstein, the seat of Count Christian Rantzau, located north of Hamburg.100 In the sixteenth century, the castle was a famous centre of arts and books but it was severely damaged and plundered during the Thirty Years’ War. In January 1653, the count’s secretary discussed three design proposals, one by ‘Finkenbaum’ (sic) and two others by local ­craftsmen, one of whom drew his design according the wishes of the countess herself. How and by whom Vingboons was invited for this project remains unknown, but apparently his fame circulated in this area as well. Vingboons created a ground plan and façades for a single storey, U-shaped complex featuring a central gate tower, stables, a blacksmith workshop, carriage hall, butchery, and living quarters for the gardener as well as for the caretaker (fig. 28). The design featured a sober, astylar complex, to be built in brick, with a series of arches at the courtyard side, a strong rhythm exhibited by the exterior windows, and just a few sculpted garlands decorating the gate tower. Vingboons sent this proposal from Amsterdam without visiting the site himself but he was willing to adapt the final design according to the wishes of his clients. He explained in a note on the ground plan that they just had to write him a letter with more specific information. Because the various cellars and changing floor

  Ottenheym 1989, 130–132.

100

85

Konrad Ottenheym

28. Designs by Philips Vingboons for a new forecourt to castle Breitenburg in Holstein, the seat of Count Christian Rantzau, 1652 (photograph Denkmalplege Schleswig-Holstein).

levels made this plan rather complicated, Vingboons offered to prepare a wooden model to prevent misunderstanding: This ground plan may be altered to some degree. Please send your wishes to me in Holland. In that case I will make a wooden model of the whole project otherwise it won’t work since my intentions will not be understood, especially the staircases and the construction of the roof.101 Evidently, Vingboons never visited the building site in person. However, by sending drawings and a model, and keeping in contact by mail, he controlled the project’s realisation to a certain degree. Because this forecourt was altered significantly in later centuries, whether or how his designs were actually executed has remained unclear. The grandest residence designed from a distance was Finspång castle in Sweden, the country house of Louis de Geer Jr (1622–1695).102 He was the son of Louis de Geer Sr 101   “In dese Gront sal wellicht noch eenige ­verandering vallen. Wenste wel dat mij dan mocht in Hollant toe geschickt worden. Soude dan een houte model laten maecken van alles oft het heele werck is anders niet wel deudelijck om gemaeckt te connen worden want ’t

86

niet al sal verstaen worden gelijck bij mij de m ­ eening is, in sonderheijt met de trappen en het decken van de huijsing”. Notice by Vingboons on the ground plan of his Breitenburg design. Ottenheym 1989, 132. 102   Noldus 2004, 159–169.

Travelling Architects and born in Amsterdam. As a young boy, he emigrated to Sweden with his father and only many years later did he return to Holland as a young adult for further education. When his father died in 1652, Louis Jr inherited the industrial site of Finspång (north of Norrköping), which he directed from Holland with a caretaker on the site. He married the daughter of a Utrecht burgomaster and, in 1657, he bought the noble castle of Rijnhuizen, not far from Utrecht. Nevertheless, in 1665, he moved to Sweden once more and, in 1668, began building a grand residence in Finspång (fig. 29). The architect Adriaan Dortsman developed the designs in Amsterdam and was paid for them afterwards in 1670.103 The contact between Louis de Geer and Dortsman was likely maintained by Louis’s brother Steven de Geer who still lived in Amsterdam and who some years before was the mediator for De la Gardie and Vingboons, as mentioned previously.104 Ten drawings by Dortsman are known, with several proposals for ground plans (fig. 30), front and back façades, and a side elevation.105� More drawings must have existed because the final solution of the façades as executed, with colossal Doric pilasters, is not among the preserved drawings. Dortsman presumably never travelled to Sweden; he was explicitly paid for drawings made ‘in Amsterdam’. Nevertheless, constructing such an enormous residence without professional instructions on site seemed impossible. Accordingly, this may explain why the Amsterdam stonemason Jan Gijseling the Younger (1650–1718) was in Sweden on behalf of Louis de Geer Jr in 1668 or 1669.106 This stonemason and his father Jan Gijseling the Elder were experienced building contractors with a great   “... aen den Architect A. Dortsman voor Teijckeninge in Amsterdam, FL 250”. Stockholm, Riksarchiv; Leufsta Arkiv 3, Louis de Geer Jr’s bookkeeping until 1690. Noldus 2004, 163. The date MDCLXX (1670) is ­inscribed in attic zone on the central projection of one of the front elevations, probably not the date of the design but a date anticipating its realisation from an optimistic point of view. 104   Noldus 2004, 117, 164. 103

from the

Low Countries

and their

Patrons

29. Finspång castle (Sweden), 1668–1672, designed in Amsterdam by Adriaan Dortsman.

30. Ground plan design by Adriaan Dortsman for Finspång castle, c. 1668–1670 (Stockholm, National Museum, TH 2989).

105  Four are in the Tessin-Hårleman collection of the National Museum in Stockholm, six others were published in 1935 but unfortunately their current location is unknown. Olsson 1935; Noldus 1999; Noldus 2004, 163. 106  On 18 July 1669 he was paid 170 guilders. Stockholm, Riksarchiv, Leufsta Arkiv 3, Louis de Geer Jr’s bookkeeping until 1690. Noldus 2004, 163.

87

Konrad Ottenheym understanding of classical architecture as both worked previously with Vingboons and others on various important buildings in and around Amsterdam. In 1668, Dortsman was still at the beginning of his career but had already gained some fame as the architect of the new Lutheran Church in Amsterdam, which featured an impressive cupola that was still under construction.107 In 1667, the Amsterdam Lutherans asked Peter Trotzig, who by then was burgomaster in Stockholm, to help them gain financial support from Sweden for the dome’s copper roof. Trotzig had likely involved Dutch-Swedish copper magnates in this charity project, including Louis de Geer Jr, and thus accounting for the way De Geer knew Adriaan Dortsman and his architectural qualities, especially his vision for grand projects beyond traditional solutions. The scale and monumentality of Finspång castle would have been unthink31. Amsterdam, Lutheran Church, by Adriaan able in seventeenth-century Holland unless Dortsman, 1667. as a palace for the Prince of Orange. However, in Sweden the castle was appropriate for a nobleman, military officer, and industrial magnate like De Geer. Nevertheless, its architecture fits well in Dortsman’s work. The central cupola at the rear, with its dome and colossal Doric pilasters, references the central rotunda of his Lutheran Church in Amsterdam (fig. 31), especially considering that the castle is built in brick and was not plastered until the eighteenth century. Also, the rustication on the corners of the lateral pavilions reflected Dortsman’s vocabulary. He applied this detail again at his Walloon orphanage in Amsterdam and later, in 1681, at the castle Gunterstein at Maarssen, which appears to be almost entirely based on his previous design for Finspång’s pavilions.�108 These brief examples have discussed and illustrated the various mechanisms of migration from the Low Countries to other parts of Europe. The following case-studies offer a more detailed insight into and further understanding of the international activities of some of the leading architects from the Low Countries, the reasons for their migration, and their relationships to their foreign patrons. Some cases even reveal the ways in which their knowledge of Netherlandish architecture was applied under foreign circumstances.   Kooiman 1941; Vlaardingerbroek 1996.

107

88

  Exh. cat. Amsterdam 2013.

108

Chapter 2.2 The Diaspora of Netherlandish Sculptors Sixteenth Century

in the

Second Half

of the

Ethan Matt Kavaler (University of Toronto)

It is indicative of the situation of the arts in the second half of the sixteenth century that the most famous Netherlandish sculptor, Giambologna, spent his entire traceable career outside the Low Countries. The degree with which he can, in fact, sensibly be regarded as ‘Netherlandish’ is open to question, and we will address this issue later in this article. Giambologna, however, is hardly atypical. The second half of the sixteenth century witnessed a substantial migration of sculptors out of the Netherlands. These artists sought refuge in Italy, but also in Germany, France, Spain, England, Poland, and Austria. In her article in Simiolus of 1999, Anna Jolly documents some seventy Netherlandish sculptors and architects in Central Europe alone.1 There seem to be a number of reasons for this exodus. The iconoclasts of 1566 had particularly targeted sculpture. Marcus van Vaernewijck documents, for instance, the tremendous destruction of carved artefacts in and around Ghent during the iconoclastic riots of 1566.2 Further waves of iconoclasm in the 1570s and 1580s must have confirmed the delicate state of affairs for practicing artists. Willem van Tetrode’s two altarpieces for the Oude Kerk in Delft, commissioned to replace their predecessors destroyed in 1566, were themselves obliterated by Calvinists in 1573.3 Sculpture was an expensive medium, especially in its material, and generally required the patronage of the nobility or exceedingly well-heeled commoners. Most sculptors worked at least for part of their career as court artists. Jacques Du Broeucq was Artist to the Emperor under Mary of Hungary.4 Giambologna worked extensively for the Medici in Florence.5 Hubert Gerhard served the Wittelsbachs at Munich.6 And Adriaen de Vries was sculptor to Rudolph II at Prague.7 Political unrest in the Low Countries itself made it problematic to commission monuments there that might be laid to waste by advancing armies – and more profoundly called into question the potential audience for tombs, epitaphs, and the like. In addition, sculpture was consistently demoted with respect to painting in the contemporary writings on image theory. Authors of the 1560s such as Petrus Bloccius, François Richardot, and Martinus Duncanus claimed that painting was more life-like than sculpture and better served the needs of religious devotion.8 Whether this was a defensive reaction against   Jolly 1999a.  Vaernewijck 1872 (1566–1568), 99–121. For a general consideration of iconoclasm in the Low Countries with particular attention to the Northern Netherlands, see Freedberg 1986. 3   Exh. cat. Amsterdam 2003, 55–58. 4   For Du Broeucq, see Didier 2000. 5   For one account of Giambologna’s career, see Avery 1994 (1987), 15–42. 6   For Gerhard, see Diemer 2004. 7   For de Vries, see Exh. cat. Amsterdam 1998. 8   Koenraad Jonckheere, ‘The Origins of Netherlandish Art Theory: Writings on Art in the Wake of Iconoclasm 1 2

(1565–85)’, lecture delivered at the Meeting of the Renaissance Society of America, Montreal, March 25, 2011. See Petrus Bloccius, Meer dan Twee hondert keteryen, blasphemien, en(de) nieuwe leeringen, welck uut den Misse zyn gecomen, n.l, 1567; François Richardot, Het Sermoon vande Beelden teghen die Beeldtschenders, Leuven, 1567; Martinus Duncanus, Een cort onderscheyt tusschen Godelyke ende Afgodelyke Beelden, Antwerp, 1567. I am grateful to Koenraad Jonckheere for sharing his copies of these texts with me.

89

Ethan Matt Kavaler a significant emotive power of sculpture perceived by contemporaries is unclear. Further, there seems to have been considerable dissatisfaction among sculptors regarding their status in the Low Countries. Only wood carvers could gain admittance to the St Luke Guild in Antwerp; stone sculptors were relegated to the masons’ guild, where they felt regarded as lowly manual workers, removed from any claim to the liberal arts.9 For a variety of reasons, there seems to have been little market for antique sculpture at home until the end of the century. There are relatively few statues and fewer carved altarpieces surviving in the Low Countries that can be dated to the years 1560–1590. Significantly, the principal established sculptors in Antwerp accepted numerous commissions from abroad. Cornelis Floris executed several tombs and epitaphs for the kings of Denmark and Duke Albrecht of Brandenburg.10 Floris’s only surviving work after 1560 in the Low Countries, apart form the Antwerp town hall, is his jubé for Tournai Cathedral.11 Much the same can be said for Willem van den Broecke, alias Paludanus, perhaps Antwerp’s second leading sculptor. Van den Broecke’s surviving works in the Low Countries amount to the busts of Jan van Eyck and Albrecht Dürer that he carved for the portal of Jan Adriaenssen’s house in the Lange Nieuwstraat in Antwerp, which are now in the Museum Het Vleeshuis in that city. His reputation is established, however, by a substantial series of religious reliefs that were shipped to Augsburg, Schwerin, and Lübeck.�12 Even his most important lost work was exported: a sizeable stone reja for the monastery church in Alba de Tormes in Spain.13 It is important to note, however, that this migration of Netherlandish sculptors began even before the troubles of the late 1560s. There had long been a market for the services of Netherlandish sculptors abroad and a recognition of their superior training. Italy was a common port of call for Netherlandish sculptors as well as painters. Although Giambologna trained or collaborated with many promising Low Countries sculptors in Italy, he enjoyed no mono­ poly. The aforementioned Willem van Tetrode (c. 1525–1580), for instance, lived in Italy for decades working in the workshops of Benvenuto Cellini in Florence and of Guglielmo della Porta in Rome. Unlike most of his compatriot carvers, he came back to Holland shortly after the riots of the 1560s and settled in his former hometown of Delft.14 In 1568 he obtained a commission for an altarpiece to adorn the high altar in the Oude Kerk at Delft which he executed in black and red marble with alabaster statues “according to the art and sculpture of antiquity”, as the contract specified.15 After the destruction of this work and its companion for the Oude Kerk, Van Tetrode ceased fashioning monumental statues for church interiors and henceforth focused on small bronze statuettes destined for private collectors. But the worsening conditions of the revolt made even this practice difficult at home. In 1575 he emigrated once more, this time to Germany, where he worked for the elector and archbishop of Cologne.16 Spain had an established tradition of attracting Netherlandish sculptors. Juan de Malinas, Egas de Bruselas, and many others relocated to the Iberian Peninsula before 1500.17 It was a trend that continued in the new century. Arnao de Bruselas, presumably also from Brussels, was present in Spain from 1536 until his death around 1565, where he carved a number of wood altarpieces.18 These fit well within the established traditions of northern Spain. His  See Casteels & Rylant 1940. I thank Valerie Herremans for this reference. 10   See Huysmans et al. 1996, 71–83, 87–96. 11  On the jubé and the political circumstances of its commission, see Kavaler 2006. 12   Duverger & Onghena 1938, 75–140. 13   Duverger & Onghena 1938, 108–110. 14   Exh. cat. Amsterdam 2003, 53. 15  Exh. cat. Amsterdam 2003, 55: “naervolgende die cunste van de sculpture ende antiquiteyt”. 9

90

  Jolly 1999a, 131–134. Although van Tetrode is called ‘architectus’ to the archbishop, he probably chiefly contributed to the sculptural parts of the building such as mantelpieces and portals while construction was actually supervised by building master Laurenz von Brachum. As is the case with many of these Netherlandish contributions to sixteenth-century German castles, nothing remains of his work there. 17   Gilman Proske 1951, 123–134, 195. 18   Fernández Pardo 2006. 16

The Diaspora

of

Netherlandish Sculptors

in the

Second Half

of the

Sixteenth Century

most distinctive style is represented, perhaps, by four plaster reliefs for the t­ranscoro of Zaragoza Cathedral.19 Arnao was perhaps the most successful Netherlandish sculptor who immigrated to Iberia at this time, though he was joined by several others. These include Roque de Bolduque from ‘s-Hertogenbosch, active in Seville in the 1550s.20 France, too, offered refuge to Netherlanders early on. In Dijon, for ­example, we meet Nicolas de la Cour, who between 1550 and 1552 carved the ­ extensive Last Judgment in the ­tympanum of the church of St Michael and the f­igure of Saint Michael 1. Dijon, St Michael, Last Judgment, 1550–1552, by Nicolas standing before it (fig. 1). De la Cour, born de la Cour (photograph by Marisa Bass). in Douai like Giambologna, may likewise have studied with Du Broeucq, but this is pure speculation. His powerful nude figures are otherwise unlike anything that survives in the Low Countries itself. There are perhaps reminiscences of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment, which Henri David believed he could detect, but the other references seem as much French as Flemish.21 Even England served as a home to expatriate Netherlandish sculptors. Willem Keur, mentioned in 1567 by Guicciardini among the former great architects and sculptors from Gouda, is the most prominent example.22 He went to England in the early 1540s, most probably on an invitation to work on the new royal palace of Nonsuch: “a carver in stone (…) sent for over hither when the Kinge did buyld Nonsutche”.23 In England he was known as William Cure. After contributing to Nonsuch, he worked for the duke of Somerset and other notables. The porch of Gorhambury House (the only part remaining of the old house), built 1563–1568 for Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord of the Privy Seal, is attributed to him.24 When William Cure died in 1579 he left his books, drawings models as well his tools to his son Cornelius Cure,25 who executed a series of tombs in what has been seen as a ‘Netherlandish’ manner (see page 26, fig. 12). But it was Central Europe that welcomed Netherlandish sculptors most enthusiastically. Kassel received Elias Godefroy and Adam Liquier Beaumont by 1557 at the call of Counts Philipp the Magnanimous and Wilhelm IV of Hesse-Kassel. Philipp had earlier spent some time in the Netherlands as a prisoner of war where he seems to have developed an admiration for the arts of the Low Countries. In 1552 he and his son began substantial renovations to his residence in Kassel and drew heavily on Flemish sculptors for its decoration.26 Godefroy, assisted by several Netherlandish workmen, carved the famed alabaster chamber for the palace of the counts in 1557–1559. Four of the reliefs for this site survive, testifying to the skill of these sculptors.27 The most impressive achievement of Godefroy and Beaumont, however, was carved a decade   Morte García 2006.   de Azcárate 1958, 253, 259, 282. 21   David 1933, 363–365; see also Oursel 1907. 22   Guiccardini 1567, 101: “Guglielmus Cure”. 23   Kirk & Kirk 1900–1908, vol. 2, 114; Kollmann 2000, 175–176; Curd 2010. 24  Girouard 2009, 153–155. ‘Cure’ is mentioned in the sources, most probably referring to William Cure, 19 20

or his son Cornelius. It was probably William Cure whom Cornelis Ketel visited in London. See Karel van Mander, Het Schilderboeck 1604, 275r. 25   Girouard 2009, 46. 26  Joly 1999a, 223–24. For Adam Liquier Beaumont, see Boehn 1952. 27  Kramm 1936; Wustrack 1982, 15–16; Jolly 1999a, 123–124.

91

Ethan Matt Kavaler later: the tomb of Philipp the Magnanimous in the local church of St Martin, a remarkably complex monument, commissioned by Wilhelm after the death of his father in 1567 (fig. 2).28 Philipp and his wife, Christina of Saxony, are represented with standing effigies in the German manner, framed by a Doric order. Old Testament reliefs refer to the triumphs of Philipp, punctuated by caryatids and winged victories. The monument, most likely designed by Godefroy who died in 1568, was completed by Beaumont in 1572. It is an imposing tomb, more than eleven meters high, and seems to have initiated the vogue for monumental wall tombs in north Germany. It is a colourful work, composed of variegated materials, of yellowish alabaster and black marble, much in the Netherlandish fashion. Godefroy had worked at the château of Binche under the Italian Luc Lange in 1550 and seems to have profited from the sculptural example of Jacques Du Broeucq, the master of the works at Binche.29 The ample caryatids and reclining female nudes of Godefroy and Beaumont at Kassel point to lessons learned from Du Broeucq’s carvings at Mons – much more than from Antwerp models (fig. 3). Southern Germany and Austria offered a new home to Alexander Colin from Mechelen. Colin is documented in Heidelberg in 1558, where he worked as master sculptor at Ottheinrich’s castle (see 2. Kassel, St. Martin, tomb of Philipp the Magnanimous of Hesse-Kassel and his wife Christina of page 262, fig. 21).30 There he designed and Saxony, 1567–1572, by Elias Godefroy and Adam Liquir partly executed the many statues that decoBeaumont (photograph by the author). rate the Ottheinrichsbau, along with several portals and chimneypieces. In 1562 Colin was in Innsbruck, where he would spend the most of the rest of his life. From his new home in Tyrol, he worked on the completion of the tomb of Maximilian I, designing the tomb chest, the reliefs that decorate it, and the bronze statues that surmount it.31 Despite three short documented trips to the Low Countries, no further commissions came from his native land. The years after the iconoclastic riots saw an increase in the number of sculptors who left the Low Countries for more promising homes. Again it was in Central Europe that immigrant Netherlandish sculptors met with the greatest success. Peter Osten is a case in   Meier 2007.  Hedicke 1904, 266. On Luc Lange, see Debergh 1994, 63–72. Walter Kramm had presumed Godefroy’s training in Du Broeucq’s workshop without knowing of Godefroy’s documented assignment at Binche. Kramm 1936, 353. 28 29

92

 On Colin see Dressler 1973, and the abbreviated account of his career in Chipps Smith 1994, 254–260; Hubach 2002. 31  On the tomb chest of Maximilian I and its decoration, see Haidacher et al. 2004. 30

The Diaspora

of

Netherlandish Sculptors

in the

Second Half

of the

Sixteenth Century

point. After an apprenticeship in or around Ypres, he left the Low Countries and settled in Mainz sometime before 1571, joining his uncles, the sculptor-architects Jan and Georg Robijn.32 Osten’s work was of high quality, and he soon attracted significant commissions. In 1571 he carved and proudly signed a large epitaph for the family of Hendrik von Wiltberg, originally in the church in Alken an der Mosel and now in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn (fig. 4).33 Lateral pilasters display the arms 3. Detail of the tomb of Philipp the Magnanimous of the family’s various possessions, flanked of Hesse-Kassel and Christina of Saxony by herms and cartouches of the latest strap(photograph by the author). work. In the central field the von Wiltberg family is shown kneeling before the crucified Christ, set in a landscape and accompanied by Saint John the Evangelist, the Virgin, and Saint Mary Magdalen. Both the portraits and the landscape relief are finely detailed and show considerable skill. It is a fairly original design, dispensing with the crowning coats of arms, obelisks, and statues that top so many Netherlandish epitaphs of the time, including those of the Robijn family. By 1577 Osten had moved to Würzburg, where he supplied decorative sculpture to architectural projects of his uncle Georg Robijn. It was here that he executed his most impressive surviving work, the tomb of Sebastian Echter von Mespelbrunn, the brother of the prince-bishop of Würzburg and now in 4. Epitaph of the von Wiltburg Family, 1571, by Würzburg Cathedral (1577–1578, fig. 5).34 Peter Osten (Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum), In certain ways it accords with the latest (photograph by the author). Netherlandish design. The epitaph bears a crest that includes two obelisks flanking a cartouche with the arms of the deceased and topped by a statue. The tomb also preserves older practices; a transi is included beneath the effigy of von Mespelbrunn, a convention popular in the first half of the sixteenth century that was retained in several sepulchral monuments in the years that followed.35 Although Netherlanders such as Colin and Osten were well-received in the South German territories, it was Northern Germany and the Baltic region that proved most fertile for these emigrant sculptors; the area enjoyed a period of relative stability during the troubles   De Ren 1982.   De Ren 1982, 123–124. 34   De Ren, 1982, 124–129. De Ren points to the influence of engravings after Cornelis Floris’s designs and of the tombs of Colijn de Nole, especially regarding the transi. 32 33

 The workshop of Colijn de Nole adopted the convention of the transi in at least three works: the tomb of Reynout van Brederode and Philippote van der Marck in Vianen, the monument to Joost Sasbout in Arnhem, and the tomb of Pierre d’Herbais in Pepingen, all of which probably date to the late 1540s. 35

93

Ethan Matt Kavaler

5. Würzburg Cathedral, tomb of Sebastian Echter von Mespelbrunn, 1577–1578, by Peter Osten (Bildarchiv Foto Marburg).

6. Güstrow Cathedral, tomb of Duke Ulrich III and his two wives, Elisabeth of Denmark and Anna of Pomerania, 1583–1599, by Philipp Brandin and assistants (photograph by the author).

in the Low Countries. Philip Brandin from Utrecht was one of the most successful.36 Brandin arrived in North Germany by 1563, where he was employed by the dukes of MecklenburgSchwerin and Mecklenburg-Güstrow; from 1578 onward he served as sculptor-architect at the castle of Güstrow, which had been begun twenty years earlier by the Italian Franz Parr. For the dukes and their family Brandin designed and partly carved a series of funeral monuments, three of which adorn the choir of Güstrow Cathedral. Chief among these is the tomb of Duke Ulrich III and his two wives, Elisabeth of Denmark and Anna of Pomerania (fig. 6). The work, begun in 1583, was not completed until 1599, and that with the help of Brandin’s assistants, Bernd Berringer and Claus Midow.37 Fashioned of alabaster and black marble, it partakes of the coloristic effects found among the projects of Cornelis Floris and other Netherlanders. And, indeed, a number of features may have been adopted from the Floris workshop such as the three kneeling priants, the carved sphinxes, and the decorative strapwork. As Jolly has pointed out, the allegorical caryatid representing Prudence on the tomb of Ulrich III bears an uncanny resemblance to a similar figure on Floris’s tomb of Frederick I of Denmark in Schleswig Cathedral.38 Interestingly, the whitish alabaster was not native but rather imported from England as was the case with many alabaster works fashioned in the Low Countries.39 Yet too much should not be made of the relation to Floris’s work specifically. Although the loss of so much sculpture makes any judgment provisional, Brandin’s tombs   On Brandin, see Jolly 1999b.   Jolly 1999a, 126–127.

36

38

37

39

94

  Jolly 1999a, 127.  Lipin´  ska 2006, 237.

The Diaspora

of

Netherlandish Sculptors

in the

7. Ribnitz-Daumgarten, former monastery church, epitaph for Duchess Ursula von Mecklenburg, completed 1590, by the ­workshop of Philipp Brandin (photograph by the author).

Second Half

of the

Sixteenth Century

8. Strängnäs (Sweden), Cathedral, epitaph for Duchess Maria, c. 1590, by Hercules Midow (photograph by the author).

and epitaphs seem to be individual statements in a shared Netherlandish formal language developing in the years after 1550. A further example of this phenomenon is the epitaph for Duchess Ursula of Mecklenburg from Brandin’s workshop in the former monastery church at Ribnitz-Daumgarten of about 1590. Caryatids at the sides support the cornice as in Güstrow Cathedral, but in Ribnitz-Daumgarten these anthropomorphized supports are styled as nuns from the cloister, an idiosyncratic take on a popular convention (fig. 7). Hercules Midow of Antwerp (presumably a relative of Brandin’s assistant, Claus Midow) was another of the expatriate Netherlanders well-received in the north. In 1570–1572 he and a compatriot, Hans Fleming, executed the spectacular and highly sculptural porch to the Lübeck Town Hall.40 Later Hercules Midow went to Sweden to become the architect and sculptor to the king’s brother Duke Karl (who became King Karl IX in 1600). In 1580 he succeeded Christoph Parr as the architect at Nyköping castle, Karl’s main residence as duke. This was apparently his most important commission, though only fragments remain of the castle today.41 Duke Karl also commissioned his funeral tomb and the epitaph for his wife in Strängnäs Cathedral from Hercules Midow in 1589–1592. The sophisticated and much restored epitaph for the Swedish Duchess Maria (fig. 8) is an ornamentally restrained wall monument   Bruns et al. 1974, 95–96.

40

41

  Bohrn 1941.

95

Ethan Matt Kavaler adopting the Doric order, far more sober than anything out of Cornelis Floris’s workshop.42 Emigration was so great during the second half of the sixteenth century that Netherlandish sculpture during this period plays out largely abroad. Because expatriate sculptors were forced to engage with local traditions that inflected their art, the very notion of Netherlandish sculpture becomes somewhat problematic at this time. Of course the habit of associating art with place belongs to a specific tradition that traces its roots to classical ­ antiquity and has retained its power for structuring the discipline of art history. The ­emphasis on place of origin is notable in s­ixteenth-century writing, but it came to dominate art historical discussion in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as the idea of the nation became the central concept in structuring varieties of political and cultural thought.43 This tradition, which leaves its register in the organisation of many museums, successfully competes with other principles of ordering and deserves some examination. As an extreme case, let us once again consider Giambologna as a Netherlandish artist. Giambologna first appears in Florence in the early 1550s. Although he trained with Jacques 9. Florence, Loggia de Lanzi, Rape Du Broeucq, no work from his apprenticeship in of the Sabine, 1583, by Giambologna the Low Countries survives. Having profited from (photograph by the author). the lessons of Michelangelo and of ancient works like the Farnese Bull, and engaging with other Florentine sculptors like Vincenzo Danti and Bartolomeo Ammanati, Giambologna created a series of highly original representations of the human form.44 And yet there is little literature on Giambologna by Italian scholars, who, by and large, persist in regarding the artist as a foreigner. In what sense can Giambologna be regarded as Netherlandish? It is true that he ­identified himself as ‘Belga’ and helped train several sculptors from his home land. His studio was a port of call to travelling painters from the Low Countries such as Hendrik Goltzius, Pieter de Witte, and Peter Paul Rubens. And he erected in the Soccorso Chapel of Santissima Annunziata in Florence a “tomb…for all of those who, coming from the Flemish nation, exercised in the beautiful departments of sculpture and architecture”.45 In his recent book on Florentine sculpture, Michael Cole acknowledges this identification in repeatedly referring to the artist as ‘the Fleming’. But can Giambologna be considered Netherlandish in an artistic sense? The designation seems to make little sense except in the outdated terms of nationalist biography. Yet it may nonetheless be true that his famous twisted figural groups like the Rape of the Sabine Woman from 1583 have parallels in the Netherlands (fig. 9). The history of this type of invention is   Bennett & Bohrn 1974, 11–14.  See the discussion of this tradition in Kaufmann 2004b, 17–107. 42 43

96

  On Giambologna and his dialogue with contemporary Florentine sculptors, see Cole 2011. 45   Cole 2011, 238–239. 44

The Diaspora

of

Netherlandish Sculptors

in the

Second Half

of the

Sixteenth Century

indeed complicated and not wholly Italian. For an antecedent, we might look to the antique staircase to the old Coudenberg Palace in Brussels, erected by Loys van Boghem in 1538–1539, which supported three monumental figure groups carved by Jean Wilho or Guilgot. The three works have long since disappeared but are dimly visible in a print by Frans Hogenberg of the troubles of 1566.46 The right-hand sculpture represented Hercules Strangling Antaeus, an ensemble of two intertwined male figures. It is likely, as Krista De Jonge notes, that this composition was partly inspired by Ugo da Carpi’s chiaroscuro woodcut of the subject after Raphael’s design.47 The conceit was soon repeated in the Netherlands. A similar figural group representing Hercules Strangling Antaeus appeared on one of the ephemeral arches welcoming Charles V and the future Philip II into Antwerp in 1549 (fig. 10).48 The group is known only from a small detail in one of the woodcuts that Pieter Coecke van Aelst designed for the publication of the entry. Although this may have been a sculpture in the round, it was most 10. Pieter Coecke, designer. Woodcut illustration to probably painted on wooden boards much Cornelius Grapheus, Spectaculorum in susceptione Philippi like the surviving decoration for the entry of hisp. ... an. M. D. XLIX. Antuerpiæ aeditorum, mirificus the Infante Ferdinand from 1635. As such, it apparatus, Antwerp 1550, fol. H4 recto. would have related to other contemporary painted representations of figural groups such as Frans Floris’s depictions of the labours of Hercules. All of these works attest to the presence of this genre of composition in the Low Countries during Giambologna’s early training. As Charles Avery has suggested, there are other aspects of the artist’s work that might imply an interest in Netherlandish or northern sculpture on Giambologna’s part. We, too, wonder whether some of his female figures, such as the Architectura in the Barghello, may reveal his earlier northern experience (fig. 11). These figures, sleek and abstracted, with little articulation of joints or musculature, are quite different from works by Bartolomeo Ammanati, Vincenzo Danti, and others in Florence. They recall the few surviving Flemish sculptured nudes such as Willem van den Broecke’s Kypris and Amor of 1559 (private collection).49 It is common knowledge that Giambologna helped train a number of Netherlandish sculptors such as Pierre Franqueville, Adriaen de Vries, and probably Hubert Gerhard. In a way, Giambologna’s ‘Flemishness’ has been inferred from the traits taken up consistently by his Flemish followers. An interesting but less well-known member of this company was   De Jonge 1994, 113–114; De Jonge 2007b, 23–24.   De Jonge 2007d, 46. I thank Professor De Jonge for this reference. 48   Cornelius Grapheus, Spectaculorum in susceptione Philippi hisp. ... an. M. D. XLIX. Antuerpiæ ­aeditorum, 46 47

mirificus apparatus, Antwerp: Pieter Coecke van Aelst, 1550. 49   Avery 1994 (1987), 48; Lipin´ska 2007, ill. 31.

97

Ethan Matt Kavaler

11. Giambologna, Architectura, 1572 (Florence, Barghello), (photograph by the author).

12. Hans van Mont (attributed), Venus and Mars (Stockholm, National Museum), (photograph by the author).

Hans van Mont, originally from Ghent, who worked with Giambologna in Florence in the 1560s after earlier collaborating on the Antwerp town hall with Cornelis Floris.50 Giambologna recommended him warmly to the imperial court in Vienna, where in 1571 Mont joined Bartolomeus Spranger and Jacopo Strada on the decoration the Neugebäude, the new imperial garden palace on the outskirts of the city. After the death of Emperor Maximilian II in 1576 this project was left unfinished. In 1577 Mont and Spranger continued their cooperation by designing the triumphal arch for the Entry of Rudolf II in Vienna and the following year both followed the new emperor and his court to Prague. Mont is known today only from documents and a few signed drawings, though and a number of sculptures, both in stone and bronze, have been attributed to him. The life-size bronze of Venus, Mars, and Cupid – now in the National Museum in Stockholm – is one of the more probable candidates (fig. 12). It would seem to be by a Netherlander with ties to Giambologna, much like slightly later works by Adriaen de Vries. The bodies of Venus and Mars are somewhat contorted as they turn to face one another in what seems a derivation of Giambologna’s famous ‘bent figures’. According to Karel van Mander Mont had become a specialist in giant stucco figures. It is possible that he was responsible for the stucco decoration in the ground floor reception rooms of the castle of count cˇ ernohorský at Bucˇovice in Moravia, a complex that evokes the   For Hans Mont see Larson 1967; Larson 1988. For Mont’s work on the Antwerp town hall, see Duverger 1941, 65, doc. 51. 50

98

The Diaspora

of

Netherlandish Sculptors

in the

Second Half

of the

Sixteenth Century

Viennese Neugebäude in many aspects. It was also designed by Strada and built almost simultaneously in 1568–1582. The lunettes below the vault of the Kaisersahl are especially richly decorated with stucco busts, statues of antique gods, and representations of both Europa on the bull and the Emperor Charles V mounted full armour (see page 52, fig. 1).51 The work of Giambologna and that of artists who trained with him illustrates the problems associated with viewing sculpture according to national categories. Many conventions of design were shared internationally. To a great extent, northern European sculpture of the later Renaissance is Pan-European, a creature of the courts that had their sights continually on trans-national political and cultural developments. The great sculpture workshops like that of Giambologna mandated extensive collaboration of artists from varied backgrounds, whether in carving or casting. This was Willem van Tetrode’s route to Cellini’s workshop. And it was the way that the Netherlanders Pierre Franqueville, Hans van Mont, and Adriaen de Vries gained entrance to Giambologna’s studio. Nor was this exclusively an Italian phenomenon. One of the clearest examples of this borderless art is the shrine of Elector Moritz of Saxony in Freiberg Cathedral, built from 1559–1563, which was commissioned from an equally heterogeneous assortment of artists.52 In 1555 the initial drawings were made by the painters Gabriele and Benedetto Thola of Brescia. Four year later the goldsmith Hans Wessel from Lübeck slightly altered the design and cast a metal model of it, which was sent to the sculptor Antonis de Seron (van Zerroen) in Antwerp. De Seron carved the extensive alabaster and marble elements including numerous ornamental friezes, ancient warriors, and muses.53 The imposing monument looks a bit like Michelangelo’s first project for the tomb of Julius II with a statue of the kneeling Elector Moritz on top. The effigy of Moritz was fashioned after a court portrait by the Dresden painter Hans Krel. And the bronze gryphons supporting the upper plinth were cast in Lübeck. Projects such as these utterly defeat nationalist scholarship. Netherlandish sculptors in Central Europe naturally adopted local conventions expected by their patrons. The standing effigies of the deceased in the tombs by Godefroy and Jan Robijn, for instance, have much more to do with local practice in the German lands than with Flemish precedents. Similarly, the epitaphs by Netherlanders abroad offer considerably more space for armorial display than is typical in the Low Countries. Most of the monuments by Brandin, Midow, and Willem van den Blocke, for instance, frame extensive fields holding family trees, coats of arms, and textual descriptions of achievements. That said, many of these expatriate Netherlandish sculptors exhibit properties that can be linked to their home culture. The use of multi-coloured materials, of white alabaster, black touchstone, and red marble, is particularly common in the Low Countries. It is typical of the major production of Cornelis Floris in Antwerp, but it is found in Hainault and Flanders as well. Further, the frequent use of caryatids points to a mainstay of Antwerp

  Vacková 1979; Larsson 1982.   Meine-Schawe 1992; Chipps Smith 1994, 175–181. 53  Nothing known about his background but it is tempting to suppose that he was related to the sculptor Andrien or Andries de Serron who had produced the columns, arcades and other classical details of the new castles of Breda and Buren from the 1530s until the 1550s. See van Wezel 1999, 123–125. The Freiberg contract describes a colourful combination of materials, “namely all statues of good alabaster, the pilasters of good red marble, the panels of black, and everything else of green and grey marble”. In 1563 De 51 52

Seron and two assistants accompanied the transport from Antwerp to Freiberg, first to Hamburg by ship, then along the river Elbe to Dresden and from there by cart to Freiberg. Once there, De Seron and his team put all the pieces together and repaired the damage caused during transport. Having finished the job he and his assistants must have returned to Antwerp directly, since he is recorded as being involved in the building of the new town hall. In 1562 De Serron was in Stadthagen and Oberkirchen in order to select sandstone for the Antwerp town hall. Kreft & Soenke 1986, 33; Meine-Schawe 1992, 16–17, n. 76.

99

Ethan Matt Kavaler classicism. Caryatids, of course, became increasingly popular throughout Europe in the years after 1540. Jean Goujon created notable examples in northern France and the French sculptor Esteban Jamete in Andalusia.54 But they become an almost obligatory feature of Floris’s oeuvre and are adopted by many of his compatriots. Hans Vredeman de Vries produced a series of prints dedicated solely to these anthropomorphic supports.55 And they figure prominently in the work of Netherlandish sculptors in Northern Germany and Poland. Thus Robert Coppens’s tomb of Duke Christoph of Mecklenburg-Gadebusch in Schwerin Cathedral has four durable caryatids at its corners (fig. 13).56 It is a variation of sorts on a series of Floris’s monuments 13. Schwerin Cathedral, tomb of Duke such as his Merode tomb in Geel.57 But Christoph of Mecklenburg-Gadebusch, 1592 by Robert Coppens (photograph by the even closer to the Schwerin monument is author). one of the sheets in the so-called Spencer Album in New York, a volume of sculptural drawings by one or more Netherlanders practicing in Southern Germany. Folio 25 recto of the Spencer Album shows a tomb with a kneeling priant and two reliefs, much as in Schwerin, though the Spencer drawing includes only a single caryatid (fig. 14).58 Carl van de Velde has assumed that the Spencer Album largely reproduces lost designs from Floris’s workshop,59 but this is probably too close an association. Folio 25 recto of the Spencer Album, much like the Schwerin tomb, seems to be a free invention based on a vocabulary of forms introduced by Floris rather than a copy of an accredited Floris design. As we have seen, caryatids are featured on the Brandin’s tomb of Duke Ulrich III of Mecklenburg-Güstrow and his two wives in Güstrow Cathedral. Brandin, who came from Utrecht, may have had some contact with Floris in Antwerp, but these conventions cannot be limited to any single workshop. The same may be said of much of the work of Willem van den Blocke, active in Königsberg, Denmark, and Poland.60� An early design such as the epitaph for Dorothea and Jan Brandes of 1588 in Gdan´sk clearly shows van den Blocke’s interest in Floris’s production (fig. 15). The two busts of the Brandes relate to Floris’s epitaph for Dorothea of Denmark in Königsberg, while the caryatids and obelisks are shared with other projects by Floris and other Netherlanders. Van den Blocke would soon develop more original designs, such as the epitaph for Christian and Jan Stroband in Torun. As is typical in Central Europe, a large field is allocated

 Zerner 2003, 174–179; Nieto et al. 1993, 135, 145; Montes Bardo 1993, 111–145. 55   Exh. cat. Antwerp 2002, 194–195. 56   Jolly 1999a, 128–130. 57  Huysmans et al. 1996, 84–86, ill. 203. See also ill. 185 for an engraved design of a closely related tomb. 54

100

  Spencer Album, Spencer Collection, ms. 109, New York Public Library, fol. 25r. 59   Van de Velde 1996, 19, 28. 60   Chipps Smith 1994, 195–197; Drost 1963, 160–161, 166. See also the contribution by Jacek Tylicki to this volume (chapter 2.5). 58

The Diaspora

of

Netherlandish Sculptors

in the

14. Netherlandish artist tomb design. Spencer Album (Spencer Collection, ms. 109, New York Public Library, fol. 25 recto), (photograph by the author).

Second Half

of the

Sixteenth Century

15. Gdan´sk, St. Mary Church, epitaph for Jan Brandes, 1588, by Willem van den Blocke (photograph by the author).

to an account of the Strobands’ achievements (see page 162, fig. 4). But here as well, the use of caryatids, the coordination of different colours, and the remnants of strapwork in the detailing of the contour point to a surviving Antwerp tradition in this field of micro architecture. While there is considerable variation among Netherlandish sculptors abroad – so great as to cast into doubt any useful group identity based on their territory of origin – there seem to be currents of design in Central Europe that were associated with the Low Countries and helped insure the appeal of these artists to potential patrons. Among these are a tradition of narrative alabaster reliefs, simple anthropomorphic supporting figures, the use of strapwork, along with an approach to variegated colour manifested in epitaphs and like objects. It is clear that Netherlandish carvers were in demand on account of their native training and technical abilities. It also seems that they offered a distinctive set of formal strategies, at least as far as Central Europe is concerned. If Florence was home to the sculptural discourse on the human body and its potential, Antwerp was a capital of sculptural micro-architecture. Here the relief, rather than the statue or figural group, was the dominant figural genre. But equally important was the setting, of arches, pilasters, caryatids, urns, and obelisks – and of abstract forms and shapes that have yet to be named. This ornament was not ancillary but central – the ornamental object. It is a distinct brand of sculpture, and one which forces us to reconsider the norms and potential of the medium.

101

1. Cologne, loggia of the town hall, 1569–1571, by Willem Vernukken.

Chapter 2.3 Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser Konrad Ottenheym (Utrecht University)

In the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, building masters from the Southern Low Countries commonly undertook architectural activities at a long distance from home. Great building companies like those of Evert Spoorwater and the Keldermans family from Mechelen dominated the major building sites in the province of Holland, for instance in the cities of Delft, Haarlem, and Alkmaar.1 Personal connections to the stone quarries in Brabant gave them an advantage their competitors in the north could not beat. In the seventeenth century, building contractors from Amsterdam played a comparable role extending their commercial activities across the Dutch Republic’s countryside. Outside the jurisdiction of the civic guilds, they contracted package deals including masonry, carpentry, and stonecutting of complex building sites such as country houses and even castles.2 This practice was not unique to the Low Countries because it occurred in other areas, such as the Weser region, that possessed good stone quarries and commercial building traditions. For example, the new sandstone façade of the town hall of Leiden was designed in 1595 by Lieven de Key from Haarlem while the details were worked out by Claes Cornelisz, the Leiden city stonemason. The entire façade was prepared in Bremen by Luder von Bentheim. In 1597, it was shipped in pieces to Leiden accompanied by two of Von Bentheim’s assistants who both worked a full year erecting this façade in Leiden.3 Despite their ability to organise such complex works at a distance, Netherlandish master builders did not expand their activities to foreign countries when the migration of Netherlandish artists increased. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the leading masters in the international diffusion of Netherlandish architecture were primarily sculptors, the heirs of those who for a century had created and exported large sculpted wooden and alabaster altars.4 Specialised in the refined grammar of all’antica works such as funeral monuments and pulpits, some sculptors were also capable of designing and constructing actual buildings. The workshops of both Cornelis Floris in sixteenth-century Antwerp and Hendrick de Keyser in early seventeenth-century Amsterdam were essential to the international diffusion of architectural inventions from the Low Countries. This chapter concerns their own work, the work of their former assistants, and its influence on emigrant masters who had little or no relation to these famous workshops. Cornelis Floris’s international commissions Like that of his fellow sculptors and stonemasons, the family of Cornelis Floris (1514–1575) exhibited a strong tradition in masonry and sculpture from the fifteenth century onwards. Floris was born and raised in Antwerp, likely working with his father, a renowned stone mason, and his uncle, the sculptor Claudius Floris.5 In the 1530s, he lived in Rome. In   Hurx 2012.   Meischke 1995; Meischke & Ottenheym 2011. 3   ter Kuile 1964; Meischke 1989; Albrecht 1997.

  Jacobs 1998, 209–237.  Hedicke 1913; Roggen & Withof 1942; Huysmans 1987; Huysmans et al. 1996.

1

4

2

5

103

Konrad Ottenheym 1539, he returned to Antwerp where he joined the guild of Saint Luke and started his own workshop. Within a few years, his workshop became renowned for funerary monuments, tabernacles, altars, and other works in which classical architectural details were combined with exquisite sculpted figures executed in stone, white alabaster, and colourful marbles. Regarded as an expert on architectural detailing all’antica, Cornelis Floris was asked to design a series of triumphal gates for the Joyeuse Entrée of Charles V and Philips II in Antwerp in 1549. These ephemeral structures offered the perfect occasion to practise his knowledge of the classical orders and the modern decoration system of strapwork. The exquisite publication of these festivities and their lavish decorations attracted attention from across Europe, garnering support for Cornelis Floris’s international career.6 Floris’s first important commission from abroad was for the epitaph for Duchess Dorothea, the sister of the King Christian III of Denmark and the first wife of Duke Albrecht of Prussia, who died in 1547 (fig. 2). Duke Albrecht exhibited a strong interest in architecture and sculpture from the Low Countries. In 1533, he was one of the first foreign rulers to send his own architect to the Low Countries to study architecture. Ten years later, he acquired Jacques Du Broeucq’s design for Charles V’s residence in the citadel of Ghent.7 In 1548, Jacob Binck, court artist of Denmark and Prussia, was sent to Antwerp to find capable artists for this commission. He chose Cornelis Floris. In 1549, Binck was still in Antwerp supervising the finished monument and its prepara2. Königsberg Cathedral, epitaph tion for shipping. Binck’s letters revealed that the crates were first for Duchess Dorothea of shipped to Dordrecht, then to Lübeck where they arrived in the Prussia (d. 1547), 1548–1552, by spring of 1550.8 Two years later, Binck sent the crates to their final Cornelis Floris (destroyed in World destination in Königsberg where the elements were installed in War II). the cathedral by Cornelis Floris’s assistant.9� When Binck was in Antwerp in 1549, he ordered another important monument from Cornelis Floris: a freestanding royal tomb in honour of Frederick I, the late duke of Schleswig and king of Denmark who died in 1533 (see page 67, fig. 13). These two monuments were the beginning of a series of international commissions for Floris, who in the next twenty-five years would design and produce four more funeral monuments for the ruling families in Denmark and Prussia. These commissions also set a new standard for sovereigns in northern Germany, Sweden, and Poland, due to the close relations of these courts around the Baltic Sea.10 Following the example of their peers and emulating those of their rivals, the courts turned their attention to Cornelis Floris, or other craftsmen that might equal him. Floris’s oeuvre illustrated almost all possibilities for funeral monuments that e­ xceeded the decorated stone slab.11 The most common monument was the epitaph, a wall-hung memorial shield with a text, coat of arms, and, sometimes, a sculpted portrait. Cornelis   Cornelius Scribonius, Spectaculorum in Susceptione Philippi Hisp. Princ. Antverpiae aeditorum mirificus apparatus, Antwerp 1550. 7   Roggen & Withof 1942, 102. 6

104

 Binck’s letters are published in Ehrenberg 1899; quoted in Roggen & Withof 1942. 9   Hedicke 1913, 58. 10   Meganck 2005. 11   Baresel-Brand 2007. 8

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser Floris treated his epitaphs as architectural structures, as a superposition of various panels framed by columns and caryatids, including a ­ classical ­ sarcophagus, and often with a p ­ ending cartouche at the bottom. Wall tombs were monuments of even higher rank. He f­ ollowed the Italian model in his architecture of grand-scale funeral wall tombs – a ­triumphal arch set against the wall, with the life-size ­sculpture of the defunct nobleman at the centre, mostly as a priant (in a kneeling position).12 Niches to the left and right were enriched with statues of allegorical figures, as in his tomb for Albrecht of Prussia in the choir of the cathedral of Königsberg, ­constructed between 1568 and 1570 but destroyed in World War II (fig. 3). Freestanding tombs were the supreme type of funeral monuments, suitable for only the highest nobility. Cornelis Floris used two models for funeral monuments. The first was the monumental sarcophagus surrounded by caryatids, with the figures of the dead as gisants laying on top, as shown in the sarcophagi of King Frederick I in Schleswig, and the Danish admiral Herluf Trolle and 3. Königsberg, choir of the cathedral with the tomb for his wife Birgitte Gøye in Herlufsholm (see Albrecht of Prussia, 1568–1572, by Cornelis Floris at the below, fig. 5). The second, even more rear and Willem van den Blocke’s monument for Duchess dignified type followed the contempoElisabeth of Prussia, 1578–1581, at the left (both destroyed rary models of the French monarchy in in World War II), (see page 145, fig. 2 and page 146, fig. 3). St Denis, featuring a central sarcophagus topped by the gisants, and framed by columns and a classical baldachin with the priant on top, as shown in Floris’s monument for King Christian III in the royal mausoleum of Roskilde (see below, fig. 6). This monument was ordered in 1569 by King Frederick II, built by Floris in Antwerp between 1573 and 1575, and, only several years later, actually erected in the royal mausoleum at Roskilde Cathedral. Typical for the architectural frameworks of Cornelis Floris’s monuments was the combination of a strict classical organisation characterised by solid columns and caryatids supporting the straight entablature, with newly invented ornaments such as female heads, strap work cartouches, exquisitely sculpted statues of the defunct noblemen, and personifications of virtues and putti. Coloured marbles and stones enhanced the magnificence of these architectural objects. The materials of the architectural frames came from the Southern Low Countries – namely black marble from the Namur region and red marble from Rance – while most of the statues were sculpted in white alabaster imported from England. 12   This type of wall tomb was introduced by Andrea Sansovino in the early sixteenth century, most notably

those in Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome, albeit with a demi-gisant fitting for a prelate.

105

Konrad Ottenheym Cornelis Floris himself did not travel. He produced these monuments in Antwerp and sent them to their destination as prefabricated packages, which was a common practice in Antwerp for over a century. Seemingly, the scale for works produced this way was limitless, even occasionally including an entire building. In 1557, Floris developed two designs for the new loggia of the Cologne town hall.13 His first design showed a structure of freestanding columns, five bays wide with a superposition of Ionic above the Doric order. His second, more enhanced design featured an arcade on pillars on the ground flour fronted by Corinthian columns, and featuring freestanding composite columns on the first floor. The entrance bay was accentuated by a central projection. Floris’s design was rejected, and during the following years, other stonemasons and sculptors delivered their proposals for the same project. Finally, between 1569 and 1571, the project was executed in Namur stone by Willem Vernukken from Kalkar, whose design was only a variation of Floris’s second proposal (fig. 1). The loggia as executed was still five bays long but its width doubled. Arcades on pillars appeared on both stories, as well as a central projection in addition to projections on both outer bays. Notwithstanding the relation of the final project to Floris’s original design, his workshop was not involved in the final realisation of the loggia and most building materials were delivered by Coenraad II van Neurenberg from Namur.14 Nevertheless, Cornelis Floris’s workshop possessed the means to realise this kind of architectural project at a considerable distance from Antwerp. Accordingly, the Cologne l­oggia differs little from the magnificent choir screen Floris created in the 1570s for the Tournai Cathedral. Some sources have suggested that Floris and his workshop were even involved in the design and construction of the Royal Exchange in London in 1566 and 1567 (see page 24, fig. 9). This building was commissioned by Thomas Gresham, who was the leading merchant in trade between England and the Low Countries and possessed excellent contacts in Antwerp. Hendrick van Paesschen (Passe), the supervisor of the new exchange, also cooperated with Floris on the construction of the Antwerp town hall (1561–1565). Columns and other architectural details of the London exchange were readymade and imported from Antwerp. Richard Clough, Gresham’s representative in Antwerp, wrote a letter to Gresham in December 1566, suggesting that these elements came from the workshop of Cornelis Floris: “… for the tochestone you send me [for], I cannot write you answer by this letter; for that both Henryke and Florys are both out of town. But and if they will deliver them in London, redy hewed at 2 s. the foote, it wolde not be dear”.15 Floris’s style and his workshop became rather influential around the North Sea and Baltic Sea, especially because of the engravings of ornaments he produced between 1548 and 1557. These popular prints were an important medium for the diffusion of his inventions (see also chapter 3.1). Cornelis Floris’s former assistants in Northern Europe Cornelis Floris’s former assistants were influential in disseminating his style.16 Over the years, his workshop attracted many apprentices seeking training in architecture and sculpture. In 1595, his son, Cornelis III Floris, declared in a retrospective that at least twenty-seven apprentices worked in the shop from 1550 onwards. Additionally, he declared that many of them later became “masters and artists practising the art of sculpture and architecture abroad ­ rnaments, and at various royal courts”.17 They were ­trained in sculpting statues, architectural o   Kiene 1991; Kirgus 2003.   van Tussenbroek 2006b, 62–66. 15  J.W. Burgon, The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham, vol. II, 1839, 177–178 (quoted from Girouard 2009, 474, note 87).

  Jolly 1999a; Johannsen 2010a.   “... meesters en kunstenaars, [die] in het beeldsnijden en architecture in verscheidenen landen en koninkrijken hun kunst exerceeren”. Roggen & Withof 1942, 170, doc. LIX.

13

16

14

17

106

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser architecture.18 In addition to these pupils, highly skilled assistants, ­ journeymen, and professional collaborators also contributed to the grand-scale projects, each according to his ability and speciality – for instance, the young apprentices polished the marble columns, the assistants carved the scrolls and friezes, and journeymen initiated work on the statues, leaving the final stage for Cornelis Floris himself or his senior ­ collaborators. This cooperative approach was essential for his workshop. Without it, producing as many ­monumental projects at the same time would have p ­ roved ­impossible. Any lack of capable assistants could cause great delay, as did the problems with the insufficient supply of building materials expressed in a letter that Floris wrote in 1553 where he complained about completing the tomb for Frederick I in time.19 In projects elsewhere in the Southern Low Countries, Floris sometimes cooperated with other professional masters who merely executed his designs in situ. He sent his assistants from Antwerp if experienced local craftsmen were not available. Complicated funeral monuments such as 4. Uppsala, tomb of King John III, the main parts were the royal mausoleums in Denmark and created in 1593–1596 by Willem van den Blocke and his Prussia were packed in wooded crates and workshop. Present situation after the second reconstruction shipped in pieces. These crates were of the monument in 1893 (see also page 165, fig. 7). accompanied by a skilled journeyman who knew how to put the pieces together correctly, could repair the damage caused in transport, and could produce in situ the monu­­ment’s foundation using local stone. A later case study – although not from Floris’s practice – perfectly illustrates the crucial role of such accompanying artists (fig. 4). In 1593, the Swedish crown commissioned a marble tomb for the late King John III from the well-known workshop of Willem van den Blocke in Gdan´sk. The monument was executed in due time; ­however, it remained in Gdan´sk for almost two centuries because of political and financial troubles. In the late eighteenth century, the crates with the pieces finally arrived in Sweden to be erected in Uppsala Cathedral. Apparently, the piece was intended to be a wall tomb. By that time, however, no one knew the original design, leaving everyone guessing at how the pieces should be properly assembled. Finally, in the early nineteenth century, the pieces were installed as a freestanding monument with a baldachin supported by four columns. Since then, the monument was rearranged by later generations according to another plausible reconstruction (see chapter 2.5 by Jacek Tylicki).20   Ibidem. In 1595 Cornelis III Floris declared also these pupils were trained in “het kleinsteken (…), zoo van beelden als anderszins bij Cornelis Floris”; Huysmans et al. 1996, 79. 18

  Huysmans et al. 1996, 245.   Hahr 1910, 50–58.

19 20

107

Konrad Ottenheym This case has illustrated the complexity of large-scale monuments prefabricated at a distance and has demonstrated why Cornelis Floris always sent an assistant to supervise the erection of these m ­ onumental structures, which he had done since the beginning of his international activities. A certain ‘stonemason Heinrich’ (Heinrich einem Steinmetzer) from Antwerp was in Königsberg in 1553 to erect the epitaph of Duchess Dorothea.�21 After completing the job, he likely went to home to ­ continue his work in Floris’s studio. In 1568, the funeral tomb of Herluf Trolle and his wife in Herlufsholm, Denmark, was put in place by Hans Floris, probably Cornelis’s nephew, and Robert Midow (fig. 5).22 When 5. Herlufsholm (Denmark), the funeral tomb of Herluf Trolle they returned to the Low Countries was and his wife with the grand cartouche at the wall, 1568, by Cornelis Floris. unclear. At least by 1575, Hans Floris was back in Denmark (or still in Denmark) working at Kronborg castle where he became head of the building team, s­ucceeding Hans van Paesschen.23 Robert Midow was a member of the large Midow family (also called Mido or Mida abroad) that had a century-long reputation as stone traders from Ecaussines. In the sixteenth century, various members of the family became valuable ­assistants in Cornelis’s workshop. In 1561, while preparing the building campaign for the Antwerp town hall, Cornelis Floris inspected stone quarries in the Low Countries together with Colijn Midow.24 Later, both of Midow’s sons, Robert and Nicolas, were among Floris’s most experienced collaborators, and they often represented him abroad. In 1563, Nicolas Midow (who died 1602) travelled to Bremen and the Weser region in order to ship Oberkirchner sandstone quarried by Anthonis de Serron for the Antwerp town hall.25 In 1568, Robert was in Denmark, as mentioned previously, and in 1570, both Robert and Nicolas Midow were sent to Königsberg to construct the epitaph for Duchess Anna Maria, the second wife of Duke Albrecht.26� Both stayed there for almost half a year. Back home, in 1572, Robert supervised the erection of Cornelis Floris’s rood loft in the cathedral of Tournai.27 Nicolas Midow moved to Mecklenburg to become Philips Brandin’s assistant and, in 1594, his successor as court architect of Duke Ulrich III of Mecklenburg, in which capacity he built the east wing of Güstrow castle (see below). The practice of sending highly qualified assistants along with the prefabricated ­monument was continued over the decades but his associates were not always as reliable as Cornelis Floris hoped. In 1553, he complained about serious problems – such as unreliable journeymen who fell ill or ran away unexpectedly, and the lack of good stone – that ­frustrated his grander works.28 Especially from the late 1560s when the political and economic situation in the Low   Roggen & Withof 1942, 148 doc. XIII.   Roggen & Withof 1942, 110; Johannsen 2010a, 146 note 24. 23   Johannsen 2010b, 165. 24  Roggen & Withof 1942, doc. XXX. 25   van Tussenbroek 2006b, 17. 26   “Robert und Niklasch aus Antorf, beiden Steinhaueren beim Epitaphio”. Roggen & Withof 1942, 164, doc. XLVII (excerpt from the accounts of the court in Königsberg, as published in Ehrenberg 1899).

  Dupont & Mariage 2006, 32–34.  “Axcedenten ende quellinghen, die op alsulcke groote wercken loopen, soe van steen, soe vanden ghesellen. Deen wort ziek, dander ghaet loopen”. Letter written 19 September 1553 to Joos Facuez, secretary of the chancellor of Brabant (Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief), published at full length in Huysmans et al. 1996, 245–246.

21

27

22

28

108

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser

6. Roskilde Cathedral, chapel with the funeral monuments of King Christian III by Cornelis Floris (left), completed in 1575, and of King Frederik II, 1594–1598, by Gert van Egen (right).

Countries changed dramatically, people began seeking new opportunities abroad. Several of Cornelis Floris’s assistants who were sent abroad to accompany a precious monument to a foreign court did not return after their work was finished. Instead, they tried to begin new careers with a ‘Cornelis Floris look-alike workshop’. Some were indeed successful. For instance, Willem van den Blocke went to Königsberg to prepare the installation of Floris’s ducal monument in the cathedral. He never came back and, instead, started a workshop that would become important in Northern and Central Europe (see chapters 2.5 by Jacek Tylicki and 2.6 by Franciszek Skibin´ ski). Gert van Egen, a sculptor from Mechelen, built a comparable career. In 1578, he was already working at the Danish castle of Kronborg.29 In the following years, he supervised the installation of Cornelis Floris’s funeral monument to the late King Christian III. Floris completed the tomb just before his death in 1575. Due to financial problems, the tomb did not arrive in Denmark until 1579 and it was installed in Roskilde Cathedral in 1580. After completing the job, Van Egen stayed in Denmark to become the sculptor to the court, mainly working at Kronborg.30 Like Willem van de Blocke in Königsberg, Van Egen created the memorial monument to the next generation of rulers. Between 1594 and 1598, he made the royal tomb for the late King Frederick II (who died in 1588) alongside Cornelis Floris’s tomb for Christian III (fig. 6).31   Johannsen 2010a, 124.  The chapel portal (c. 1585) is generally accepted as a work by him and Thomas Frandsen. Johannsen 2010b, 169. 29

31

  Johannsen 2010a, 128.

30

109

Konrad Ottenheym Cornelis Floris’s work here was obviously the model, but, as was the case with Van den Blocke in Königsberg, Van Egen did not simply imitate it. He tried to exceed his model by employing a more complex architectural framework with double columns on the corners and elaborate personifications instead of putti surrounding the priant on top of the monument. In addition to these artists who were sent abroad to accompany Floris’s work, but who never returned, other workshop co-operators left Antwerp because they accepted commissions personally offered to them. In most cases, becoming a successful artist at a foreign court meant being more than just a capable sculptor because genuine art commissions were rare. The ability to design buildings and fortifications, and supervise their construction was necessary as well. For example, the contract for the new court artist at Kassel in 1577 7. Oosterend (The Netherlands), wooden rood explained that his duties were “to direct loft, 1554, signed ‘Hein H’. a building site, to demolish, to design, to sculpt, and to work in plaster as well as with trass mortar”.32 Apparently journeymen from Cornelis Floris’s workshop possessed a good reputation that gave them opportunities to start their own careers abroad. Hein Hagaert was such an associate. The two-storey tall, sculpted, wooden rood loft in the Frisian village of Oosterend, signed ‘Hein H’, is attributed to him (fig. 7). The rood loft was commissioned in 1554 by the local nobleman Syerck van Donia in a last attempt to strengthen Catholicism in his region. Another remarkable work attributed to Hagaert was the funeral monument of Count Edo Wiemken in Jever, shortly after 1560 (on this monument, only a stonemason’s sign, ‘HH’, has been traced). The freestanding tomb was copied from Floris’s design for Frederick I in Schleswig. In Jever, an octagonal screen enhanced the setting, which was decorated with sculpted friezes and statues, and vaulted with an octagonal wooden cupola (fig. 8). In 1562, Hagaert was back in Antwerp and continued working in Cornelis Floris’s workshop. Here, he was not merely an assistant but a fellow worker. The German sculptor Arnold Abel visited Hagaert at Floris’s workshop during his trip through the Low Countries looking for capable artists. Hagaert and his colleague Philip Diewas (De Vos), who also worked together with Cornelis Floris33 were recruited by Abel to work on the cenotaph of Maximilian I in Innsbruck. Indeed, Hein Hagaert went to Innsbruck and assisted on the works by Abel and Alexander Colijn. Works of his own in Austria have not yet been documented.   “... mit Bauen anzugeben, abzureissen, Visierungen zu stellen, bildhauen, Gips auszuschneiden, Estrich zu schlagen, im Tirass zu arbeiten”. Contract of 1 May 1577 (Marburger Staatsarchiv), quoted in Kramm 1936, 362. The artist appointed here was Willem Vernukken from Kalkar (ibidem, 359–390). 32

110

  “... so neben einander bei Cornelio Floris gearbait haben”. Statthalterei Archiv in Innsbruck, Gemeine Missiven 1563, fol. 828. Published by Schönherr 1890, 214 no. 7690. 33

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser Joris (Georg) Robijn (c. 1520/25–1595) was not educated in Cornelis Floris’s studio, but at least once, between 1558 and 1561, he cooperated with Floris on the altar located in the chapel of the Holy Sacrament in the church of St Michael and St Gudula in Brussels.34 Floris designed the altar and Robijn built it. However, the altar was damaged during the iconoclast riots of 1566 and eventually replaced in the seventeenth century. The family Robijn/Robin hailed from Ypres with roots in architecture and created fashionable architectural objects such as altars, choir screens, and fortification works. Joris’s works in the Southern Low Countries included rood lofts, church restorations, water engineering, and precious works in the antique style. In 1573, he went to Germany as a highly regarded artist with a successful career at home. He was likely invited to Germany by Günther von Schwarzburg, a brother-in-law of Prince William of Orange. Two years later, in 1575, Robijn moved to Mainz where he was appointed architect, sculptor, and painter of the court of Archbishop Daniel Brendel von Homburg. In this position, he invited his brother, the sculptor Jan II Robijn (c. 1525–c. 1600), and their 8. Jever (Germany), funeral monument of Edo Wiemken, early 1560s, attributed to Hein nephew, Peter Osten (c.1545–c.1600). In addition to his work in Mainz, the arch- Hagaert. bishop allowed Joris Robijn to create several important architectural works for neighbouring courts. In 1583, he received permission to advise Count Wolfgang von Hohenlohe, another brother-in-law of William of Orange, on the renovation of the castle of Weikersheim. Whether his opinion sustained any influence on the final result realised in the following years has remained unclear (see page 54, fig. 1). More important were his works, particularly the hospital and the university, for the prince-bishop of Würzburg, Julius von Echter. The Juliusspital was a hospital-cum-princely residence, designed in 1575 and built over the next ten years.35 In later centuries, the building underwent radical changes. Robijn’s architectural work was better revealed at the new university complex he built between 1582 and 1591.36 The four-wing complex featured plastered walls and decorative sculpted elements on the exterior, particularly at the entrance portal and the scrolled gables of the main wings. However, the spectacular architecture of the interior of the university church, erected in the south wing of the complex, stood in contrast (its rich southern exterior façade was a later addition when the wall was reinforced by buttresses in the seventeenth century). The steep nave of the church was surrounded by three superimposed arcades of pillars with half columns in the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders, creating an exuberant antique Roman atmosphere (fig. 9). At the same time, the ‘Gothic’ window traceries kept the religious character of the building that was also intended as the mausoleum of its founder, the prince-bishop.   De Ren 1982. It is still unclear how or whether the sculptor Arend Robijn/Robin, active in Stadthagen and Bückeburg, was related to Joris Robijn c.s.. For Arend Robijn see Jolly 1999a, 136–138. 34

35 36

  Jetter 1986, 118–122.   Rückbrod 1977, 139–140 and figs. 28–29.

111

Konrad Ottenheym Travelling sculptors-cumarchitects, 1550–1600 In the last decades of the sixteenth century, numerous gifted sculptors-architects from the Low Countries established great careers abroad. A connection to Cornelis Floris’s workshop can be proved for those craftsmen mentioned previously. Otherwise, whether others spent time in his workshop has been left to speculation. Naturally, Cornelis Floris’s was not the only workshop that offered thorough training in the antique and modern v­ocabularies in sculpture, ornament, and architecture. Nevertheless, all migrating artists were evidently well trained in the formal language that Floris and his ­ workshop developed during the third quarter of the century and well aware of inventions he had published. From 1560s onwards, migrating artists were also aware of those inventions by Vredeman 9. Würzburg, University Church, 1582–1591, by de Vries. Cornelis Floris’s use of precious Joris /Georg Robijn. coloured marbles was much welcomed, in addition to the wide appreciation of his formal compositions and other inventions. The combination of white, red, and black marble and blue-grey stone e­ voked antique Roman interiors as described by Vitruvius and Pliny. Thus, the use of such colour schemes became regarded as part of the all’antica aesthetic as well.37 Netherlandish masters possessed good ­connections to quarries, or at least to stone traders, which allowed them to import and use these coloured marbles elsewhere in Europe. Obviously, cities that could be reached by ship offered the best possibilities. Nevertheless, Netherlandish masters abroad also worked in local stone, such as the Swedish and Danish sandstone that was readily used in Gdan´sk. While these stones were less expensive, the carvings remained less refined, by necessity, compared to works in alabaster and marble. Recent material research also showed that most of these sandstone works, tombs, and epi­ taphs in Gdan´sk were originally painted to imitate the coloured marbles from the Low Countries.38 Even architecture was painted in this colour scheme. For example, the socalled ‘English House’ built in 1570 in Gdan´sk by Hans Kramer from Dresden featured a sandstone façade superimposed with five orders of pilasters followed by two zones of cary­ atids at the gable (fig. 10). Sgrafitto decorations in black and white covered the façade panels. The entire apparatus of the orders was painted black with golden details, the wooden door and window frames were painted to imitate red marble, and the friezes were coloured blue.39  The oldest example in the Low Countries , so far known, was the rood screen at Mons, 1534–1535. De Jonge 2005c, 135. 38  Leszek Zakrzewski et al., Documentation of the conservation works on the epitaph of Eduard Blemke, 37

112

typescript in the archive of the Regional Conservator Office in Gdan´sk, Gdan´sk 2000. With thanks to Franciscek Skibin´ ski. 39   Cuny 1910b, 18.

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser

11. Stockholm, Riddarholm Church, tombs of the medieval kings Magnus Ladulås and Karl Knutsson Bonde, 1574, by Lucas de Werdt.

In the second half of the sixteenth century, almost all commissions to Netherlandish sculptors and stonemasons specified all’antica works, with a few exceptions: From the mid-sixteenth century onwards, a series of royal funeral 10. Gdan´sk, ‘English House’, built in 1570 by tombs were commissioned to underscore Hans Kramer (photograph c. 1900). the autonomy and lineage of the Swedish monarchy that recently regained its independence. In 1574, Lucas de Werdt sculpted the royal monument in the choir of Riddarholm Church in Stockholm to memorialise two heroic medieval kings of Sweden, Magnus Ladulås (who died in 1290) and Karl Knutsson Bonde (who died in 1470).�40 To express the seniority of the Swedish monarchy, these posthumous funeral monuments did not display antique ornament and g ­ rammar but rather crafted a conscious reference to the historic ‘Gothic’ style (fig. 11). Also, the three-colours scheme was absent here because both tombs were executed in a monochromatic, well-polished brown stone. Only the cartouches on the sides of the tombs that mentioned the date of the erection were detailed in contemporary strapwork. Philip Brandin (who died in 1594) was one of the successful emigrant sculptorarchitects from the northern Low Countries. He left Utrecht in the 1540s where his father Jan Brandt was involved in the construction of the Vredenburg citadel.41 From 1563 until his death in 1594, he worked as sculptor and master builder to the court of the dukes of Mecklenburg in Wismar, Schwerin, and Güstrow (see the previous chapter by Ethan Matt Kavaler). His ­architectural commissions chiefly involved the rebuilding of the ducal residences. He began his career rebuilding the castle of Schwerin and its court chapel according to the designs of the Italian artist Johan Baptista Parr. Brandin supervised over a dozen craftsmen, many of whom hailed from the Low Countries as well.42� After 1578, he spent most of his time rebuilding the residence at Güstrow. The two most impressive wings of this   Alm et al. 1996, 315–316.   Jolly 1999a; Jolly 1999b.

40 41

 Jolly 1999b, 19. For Pahr and his brothers in Sweden see Hahr 1907. 42

113

Konrad Ottenheym castle were rebuilt between 1558 and 1567 by Franciscus and Christopher Parr, brothers of the a­ forementioned Johan Baptista.43 After the Parr brothers left Mecklenburg in 1572 to serve the Swedish king in Kalmar, Philip Brandin became the official architect to the court in Güstrow and completed the two remaining wings of the residence. In 1590, Brandin was sent to serve the duke’s only daughter Sophie, widow of the Danish king Frederick II, for the reconstruction of her castle of Nykøbing on the Danish island of Falster. Brandin died there in 1594. 12. Lübeck, pulpit of the cathedral by Hans Little of Brandin’s architectural work has Fleming, signed and dated ‘HF 1568’. remained. The northern wing of Güstrow was partly ruined by fire in 1795, while the castle of Nykøbing was demolished after falling into ruin in the late eighteenth century. Even though direct and detailed analysis of his architecture remains impossible, Brandin’s influence on the further development of architecture in the region must have been considerable, albeit by means of his fellow countrymen who accompanied him. Hans Fleming (1545–1623) was a stonecarver-sculptor from Namur who travelled to Mecklenburg with Brandin in 1563.44 He assisted Brandin in Güstrow but soon began his own workshop and won several important commissions from Lübeck, including the pulpit of the cathedral (1568–1570), which was signed and dated ‘HF 1568’ (fig. 12), and the new front of the town hall (1570–1572) with its Doric arcade on the ground floor, Ionic pilasters and caryatids on the first floor, and three decorative gables on top (fig. 13).45 Fleming executed this town hall wing in cooperation with Hercules Midow. Their addition was 13. Lübeck, the new front of the town hall, 1570– more a screen than a genuine building. As 1572, by Hans Fleming and Hercules Midow. such, it had much in common with the ephemeral triumphal architecture and monumental species of rood lofts designed in Antwerp in those years. The most monumental of these pieces, Cornelis Floris’s rood loft in Tournai, was executed by Robert Midow. The open gallery of the Lübeck town hall with its six arches on octagonal pillars on the ground floor supporting an upper gallery was comparable to the elevation of the Stock Exchange  Hoppe 2000; Exh. cat. Güstrow 2006.   Karling 1937–1938.

43 44

114

45

  Bruns et al. 1974, 90–96; Paczkowski 1975.

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser in London that was prefabricated in Antwerp. An all’antica structure such as this, as well as its architectural details, was completely new for Lübeck at that time. The sources for these ‘antique’ elements could be traced to the Low Countries, such as the herm figures of the first floor that resembled Vredeman de Vries’s 1560 print series, and to the Parr workshop at Güstrow, especially the heavy rusticated parapet of the first floor. The three gables crowning the new town hall façade were designed like triumphal arches topped with a pediment and flanked by scrollwork. These scrolls were not the fancy types propagated by Vredeman de Vries with smoothly intersecting C- and S-volutes, but rather the stiffer, geometrical types with straight vertical and horizontal strips as well as quarter circles. In 1572, Fleming followed the Parr brothers to Sweden and was employed at the rebuilding of Kalmar castle. In 1581, he 14. Vadstena (Sweden), Klosterkyrkan, funeral stayed briefly in Denmark at the Sound trytomb for the younger brother of King John III, ing to get a residence permit for Helsingør.46� Duke Magnus (who died in 1595), by Hans Probably he sought work on Kronborg but Fleming. what he might have contributed has been uncertain. In the late sixteenth century, he returned to Swedish service as a sculptor, architect, and military engineer. In the first decades of the seventeenth century, his most important commission was adding a third story on the main wing to complete the royal castle of Vadstena. On the upper storey of the central tower, he created an exceptional chapel featuring a huge star rib vault over a square ground plan, modern Gothic pointed arches, and rosette windows. Between 1612 and 1620, he crowned the exterior walls at both short ends with scrolled gables (see page 61, fig. 5). As a sculptor, he made the funeral tomb for the younger brother of King John III, Duke Magnus (who died in 1595), in the Vadstena Klosterkyrkan. This freestanding rectangular tomb was surrounded by small Corinthian columns and topped with the gisant of the defunct duke (fig. 14). As a military engineer, he contributed to the foundation of the new city of Göteborg (see the contribution by Nils Ahlberg in chapter 4.3). This brief enumeration of Fleming’s activities illustrates clearly the various capacities that were expected of these migrating artists if they wished to be appointed to the court. Not enough sculpture commissions existed for one to remain merely a sculptor. Therefore, other relevant expertise was necessary. Aside from vying for a position at court, migrating artists could also settle down in a major city and be employed by a community of wealthy urban patricians and merchants. The wider range of clients a­ llowed this strategy to create better opportunities for developing specialisation in a single discipline. As noted, Gdan´sk was a major centre for Netherlandish artists. Yet other cities attracted sculptor-architects as well, albeit in more limited numbers. Shortly after 1550, Hans and Michael Fleischer from Nijmegen emigrated to Silesia (in Southwestern Poland today).47 Hans established a large sculpture workshop in Wrocław (Breslau), the capital of   Tønnesen 2003, 60.

46

47

  Harasimowicz 1990; Oszczanowski 2005.

115

Konrad Ottenheym region. His brother Michael settled in Legnica (Liegnitz), seventy kilometers west of Wrocław. Hans Fleischer’s workshop lasted for three decades and ­delivered an entire repertoire of statues, reliefs, and micro-architectural objects such as tombs, epitaphs, and altars to the city’s civic elite and the nobility in its surroundings.48 He introduced the modern antique grammar in the style of Cornelis Floris with the typical combination of classical columns according to Serlio’s treatise combined with strapwork cartouches, caryatids, freestanding statues, and relief plaquettes (fig. 15). Fleischer even integrated prefabricated alabaster reliefs imported from the Low Countries in his own designs.49 He too trained many pupils and assistants of both Netherlandish and German origin in his studio. Due to the activities of the Fleischer brothers (among others), Wrocław became a major centre in Central Europe for sculpture and architectural objects influenced by Cornelis Floris’s designs. As was the case in other ‘look-alike’ workshops, the role of figurative sculpture gradually became more important than the architectural frame, especially compared to the original work of Cornelis Floris. Sculptors from Wrocław were active all along the old trade route to Cracow and further east to Lviv (Lemberg, Lwow). In the second half of the sixteenth century, craftsmen from the Low Countries also travelled this route, including Henryk Horst from Groningen and his German colleague Hermann van Hutte from Aachen, who worked in Lviv in 15.  Wrocław, St Mary Magdalen’s the 1560s and extracted alabaster from the local area, comChurch, epitaph for Heinrich Müller, bining it with the red marble from Cracow to create colourafter 1563, by Hans Fleischer (from: ful marble altars and other works (fig. 16).50 These resources Hans Lutsch, Bilderwerck schlesischer allowed independence from the difficulties associated with Kunstdenkmäler, 1903). importing these precious stones from the Low Countries as their colleagues around the Baltic Sea were forced to do. Sculptors of local origin were also trained in the Low Countries workshops in Wrocław and its surroundings. Accordingly, from the late sixteenth century onwards, a new generation of Silesian artists, such as Jan Pfister (1573–c. 1640), worked in the modern antique vocabulary and were able to compete with Netherlandish and Italian immigrants (see chapter 2.6). Cornelis Coppens was another sculptor-architect who created his own workshop in a foreign town. He hailed from Mechelen but lived in Lübeck from the 1590s where he built a successful sculpture workshop.51 Like his contemporaries, Coppens based his inventions on various types of epitaphs and tombs from Cornelis Floris’s workshop that combined classical architectural details with all’antica statues (see the previous chapter by Ethan Matt Kavaler). His architectural work included the precious exterior staircase of the town hall of Lübeck built in 1594 (fig. 17). This staircase constituted the ceremonial entrance to the new stately hall created in the extended wing of the Lübeck town hall that was called the War Room 48  His work includes various epitaphs, statues on the tower of the Wrocław town hall, the baptismal font in St Mary Magdalen’s Church (c.1570–1572), as well as the monument for Karl Christoph von Münsterberg-Öls in the castle chapel of Oles´nika. Harasimowicz 1990, 211.

116

 Lipin´ ska 2007, 541.  Lipin´   ska 2007, 542. 51   Jolly 1999a, 128–129. 49 50

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser

16. Lviv (Ukraine), Church of the Protection of the Virgin, side altar in coloured marble of local origin, c. 1595, by Henryk Horst and Hermann van Hutte (upper cartouche added in 1745).

17. Lübeck, staircase of the town hall of Lübeck built in 1594, by Cornelis Coppens.

(Kriegsstube).52 At street level, a pavilion led to the stair, which was accentuated by a pediment on Ionic columns and crowned by cartouches with the city’s coat of arms surrounded by scrollwork. Scrolled cartouches on the parapet and caryatids with Ionic capitals between the windows decorated the covered staircase. Upstairs, before actually entering the building, featured another pavilion decorated with similar caryatids and crowned with a lavishly decorated gable. In 1603, Coppens travelled to Prussia but no traces have remained of his work in Königsberg. Netherlandish artists and craftsmen also migrated to the two urban centres in the eastern part of the Baltic, Riga in Latvia and Tallinn (Reval) in Estonia. Like Gdan´sk, Riga was almost an independent city – from 1581 formally under obedience of the Polish kingdom and from 1621 under Swedish rule. Like Gdan´sk, the city government of Riga sought to employ skilled craftsmen from Netherlandish origin – such as the remarkable Joris Jorissen Frese – to work in architecture, engineering works, and fortification (see the contribution of Ojars Sparitis in chapter 3.5). Around 1600, Lambert and Adrian Janssen modernised the medieval ‘house of the black heads’ (Schwarzhäupterhaus), the centre of German-dominated trade in Riga (fig. 18). They applied to the high rising façade handsome scrolls that resembled   Bruns et al. 1974, 118–126. The staircase has been restored, respectively rebuilt in 1893, 1927 and 1951. The War Room was lavishly decorated 52

with woodcarvings and intarsia by Tönnes Everts (destroyed in World War II). Ibidem, 216–241.

117

Konrad Ottenheym Netherlandish printed examples. This modernisation was comparable to that of the Artushof in Gdan´sk, a building with a similar function and transformed in the same period by Abraham van den Blocke (see page 153, fig. 13). Both in Riga and in Gdan´sk, the tall, pointed windows were carefully maintained to preserve the expression of history and, thus, the status of the building and the society it represented. The situation was different in Estonia. The country had become a Swedish province after 1561, while the merchants and urban upper class ­maintained their traditional contacts with Riga and Gdan´sk. Nevertheless, prestigious commissions came, above all, from the new, ruling Swedish elite who sustained direct contact with the royal court in Stockholm. Arent Passer (1560–1637) was the leading sculptor of his age in Tallinn.53 He came from Gdan´sk, where a sculptor called Peter Passer von Hagen aus Holland ein Schnitzker, probably Arent’s father, became a citizen in 1570.�54 From 1589 onwards, Arent Passer was active in Tallinn in the field that was regarded as a speciality of artists from the Low Countries: funeral monuments 18. Riga, Schwarzhäupterhaus, modernised in various types, from stone slabs to free-standing c. 1600 by Lambert and Adrian Janssen. monuments, as well as architecture-related sculpted details and architectural design. His first commission in Tallinn became his most monumental work there: the tomb and epitaph of Pontus de la Gardie, the Swedish army commander and governor of Estonia, and his wife Sophie Gyllenhielm, a daughter of King John III of Sweden (fig. 19). This connection to the court in Stockholm explained why this monument showed such direct resemblances to Willem Boy’s Vasa tomb in Uppsala, especially if, as suspected, four obelisks originally graced the corners of the tomb rather than the current seventeenth-century fire pots.55 The memorial monument also features an epitaph on the wall next to the tomb, with classical columns, two statues in the side niches, and a relief of the Resurrection in the centre topped with the coat of arms. Passer was also mentioned as architect of the houses of some of these elite Swedish and German families. He remained the favourite artist serving the De la Gardie family in Estonia. His best documented architectural work was the façade of the new headquarters of the German merchants, here also called ‘house of the black heads’ (1597–1600), which introduced the scrolled gable to the streets of Tallinn.56 He was also experienced in fortification and practised it in Tallinn as well. His fame as an architect and building master even reached the court in Sweden. In 1619, Gustav II Adolf requested Passer’s presence in Stockholm for the ongoing reconstruction of the royal castle “for a salary that would please him”.57 Passer could have gotten the position in Stockholm as Willem Boy did some decades earlier, but De la Gardie, governor of Estonia, could not miss him at home and the offer was cancelled. Finally, Gustav Adolf found Kaspar Panten from Amsterdam to fill this position in Stockholm while Passer stayed in Estonia. Between 1626   Karling 1939, 97–119; Maiste 1999; Kodres 2005.   Karling 1939; Kodres 2005, 50. 55   Karling 1939. 56  “Arent dem Stenhower Ehm gegenen dat he ein Schamppellunn machede, darmen den gewell na 53 54

118

buwede”. Tallinn City Archives, F.87, nim. 1, s.-ü 364. Maiste 1999, 59; Maiste 1995, 55–69. 57   Letter of Gustav II Adolf to Jakob de la Gardie, d.d. 20 December 1619. Tartu universitetsbibliotek, De la Gardie Archive H, fol. 126. Cited from Karling 1939, 116 note 2.

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser and 1628, Passer designed a new castle for De la Gardie in Haapsalu (which was not executed) as well as De la Gardie’s residence at Kolga.58 Arent Passer’s workshop became the leading studio for the Swedish nobility in Finland, too.59 The workshop served the elite in the eastern part of the Baltic area with tombstones, funeral monuments, and other precious works of monumental sculpture for urban patricians and landed gentry who wanted to keep up appearances with their international peers.  he international range of T Hendrick de Keyser The background of Hendrick de Keyser (1565–1621) was comparable to that of Cornelis Floris and other sculptorarchitects of the previous generation.60 His father was a woodcarver, and as antycdrayer, he was also a specialist in Renaissance ornament. Hendrick de Keyser was trained in Utrecht as a sculptor, architect, and engineer by Cornelis Bloemaert, who was the father of the painter Abraham Bloemaert. Hendrick de Keyser accompanied Bloemaert Sr when he was called to Amsterdam in 1591 to improve the fortifi19. Tallinn, St Mary’s Cathedral, tomb and epitaph of Pontus de la Gardie, the Swedish governor of Estonia, and cations. In 1595, Hendrick de Keyser was his wife Sophie Gyllenhielm, 1589–1595, by Arent Passer appointed master sculptor and stonecutter (photograph Peeter Säre). of Amsterdam (Mr. Beeltsnijder ende steen61 houwer over dese stede wercken. Together with the master carpenter and the master bricklayer, he led the Amsterdam building yard at a time of enormous expansion, and in that capacity he was involved in numerous civic building projects, including the ring of canals, three city churches in the suburbs, the exchange building, various trade halls, and a number of private houses. In his role as the city’s stonemason and sculptor, De Keyser carried out the creative part of the building activities. He was the artistic force within the building company and, as such, was responsible for sculptural ornamentation, and was likely also responsible for the entire architectural design of various public buildings. The quality of contemporary representative architecture depended on the quality of the sculpture on the façade. In a document from 1613, De Keyser was described as the ‘city’s master of antique works’ (stads antyc meester),62 a specialist in antique works with expert knowledge of the  Maiste 1999, 61. These drawings for Haapsalu, signed with ‘AP’, are kept in the Riksarkiv in Stockholm (Livonica). Karling 1938. 59   Terttu Knapas 1999. 60   Neurdenburg 1930; Ottenheym et al. 2008. 58

 Official appointment on 19 July 1595. Amsterdam Stadsarchief, 2e Groot Memorial, fol. 170v. 62  This is what he was called at the wedding of his daughter Maria to Nicholas Stone on 25 April 1613 (Amsterdam Stadsarchief, Puiboek). 61

119

Konrad Ottenheym repertoire of classical forms. However, purely ancient forms were not found in his work. Rather, he repeatedly devised new ‘finds’ never seen before. In the Architectura Moderna of 1631, a posthumous publication of his most important works, De Keyser was not praised for his successful imitation of ancient architecture. On the contrary, the comments accompanying the engravings expressed great awe for his original and modern inventions. They were praised for the novelty of the ornament and the designer’s ingenuity. “Decorative and rare finds full of unusual interruptions” were a pleasure to “the eye that is ever keen on new things”. A broken pediment was praised as “an absolute delight”, as were the “rare, decorative ­interruptions”, the “decorative changes”, and the “excellent rarity of inventions” (fig. 20).63 Such descriptions directly appealed to the high ideals of innovation and invention, and the ability to enrich the repertoire of the classical orders with witty solutions.64 These rich, new decorations reinforced architecture’s power of expression. Although Hendrick de Keyser was rightly considered one of the most inventive and creative architects of his time, not all 20. Architectura Moderna 1631, plate XXV. of his inventions were original. He updated Vredeman de Vries’s existing repertoire with remarkable new features that came straight from Italy. The prime example was set by Michelangelo, whom Vasari praised for freeing contemporary art from the tight strictures of antiquity, and demonstrating how these new inventions could even surpass classical art. The new details included the geniculated arch, the broken pediment with curved ends, heavy blocks or ­triglyphs used as consoles, and heavy keystones extended upwards. The application of these new Michelangelo-style designs in particular distinguished De Keyser’s work from that of the previous generation. These details also distinguished his work from the designs of other architects in the Northern Low Countries during the first two decades of the seventeenth century. De Keyser accepted commissions from patrons other than the city authorities, including merchant houses, the town hall of Delft, and the funeral monument of William of Orange in Delft, which was commissioned by the States General. These architectural and architecturerelated sculptural activities were comparable to those of Cornelis Floris a generation earlier. De Keyser also followed the example of great court sculptors, such as Adriaan de Vries, by making bronze statues in various scales, from larger-than-life size figures (for example, his statue of Erasmus in Rotterdam) to small collector’s items. In fact, his most honourable commission from abroad concerned sculpture not architecture. In 1619, De Keyser was asked to make   Architectura Moderna, Amsterdam 1631, texts to plates XVIII-XXIII, XXV, XXIX and XVI. See also Ottenheym 2007a, 111–136. 63

120

64

  Ottenheym 2007a, 115–136.

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser the statues and reliefs for the new marble gallery in the courtyard of the royal castle at Frederiksborg in Denmark (fig. 21).65 The gallery was erected by Hans van Steenwinckel, most likely after designs by his brother Laurens. The gallery consisted of two superimposed arcades of seven bays, rendered in Doric below and Ionic above. The upper arches were crowned by seven sandstone sculptures of antique gods and goddesses, representing the planetary system.66 The balustrade of the first floor arcade was filled in with various sea creatures sculpted in relief. Whether the statues within the niches belonged to the original plan is uncertain. The seven stat21. Frederiksborg, the new marble gallery in the courtyard, ues on top as well as the sandstone reliefs 1619–1623, by Hans van Steenwinckel with sculptures from the workshop of Hendrick de Keyser (compare with were sculpted in Amsterdam in Hendrick chapter 2.4, fig. 8). de Keyser’s workshop. The Gulland sandstone for these sculptures was shipped to Amsterdam in 1619 by the international stone trader Laurens Sweys from Amsterdam, who was the son-in-law of De Keyser’s collega proximus Cornelis Danckerts, the city’s master mason.67 De Keyser was responsible for the design of the sculptures for Frederiksborg and his inventions for the reliefs were later published as a series of engravings.68 Because he was fully occupied with finishing the funeral monument for William of Orange in Delft, the actual execution of the statues for Frederiksborg was under the control of his foreman, Geraert Lambertsz. When in 1619 Theodorus Roodenburg visited De Keyser’s workshop on behalf of King Christian IV, he found the statues and reliefs for Frederiksborg under execution (see his letter to the king quoted in chapter 2.1, pages 68–69 and note 40). Although most works by Hendrick de Keyser, architecture as well as sculpture, were made for clients within the Dutch Republic, his influence in other parts of Northern Europe should not be neglected. As with Cornelis Floris half a century earlier, the network of pupils and assistants was responsible for the spread of the master’s idiom. Although he was allowed to accept commissions from clients other than the city of Amsterdam, he was forbidden to employ the staff of the civic building company for these external works. Thus, in addition to the municipal building team, De Keyser possessed his own private workshop with senior assistants, such the aforementioned Lambertsen, and apprentices. According to the guild regulations, the regular period of apprenticeship was two to four years, in which time an apprentice was trained by De Keyser in “stonecutting, sculpting portraits, and creating architectural ornamentations, these being the three essential parts of the craft”.69 Unfortunately, the guild registers are missing for this   Neurdenburg 1953; Ottenheym 2011.   Kragelund 2006. 67  Sweys asked the Danish king in 1619 for toll-free transport of Gulland stone to Holland for Hendrick de Keyser’s workshop. On the Frederiksborg gallery sculptures see Beckett 1914, I, 129 and 263. For Sweys’s relation to Danckerts, see Weissman 1904, 76–77 and the contribution of Hugo Johannsen in this volume (chapter 2.4). 68   Nouveau livre des Dieux et Déesses de la Marine del inventio de Henri de Caiser. Bouckje van z ­ eegoden en 65 66

godinnen geinventeert door Hendrik d’Caiser, publish­ ­ed in Amsterdam by Cornelis Danckerts (­without date). Coll. Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam. 69   “... het steenhouwen, contrefeyten ende alle cyraet te maecken, gelyck een steenhouwer tot synder neeringhe nodich ende van doen heeft”. Contract between De Keyser and his apprentice Hendrick Jansz. Amsterdam Stadsarchief NA 47, nots. Lieven Heylinck, fol. 128, 13 April 1595. Weissman 1904.

121

Konrad Ottenheym period and only a few names of these pupils have survived from other sources. Even these meagre sources indicate the international reputation of De Keyser’s workshop because some of these apprentices were sons of esteemed masters from abroad, including Hendrick Jansz, who was the son of Jan Hendricx, master bricklayer of the city of Emden,70 and Hans Schut from Gdan´sk.71� In 1602, Laurens and Hans van Steenwinckel were sent from Denmark to Holland to complete their training before succeeding their father as royal architects. Some scholars have suggested that the young Steenwinckel brothers may have remained in De Keyser’s workshop during the following years.72 Nicholas Stone (c. 1586–1647) was De Keyser’s most famous assistant.73 In 1607, Hendrick de Keyser was in London to investigate Gresham’s Royal Exchange of 1566 as a model for the future exchange of Amsterdam. During his stay in Britain, De Keyser met the twenty-year-old stonemason from Devon who accompanied him back to Amsterdam and stayed in his workshop for six years. In 1613, Stone became De Keyser’s son-in-law, and he 22. Oxford, entrance gate to the Botanic Garden, returned to London with his bride to begin his own 1632–1633, by Nicolas Stone. stonemasonry and sculpture workshop in Long Acre, close to Covent Garden. He introduced De Keyser’s style in England and became highly demanded for commissions. As a stonemason, he cooperated with Inigo Jones on the construction of the Banqueting House (1619–1622) and the classical portico of old St Paul’s Cathedral (1634–1642). Stone became master mason to the court working at Windsor as well as at Holyrood House in Edinburgh. His studio constructed numerous funeral tombs and epitaphs, chimneys, gates, and portals as well as sculptures, portraits, and statues.74 In 1627, he designed the Water Gate of York House, the town residence of the duke of Buckingham that was inspired by De Keyser’s Haarlemmerpoort in Amsterdam (the final, executed version of this water gate was modified by Jones).75 The entrance gate to the Botanic Garden of Oxford (1632–1633) was his most truly antique design, with many niches referring to the so-called Janus Gate at the Forum Boarium in Rome (fig. 22). One of his major grand scale architectural achievements is the remodelling of the north wing and forecourt of Kirby Hall, Northamptonshire, in 1638–1640 (fig. 23). Here he introduced several monumental gateways, scrolled gables on the corner pavilions and reduced balustrades on top of the central projection of the north wing, a common motive in the work of De Keyser as well. In London, Stone also cooperated with other sculptors of Netherlandish origin, such as Bernard Jansen, an architect and sculptor from Flanders working in London in the early seventeenth century.76 Whether this associate of Stone was the same Jansen who between 1605 and 1614 was involved in the construction of Audley End in Essex has remained unclear, because  Amsterdam Stadsarchief, Notarieel Archief no. 47, notaris Lieven Heylinck, fol. 128, 13 April 1595. 71   He came in 1611. Amsterdam, Stadsarchief, apprentice register of the Saint Barbara guild. Neurdenburg 1940. 72   Beckett 1914, II, 65. 70

122

  Weismann 1911; Weismann 1920; Louw 1981.   White 1999, Llewellyn 2000. 75   Drawing in the Sir John Soane’s Collection, London. Information kindly received from Gordon Higgott. 76   White 1999, 63–64. 73 74

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser

23. Forecourt of Kirby Hall (Northamp­tonshire, UK), 1638–1640, by Nicolas Stone.

24. Entrance porch of Audley End (Essex, UK), 1605–1614, by Bernard Jansen.

several craftsmen went under this name (fig. 24).77 Perhaps the same Bernard Jansen was also the designer of the ephemeral triumphal gate erected by the Netherlandish community in London at the coronation of Charles I in 1625 and 1626.78 Throughout the century, Nicholas Stone’s workshop in London remained a reliable anchor point in England for De Keyser’s sons. After their father died, the younger sons worked there as the final phase of their education. For instance, in the 1620s and 1630s Willem de Keyser (1603– c. 1674) worked in Stone’s workshop. Willem married an Englishwoman and probably never lost contact with London. Around 1640, he returned to Holland to work as a stonemason on the most prestigious projects, such as the sandstone façade of Vingboons’s house for Joan Poppen on the Kloverniersburgwal (no. 95) in 1642, the most exquisite stone face of its time in the city, which featured colossal Corinthian pilasters. In 1647, he was appointed city stonemason to assist Jacob van Campen as draughtsman for the new Town Hall. In 1653, he was replaced by Simon Bosboom, apparently due to his incorrect financial administration. By 1658, he was bankrupt and returned to England once again. Willem de Keyser may have been involved in the creation of the new cemetery gate at St Olave’s Hart Street, London, during that same year (fig. 25 a-b). This gate, dated 1658, exactly follows the model of one of the entrances to the Westerkerk in Amsterdam, designed in 1620 by Hendrick de Keyser and published in 1631 in the Architectura Moderna.79 In 1655, the cemetery surrounding the Westerkerk was dissolved and the cemetery gates with  Hood 2003, 48–49 and 54 notes 21–28. In 1615 Nicolas Stone and ‘Mr. Jansen in Southwark’ created the tomb of Thomas Sutton at Charterhouse, London. Weismann suggests this was Hendrick Jansen, another former apprentice of Hendrick de Keyser from Amsterdam (Weismann 1911, 56). 77

  Grell 1996, 163–190; Hood 2003.   It is the former east entrance to the church at the side of the cemetery that once surrounded the place. Published in Architectura Moderna 1631, plate XVII (there by mistake called the south entrance). WellsCole 1997, 155; Ottenheym et al. 2008, 62. 78 79

123

Konrad Ottenheym

25a. London, cemetery gate at St Olave’s Hart Street, dated 1658.

25b. One of the former side entrances to the Westerkerk in Amsterdam, designed in 1620 by Hendrick de Keyser, as published in Architectura Moderna 1631, plate XVII.

their explicit symbols of death were removed. Possibly, the gate erected at St Olave’s was not just a new copy after the engraving in the Architectura Moderna, but may even be the original gate from the Westerkerk, dismantled in 1655 and reinstalled in 1658 by Willem de Keyser. Whatever the case, in the 1660s, Willem de Keyser was stonemason at several grand projects in London such as Whitehall Palace, Somerset House, and Greenwich. As in Amsterdam, he combined his craft with the trade, in stone, in cooperation with his son Hendrick III de Keyser who f­ollowed him to England in 1659.80 He too was known as a trader in stone and marble.81 The connection between the two ­families also worked in the reverse. Later, Nicholas Stone’s sons were sent to Amsterdam to train in the workshop of Pieter de Keyser (1595–1664), Hendrick de Keyser’s eldest son and his successor as master stonemason and sculptor of Amsterdam. Pieter was also the successor of De Keyser’s private workshop and its international connections, although his international activities have been only partially studied.82 Like his father and his sixteenth-century forerunners, Pieter de Keyser exported statues as well as pieces of micro-architecture such as a monumental pulpit with a stair and ceremonial gate for a church in Hamburg commissioned by Dominicus van Uffelen, a wealthy Netherlandish merchant in Hamburg.83 He likely also delivered the main altar for the Lutheran Trinity Church, the church built by Laurens   Louw 2009, 90.  In 1663 he sold black marble to the bishop of Durham. Louw 2009, 85. 82   Neurdenburg 1940. 83   “... een preeckstoel met een trap ende portael tottet cruys toe metten aencleven van dien”. Probably for the Katharinenkirche since according to Van Mander (ed. 1604, 77), Van Uffelen lived in the Gröninger Street, 80 81

124

that is just behind that church. This commission was in cooperation with the stonemason Pieter Emanuelsz from Amsterdam (who was also related to the De Keyser family: his sister Anneke Emanuelsz was married to Thomas Gerritsz de Keyser, a cousin of Pieter de Keyser). Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notarieel archief no. 594 (notaris Lamberti), fol. 194, d.d. 20 August 1632. van Dillen 1933, no. 1458.

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser van Steenwinckel in Christianstadt (at that time a Danish city, now in Southern Sweden).84 In 1620, King Christian IV ordered Sweys to buy marble and blue stone in the Southern Low Countries for the Frederiksborg gallery and the altar of the Trinity Church of Christianstadt. In 1621, Sweys shipped the altar for Christianstadt to Denmark together with De Keyser’s ­ sculptures for Fredriksborg gallery; presumably both commissions came from the same workshop.85 Further documented sculptural exports from Pieter de Keyser by the same merchant dated from 1629 when the sculptor shipped another three statues to Scandinavia, ordered by Laurens Sweys.86 Unfortunately, to which project these sculptures belonged still remains unknown. Pieter de Keyser’s most prestigious project abroad dated from 1637 – the funeral tomb for the Swedish general Erik Soop and his wife, Anna Posse, in Skara Cathedral, Sweden (fig. 26). As a type the Soop monument stands between the more common triumphal arch wall tomb and the freestanding royal baldachin. It indeed takes the form of a cenotaph placed along the wall with the two gisants under a marble baldachin supported by columns and flanked by stat26. Skara Cathedral (Sweden), the funeral tomb ues of Minerva and Mars guarding the eternal peace of for the Swedish general Erik Soop and his wife the general. As such, it resembled Pieter de Keyser’s first Anna Posse, 1637, by Pieter de Keyser. (unexecuted) design for the funeral monument of the Frisian stadholder Lodewijk van Nassau in Leeuwarden.87 In early seventeenth-century Amsterdam, the circle of stone traders, stonemasons, and sculptors was rather narrow. Each was related to another by commercial partnership or family ties, all of whom shared international networks as well. Hendrick de Keyser worked together with members of the stone trader dynasties Van Neurenberg and Van Delft.88 Claes Adriaensz van Delft and his brother Herman were former assistants to Hendrick de Keyser.89 The Van Delft brothers participated in almost all important building projects in Holland during the early seventeenth century, working with architects such as Hendrick and Pieter De Keyser as well as Jacob van Campen and Philips Vingboons. They too belonged to an international network selling marble floors to Copenhagen and Kalmar. Kaspar Panten from Amsterdam (c. 1585–1630) was another important international artist related to Hendrick de Keyser and Van Delft. Although his work has not been found in Holland, he was likely familiar with Hendrick de Keyser’s work considering their parallel interests. Panten was called a sculptor and figure-maker (beeldhouwer en beeldsnyder), and like De Keyser, he also experimented with cast stone. In 1612, De Keyser received a patent for artificial marble, apparently a kind of stucco.90 In 1617, Panten experimented with plaster for casting pilasters, columns, chimneypieces, and statuettes.91 He lived in Sweden from 1620 onwards, working for the king’s brother, and in 1622, he was appointed architect to King Gustav Adolf himself.92   Neurdenburg 1948, 140–141.   Friis 1890–1901, 16. 86   Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notarieel archief, no. 398 (notary Jacobs), fols. 310 and 478, d.d. 11 April 11 and 9 June 1629. van Dillen 1933, nos. 1207 and 1218. 87   Scholten 2003, 89–108. 88   van Tussenbroek 2006b, 181–183.

  Neurdenburg 1940, 68; Meischke 1996.  Patent by the States General, 26 January 1612. Kossmann 1930, 284–288. 91  Patent d.d. 30 August 1617. Kramm 1860, IV, 1246–1247; Nordberg 1931, 108. 92   Nordberg 1931, 107–126.

84

89

85

90

125

Konrad Ottenheym

27. Stockholm, court yard of Tre Kronor castle, with at the rear the chancellery wing built in the 620s by Kaspar Panten (engraving from Suecia antiqua et hodierna).

28. Vibyholm castle, 1622–1626, by Kaspar Panten (engraving from Suecia antiqua et hodierna).

In 1624, he began a ten-year-long project to modernise the main wings of the medieval part of the Stockholm castle, including a new chancellery building on the east side of the forecourt which became a three-storey, astylar wing embellished by a huge, scrolled gable in the centre (fig. 27). In the early 1620s, Panten designed the university building in Uppsala, the Gustavianum that later in the century was enriched by an anatomical theatre with a central cupola. Panten’s most remarkable architectural design was Vibyholm castle, a new country house built between 1622 and 1626 on an island in the Båven Lake for the mother of Gustav Adolf (fig. 28).93 The ground plan of this little country seat remained close to Jacques Androuet I Du Cerceau’s examples for maisons de campagne, but the architecture of the exterior, especially the front face with its rusticated pilasters, sculptural details, and three magnificent scrolled gables, resembled the inventions of De Keyser in Amsterdam. While preparing work for the royal castle in 1624, Panten was sent back to Amsterdam to recruit capable men and purchase various craft tools – just as his predecessors did in the sixteenth century. He returned to Sweden with forty-two craftsmen and artists including carpenters, masons, sculptors, and glass painters. Among them was the sculptor Aris Claesz van Delft, who was probably a son of Claes Adriaensz van Delft mentioned previously. In Sweden, Aris Claesz van Delft became a rather famous artist who received several commissions from the Swedish nobility for funeral tombs and other monuments, such as Gustaf Banér’s funeral monument of 1629 in Uppsala Cathedral.94 In 1628, he developed the first designs for a new seat of the Swedish nobility, the Riddarhus, which were not realised.95 Aris Claesz returned to Amsterdam in 1631, cooperating with Pieter van Delft, among others.96 Johan Tijsen was another Dutch sculptor who, in 1624, emigrated to Sweden with Panten. He worked with Panten at the Stockholm palace and accepted private commissions as well. The elaborate funeral tomb of Jesper Mattson Cruus and his wife Brita De la Gardie in Sankt Nicolai, the main church in the centre of Stockholm, was probably also his work, according to its signature ‘I T 1628’ (fig. 29).97  Nordberg 1931, 114–117; Larsson 1997, 217–218. The building was completely altered in the eighteenth century. 94   Nordberg 1931, 111; Neurenburg 1940, 68, 72 note 66; Bergström 1952. 95   Ugglas 1916. 96   Scholten 2003, 105. 97   Axel-Nilsson 1950, 60–61. The tomb is surrounded by a colonnade of Corinthian columns on pedestals. 93

126

The kind of ornaments on the shafts of the columns, on the pedestals with strange masks and heavy acanthus leafs do not fit in the Netherlandish formal grammar of the period, and seem to be the product of another workshop with more affinity with the ‘Schnorkelstil’ ornaments that had become so popular in the German countries in that period.

Sculptors’ Architecture. The International Scope of Cornelis Floris and Hendrick de Keyser Conclusion Although the migration of artists from the Southern and Northern Low Countries to other parts of Northern and Central Europe was an existing practice with a long history, the numbers of emigrating artists increased significantly from the late 1540s onwards. When Antwerp, Mechelen, and Utrecht became centres of expertise in the application of the antique architectural vocabulary, foreign patrons commissioned masters from these cities for their most prestigious works. The most famous among them, Cornelis Floris, did not travel abroad once he had established his workshop. Yet communication and transport over long distances created problems including delivery delays and insecure money transfers. Patrons who sought more control over the work or who required a specialist for more complex building projects needed someone who worked in situ. Some artists were invited while others travelled on their own initiative. Cornelis Floris’s fame made it easy for his journeymen and assistants to qualify for such appointments. Others who lacked 29. Stockholm, St Nicolai church, tomb of a strict connection to his studio had to be capable of Jesper Mattson Cruus and Brita De la Gardie, working in his style, which meant inventing classical probably by Johan Tijsen, signed and dated architectural structures embellished with statues and ‘I T  1628’. whimsical ornaments. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the quality of architecture was associated with the quality of its sculptural parts and the novelty of ornaments. Floris’s print series and those of Vredeman de Vries were appreciated as sources of inspiration. From the turn of the century, foreign patrons gradually turned their focus from Antwerp to Amsterdam. Hendrick de Keyser was regarded as the supreme master in the ‘modern antique’ inventions and became a beacon to Netherlandish artists abroad, not unlike Floris several decades earlier. During this era, from 1550 until 1625, when architectural design was dominated by sculptors, the availability of the typical Netherlandish sculptural material was essential to the success of Netherlandish artists abroad. The esteem of Cornelis Floris’s works was also connected to the precious coloured marbles he used. Therefore, sustaining close connections with the commercial stone trade from the Low Countries, and perhaps even maintaining the trade themselves, was a common goal for these masters. Accordingly, many masters settled in harbour cities with direct trade routes to the Low Countries. Those who travelled into Central Europe without such connections by water could only become successful if they explored local stone quarries that offered comparable marble or marble-like stones that could fulfil the desire of their patrons for all’antica structures of the highest rank. The success of these sculptor-architects ended suddenly with a paradigm shift after 1650 and a growing interest in severe Classicist buildings like those in Holland during that period. From then onward, another kind of architect from the Low Countries appeared on the international stage – one with more training in architectural theory but less hands-on experience in sculpture, stone masonry, and trade in building materials.

127

1. Bird’s eye view of Kronborg and Helsingør from Braun and Hogenberg, Civitates orbis terrarum, IV, Cologne 1588 (Copenhagen, The Danish Royal Library), (photograph Royal Library).

Chapter 2.4 The Steenwinckels: The Success Story Family in Denmark

of a

Netherlandish Immigrant

Hugo Johannsen (The National Museum of Denmark)

Influence from the Low Countries on Danish art and architecture has been traced back to the Middle Ages, and particularly explored during the short reign of Christian II from 1513 to 1523 (see the contribution by Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, chapter 3.3). Yet the first extensive and permanent wave of Netherlandish artists and artisans working in Denmark coincided with the ambitious building programmes of Frederick II (1559–1588), a pattern that was continued and strengthened during the long reign of Christian IV (1588–1648) and beyond.1 However, this focus on Netherlandish imports was anticipated to some degree during the reigns of Frederick I (1523–1533) and Christian III (1534–1559). The following overview will analyse examples of cultural translation from the Low Countries to Denmark during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, dwelling in particular on the migration of an architectural dynasty, the Steenwinckels, that had been established abroad for several generations, and the terms of its long success. Prelude: alabasters from Mechelen and Floris’s works During the second quarter of the sixteenth century, the king and the high nobility increasingly turned their attention to the booming markets of the Low Countries, exposing high quality art in the fashionable antique manner. Objects of interest particularly included the small, exquisite altarpieces with alabaster sculpture produced in great quantity in Mechelen and Antwerp, of which a considerable number are preserved in Denmark and elsewhere.2 A letter sent in 1549 from Jacob Binck of Cologne, court artist to both the Danish king and his brotherin-law, the duke of Prussia, to Christian III reflects the importance of the Low Countries in this regard.3 Excusing his prolonged stay abroad in Antwerp, Binck ensured the king of the value of his absence because he had seen and drawn “buildings, fortresses, walls and moats, pleasure houses and – gardens, and fountains – that could no doubt be useful to his Majesty”. Previously, Binck visited Saxony as part of the wedding entourage of Princess Anne, whose marriage to Duke August was celebrated in Torgau in 1548. Binck’s main official task in Antwerp was to supervise work on Duchess Dorothea of Prussia’s funeral monument, which was made in the workshop of the famous sculptor-architect, Cornelis Floris.4 Moreover, Binck used this  A general survey of the political, commercial and cultural importance of the Low Countries, especially Holland during the seventeenth century, for Denmark is Fabricius et al. 1945. See also Slothouwer 1924 and recently Bøggild Johannsen 2006. 2  A number of these altarpieces in Denmark were already mentioned by Beckett 1897, 174–177; recently Trumpy 1991. For Sweden and Balticum, see Ångström-Grandien 1992, 69–75; Lipin´  ska 2006a;­ Lipin´  ska 2006b. In general, see Wustrack 1982. 3  The letter is dated 15 June and published in a collection of correspondence between Binck and ­ his two princely patrons, see Nye Danske Magazin, I, 1794, 321–364, 331. On Binck in general, see also Beckett 1897. 1

 On Cornelis Floris, see Huysmans et al. 1996 (review van Ruyven-Zeeman 1998). The monument for Frederick I, see Ellger et al. 1966. All Floris works in present-day Denmark have been described in the Corpus on Danish churches, Danmarks Kirker (DK), published by the National Museum since 1933. The baptismal font in Sønderborg palace chapel, see DK. Sønderborg Amt, Copenhagen 1961, 2136; the Trolle monuments in Herlufsholm and Elsinore, see DK. Sorø Amt, 2, Copenhagen 1938, 1148ff and DK. Frederiksborg Amt, 1, Copenhagen 1964, 232ff; the Lange monument in Hunderup, see DK. Ribe Amt, 5, Copenhagen 1994–2003, 3186–3192; the monument for Christian III in Roskilde, see Københavns Amt, 4, Copenhagen 1952, 1836–1843. See also Johannsen 2010a.

4

129

Hugo Johannsen opportunity to order a monument for King Frederick I to be erected in Schleswig in 1555. Finally, he made drawings for the first Bible printed in Danish (1550), which showed a portrait of Christian III and the royal coats of arms framed in a cartouche and reflecting the grotesques of Cornelis Floris.5 The magnificent Schleswig tomb had a great impact in Denmark among the power elite and was soon followed by other Floris works, primarily funeral monuments. Thus, in 1568, four works ordered by Birgitte Gøye, widow of Lord ­Lieutenant Herluf Trolle, arrived – three for their funeral chapel in Herlufsholm Church (see page 108, fig. 5), and the last one erected in the church of St Olai in Elsinore (Helsingør), commemorating an endowment by the noble couple. However, the tomb of Christian III in Roskilde Cathedral, ordered in 1569 but not erected until 1580, culminated the Floris import (see page 109, fig. 6). The big boom: Kronborg The works from Floris’s workshop were imported while the master never travelled to Denmark. Although some of the workshop members who accompanied the monuments and supervised their erection remained, the first significant influx of Netherlandish artists was closely connected with Frederick II’s transformation of the medieval Krogen castle at the Sound into the magnificent fortress and Renaissance palace Kronborg between 1574 and 1586 (fig. 1).6 Not only were the two leading builders – Hans van Paesschen, and, after 1577, Anthonis van Opbergen – both Netherlandish but so were many other craftsmen, whose names are preserved in the accounts of the Sound Toll. The professions ran the gamut from masons, stonemasons, and carpenters to plumbers, copper roofers, and slaters, while also including painters, stucco workers, woodcarvers, and even tapestry weavers. Many of these immigrants were registered only by their first names, their profession, and, in many cases, their place of origin. Hence Netherlandish localities such as Antwerp and Mechelen were particularly well represented, in addition to cities such as Brussels, Campen, Groningen, and Utrecht. German cities such as Cologne, Brunswick, Emden, Goslar, Rostock, and Mansfeldt were also mentioned.7 Some of these craftsmen stayed in Elsinore during most of the building period and continued careers in Denmark after 1586,8 whereas others travelled to new assignments, as was the case for the leading builder Anthonis van Opbergen, who spent the remainder of his life working for the city of Gdan´sk (Danzig).9 Those who remained can be associated with some specific tasks even if their personal stamp could only rarely be ascertained. Stone masons were among the more ­important members of the ‘Kronborg ­building lodge’. Gert van Groningen ­worked for the king in Jutland, only moving his workshop to Elsinore to erect the main ­entrance portal, which was originally ­designed for Skanderborg Castle (fig. 2).10 After his death in 1577, his son Herman (Harmen) Gertsen continued working for the king and was assigned the splendid east gable of the south wing of Kronborg. Two stonemasons from Mechelen, Gert and Peter van Egen, arrived in 1578 and worked at the castle until 1585. Anthonis van Opbergen, also a native of Mechelen, took Peter with him to Gdan´sk, whereas Gert (who died in 1612) continued to work for the Danish crown and was even entrusted with   For the title pages of the bible, see Beckett 1932, 8.   An updated, comprehensive monograph on Kronborg is still a desideratum. A summary of the history of the Renaissance castle with references to the elder literature is to be found in Johannsen 1996; Johannsen 2006a. For special topics such as the tapestries by Hans Knieper of Antwerp, see most recently Reindel 2011. 7  The first to use information in the Sound Toll accounts for a history of Kronborg was Friis 5 6

130

1872–1878, 277–365 (‘Efterretninger om Kronborg Slot’); a number of the most important documents were published in Wanscher 1939. 8  On the foreigners in Elsinore, see Tønnesen 1985; Tønnesen 2003. 9  Gasiorowski 1977. A critical reassessment of the literature on Van Opbergen and his activities in Gdan´  sk in Bartetzky 2000; Bartetzky 2006; Bartetzky 2004. 10   Johannsen 2010b.

The Steenwinckels: The Success Story

of a

Netherlandish Immigrant Family

in

Denmark

2. Kronborg, main portal to the king’s wing, by Gert van Groningen, 1573–1576, originally intended for Skanderborg Castle.

the funeral monument for Frederick II, which was placed beside Floris’s own creation. Another stonemason, Thomas Frandsen from Utrecht, worked at the castle from 1578 and was hired to erect the new altarpiece for the palace chapel. He remained at Elsinore until his death in 1598. A long-term migration: The Steenwinckel dynasty No family of Netherlandish immigrants was more successful than the Steenwinckels, who dominated the architectural scene in Denmark for more than two generations and played a role until 1700.11 The family immigrated to Denmark in the spring of 1578, when Anthonis van Opbergen returned to Elsinore from a Netherlandish recruiting tour with several masons and stone masons, mostly from Antwerp. Among these craftsmen were Hans van Steenwinckel, followed later by Willum and Hendrick van Steenwinckel. Hans and Willum had previously assisted their father, Laurens, a stone mason from Antwerp, who in 1567 moved to the East Frisian city of Emden, where he was responsible for the new town hall (1574–1576) that was inspired by Cornelis Floris (see page 201, fig. 9). While the specific work of the Steenwinckels at Kronborg is not documented, Hans must have been noticed by the famous astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who in 1576 began construction on his unique manor and scientific academy, Uraniborg (fig. 3), on the nearby island of Hven.12   Allgulin 1932. See also and for the other members of the family dynasty Friis 1890–1901, 5–42; recently the entries by H. Johannsen in: Hartmann 1998, 41–48.

11

  Beckett & Christensen 1921; Jern 1976; Johannsen 2006b. 12

131

Hugo Johannsen

3. Ground-plan and eastern façade of Uraniborg. From: Tycho Brahe, Astronomiae instauratae mechanica, Wandsbeck 1598 (Copenhagen, The Danish Royal Library), (photograph Royal Library).

132

The Steenwinckels: The Success Story

of a

Netherlandish Immigrant Family

Even if Steenwinckel, for chronological reasons, could not be credited with the master plan for Uraniborg, Tycho certainly used him. Tycho’s treatise on astronomical instruments published in 1598 mentioned architectus meus Johannes de Embda Stenwinchel and credited Steenwinckel with the architectonical parts of a wall painting completed at Uraniborg in 1587. In 1582, Steenwinckel was appointed as master builder to the crown, possibly through the agency of Tycho, and the family moved to Copenhagen.13 Documented works from this period included the tower of St Peter’s, the German church in Copenhagen (1585–1588), and the parish church of Slangerup (fig. 4) in North Zealand (1586–1588).14 After the death of Frederick II in 1588, Hans van Steenwinckel received an important ­commission to lead the modernisation of the fortresses at the DanishSwedish ­ border: Akershus, Kungälv, Varberg (fig. 5), Halmstad, and Christianopel.15 His salary increased considerably and the fam­ ily moved from Copenhagen. After 1598, he worked in Halmstad, where he died in 1601. His tombstone inscription, located in the church of St Nicholas, declared him “master builder of the king and the realm”. Although his employment contract forbade him from working for others without His Majesty’s permission, Steenwinckel did accept private commissions – and not only from Tycho on Hven. In 1586, the astronomer also recommended Steenwinckel to his father’s half-sister, Birgitte Bølle, for unspecified work “Master Hans” might provide for her.16� In 1594, he was severely reprimanded by the government for leaving Varberg to work in Scania, undoubtedly on the “monuments and other things”, for which Anne Pedersdatter Galt, widow of Anders Bing, the former lord lieutenant of Varberg, still had not paid him in 1597.17 The magnificent monument in Smedstorp (fig. 6) was probably designed by Hans then, even if actual execution was most likely left to professional sculptors. 13  The official appointment of Hans von Embden is dated 8 November 1583, more than a year after obtaining the post. Laursen 1903, 744. 14   DK. København, I, Copenhagen 1945–1958, 248–250; DK. Frederiksborg Amt, 3, Copenhagen 1970, 2023ff.

in

Denmark

4. The church of Slangerup. Drawing by J. D. Herholdt 1850, (Copenhagen, The National Museum of Denmark), (photograph National Museum).

5. The fortress of Varberg (Halland). Drawing c. 1635, (Copenhagen, The State Archives), (from: Exh. cat. Copenhagen 1988).

  Lorenzen 1937.   Bang 1898–1899, 371. 17   Laursen 1910, 349; Laursen 1913, 113. 15 16

133

Hugo Johannsen

7. Roskilde Cathedral, funerary chapel of Christian IV (photograph Henrik Wichmann).

6. The church of Smedstorp (Scania), monument to Anders Bing (†1589), former lord lieutenant of Varberg and his wife Anne Pedersdatter Galt (photograph by the author).

Hans van Steenwinckel the Elder and his Danish wife Inger Pedersdatter had four sons, all of whom all grew up to work for Christian IV. The two eldest, Laurens (Lourens) and Hans, were born in Copenhagen in 1585 and 1587, respectively, and educated as stone masons and builders by their father and his master mason, Willum Cornelissen, at Halmstad and Laholm. The birth date of the third son Willum, who was also a master builder, remains unknown. However, he worked under Cornelissen after 1615, and thus could not have been much younger than Laurens and Hans. His most important commission involved supervising and directing the building activities from 1630 onwards of Christian IV’s fortified town of Glückstadt on the Elbe. The fourth son, Morten, was born in Varberg 1595 and became a painter. He served the prince elect at his residence, Nykøbing Castle, from 1635 until his death in 1646. Laurens and Hans, who were the most interesting figures, will be treated further in this context. They both probably apprenticed with the leading Netherlandish sculptor-architect of their time, Hendrick de Keyser, master builder to the city of Amsterdam.18 No extant documentation has sustained this claim. However, indirect proof existed in Hans’s case. Laurens, who worked under Cornelissen from 1610 to 1612, received his first significant commission in 1613, a year after the queen’s death, to build the king’s funeral chapel at Roskilde Cathedral (fig. 7).19 His ­second commission, contracted in 1616, was the sandstone ornamentation of the long demolished   Neurdenburg 1930.

18

134

  DK. Københavns Amt, 3, Copenhagen 1951, 1505–1526.

19

The Steenwinckels: The Success Story

of a

8. Frederiksborg Castle, marble gallery, designed by Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger (Architectura Moderna 1631, plate XLII, compare with page 121, fig. 21).

Netherlandish Immigrant Family

in

Denmark

9. Alabaster head of Christian IV, from the lost monument for the funerary chapel at Roskilde Cathedral (Copenhagen, The National Museum of Denmark), (photograph National Museum).

western city gate of Copenhagen. He also worked on the sandstone parts of the new stock exchange in Copenhagen.20 Shortly afterwards, Laurens, who married a daughter of the sculptor Gert van Egen, died. Hans completed work on the chapel, the city gate, and the Stock Exchange. Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger (II) was first mentioned working at Frederiksborg in 1614 after the Kalmar War, when work was resumed on the middle island and much of the main palace was altered in a grander manner.21 He was responsible for the portal of the tilting yard, buildings on the middle island (where he supervised the erection of the famous bronze fountain by Adriaen de Vries), and, most significantly, the new entrance and terrace to the main palace and the marble gallery of the king’s wing (1619–1622). The latter included architectural parts as well as sculpture executed in De Keyser’s workshop. The connection between Hans van Steenwinckel and the Dutch master was indicated through the publication of a façade drawing for the marble gallery in De Bray’s and Danckerts’s Architectura Moderna (1631) that presented works by De Keyser and some pupils (fig. 8).22 In fact, this rendering is the only important, detailed Steenwinckel drawing known, although it is a reproduction.23 Early documents identified Hans as a stone mason, but by the end of 1614 he ­modelled the king’s portrait.24 Then he was paid for alabaster work on a pulpit in 1616–1617.25 The portrait (fig. 9) was likely a study for the king’s funeral monument, of which only the head of alabaster survived, whereas the pulpit in black Belgian marble and alabaster (fig. 10) was  Wanscher 1937, 98–103, 114–123; Roding 2010.   Beckett 1914; Steenberg 1950, 44–56. 22   Ottenheym 2011. 23   Only one autograph drawing by Hans has survived: a sketch of wall and gate tower for a fort outside the fortifications of Copenhagen (fig. 13). It is not an architectural drawing, but serves as explanation 20 21

for a list of materials and costs of work, see DK. København, 4, Copenhagen 1973–1975, 13. 24   The King noticed in his diary of 15 December 1614, that “Hans Steenuynkel begun modeling that image in my chamber and continued for six more days”, cf. DK. Københavns Amt, 3, Copenhagen 1951, 1523. 25   Beckett 1914, 158.

135

Hugo Johannsen

10. The Trinity Church of Christianstad (Scania), pulpit of black marble and alabaster (photograph by the author).

11. Copenhagen, main façade of the Stock Exchange (photograph by the author).

t­ransferred from Frederiksborg to the Trinity Church in Kristansstad in Scania.26 In 1619, after the death of his brother, Hans was appointed master builder of the realm and ­inspector for all the king’s building activities tasked to deliver architectural drawings wherever and whenever his serv­ i­ces were required.27 Hans was associated with a great number of works, both new and restorative, until his death in 1639. In 1624, he set up the main gable of the stock exchange (fig. 11); after 1630, he ­erected the new choir (fig. 12) of St Nicolas in Copenhagen (where church authorities later granted him his family funeral and m ­ onument in gratitude); and during the 1630s, he was occupied with the r­ econstruction of Kronborg after the fire of 1629 and extensions on Rosenborg Castle (fig. 14). He even possibly planned two of the most remarkable projects in Copenhagen during this period: the Trinity complex with its round tower (1637–1656) and the twelve-sided church, St Anna Rotunda, begun in 1639 but never finished and torn down in 1660.28 Of the third generation, only Hans van Steenwinckel the Youngest (III), born in 1639, the year of his father’s death, played a significant role in Danish artistic life. As sculptor and master builder to the king after the late 1660s, he was for the rest of his career eclipsed by a new rising star, the Norwegian-born Lambert van Haven, who was appointed general ­inspector of the arts in 1671. Two other Steenwinckels marginally figured in this connection:   Lundborg 1928, 105–12.   The appointment, dated 10 December, also specifies the obligation of supervising the King’s buildings, stone work and all work connected with his craft, cf. Laursen 1919, 741ff. On his lost monument in St. 26 27

136

Nicholas Church, he was called ‘general architect and master builder’, DK. København, 1, Copenhagen 1945–1958, 559. 28   DK. København, 2, Copenhagen 1960–1965, 225–398; ibidem, 6, Copenhagen 1987, 243–265.

The Steenwinckels: The Success Story

of a

Netherlandish Immigrant Family

12. Copenhagen, choir of St Nicolas. Details of measuring drawings c. 1750 (Copenhagen, City Museum), (from: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, Hugo Johannsen, Kongens Kunst, Copenhagen 1993).

in

Denmark

13. Estimate and sketch for an entrance tower of a fort (‘Vartov’) in the fortifications of Copenhagen, signed 1625 by Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger (Copenhagen, The State Archives), (from: Danmarks Kirker, København By, 4, Copenhagen 1973–1975).

Oluf, builder and engineer, was executed in 1659 by the Swedish occupation force for an attempt to liberate Kronborg; and Antoni was a painter. Professional skills and personal virtues What were the determining factors of this amazing success story? Why did members of this family become leading architects for Danish kings, surpassing most other Netherlandish building specialists working in Denmark? Answers to these questions have been found primarily by examining Hans the Elder and his son Hans the Younger, who were the most important figures whose activities were also better documented – even if much evidence is missing. Their professional skills as draughtsmen and entrepreneurs – in short, as architects – proved to be most important. Such qualifications were still rare in Denmark, which explained the need to call on foreign experts such as Van Paesschen and Van Opbergen at Kronborg, Hercules van Oberberg in the duchies, and others when a prestigious commission was on the agenda.29 Significantly, the word ‘architect’ was never used in contemporary Danish sources apart from the Vitruvian vocabulary of Tycho Brahe. The education of Hans the Elder as a draughtsman, which enabled him to design his own inventions, began during the apprenticeship under his father. In 1574, Hans the Elder was awarded a prize for drawings of the stairs and tower for the Emden town hall, and during the 1580s the Danish king paid for drawings by him, although the purpose was not specified. Tycho Brahe also took a keen interest in Hans’s further education. Thus, in a letter sent to Heinrich Rantzau in 1593, Tycho, referring to pen drawings that his ‘former architect’ sent for publication, added that during Steenwinckel’s stay at Hven, Tycho instructed him in astronomy and geometry. He also noted that Steenwinckel was capable of perspective drawing as demonstrated by the architectural aspects of the great fresco at Uraniborg.30 Such skills, especially geometry, were naturally essential to the modernisation of the border fortresses. This capacity was likely the basis of a salary increase in a contract of 1599, which declared that he should always be ready wherever the King “needs his art”.31 Appropriately, Hans van Steenwinckel’s t­ombstone in Halmstad   For Hercules von Oberberg, see Norn 1959; Norn 1984; Norn 1986; DK. Vejle Amt, 2, Copenhagen 2009, 921–1004. 29

30 31

  Beckett 1921, 12.   Laursen 1913, 397.

137

Hugo Johannsen was adorned with symbols of his professional pride: compass, ruler, and square alongside a protractor. Unfortunately, no autographed drawings are preserved, but the illustrations of Uraniborg and Stjerneborg, and the astronomical instruments in Tycho’s printed works likely reflect the aforementioned “pen drawings”. The contract for the Roskilde chapel stipulated that Laurens had to follow a model given to him with the king’s comments on it. However, the design was possibly still his own. At any rate, the commission for the stock exchange proved that he was capable of creating the architectural drawings because the portal was to be constructed according to the drawings he gave to the king. When Hans the Younger first entered the scene, he already possessed the capability of drawing his own architectural compositions. This capability appeared in the contract he made with the king in 1614 for the now lost original tilting gate at Frederiksborg.32 The portal, a tripartite triumphal arch of sandstone, richly adorned with sculptures of antique gods and goddesses, was constructed from his own design.33 Though details apart from its iconography are lacking, the engraving of the marble gallery in Architectura Moderna (fig. 8) has allowed judgment of the qualities of Hans the Younger as an inventor of modern, elegant designs – a capacity which was also recognised by De Bray, who called him “the inventive and highly ornamental Hans Steenwinckel” (den vindindigen en seer verzierlijcken Hans Steenwinckel). Unsurprisingly, drawings and architectural disposition were the first obligations mentioned in his contract with the king in 1619. This talent was also recognised when the king employed his successor, Leonard Blasius, as general architect at a higher salary, even though he “cannot draw as well”.34 Besides their capacities as architectural draughtsmen, both Laurens and Hans the Younger practised sculptural work, whereas no sources referred to their father mastering this craft. In fact, Laurens was always mentioned as a stone mason, as was Hans the Younger until his appointment as general architect. Their main responsibility as sculptors was to design and execute the lavish sculptural elements of building façades that would satisfy the tastes of their royal patron with elegant ornamentation and meaningful sculptures. Significantly, in 1625, Hans, who had modelled the king’s portrait, took over the collection of wax models and other sculptural works by the recently deceased sculptor Pietro Crivelli (or Pieter Griffel), an enigmatic artist whom the king employed after 1615 to make models for cast bronzes.35 Undoubtedly, studies of architectural treatises (namely those of Serlio, Androuet Du Cerceau, Palladio, and Vredeman de Vries), ornamental prints, and the wealth of graphic images that played an ever increasing role in the diffusion of artistic ideas at the beginning of the sixteenth century remained important educational sources for their designs. A copy of Daniel Specklin’s Architectura von Vestungen (1587) preserved at the Royal Library in Copenhagen and signed by Hans the Elder is direct evidence of this aspect.36 Additionally, his sons Laurens, Hans, and Morten owned a copy of Wendel Dietterlin’s Architectura (1598). Finally, their entrepreneurial skills played an important role. As documented in connection with the border fortresses, a number of builders – such as Hans Lamberts, Jacob Cornelissen, and Christoffer Ulmer at Varberg, and Willum Cornelissen at Halmstad – were employed and subordinated to Hans to carry out his plans, especially during his absences (fig. 13).37 He entrusted the erection of Slangerup Church to Jørgen Friborg, who until his own death in 1625 was contracted as master mason for the rebuilding of Frederiksborg Castle (1598–1623). This association has been taken as indirect proof that Hans the Elder was   Laursen 1916, 716.  The tilting gate, that was renewed in 1730, is described in J. A. Berg, Kurtze und eigentliche Beschreibung Des fürtrefflichen und weitberühmten Hauses Friedrichsburg, Copenhagen 1646,

  Bricka & Friderica 1636–1640, 413.   Honnens de Lichtenberg 1988. 36  Norn 1954, 43ff. 37   Lorenzen 1937, 28.

32

34

33

35

138

The Steenwinckels: The Success Story

of a

Netherlandish Immigrant Family

in

Denmark

responsible for the master plan of the castle.38 The same pattern was evident for Hans the Younger, who left the actual building execution to qualified craftsmen whose names were mentioned repeatedly in preserved accounts, including, among others, the masons Jørgen Friborg and Oluf Madsen, and the stone masons Gert Barchman and Herman Rollfinck. Their success was also dependent on their personalities and their ability to adapt to new circumstances while climbing the social ladder. The patronage of Tycho Brahe was critical for Hans the Elder, as was his admission to the Danish Company (a shooting guild reserved for noblemen and 14. Christian IV and Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger (?) wealthy burghers) in 1586. Additionally, in front of Rosenborg Castle. Painting c. 1640, ascribed in 1590, he was chosen to accompany the to Karel van Mander. Copenhagen, Rosenborg Castle dowager queen and Princess Elisabeth back (photograph Rosenborg). to Wolfenbüttel after the wedding of Duke Heinrich Julius, an act reminiscent of the distinction accorded to the former court artist Jacob Binck mentioned earlier.�39 He appealed often directly to the king when salaries were difficult to extract, as was the case with Slangerup Church and the monument in Smedtorp. His widow must have been proud to write on his epitaph, that he was builder for the king and realm for eighteen years and marked out the plan for Christianopel in the presence of the monarch himself. Also, the relationship between Christian IV and Hans the Younger must have been close considering that the king called upon him to model the royal portrait (figs. 8 and 14), even if the king’s brusque manner allowed his open critique of his master builder on numerous occasions.40 Artistic physiognomies Compared with the facts of their careers and the outline of their professional skills and personalities, the artistic physiognomies of Hans the Elder and his sons pose numerous unsolved problems. Thus, the evaluation of Hans the Elder’s architecture suffers from a number of losses, not least Uraniborg. Architectural historians such as Beckett and especially Allgulin have ascribed an imposing oeuvre to him, partly consisting of manor houses built by relatives of Tycho Brahe, partly of the greater number of royal buildings from the last decades of the sixteenth century, culminating in the master plan for the rebuilding of Frederiksborg, although only commenced in 1602. Critics have sought to eliminate most of these ­attributes, seeing him mainly as a competent fortress engineer in the tradition of Anthonis van Opbergen.41 Nevertheless, questions such as, for example, whether a number of the spires of Netherlandish character from the 1580s were likely drawn by Hans the Elder should still be considered. This could have been the case for the Uraniborg cupola with its open, onion-shaped conclusion, a cupola over the bath house by Frederiksborg, and the spire of the church of the Holy Ghost in Copenhagen, now all lost and known only from pictures.   Steenberg 1950, 21ff.   Laursen 1908, 389.

  Wanscher 1937, 180.   Bengtsson 1938.

38

40

39

41

139

Hugo Johannsen On the other hand, if he actually designed these elegant, modern spires, he used ­differ­ent, nearly old-fashioned formulas for the gables of St Petri and Slangerup, which harked back to the traditions of the Italianate models (welsche Giebel) favoured in mid-sixteenth century ­architecture in Central and Northern Europe.42 Even more puzzling questions have arisen comparing this to the all’antica character of another documented work, the Smedstorp ­monument. Apparently, he used no consistent stylistic approach, but worked as an eclectic, borrowing from different sources what seem best suited to the purpose. Evaluating the achievements of both Laurens and Hans the Younger is apparently easier because their works are mostly extant and better documented. Yet unsolved questions of authorship and stylistic coherence still appear. Undoubtedly, a renewed analysis of their architecture and sculpture ought to be conducted. Whether Hans the Elder ever returned to the Low Countries remains unknown. His Danish-born and Danish-speaking sons certainly became well-integrated and outstanding professionals in the Danish monarchy. What, then, did the Netherlandish connection mean in their case? If Laurens, or at least Hans, did indeed apprentice in Hendrick De Keyser’s Amsterdam workshop, then what were the influences of this apprenticeship on their education and style? When Hans received his first commissions from the king in 1614, he appeared as a portrait sculptor and designer of architectural ornament, which culminated in the façades of the terrace wing, the marble gallery, and the gate tower of Frederiksborg. Thus, Hans likely strove to follow the example of his famous Amsterdam master, Hendrick de Keyser. Francis Beckett, who analysed the works of the Steenwinckel brothers, found strong similarities between the works of De Keyser and theirs, not least expressed in the introduction of a new, and, in Denmark, hitherto unknown, ­sculptural façade architecture, beginning with the Roskilde chapel. Generally, the predilection for a more contemporary decorative treatment with volutes clearly differed from the hitherto favoured Vredeman de Vries-inspired strapwork.43 According to Konrad Ottenheym, the inventions of the brothers van Steenwinckel should not be regarded as Dutch or Flemish derivations but as parallel phenomena of ‘modern antique’, drawing inspiration primarily from other sources such as Dietterlin’s Architectura.44 This claim will undoubtedly stimulate renewed analysis of Hans the Younger’s architecture and sculpture, especially of his later works, such as the chancel of St Nicholas with its rectilinear gable crests that showed a marked tendency towards sculptural simplification. The influence of De Keyser’s Zuiderkerk here has been argued, whether based on the architect’s personal remembrance or through the prints published in the Architectura Moderna.45 Another outcome of the Netherlandish background is the possible function of Hans as an agent, even if his role in this respect was not documented like that of another contemporary artist of Netherlandish extraction, the king’s painter Pieter Isaacsz.46 That De Keyser’s former pupil would have drawn the king’s attention to the Dutch master and his workshop when outstanding workmanship was requested for the Marble Gallery would have been a natural occurrence. Also, the marble and alabaster pulpit in Christianstad might have been executed from Steenwinckel’s design in De Keyser’s workshop along with the king’s funeral figure for the Roskilde chapel.   Unnerbäck 1971, 22; Borggrefe 2010.   Beckett 1914, 65ff. 44   Ottenheym 2011. 42 43

140

 J. Steenberg in DK. København, 1, Copenhagen 1945–1958, 500ff. 46   Noldus & Roding 2007. 45

The Steenwinckels: The Success Story

of a

Netherlandish Immigrant Family

in

Denmark

Epilogue This brief sketch of the Steenwinckel dynasty and its importance in Danish architecture unsurprisingly concludes that experts from the Low Countries dominated the scene. During the sixteenth and most of the seventeenth centuries, the Low Countries were a melting pot of artistic initiative unmatched in Northern Europe; it was the obvious place where new ideas in ‘modern antique’ style were to be found. Additionally, periods of political and religious unrest, a surplus of gifted craftsmen and artists, cultural and linguistic similarities, and strong bonds in commerce have all attested to why Danish monarchs and the elite sought artistic guidance there. Netherlanders, like the Steenwinckels, who settled permanently in Denmark remained in contact with their kinsmen both in country and abroad, even as they adapted themselves to new conditions and created works of art that fulfilled the needs of their new masters. These patterns continued for the rest of the century. Thus, in 1661, the first absolute monarch of Denmark, Frederick III (1648–1670) called in the Dutch fortress engineer Hendrick Ruse to execute the Copenhagen citadel (Kastellet, see chapters 4.1 and 4.2).47 A few years later, Evert Janssen, another Dutchman who was commissioned as royal master builder, unscrupulously used Dutch models, notably projects by Philips Vingboons, for his buildings in Denmark (see chapter 3.8).48 In the 1680s, Hans van Steenwinckel III sent his project for the funeral monument of the commander Hans Schack (1686–1689) to be executed in Amsterdam at the atelier of Artus Quellinus II, whose fourth eldest son, Thomas travelled to Denmark to erect the monument in Trinity Church in Copenhagen.49 Thomas Quellinus stayed for nearly seventeen years and created an impressive number of exquisite funeral monuments for the Danish elite.50 But by then, Netherlandish art had begun to give way to other influences, especially from France and Italy.

  Westerbeek Dahl 2001.   Nørregård-Nielsen 1984.

47

49

48

50

  DK. København, 2, Copenhagen 1960–1965, 330.   Thorlacius-Ussing 1926.

141

1. Gdan´  sk, St. Mary’s Church, Eduard Blemke epitaph, 1591, by Willem van den Blocke.

Chapter 2.5 The Van

den

Blocke Family

in

Gdan´ sk

and in

Central Europe

Jacek Tylicki (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun´)

The family in the sixteenth century The original seat of the Van den Blocke family was likely located in the town of Mechelen in the duchy of Brabant. Artisans, craftsmen, and burgher dignitaries with a similar sounding name were present there since at least the mid-fourteenth century.1 They were mostly wealthy men possessing land and houses and making donations to the local social charity institutions, especially the town orphanage.2 Jacques de Bloke was the secretary of Mechelen in 1442,3 and in 1355, Janne den Bloc was entrusted to paint two city ships, and executing a city standard or banner.4 Frans (François), nicknamed ‘drummer’ (Trommelslagher), was the immediate ­forefather of the family that later partly dispersed to the east and north of the continent. This woodcarver (beeldsnijder) was first mentioned in 1532 and still living in 1572.5 He had three pupils, who were known from archival sources dating from 1549 to 1562.6 The few surviving metrical and woodcarvers’ guild documents in Mechelen suggest that Frans was a notable figure there. In 1556 and 1557, he was paid for carving new window frames for the Beyaerde, or local city hall, which were judged positively.7 His position passed on to his son Gillis, who in 1560 and 1561 received money for preparing a profusion of sculptures decorating occasional architecture erected for the annual city carrousel (ommegang) of 1561. The lot, which Abbreviations Akten Weeskamer: Akten van de Weeskamer van de Stad Mechelen, Mechelen, Stadsarchief, I Chambre Pupillaire, 57, April 2007 (SI nos. 7–8, Regesten 1563–1572).  Among the earliest medieval personalities with a similar sounding names, mentioned in documents, are some guild elders: for the years 1384–1392 a shipbuilder named Claes de Bloc is known; Wouter van den Bloke, shearer (scheerder), appears in sources in the period 1398–1416, whereas in the early fifteenth century the same applies to Rommout van den Bloke, a baker – Joosen 1960, 80, 81, 85, 86, 90; Joosen 1961, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 181. See also below in text and notes 2–4. Tylicki 2009 has presented a more detailed analysis of the family’s beginnings. 2  They also lent them money at times. In connection with such acts, several individuals with the name of interest are mentioned; these are Peter van den Blocke (1376, 1393), another Peter (Pieter) van den Bloke (1504, 1505), Rombout van den Bloke (1424), Osto van den Bloke (1438), Catharina van den Bloke (1445), another Catharina jointly with Huibrecht van den Bloke (1511), late Jacobus van den Bloke (1460), Barbara van den Bloke (1537), and Lodewijk van den Blocke – the 1

latter as late as 1609 – Beterams 1956, 79 no. 666; 90 no. 759; 191 no. 1575 and 1576; 213 no. 1766; 455 no. 3754; 540 no. 4498; Beterams 1957, 661 no. 5451; 723 no. 5991; 735 no. 6101; 767 no. 6386; 888 no. 7376. 3   He signed a city document on 3 September 1442 – van Doren 1862, 47–48, no. 997. 4   Neeffs 1876, vol. 1, 90. 5   A person of this name is documented in 1532 – Neeffs 1876, vol. 1, 307; Neeffs 1876, vol. 2, 143. This author identifies the artist as “probably a painter”, which seems not very plausible, but caused in the meantime inclusion of Frans as such in several biographical dictionaries. On 25 August 1572, “Francen van den Blocke” introduced, as one of several tutors, Hans Geerts into the local orphanage – Akten Weeskamer, 172. 6  Coninckx 1903, 37 and 39. The book is based on eighteenth-century notes, made from now lost documents of the guild of painters, woodcarvers and gilders (Stadsarchief Mechelen V 17, Memorien Wegens de Mechelsche Schilders ende Beeld Snyders. Uyt Den Ambachts-boek). The names of the pupils were Jan de Coeck (1549), Jan Heyns (1553), and Robert Coppens (1562). 7  Neeffs 1876, vol. 2, 142 (based on: Stadsarchief Mechelen, Stadsrekeningen, Serie I, no. 232, 1555– 1557, fol. 261r). He was paid 12 pounds (livres) and 12 shillings for the work.

143

Jacek Tylicki included human figures, column heads of various orders, ‘turtle doves’, ‘handles’, cartouches, and coats of arms, was prepared jointly with woodcarver Anthonie (Antoine) van Duerne and painter Gilis (Gilles) van Muysen.8 Frans’s marriage to an Ursula of unknown surname produced at least five sons: Gillis, Pieter, Hans, Philips, and Willem. The first three, woodcarvers like their father, became free masters (vrijmeesters) in Mechelen, which meant they each functioned as a fully i­ndependent master possessing his own workshop.9 Gillis achieved this position in 1560, and Pieter and Hans both in 1562.10 The latter died in late 1563.11 Pieter retained pupils in 1563 and 1571, and in 1574, he was among five candidates presented to the magistrate from which the guild’s two elders (waerdermeesters) were to be chosen.12 However, the life story of Gillis, as told by archival sources, has proven the most interesting. After receiving the prestigious c­ ommission for the carrousel mentioned previously, and training a pupil from 1562,13 his career took a sudden turn. In 1565 or 1566 he paid, according to local law, a thirty pound tax for ­renouncing his citi­ zenship, because of his decision to ­emigrate to Gdan´sk (Danzig), mentioned in a document.14 This unexpected move must have been precipitated by ­economic rather than political or reli­ gious motives. Religious repression had not yet reached the most acute stage in the Low Countries in 1565. However, by 1566, the first signs of forthcoming troubles, including the iconoclastic storm, had already begun to appear. On the other hand, this time was characterised by a deep slump in production and commerce, which, combined with the increase in the number of woodcarver and painter guild workshops from under 100 to 150 between 1560 and 1562, likely gave Gillis a good reason to leave.15 Known in Gdan´sk as Aegidius, he ­obtained city rights there as a sculptor in 1573.16 However, efforts to locate works by him have been unsuccessful.17 His offspring probably included Franz and Philipp van den Blocke, mentioned in Gdan´sk sources between 1589 and 1611, and their numerous children.18 Another, older Philips, who was supposedly the fourth of five sons of Frans from Mechelen and also a woodcarver, chose a different, if more typical, emigration route. He moved to Amsterdam after his son Cornelis settled there in 1585. Cornelis continued his father’s profession, as did his brothers, François, Jacob, and Michiel, who, around 1600, were all present in the Northern Netherlands. They began another branch of the family there. Frans van den Blocke, a sculptor, son of François, and possibly great-grandson of François senior from Mechelen, was mentioned in Rotterdam as late as 1666.19  Neeffs 1876, vol. 2, 142 (based on: Stadsarchief Mechelen, Stadsrekeningen, Serie I, no. 241, 1560– 1561, fol. 330v). Jointly the carvings were paid for with 57 pounds and 1 shilling. The source was already cited in full extent by Monballieu 1958, 88, note 38. 9  Information provided by Adolf Monballieu and Joost van der Auwera, kindly forwarded to the author by Mr Dieter Viaene from Stadsarchief Mechelen (two e-mails dated 26 November 2007). 10   Monballieu 1971, 80–81. 11  Monballieu 1971, 81. The date of his death is alternatively given in sources as 16 November, or 19 January of that year. 12  Regarding the pupils: Coninckx 1903, 43. Their names were Hansken van der Heyden (1563), and Joes van Diest (1571). On Pieter’s applying for the office: Neeffs 1876, vol. 1, 17; Neeffs 1876, vol. 2, 142. 13   Coninckx 1903, 42. The name of the pupil was Dirk van den Berghe. See also note 8. 14  On city law (Issuerecht), demanding payment of a fraction of a person’s possessions (vander haven) 8

144

for return of citizenship (dyssuwe), see Stallaert 1890, 14. Document mentioned in Neeffs 1876, vol. 2, 142 (based on: Stadsarchief Mechelen, Stadsrekeningen, Serie I, no. 241, 1565–1566, fol. 8v). 15   Wilson 1987, 64 and 80; Monballieu 1971, esp. 74. 16   Bertling 1885; Knetsch 1903, 28. ‘Gillis’ is a ­ diminutive of ‘Aegidius’ – see http://www. starmanproductions.nl/namen/namena2.html [date of lecture: 21.2.2008]. 17  Eimer 1955, 309, and Habela 1992b, 118, tried to ascribe to him the symbolic, plain tomb of the dukes of Eastern Pomerania in Oliva/Oliwa Cathedral. This seems improbable at present, because – apart from the fact that Gillis was a woodcarver – the commission for execution of this object dates from 1615 (Iwicki 2001, 101 no. 40), and not from 1577, as Eimer wrote. 18   Knetsch 1903, 28. 19   Data gathered from archival sources in Amsterdam, kindly shared with the author by Prof. Dr Frits Scholten, Rijksmuseum (manuscript dated 25 July 2007).

The Van

den

Blocke Family

in

Gdan´  sk

and in

Central Europe

 illem van den Blocke and the W courts of Prussia and Poland Willem, the youngest son of the elder François, has been by far the most renowned of the clan. While he was not mentioned in Netherlandish documents, a Gdan´sk source firmly supported his pedigree.20 Born around 1550,21 he abandoned the material that sustained his family to work in a more ambitious, if ­resistant, substance – stone. Two clues suggested that around 1565, after some practice with a local stonemason, Willem was sent to Cornelis Floris’s famous workshop in Antwerp. First, the Van den Blockes were linked to that studio through Hans Vredeman de Vries, who as Floris collaborator since 1555, was e­ ntrusted with preparing decorations for the same carrousel in Mechelen on which Gillis, Willem’s brother, worked.22 Secondly, a source from Königsberg, then residence of the duke of Prussia, published at the turn of nineteenth century, revealed that in 1582 Willem had been living in the city for fourteen years, meaning that he appeared there in 1569.�23 This was the year in which Cornelis Floris began work in Antwerp on the wall tomb (which was severely damaged in 1945) for Duke Albrecht, who died a year earlier in 1568 (fig. 2; see also page 105, fig. 3). The tomb was erected in Königsberg Cathedral in 1571 by the master’s assistants,  This single important source is a printed funeral oration for Willem’s son Jacob, Gdan´  sk city architect and carpenter – Botsack 1654, in which it is stated on fol. G IIr – G IIv: “Sein Seeliger Vater ist gewesen / der Ehrbare und Wolgeachte Wilhelm von Block / welcher Bürtig gewesen aus der Weitberühmbten Stadt Mechelen in Braband [...] auch von Adelichen Geschlecht daselbst [...] Die Fr: Mutter aber [...] die Ehrbare und Vieltugendsahme / Dorothea Wolffsen / dero herkommen von Barten auß Preussen gewesen ist. Der Großvater ist gewesen FRANCoys von dem Blocke – seine Fraw Großmutter aber Fr. Ursula [...]”. A dissertation on this artist has been written by Franciszek Skibin´   ski at Utrecht University, in cooperation with the Nicholas Copernicus University (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika), in Torun´  , Poland. See Skibin´  ski 2013 and Chapter 3.6. 21   This or similar date of birth of future stone sculptor is found in most dictionaries of artists, starting with Krollmann 1941, 62. 20

2. Königsberg Cathedral choir, tomb of Duke Albrecht of Prussia, 1569–1571, by Cornelis Floris (pre-1945 photograph).

 Monballieu 1958, 88, links both Gillis van den Blocke and other artists employed at preparing the 1561 ommegang decorations for Mechelen to the Floris atelier through the person of Vredeman, also working there. See also above in text and note 8. 23  The document, a farewell recommendation issued to the artist at the ducal court, was first published by von Mülverstedt 1855. The mistake in the artist’s name in title of this article is based on its appearance in this form in the cited archival entry (Kunstreicher Bilthauer, Meister Wilhelm von Bloe, von Mecheln aus Brabandt). Ehrenberg 1899, 137 note 462, and 212 note 590, reproduced the document in full again, however with a comment that such long sojourn of the artist in the city is improbable and not supported by other evidence. His supposition that the sculptor’s four years’ service at the court was prolonged due to a mistake of the scribe, was rightly rejected by Krzyz˙  anowski 1958, 272, who pointed at contrary documentary evidence (see below in text and notes 25–26). 22

145

Jacek Tylicki some of whom probably arrived earlier to prepare the site.24 Willem was possibly mentioned in court payments since 1571, but likely since 1576, when the duchy’s regents spent sixty marks on a baptismal banquet for a child of ‘Meister Wilhelm, der Bildheuer’, which testified to the high position he attained in Königsberg.�25 In any case, two of Willem van den Blocke’s children, Abraham and Jacob, were born in the ducal capital c. 1572 and 1577 respectively.26 In 1578, he began work on another wall monument for the cathedral commemorating Elisabeth, first consort of Duke Georg Friedrich (fig. 3; see also page 105, fig. 3). This cenotaph, one of few documented works by the master and finished late in 1581, was lost.27 According to earlier analyses, although ­grandiose in conception, and clearly dependent on Floris’s patterns, the monument was of average quality in figural sculpture, even though the execution of ornamental decoration was 3. Königsberg Cathedral choir, tomb of excellent.28 Such features pointed to a young Duchess Elisabeth of Prussia, 1578–1581, and still immature sculptor; Willem must by Willem van den Blocke (pre-1945 have been around thirty years old at the time. photograph). However, discrepancies between the figural and decorative parts were also visible in his later works. Nevertheless, he was paid exceptionally well for the work – considerably more than Floris for his Albrecht tomb, which stood next to Willem’s creation in the cathedral ­chancel.29 The related documents show that this “man of hot and harsh character” was unyielding in his repeated demands for receiving full and immediate financial remuneration for deliv­ ering the tomb, arguing that unexpected obstacles and expenses afflicted the tomb’s production. To placate him, he was given extra pay, complete with a farewell letter superlatively recommending his abilities during his years spent at the ducal court.30 Apparently, Willem requested the recommendations because he decided to offer his services to the king of Poland.31   Krzyz˙  anowski 1958, 272–273.   Ehrenberg 1899, 253, no. 720. (Probably) the same person is mentioned several times in documents pertaining to court expenses, cited on preceding pages of that publication. 26   Knetsch 1903, 29; Botsack 1654, fol. G IIr (Jacob’s birth date given there: 2 June 1577). 27  Willem’s authorship with regard to the object is expressly stated in the source published by von Mülverstedt 1855 (see note 23). The monument is discussed in-depth by Ehrenberg 1899, 109–112, and Krzyz˙   anowski 1958, 273–276 and passim. Its newer fate is reflected by Rzempołuch 1992, 145–147, who – enumerating remnants of furnishings on inner walls of the ruined cathedral – does not mention Elisabeth’s tomb. 28   Ehrenberg 1899, 111–112; Krzyz˙  anowski 1958, 274–275. 24 25

146

 According to Ehrenberg 1899, 111, Elisabeth’s tomb cost in total at least 4,463 Prussian marks and 26 shillings, not counting later extra royalties for the artist (see below in text and note 30), while Floris’s work was paid with 3,715 marks 32 ½ shillings (ibidem, 251–252, nos. 648, 652, 654, 664a, 669, 672; the given sum was calculated basing on constant rate of 1 Prussian mark equating 60 shillings). This surprising fact was brought up by Krzyz˙   anowski 1958, 274, who however cites the wrong sum for execution of Albrecht’s tomb – 3229 marks. 30   Ehrenberg 1899, 111. The obstacles mentioned by the sculptor, according to Ehrenberg, contributed to the exceedingly high cost of the monument, quoted in the previous note. 31   For the letter, issued on 20 March 1582, see above and note 23. 29

The Van

den

Blocke Family

in

Gdan´  sk

and in

Central Europe

His decision was preceded by his growing fame, especially the notoriety associated with the execution of the prestigious duchess of Prussia’s tomb. The duchy of Prussia was a fief of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Thus, the first monarch to spot Willem’s talents was King Stephen I, the Polish overlord. Descending from the Hungarian magnate family Báthory, he ordered the Netherlander to execute a tomb for his brother Christoph, duke of Transylvania. This commission was completed in 1582 and 1583, in Gdan´sk. Van den Blocke travelled personally to Gyulafehérvár 4. Cracow, Cathedral, St Mary’s Chapel, tomb of Stephen (Alba Iulia in today’s Romania), which was I Báthory, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, Transylvania’s residential centre, to set up 1594–1595, by Santi Gucci. the project. Unfortunately, this work perished during one of the numerous Turkish wars in the area.32 Before the tomb’s destruction, however, King Stephen praised the work and expressed a wish that his own might look similar.33 The sovereign’s funeral monument in Cracow Cathedral shows a half-reclining figure derived from the Veneto sansovinesque tradition, which was popular since the mid-sixteenth century in Southern Poland (fig. 4).34 For commemorating Christopher Báthory, Willem van den Blocke might have used the same scheme that he would come to know in Cracow, Poland’s old capital; the earlier Königsberg monuments showed kneeling figures. However, King Stephen’s tomb was executed in 1594 and 1595 by Santi Gucci, a Polonised Italian and a fashionable artist.35 By that time, Willem had firmly settled in Gdan´sk, which was far north of the country. Willem van den Blocke in Gdan´sk Willem van den Blocke made a logical move when offering the Gdan´sk city council his services in June 1584 and applying for free master’s status.36 The busy international seaport and highly-ranked art centre had become a haven for Netherlandish émigrés since the 1570s, including his elder brother Aegidius.37 Willem previously cooperated with s­ tonemasons from Gdan´sk who provided him with roughly prepared material while he worked in Königsberg.38 With royal and ducal references behind him, he requested an independent position in the   Krzyz˙  anowski 1958, 276, who also cites Polish and Hungarian late nineteenth- and early twentieth-­ century historical collectanea with archival sources pertaining to the monument. Apart from those documents, this episode from Willem’s biography is also known from his own statements in an application for service, forwarded to the Gdan´  sk city council on 18 June 1584. An appropriate fragment of the latter is cited by Ehrenberg 1899, 137 note 463, while full transcription of the document is provided by Krzysiak 1999, 65–66. Wider discussion on either form, or fate of the object is virtually non-existent in literature. 33   Krzyz˙  anowski 1958, 276–277. 34   See, for instance, Kozakiewiczowa 1978, 31–38 and passim. 32

  On Willem van den Blocke’s adaptation of funeral monument scheme from Cracow in his later works: Krzyz˙  anowski 1958, 276; on Gucci: Kozakiewiczowa 1978, 107–123; on Stephen Báthory’s tomb by him: Kozakiewiczowa 1978, 114–116. 36   See note 32. 37  A detailed discussion on this topic is still lacking, but for general overviews see the conference papers: Hrankowska 1995, as well as the voluminous essay: Thijssen 1992. Information dispersed in Cuny 1910b is also telling. 38  It was master Hans Stefan from Gdan´   sk who offered to cut the stones for Elisabeth’s funerary ­ monument; it must be said, however, that he failed to fulfill his duties in the end – Ehrenberg 1899, 111. 35

147

Jacek Tylicki town that allowed him to bypass expected troubles in the guild; he probably never underwent full guild t­raining. Indeed, he was soon granted the freedom he sought, as noted in a letter he addressed to the city council in 1590.39 In early 1586, he ­submitted an offer to decorate in stone the newly constructed High Gate (Hohes Tor), by far the most important and representational entrance to the city, leading from the west through the modern rampart constructions that were being erected (fig. 5). In March 1586, his proposition was accepted, and in 1588 the construction was completed.40 Although slightly altered in the nineteenth century and rebuilt after damage in 1945,41 5. Gdan´ sk, High Gate (Hohes Tor), 1586–1588, the High Gate has remained a monument to sculpture by Willem van den Blocke (pre-1945 Willem’s schooling in the Low Countries. It photograph). indeed closely resembled the 1545 Imperial Gate (Sint-Jorispoort or Keizerspoort) in Antwerp (fig. 6), and its dependence on Michele Sanmicheli’s fortification architecture in Verona – the source of the Imperial Gate’s architecture – has been noted.42 However, this prestigious building remained the only purely ­architectural work by the artist. By 1590, Willem wrote a petition to the city authorities, as previously mentioned, in which he complained about a lack of financial means to support himself, which was caused to a large extent by jealous guild 6. Antwerp, St George’s Gate (Sint- Jorispoort), masters who would not allow him to accept photograph by Florent Joostens from the 1860s new commissions. In the letter, he identified (Antwerp, FelixArchief). Willem van der Meer the Younger, nicknamed Barth, as his main enemy and described himself as a sculptor, in contrast to the guild members, called by him mere stonecutters who required journeymen assistants to address artistic problems.43 This remark revealed interesting aspects of the activities of local stonemasons and their ­workshop practice. Van den Blocke’s bitter foe, Van der Meer, belonged to another multi-generational, Netherlandish clan of artisans who, chased from Ghent by the war, settled in Gdan´sk in 1572. Van der Meer was also documented as author of the well-known chimneypiece built in 1593 in the Red Chamber of the main city town hall in the Baltic metropolis (fig. 7).44 Willem van   Krzysiak 1999, 72–76.  Krzysiak 1999, 66–70; Roll & Strzelecka 2006, 21. The original gate building was erected in 1574–1575 by Hans Kramer from Dresden. 41   Roll & Strzelecka 2006, 21. The alteration (reshaping of eastern façade) took place in 1884; post-war reconstructions lasted from 1946 to 1966. 42   Cuny 1910a, 124. 39 40

148

 Krzysiak 1999, 72–76 (the same document was cited in n. 39). 44   On this family of sculptors, see Tylicki 1997. On the chimneypiece: Roll & Strzelecka 2006, 46; illustrations volume, ills. 544–546. Recently, it has been argued at length that this splendid piece of stonemasonry was executed according to designs by Hans Vredeman de Vries – Pałubicki 2008, 236–237. 43

The Van

den

Blocke Family

7. Gdan´  sk, Main Town City Hall, Red Chamber, great chimneypiece, 1593–1594, by Willem van der Meer the Younger (Barth).

in

Gdan´  sk

and in

Central Europe

8. Elbla˛g, St. Nicholas’ Church, Valentin Bodecker epitaph, 1587, by Willem van den Blocke. Painting and inscription not original.

den Blocke’s wishes to be protected from his rivals were granted some cautious support from the city authorities so he could continue his work, which showed further artistic excellence indeed in the sculpted details.45 This oeuvre consisted primarily of tombs and epitaphs. The epitaph of Eduard Blemke made in 1591 in the Marienkirche in Gdan´sk (fig. 1), a piece signed in monogram, was one of the best.46 The severely damaged epitaph of burgomaster Valentin Bodecker in the Sankt ­ onuments Nikolaikirche in Elbla˛g (Elbing) from 1587 was another (fig. 8).47 Several other funeral m were linked to the artist’s name, including the one commemorating Piotr Tarnowski in the ­collegiate church in Łowicz in central Poland (fig. 9),48 as well as two export products: an epitaph for Christoph von Dohna in St Canute’s Church in Odense, Denmark from around 1586 (fig. 10),49  It was stated that he has the right to exercise his work, but within the framework of the guild, with which he should collaborate –- Krzysiak 1999, 73–74 and 75–76. 46  Roll & Strzelecka 2006, 110; illustrations volume, ills. 881, 886, 890. 47   First attributed to Van den Blocke by Krzyz˙    anowski 1971b, 180. 48  Attribution by Krzyz˙    anowski 1958, 291–293. The author rightly emphasizes the quality of the tomb; however, it seems to have been damaged at some point in time (probably during the second Polish-Swedish 45

war 1655–1660) and later reconstructed. Also, the circumstances of its foundation and, consequently, its precise dating are still insufficiently clarified. 49   First attributed to the artist by Christian Krollmann in 1914 (although hints in Danish literature at its similarity in form to Duchess Elisabeth’s tomb in Königsberg go back to 1884), the monument has been discussed at length by Johannsen 1990. In contrast to Tarnowski’s cenotaph, mentioned above in text, the epitaph for von Dohna seems to be of rather average quality and therefore should be regarded at best as a product of Willem’s studio.

149

Jacek Tylicki

9. Łowicz, collegiate church, tomb of Piotr Tarnowski (detail, figure of the deceased), before 1603, by Willem van den Blocke (photograph Franciszek Skibin´ski).

and, a proven but atelier work, the Ture Bielke tomb in Linköping Cathedral in Sweden.50 The tomb of King John III of Sweden, another important and well-­ documented Swedish commission, only partially survives (see pages 108, fig. 5 and 165, fig. 7).51 When Sigismond III Vasa was king of both Poland-Lithuania and Sweden, having inherited the throne from his father 10. Odense (Denmark), St in 1592, he ordered the tomb from Willem van den Canute’s Church, Christopher von Blocke jointly with the Swedish Senate. However, by Dohna epitaph, c. 1586, attributed 1594, before even the essential work began, the sculpto Willem van den Blocke. tor complained to the city council about trouble extracting the king’s half of the ­payment (2000 Thaler) from Gdan´sk, which owed part of its sea tolls to the monarch.52 With this problem apparently overcome, an even bigger issue arose in 1596, as the monument lay in parts ready for trans­ portation over the Baltic. The States of Sweden decided to depose Sigismond from the throne because of his staunch Catholicism, and, hence, the Senate of the kingdom refused to ­acknowledge the monarch’s earlier contract with the artist. Eventually the remaining part of the high honorarium was covered by Gdan´sk, but its authorities laid claim to the work, which it kept in crates in a municipal building for almost two centuries. After Gustav III of Sweden paid the old debt in the 1770s, the monument was erected in freestanding, canopy form in the Great Arsenal in Gdan´sk. In 1817 and 1818, the monument was finally transported to Sweden and rebuilt in the same shape in Uppsala Cathedral. Despite its purifying r­ econstruction  Discussed most thoroughly by Schéle 1951, who discovered documents, according to which it was ordered with Willem in 1615, and fully paid by 31 April 1619; then also by Grosjean 1985. 51  Information on this object is mainly cited after Krzyz˙    anowski 1958, 278–282, who in turn used Hahr 50

150

1913, the basic work on the subject. See now also, however, Saar-Kozłowska 2001. 52   Document published by Krzysiak 1999, 76–78. The sculptor’s complaint was read in the Danzig Senate on 25 November 1594.

The Van

den

Blocke Family

in

Gdan´  sk

and in

Central Europe

in 1893, the form did not reflect the artist’s original intention. Rather, Willem strove to create a monumental wall tomb similar to the earlier ones in Königsberg although with the Sansovino-type figure tried out in Poland. However, many of the architectural pieces were presumably stolen during the storage years in Gdan´sk. Two other grand projects were entrusted to the artist, neither of which came to fruition. In 1605, Willem was paid 50 Thaler to travel to Zamos´c´, now in eastern Poland, to design the main altar for the collegiate church there.53 Later that year, the death of Jan Zamoyski, the sponsor and Grand Chancellor of the Crown, led to the cancellation of the project. During the same period, Willem van den Blocke executed a drawing of a crown, the only known sheet by his hand and today kept in Berlin, that possibly showed a regalium prepared for the coronation of Sigismond III’s second consort, Archduchess Constance of Habsburg, that took place in 1605.54 However, because almost all the crown jewels of Poland were lost at the end of eighteenth century and the documentation has been sparse, this supposition can probably never be verified.55 11. Gdan´  sk, portal of the House of the Pelplin Abbots, Most of Van den Blocke’s works in Gdan´sk 1612, Willem van den Blocke (?). were more modest examples of civic commissions. He was credited with authorship of several burgher house portals, such as the one in the house of the Pelplin Abbots (fig. 11) – which today houses the University Department of Art History – from 1612.56 These attributions cannot be verified. Apart from the stone entrance mentioned, other portals fell prey to Soviet artillery and flamethrowers in 1945. In any case, Willem received most of his important commissions before 1610. This date coincided with the peak of Calvinist influence in the Gdan´sk city council, after which Lutherans gained the upper hand.57 These developments could have been linked to Van den Blocke’s religion. He was often assumed to be a follower of a more radical confession – even a Mennonite – and some evidence to that effect has now surfaced.58 On the other hand, his wife,  Krzyz˙    anowski 1958, 282. The source documenting this commission was originally published by Stanisław Herbst in 1939. 54   See Tylicki 2005, 93 and 142 (earlier literature cited there). 55   On this subject, see, for instance, Lileyko 1987. 56  Attribution by Eimer 1955, 310. Various façades and portals have been given to Willem by different authors, with little evidence provided. 57   After the death of two Calvinist co-burgomasters in 1611, the staunchly Lutheran senior burgomaster Johann von der Linde provided for assuring a majority for the Augsburg confession in the city’s authorities – Simson 1918, 431–432. On the history of conflict between two rival religious factions in Gdan´  sk, see Simson 1918, 367–371 and 404–435. 53

 The first to forward this supposition (though with reservations) was Ehrenberg 1899, 137 note 463, who writes about guild masters turning against him on pretext of his religion. Cuny 1910b, 75, discloses that he petitioned the city council to grant him right to freely exercise his art without submitting to the citizen’s oath because of his faith. In seemingly appropriate documents from August 1590 and 18 June 1584 (n. 39 and 40), no mention of Willem's religion is to be found. However, Skibin´   ski 2013 cites a nineteenth-century relation of a now lost petition dated 20 August 1586, in which the guild masters complain about Willem's activity in the town, accusing him of not being a proper citizen because his Anabaptist (Widertäufer) faith forbade him to take an oath. 58

151

Jacek Tylicki Dorothea Wolff, was Catholic,59 which made the liaison of persons belonging to such different churches rather questionable. In the end this problem can only be solved if the church where the artist was buried could be discovered. The burial date of 28 January 1628, put f­orward in older literature, has been shown to apply to his wife, who is mentioned as a widow in the burial book.60 An overall evaluation of Willem van den Blocke’s oeuvre reveals him (in his later years as well) as a gifted and precise sculptor of ornamental details in stone. However, he was probably not as finely schooled in figural work, nor in architectural structures, which in turn suggests that he likely spent a relatively short time in the Floris workshop.61 Nevertheless, in time he proved to be a chief disseminator of Netherlandish forms throughout the Baltic. Possibly he, or his brother Aegidius, also played a role in importing another leading Netherlandish master to this area: Hans Vredeman de Vries, who arrived in Gdan´sk in 1592 and was married to Johanna van Muysene, a contract which probably cemented earlier connections between the artistic families. In 1561, Aegidius van den Blocke had indeed collaborated with the painter Gillis van Muysen, possibly a relative of Vredeman’s bride, to prepare occasional architecture for the annual ommegang in Mechelen.62 The recent discovery that the invitation to the Frisian engineer and painter came from Gdan´sk’s assessors rather than its patrician circles corroborated this supposition; the sculptor must have naturally been closer to this population stratus.63 Therefore, strong connections very probably existed between the Netherlandish diaspora and their compatriots at home and abroad – provided they were not professional rivals. Willem van den Blocke’s sons: Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and David Willem van den Blocke fathered four sons, most of whom adhered to artistic or quasiartistic professions, even if some of them did not achieve the rank of their parent.64 Abraham (1572–1628), Willem’s first-born who continued the work of his father; Jacob (1577–1653), the second born, city builder, and carpenter; and Isaac (before 1589–after 1624), a painter who for a time was the most celebrated and officially recognised figure of the local milieu, all achieved a similar degree of prestige as the stone sculptor from Mechelen. Abraham trained in Willem’s workshop, and after the usual journey abroad, differed from his father by becoming a Gdan´sk citizen in 1595 and a guild member in 1597. His career advanced very quickly. By 1600, he was already named city sculptor, and probably in 1611, he became city architect. As the owner of a large atelier, he employed no less than twentyfive assistants in 1600, accepted commissions for architectural and sculptural works, and executed these according both to his own designs and to those submitted by other artists. He differed further from Willem by being quite prolific and versatile in architecture and in working much more for the city of Gdan´sk. He erected some of the town’s most famous landmarks, such as the Great Arsenal (1602–1608), or, at least, its representational eastern 59  Entry in an index to more important burials in Gdan´   sk, drawn at the Marienkirche, now in the Archiwum ­Pan´  stwowe w Gdan´  sku [Gdan´  sk State Archive], 354/351, page 222 [new pagination], discloses she was buried in the Catholic St Nicholas’s Church (Nikolaikirche) – Tylicki 2005, 141. The transcription of this short document in Tylicki 2009. 60   The date of the burial was being repeatedly read as pertaining to the sculptor himself since Bertling 1885, who did not cite the document at any length. This was contradicted by Tylicki 2005, 141, who ­examined the source again (see above and the previous note). The terminus post quem for the artist’s death is 30 April

152

1619, when he was paid the last ­ installment (1000 Polish Thaler) for the Ture Bielke tomb in Linköping by Gabriel Oxenstierna – see above in text and note 50. 61   See above in text and notes 22–24. 62  Monballieu 1958, 88, note 37; see also above in text and notes 8 and 22. Monballieu 1958, 88, note 38 points out the similarity between the names of Gillis van Muysen and Johanna van Muysene. 63   Pałubicki 2008, 231. 64   Apart from the four sons mentioned below in text, Knetsch 1903, 29–32, lists three daughters: Catharina, Susanna (with some doubt) and one with an unknown name.

The Van

den

Blocke Family

12. Gdan´   sk, house of Johann Speimann (Steffensches Haus) on the Długi Targ (Langermarkt), before 1609, by Abraham van den Blocke.

in

Gdan´  sk

and in

Central Europe

13. Gdan´  sk, front façade of Dwór Artusa (Artushof   ), 1616–1617, by Abraham van den Blocke (pre-1945 photograph).

façade (see page 28, fig. 14), the Golden House of burgomaster Johann Speimann, finished in 1609 (fig. 12), the new façade of the Artushof (1616–1617) (fig. 13), the pedestal of the Neptune Fountain (1605–1613) installed in 1633 (fig. 14), and the Golden Gate (1612– 1614) finished in 1648 (fig. 15), to which he contributed plans and architectural details. Abraham also undertook purely sculptural work, including the monumental tomb of Juditha and Simon Bahr in Gdan´sk’s Marienkirche (1614–1620) (fig. 16), and the earlier tomb of Cardinal Andrzej Báthory and his brother Baltazar, the late king’s cousins, in the Franciscan church in Barczewo (Wartenburg) in the Warmia or Ermland region southeast of Gdan´sk, finished in 1598 (see page 166, fig. 8). The cardinal’s tomb is widely believed to include the work of two generations of Van den Blockes – Willem tackling the ornamental part with which he was most at ease, leaving only the figures to his son. Abraham died in January 1628 leaving behind even more offspring than Willem. The master’s most able assistant, Wilhelm Richter, who cooperated with him on several works, married his widow shortly afterwards. Out of the twelve children, only Uriel became a sculptor, but he died in 1636 at a relatively young age. Abraham’s oeuvre was, as mentioned previously, more architecture-oriented than his father’s. He also employed the Vitruvian vocabulary on a larger scale and with more ease and taste, especially in the later phase of his activity. However, his sculptural detail was far more heterogeneous in comparison to Willem’s, which reflected the influence of his studio helpers on the work.65   The most profound discussion of Abraham’s life and works is provided probably by Krzyz˙    anowski 1971a and Habela 1992a, but see also Knetsch 1903, 29–30,

65

Eimer 1955, 309–310, and Krzyz˙    anowski 1958, 291 note 45. A monograph on this important artist is still lacking.

153

Jacek Tylicki

14. Abraham van den Blocke and Wilhelm Richter, pedestal of the Neptune Fountain on Długi Targ (Langermarkt) in Gdan´   sk; bronze statue by Peter Husen, 1605–1613 (pre-1945 photograph).

15. Gdan´  sk, the Golden Gate (Langgasser Tor), western façade, 1612–1614, by Abraham van den Blocke (pre-1945 photograph).

Willem van den Blocke’s second son Jacob was educated in architecture and carpent­ry. When he was eleven years old, his father sent him to Emden to practice with the architect Arnold Sachsen. Thereafter, he studied in Gdan´sk with city carpenter Johann von Jülich. His professional journeys took him to Holland in 1595, then to Copenhagen, where he played a main role in erecting the triumphal arch for the festivities of Christian IV’s coronation in 1596. After spending a few years in Königsberg and Elbla˛g, he returned to Gdan´sk in 1600, where he married three years later and became a master carpenter and a guild elder by 1607. From the end of 1608 until 1637, he was active as city builder and carpenter (Bau- und Zimmermeister) and, as such, gained affluence, employing up to forty-one apprentices and building himself a house in the town centre. He has been attributed as the author of the tower helmet housing a carillon at St Catherine’s Church in Gdan´sk (fig. 17), constructed in 1634 and ultimately destroyed – in its original form – in 1945.66 Detailed information on Jacob’s life was drawn from his funeral oration, performed by a professor of the local gymnasium, which in itself testified to Jacob’s social position. This rare print was also a prime source of knowledge on the family’s history in general.67 Isaac van den Blocke’s life has not been well researched. He was a co-founder of the painters’ guild, belatedly instituted in Gdan´sk in 1612. By 1622, he was elected elder of the guild. In 1613, he applied to the city council to free him from the compulsory oath of ­allegiance necessary for citizenship. He was apparently granted the privilege. This document served as evidence proving Isaac was a Mennonite, which while plausible was not obvious. The council’s grace towards the painter likely stemmed from their satisfaction with his chief   Knetsch 1903, 30–31; Habela 1992c.

66

154

67

  Botsack 1654, fol. G IIr nn.

The Van

den

Blocke Family

16. Gdan´  sk, St Mary’s Church, tomb of Juditha and Simon Bahr, 1614–1620, by Abraham van den Blocke.

in

Gdan´  sk

and in

Central Europe

17. Gdan´   sk, St Catherine’s Church, tower helmet by Jacob van den Blocke, 1634 (pre1945 photograph).

work – the ceiling for the representational Red Chamber of the main city town hall, painted between 1606 and 1609. The renowned centrepiece, the Allegory of Gdan´sk (fig. 18), conveyed a distinctly Calvinist message and was executed in 1608. This grand commission, which grounded the artist’s position, came rather suddenly, as it was Isaac’s earliest known painterly work. However, the commission may have resulted from a dispute between the city’s fathers and Anton Möller, a revered local painter in the late sixteenth century. The choice of Van den Blocke in Möller’s place supposedly necessitated family lobbying, especially by his brother Abraham, whose reputation was on the rise then. However, in purely artistic categories, Isaac’s art followed Möller’s recipe to a degree, as it was still grounded in the generally harder forms of the previous century, an approach that was mainly inherited from the Low Countries. Further works by the painter (all of which were made before 1620) included another ceiling, believed to have been created between 1611 and 1614, in an unknown burgher house, which today is kept in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg. Miniatures from an album amicorum have also been ascribed to this master (fig. 19).68 Another of Isaac’s brothers, David (c. 1590–1640) also decided to become a painter in Gdan´sk after a sojourn to Brandenburg. He joined the guild in 1618, and probably initially  Gosieniecka 1971b; Heydel 1995b; Steinborn 1996; Tylicki 2005, 56–57 and 137–141; many other ­informations dispersed. 68

155

Jacek Tylicki

18. Isaac van den Blocke, ‘Allegory of Gdan´   sk’, 1608, part of painted ceiling in Red Chamber, Main Town City Hall in Gdan´  sk, 1606–1609.

19. Isaac van den Blocke, ‘Gdan´  sk women and Polish noblemen’, 1608, miniature from the album amicorum of Michael Heidenreich, Kórnik, Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Biblioteka Kórnicka PAN), inv. BK 1436.

worked in his brother’s studio. An example of his abilities was displayed in the paintings from the great organs made in 1627 for St John’s Church in Gdan´sk (fig. 20), now in St Mary’s. Subsequently, he gave up his profession and applied in 1628 for the post of city guards’ officer in the suburb, which he held until his death.69 Descendants of this most creative generation of the family lived in Gdan´sk well into the second half of the seventeenth century. Jacob alone, as abundant in offspring as his parents and brothers, produced twelve children, twenty-nine grandchildren, and eleven greatgrandchildren.70 None of them became artists. However, they wedded inside the Netherlandish community; Jacob married Magdalene Henrichsen, one of his sisters was given to Hans Janssen from Emden, and another, Catharina, married Hans Isendick in the Calvinist St Peter and Paul’s Church.71 The general economic and cultural situation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after the catastrophic second Swedish war of 1655–1660 also affected the hitherto wealthy Prussian cities, leading to a decline in the scope and quality of artistic production and, therefore, the social standing of artists. A general change in artistic taste arose as well. The still prosperous elite looked increasingly to France for ideas and fashion, following courtly example. This new pan-European trend uprooted the vogue for forms from the Low Countries, which for almost a century substituted Italian art for the Gdan´sk patricians in  Knetsch 1903, 31; Gosieniecka 1971a; Heydel 1995a. 69

156

70 71

  Botsack 1654, fol. Hv; Knetsch 1903, 31.   Knetsch 1903, 30–31.

The Van

den

Blocke Family

in

Gdan´  sk

and in

Central Europe

their yearning for worldly splendour.72 Nonetheless, seventy years of activity from the Mechelen family in Gdan´sk not only provided the Baltic seaport with some of its most recognisable artistic monuments. Additionally, Netherlandish architectural, sculptural, and painterly forms created by the Van den Blocke radiated outward across the region, down to the outskirts of the Ottoman Empire, and today remain a prominent example of a Low Countries’ artistic clan’s production abroad in the classic period of the land’s cultural expansion.

20. David van den Blocke, ‘The Original Sin’, after 1627, painted panel decorating the great organs from St John’s Church in Gdan´  sk, now Gdan´   sk, St Mary’s church (pre-1945 photograph).

 There is no proper discussion of evolution of cultural fashion in Gdan´ sk in general, but for this period, see now Kizik 2005, especially 19–20. 72

157

1. Gdan´sk, St Mary’s Church, epitaph of Anna Loytze, c. 1560–1570, by the ‘Master of the Caryatides’ ­(photograph by the author).

Chapter 2.6 The Expansion of Gdan´  sk and the Rise of Taste for Netherlandish Sculpture in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Franciszek Skibin´ ski (Utrecht University / Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun´ )

Introduction Gdan´sk’s (Danzig) position as an important artistic centre has already been well established in the historiography of Northern and Central European art in the early modern period. The Baltic metropolis was an important intermediary in disseminating Netherlandish art in this part of the continent. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the town served not only as a market for prints and paintings imported from the Low Countries, but also as a final destination for sculpture imported by sea.1 This essay further emphasises the cultural role of the city by illuminating the importance of Gdan´sk as a distinct artistic centre exerting far-reaching influence over neighbouring lands. Particular attention will be devoted to the Netherlandish contribution to the most important Gdan´sk artistic export product – namely stone sculpture and micro-architecture – and its reception by patrons of art across the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and beyond.2 The first part of this chapter will elaborate on chronological and geographical boundaries of the city’s artistic expansion in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a phenomenon intrinsically linked both to the expansion of Netherlandish art and the taste for it. The second part will be devoted to the problem of aesthetic consciousness exhibited by local patrons and the relation between Italian and Netherlandish traditions present in the Commonwealth.3 Although the essay focuses mainly on the dissemination of Gdan´sk sculpture, the Baltic metropolis exerted considerable influence in other domains of art as well. For instance, goldsmiths also offered their products to a far-ranging clientele.4 Gdan´sk workshops met the Polish demand for both ecclesiastical and secular works, including such prestigious pieces as the reliquaries of Saint Adalbert and Saint Stanislaus, executed by Peter van der Rennen and destined for cathedrals in Cracow and Gniezno, respectively. Moreover, Gdan´sk goldsmiths supplied lavish pieces for the royal court, as well as similar objects designed as gifts for foreign rulers. In the first half of the seventeenth century, the Baltic trade emporium was by far the most important centre of painting in the Commonwealth, although the scale of its impact in the state’s heartland was more limited. Arguably, Herman Han (1580–1627/1628), a Catholic convert, was the most influential Gdan´sk painter.5 Born to a Netherlandish father in Gdan´sk, Han produced cabinet paintings for local patrician elites in the initial phase of his career. Later, he worked on ecclesiastical commissions supplied by clergy from the surrounding  See for example Wardzyn´  ski 2004 and Kaufmann 2006b. 2  Throughout the text the term ‘sculpture’ will generally refer also to micro-architecture, generally produced by the same workshops. 3  Białostocki 1976; Chrzanowski 1995; Karpowicz 2003; Badach 2004; Wardzyn´  ski 2004; Wardzyn´  ski 1

2005; Wardzyn´  ski 2007; Wardzyn´  ski 2009. Michał Wardzyn´   ski investigated the material used in workshops operating in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 4   For a general survey of this issue see Bochnak 1957. 5   On Han see particularly Pasierb 1974; Tylicki 1997b and Tylicki 2009.

159

Franciszek Skibin´ ski province of Royal Prussia and beyond. Han’s works played an important role in shaping Counter-Reformation painting in Poland, even if much of the credit should, in fact, go to the influence exerted by countless devotional prints that flooded Poland in the early seventeenth century, particularly by members of the Wierix, Collaert, and Sadeler families; Han used these prints extensively.6 The expansion of Gdan´  sk An artistic milieu in Gdan´sk existed long before the city began to exert major ­influence ­ eyond its closest vicinity. During the sixteenth century, the Baltic metropolis housed, at least b ­temporarily, artists and architects of considerable status who were employed to meet both public and private local demands. One of them was the ­so-called ‘master of caryatids’, an either Netherlandish or French sculptor strongly influenced by the designs of the Fontainebleau School and working for the town’s elite in the 1560s (fig. 1).7 Until 1570, the leading artists active in Gdan´sk were Germans, such as the architect Hans Kramer, the painter Martin Schoninck, and the sculptor Adrian Karffycz, known for their works in the Artushof. Stimuli from other directions were nonetheless present. For example, Italians rebuilt the late ­medieval façade of the Artushof in 1552, probably inspired by the front page of Sebastiano Serlio’s Book III on Antiquities to incorporate large, pointed windows into the new ‘antique’ ensemble.8 In the 1570s, the influx of Netherlanders began to sweep away other influences. For example, archival documents from the local masons’, stonecutters’, and stone sculptors’ guild, citizenship books, and known works indicated that Netherlanders began arriving in Gdan´sk in growing numbers around that time.9 Accordingly, by the end of the century, Gdan´sk became one of the main centres of Netherlandish art in the Baltic region.10 At the turn of the sixteenth century, such masters as Burchardt Janssen from Zwolle, Paul van Doren from Antwerp (Mechelen?), Willem van der Meer from Ghent, and Abraham van den Blocke, son of the sculptor Willem van den Blocke from Mechelen, attained a firm position in the locally important stone sculpt­ ors’ guild. Between 1580 and 1620, Netherlanders held the post of dean of the guild seventeen times.11 Others, such as the architects Frederik Hendriksz Vroom from Haarlem12 and Anthonis van Opbergen from Mechelen,13 designed and supervised major public building enterprises. Netherlandish journeymen worked in the city as well. Their presence, largely n ­ eglected by scholars until now, p ­ rovided an important factor facilitating the success of Gdan´sk s­ tudios and the subsequent ­dissemination of the Low Countries’ visual ­vocabulary.14 Masters, assistants, and stone traders of Netherlandish origin operating in Gdan´sk – but also in other centres in the north of Central Europe – formed an intricate and ­closely interwoven ­network. For example, Willem van den Blocke’s studio was a major workshop consisting mostly of Netherlanders, both skilled   This issue has been discussed by the author in the paper ‘Devotional Prints and the Development of the Counter-Reformation Painting in North-Western Areas of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth’, presented at the conference Druckgraphik und Photographie im Baltischen Raum im 16. – 20. Jahrhundert, Homburger Gespräch 2008, Bad Homburg v. d. Höhe, Germany, 24 October 2008. 7  Krzyz˙   anowski 1966, 23–30; Pałubicki 1981, 188–190; Woz´niak 1995, 241 note 37; Oszczanowski 2008, 77–78. 8   Simson 1900, 148–149. 9   See the pay-books of the guild containing names of masters, journeymen and apprentices, State Archive in Gdan´sk (Archiwum Pan´  stwowe w Gdan´sku, 6

160

henceforth referred to as APG), 300 C/2057, 2058; see also Cuny 1910b and Pałubicki 1981. 10  See for example Kaufmann 2006b, as well as the chapters by Konrad Ottenheym and Jacek Tylicki in this volume (2.3 and 2.5). 11  Mostly Janssen, Van der Meer and Abraham van den Blocke. See APG, 300/C, 2057–2059. For the guild in general see Lengnich 1900, 555–560; Krzyz˙   anowski 1966, 150–155; Pałubicki 1981 and Oszczanowski 2008, 72–74. See also Bogucka 1962. 12   Oszczanowski 2008. 13   Bartetzky 2004. 14  Skibin´  ski 2012a.

The Expansion

of

Gdan´  sk

and the

Rise

of

Taste

for

Netherlandish Sculpture

sculptors and stonecutters. Van den Blocke was probably educated in Antwerp in the circle of Cornelis Floris. His workshop ­ ­operated in Gdan´sk between 1582 (or 1584) and approximately the first decade of the ­seventeenth century.15 Masters from elsewhere who formed an important part of the local milieu in 1600 were also strongly influenced by the Low Countries. For example, the city architect Hans Strakowski was active earlier in Malbork (Marienburg) in Royal Prussia (a region in Northern Poland, later called ‘West Prussia’).16 In the opening years of the seventeenth century, Strakowski led the largest building enterprise in Gdan´sk, consisting of more than sixty workmen at one point.17 Later, the city authorities sent him to Germany and the Low Countries to augment his professional skills.18 The rapid development of the ateliers occurred in the last two decades of the sixteenth century when artists based in 2. Lisewo, parish church, epitaph of Jan Gdan´sk began to supply their works to cusKostka, c. 1570–1580, by an anonymous tomers outside the Baltic urban centre. Yet Netherlandish workshop (photograph by the isolated works executed in Gdan´sk could author). have found their way to more distant places before 1580; the epitaph of the Kostka family in Lisewo (c. 1571), located in the southern part of historical Royal Prussia was such an example (fig. 2).19 However, scarce knowledge of those early commissions has prevented any definite conclusions. Customers from other towns in Royal Prussia, the northwestern province of the Polish kingdom located along the banks of lower Vistula river, played a key role in this initial phase of Gdan´sk’s expansion. Personal, economic, and political ties linked members of patrician elites in the ‘three great Prussian towns’ – Gdan´sk, Torun´    (Thorn), and Elbla˛g (Elbing) – and provided excellent channels for disseminating works of art. Surveys of existing objects ­combined with analyses of written sources indicated that around 1600 Torun´    lacked any significant artistic milieu, at least with regard to sculpture. For example, in contrast to contemporary Gdan´sk, the records of the local masons’ guild of Torun´   did not mention any sculptors or Netherlanders.20 Patrons there relied on imports from the Baltic centre rather than on local production.21 In the late sixteenth century, several epitaphs in Torun´   ’s St Mary’s Church commemorating members of local patrician families were executed in Gdan´sk. Their rich  Skibin´  ski 2010; Skibinski 2012b. Among the most interesting assistants are the sculptors Philip van den Blocke and Jacob Colin, the latter from Mechelen. 16   APG 300, C/2058, p. 94. 17   APG 300, C/2059, p. 86. 18   Cuny1910b, 51, 56. 19  Lech Krzyz˙     anowski believed it be a work of a workshop based in Königsberg, Krzyz˙    anowski 1967. 15

 State Archive in Torun´  (Archiwum Pan´  stwowe w Toruniu), Cech Murarzy, 3, Ksie˛ga protokołów mistrzów cechu murarskiego 1572–1821. An independent sculptors’ guild was established in Torun´   only in 1695 and comprised the sculptors in wood. 21   See for example Puciata-Pawłowska 1959. 20

161

Franciszek Skibin´ ski

4. Torun´   , St Mary’s Church, epitaph of the Stroband family, c. 1590, by Willem van den Blocke (photograph by the author).

architectural and ornamental decoration derived from the designs by Cornelis Floris and, above all, Hans Vredeman de Vries.22 Elements of architectural decoration, such as the portal of the house of the patrician Esken family (c. 1600), were likely executed in Gdan´sk, or at least by Gdan´sk workshops (fig. 3). The most striking example of Gdan´skoriented patronage in that town was provided by its burgomaster, Heinrich Stroband. For his numerous commissions, both public and private, Stroband employed such well-known Gdan´sk artists and ­architects as sculptor Willem van den Blocke (c. 1590, fig. 4), architects Frederik Hendricksz Vroom and Anthonis van Opbergen (before 1591),23 and Anton Möller (1603), an able painter working in the eastern Baltic region circa 1600.24 The situation in Elbla˛g has been more difficult to establish due to the destruction of the town in 1945 and, thus, the lack of documents from the local masons’ guild.25 However, despite close artistic relations with Gdan´sk – exemplified by Willem van den Blocke’s epitaph for Valentin von Bodeck in St Nicholas’s Church (before 1594) – Elbla˛g was not entirely dependent on imports. Important works in the ‘antique’ style were locally created in the midsixteenth century – notably, the town hall, built in 1556 under the supervision of burgomaster 3. Torun´    , Łazienna 16 (today in Muzeum Okre˛gowe), portal of the house of the Esken family, c. 1600, by an a­nonymous Gdan´sk workshop (photograph by the author).

22  Epitaphs of Von der Linde (after 1586), Neisser (1588), Mochinger (c. 1590) and Stroband (1590) families; Sulewska 2004, 56–61. Painter Fabian Naisser, the painter of the Baptism of Christ in the epitaph commemorating his parents, was already staying in Gdan´sk in 1585, when he married Suzanna, the daughter of sculptor from Mechelen Gilles van den Blocke, a brother of Willem van den Blocke (APG, 356/2, 28). The only questionable work among them is the Von der Linde epitaph, probably commissioned

162

by Gdan´sk burgomaster Johann von der Linde; Birecki 2003, 186. Sulewska 2004, 122 considers the Von der Linde epitaph to be a work of a Torun´  workshop. 23   See also Dybas´ 1994, 114. 24  Krzyz˙    anowski 1958, 287; Dybas´ 1989, 22–23, 35, 37; Puciata-Pawłowska1958/1959. 25   On Elbla˛g see Cuny 1907 and Rynkiewicz-Domino 2005. Only a copy of the guild’s regulations is known, see State Archive Gdan´sk, 416/1.

The Expansion

of

Gdan´  sk

and the

Rise

of

Taste

for

Netherlandish Sculpture

Nicolaus Friedwald, a politician and writer well-versed in the current European cultural trends.26 Also, two existing sculpted chimneypieces in Elbla˛g, executed in the late sixteenth century (one of which was the only surviving component of the decoration of the town hall, which burned down in 1777), were probably made locally, although some influence exerted by Gdan´sk cannot be excluded (fig. 5). Moreover, at the turn of the sixteenth century, Elbla˛g hosted one of the leading stone merchants active in the Commonwealth: the Netherlander Willem Martens, who was also active in Torun´   , Gdan´sk, and Vilnius as purveyor to such prominent patrons as Heinrich Stroband and the Polish king Sigismund III Vasa himself.27 Besides the urban elite, members of the foremost Prussian noble families also employed artists active in Gdan´sk.28 Close relations between the leading families clearly facilitated the dissemination of art works. Mikołaj Działyn´   ski was honoured by a stone epitaph executed in Gdan´sk and erected circa 1605 in the parish church in Nowe Miasto Lubawskie (Neumark) (fig. 6). 5. Chimneypiece, anonymous workshop Members of the Kos family, headed by probably active in Elbla˛g, formerly in the Town Mikołaj Kos, supporters of the Cistercian Hall in Elbla˛g, today in Waplewo Wielkie, last abbey in Oliwa (Oliva) near Danzig, were quarter of the sixteenth century (copyright: commemorated there with a monumental Muzeum Narodowe w Gdan´sku), (photograph by the author). free-standing tomb, probably by Willem van den Blocke (before 1600) and based on the model established by Cornelis Floris in his tombs of Frederick I of Denmark in Schleswig and Jan van Merode in Geel. Finally, prior to 1607, Bartłomiej Tylicki engaged Willem van der Meer and architect Hans Strakowski to build a residence in Tylice, located north of Torun´  . Surveys of art works and sources, particularly those published by Herman Ehrenberg,29 indicated that throughout the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Gdan´sk maintained lively relations with Königsberg (Królewiec or Kaliningrad), the capital of Ducal Prussia (the region later called ‘East Prussia’) and, since 1525, a fief of the kingdom of Poland. The term ‘exchange’ has seemed more appropriate than ‘influence’ to describe the nature of these rela­ tions, as around the mid-sixteenth century, Königsberg became an artistic ­centre of considerable

  The town hall was destroyed in the late eighteenth century. Fuchs 1818, 164–179; Rynkiewicz-Domino 2005, 641–642. 27  Scattered information regarding Martens are to be found in Tylicki 1997b, 182; Ga˛siorowski 2004, 117; Kaladžinskaite˙ 2006, 32 and Wardzyn´ski 2007, 387– 388. See also State Archive Gdan´sk, 300, 5/8, 73. 26

  See also Wardzyn´ ski 2007, 387.   Ehrenberg 1899, for example 143, nos. 16 and 20; 148, no. 43; 149, no. 52; 153, no. 3; 156, no. 112; 157, no. 122; 158, nos. 128 and 130; 165, no. 194 and many others. 28 29

163

Franciszek Skibin´ ski importance far ­ exceeding Gdan´sk’s trade in sculpture, though mostly through the means of i­mports. Aside from the courts in Scandinavia, ­ particularly Denmark, and those in some German countries, the ducal Prussian court formed the avant-garde of the ‘antique’ taste.30 Duke Albrecht’s chief artistic advisor, engraver Jacob Binck, who owned a copy of Pieter Coecke van Aelst’s edition of Serlio’s Book III on Antiquities, was undoubtedly well-versed in current trends emanating from the Low Countries, particularly in the city of Antwerp.31 Cooperation between two neighbouring city centres was clearly visible during the ­erection of the monument to Duchess Elisabeth (1578–1582), commissioned by Duke Georg Friedrich. Hans Steffens and Paul van Doren, Netherlanders dwelling in Gdan´sk, supplied stone to the monument’s sculptor, Willem van den Blocke, who was based in Königsberg at that time.32 Simultaneously, Gdan´sk’s versatile architect Frederik Vroom was summoned by Georg Friedrich to 6. Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, parish church, inspect a number of important buildings.33 monument of Mikołaj Działyn´   ski, c. 1605, by The ­ balance finally shifted in favour of Abraham van den Blocke (?), (photograph by the Gdan´sk in the last two decades of the century, author). when leading artists, including Willem van den Blocke and Anton Möller, moved from the town on the Pregel to the great Baltic port. By 1600, many works by Gdan´sk masters were flowing to Königsberg, as demonstrated by the epitaph to Christopher Heilsberg in the cathedral. Not only did its wooden structure resemble the epitaph of Jacob Schmidt in St Catherine’s Church in Gdan´sk, but the deceased and his family were depicted in front of the Gdan´sk townscape.34 The stone epitaph commemorating Michael Giese, also in Königsberg Cathedral, was likely made or designed in Gdan´sk as well.35 Around 1590, Gdan´sk began to exert major influence outside of Royal Prussia. Commissions commanded by the royal Polish court played an important role in ­shaping this phenomenon. In the 1570s, the sarcophagus of King Sigismond II August in Cracow was

30  See among others Meganck 2005 and BareselBrand 2007, 122–147. On the ‘antique’ see above all De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007. 31   Die alder vermaertste Antique edificien van ­templen, theatren, amphiteatren, paleisen, thermen, obeliscen, bruggen, archen triumphal. […], duer Peeter Coeck van Aalst, Antwerp 1546 (today in the Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Gdan´sk [Biblioteka Gdan´ska PAN], signature Uph. f. 1791). 32   Ehrenberg 1899, 208, nos. 563 and 210, no. 579.

164

  Ehrenberg 1899, 213, no. 602.   Sulewska 2004, 33, 61, 212. 35   As far as it can be judged from an old photograph, its design resembles that of the epitaph of Johann Brandes, executed by Willem van den Blocke in year 1586, and it could have been in fact a work of his studio; Dethlefsen 1912, 55 fig. 65. Katarzyna Cies´lak was the first and so far the only to have linked this work with Van den Blocke, Cies´lak 1992, 150, note 38. 33 34

The Expansion

of

Gdan´  sk

and the

Rise

of

Taste

for

Netherlandish Sculpture

executed by an anonymous Netherlandish artist based in Gdan´sk.36 The further advance of northern artists based in Gdan´sk was most clearly visible in the activities of Willem van den Blocke.37 In the last decade of the sixteenth century, he attracted patronage from well beyond Prussia after executing several epitaphs for Prussian patricians in the late 1580s.38 For example, in 1582, King Stephen I Báthory granted Van den Blocke the commission for a monument commemorating Christopher Báthory. This work was likely executed in Gdan´sk.�39 In 1593, Sigismund III Vasa, Báthory’s successor on the Polish throne, issued another major royal commission, 7. Uppsala, cathedral, effigy of the King Johann III Vasa of namely that for the tomb of King John III Sweden, 1593–1596 by Willem van den Blocke (photograph Vasa of Sweden (fig. 7; see also page 107, by the author). fig. 4). These two funerary monuments were the first works of this kind to be commissioned by the crown not to Italians in Cracow, but to a Netherlander active in the North. As such, these commissions strongly influenced Van den Blocke’s own career while also boosting the position of Gdan´sk as an artistic centre of major importance and playing a key role in the history of Netherlandish expansion in this part of Europe.40 The royal decision to employ Van den Blocke prompted members of court circles and a number of highly influential personages, including Vice-Chancellor Jan ­ Tarnowski, Cardinal Andreas Báthory, and perhaps also Chancellor Jan Zamoyski, to approach this sculptor as well (fig. 8). By exporting his works as far away as Uppsala and Linköping in Sweden, Odense in Denmark, and Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár or Weißenburg) in Transylvania, Van den Blocke – and the fame of Gdan´sk – transcended not only the borders of royal and ducal Prussia, but also those of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Consequently, between 1612 and 1614, Willem van den Meer, well-known for the grand chimneypiece in the Red Chamber of the main town city hall in Gdan´sk, was employed by Duke Philip Julius to carry out works in the castle of Wolgast in Pomerania.41 During this period, Gdan´sk also maintained lively artistic relations with Wrocław (Breslau) in Silesia, which was part of the Habsburg Empire at that time. Thus, some artists and architects active in Gdan´sk later moved to Wrocław. For example, Wrocław authorities invited Hans Schneider von Lindau, former city architect in Gdan´sk, to take a similar post in their city in 1591.42 Their keen interest in securing his services indicated the exemplary role of Gdan´sk and its numerous architectural undertakings. Gerhard Hendriksz, a sculptor and kinsman of Gdan´sk architect Frederik Vroom, also moved from Gdan´sk to Wrocław and became the most accomplished exponent of his profession in Silesia around 1600 (fig. 9).43

 Czyz˙    ewski 2004. This tradition was maintained well into the seventeenth century, and the sarcophagi of Stephan Báthory, Sigismund III Vasa and Queen Anna Jagiellonka among others have been also commis­ sioned in Gdan´sk. 37   See also the essay by Jacek Tylicki in this volume (chapter 2.5). 36

  See also Wardzyn´  ski 2007, 387.   See the document published in Veress 1918, 211. 40  Wardzyn´  ski 2007. 41  Bethe 1937, 108. Also Paul van Hove was earlier active in Wolgast. Bethe 1937, 39. 42   Oszczanowski 1999, 110–111. 43   Oszczanowski 1999, 118–120; Oszczanowski 2008. 38 39

165

Franciszek Skibin´ ski

8. Barczewo, former Bernardine church, monument of the Prince-Cardinal Andreas Báthory and his brother Balthazar, last decade of the sixteenth century, by Willem van den Blocke (photograph by the author).

9. Wrocław, St Elisabeth’s Church, epitaph of the Hesseler Family, c. 1589, by Gerhard Hendricksz (photograph by the author).

The first half of the seventeenth century witnessed a successful entry of Gdan´sk sculpt­ure into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Several important Gdan´sk works had already found their way to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the turn of the previous century.44 The most important among them were funerary monuments commemorating members of the powerful Radziwiłł family: Mikołaj Krzysztof, called Sierotka (‘The Orphan’, c. 1590–1600), his son Krzysztof Mikołaj (c. 1608), both in Nies´wiez˙   (now Belarus),45� and Stanisław Radziwiłł in Vilnius (Wilno) (c. 1618), which was yet another work by Willem van den Blocke’s studio (fig. 10).46 However, Gdan´sk mainly expanded into the Polish heartland. During the first half of the seventeenth century, works were set up not only across provinces adjacent to Royal Prussia but also in Lesser Poland, the southern province of the Kingdom, with Cracow as its main city. Masovia, a province in Central Poland with Warsaw as its key city, featured the early sandstone monument of Je˛drzej Noskowski in Maków Mazowiecki (c. 1591) (fig. 11),47 and the   See particularly Wardzyn´  ski 2006, 187–223.   In the Holy Cross Chapel in the Jesuit Church, built between 1583 and 1608; Wardzyn´  ski 2006, 208; Bernatowicz 1990. These authors disagree about the origin of some of those works, Bernatowicz advancing 44 45

166

an Italian provenance for the monument of Krzysztof Mikołaj Radziwiłł. 46  Krzyz˙   anowski 1958, 293; see also Matušakaite 2009, 126–138. 47  Goła˛b 1995.

The Expansion

of

Gdan´  sk

and the

10. Vilnius (Lithuania), former Bernardine church, monument of Stanisław Radziwiłł, c. 1618, by Willem van den Blocke (photograph by the author).

Rise

of

Taste

for

Netherlandish Sculpture

11. Maków Mazowiecki, parish church, monument of Je˛drzej Noskowski, c.1591, by an anonymous Gdan´sk workshop (photograph by the author).

monument of Archbishop Firlej in Łowicz (1628–1629) made of costly alabaster and Belgian limestone (fig. 12).48 The cathedral in Gniezno, seat of the Primate of Poland, was the single most important centre of reception of Gdan´sk sculpture in Greater Poland, the western province of the kingdom around Poznan´, as has been well documented in written sources. An early import there was the alabaster figure of Archbishop Wojciech Baranowski (c. 1620), probably created by Abraham van den Blocke and incorporated into a large architectural aedi­ cule made by an unidentified southern workshop (fig. 13).49 Around the middle of the century, further works by Gdan´sk ateliers were installed in the monumental church. One of them was the interior decoration of the Kołudzki chapel (c. 1650–1656), including an altar and wall cladding made of black limestone.50 In the 1650s, Archbishop Maciej Łubien´  ski, one of the most prolific art patrons in mid-seventeenth century Poland, approached Wilhelm Richter, who inherited the Van den Blocke workshop after 1628, to commission a series of monumenski favoured sculptors of tal portals to embellish the interior of the cathedral.51 Łubien´   Netherlandish training. As a bishop of Włocławek, he was engaged in the creation of the monumental main altar for the local cathedral (before 1639) built by Augustin van Oyen (Noyen), a Netherlander active in Che˛ciny in Lesser Poland.52 However, Gdan´sk artworks set   Hornung 1959, 117–118.  The Gdan´sk origin of his effigy is confirmed by a testimony provided by Canon Stefan Damalewicz. Damalewicz 1649, 30; see also Krzyz˙   anowski 1970a. 48 49

  Its origin in the Gdan´sk milieu is also supported by a comment by Damalewicz. Damalewicz 1649, 31. On the chapel see recently Saar-Kozłowska 2010. 51  Krzyz˙   anowski 1970b. 52  Tylicki 2000, 1, 132–133, 329–330; Wardzyn´  ski 2009, 447. Today, the altar is in Zdun´  ska Wola. 50

167

Franciszek Skibin´ ski

12. Łowicz, former collegiate church, monument of Archbishop Henryk Firlej, c. 1628, by Abraham van den Blocke, and probably Wilhelm Richter (­ photograph by the author).

13. Gniezno Cathedral, effigy of Archbishop Wojciech Baranowski, c. 1620, by Abraham van den Blocke (?), (photograph by the author).

up within the Polish heartland could have been commissioned by Prussian patrons. For example, Alexander Ludwig Wolff, the Abbott of the Cistercian abbey in Pelplin, commissioned Hans Michael Gockheller to build the monument of Archbishop Andrzej Olszowski destined for the cathedral in Gniezno (c. 1678).53 Archbishop Olszowski maintained personal ties with Gdan´sk because he co-founded the so-called ‘Royal Chapel’ in Gdan´sk (1678–1681), the only major Catholic church built in the Baltic metropolis in the early modern period. The steady dissemination of Gdan´sk sculpture in the Commonwealth divided the region’s marketing areas between two major centres, Cracow in the South and Gdan´sk in the North, each exerting control over its respective territory and struggling to compete beyond as well.54 Works executed in these areas coexisted in a wide latitudinal stretch of land, reaching from Greater Poland through Masovia and northern parts of Lesser Poland into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.55 Occasionally, some sculptures infiltrated into either competitor’s ­traditional sphere of influence. For example, the wall tomb of Bishop Piotra Kostka in the cathedral in Chełmz˙    a (Culmsee) was attributed to Giovanni de Simonis (c. 1595), an Italian   Kandt 2001, 52.  On different problems related to this issue see Chrzanowski 1995; Karpowicz 2003; Wardzyn´  ski 2008; Wardzyn´  ski 2009. 53 54

168

 Wardzyn´  ski 2004, 37–38.

55

The Expansion

of

Gdan´  sk

and the

Rise

of

Taste

for

Netherlandish Sculpture

sculptor active in Cracow at the turn of the century (fig. 14).56 Similarly, some works made in Gdan´sk found their way deep into Southern and Eastern Poland, as proved by the monument of Mikołaj Oles´nicki and his wife in s´wie˛ty Krzyz˙   (c. 1620), attributed to Abraham van den Blocke. Sculpture by Gdan´sk masters apparently reached even such faraway locations as Rzeszów, z˙   ółkiew, and Olesko (the latter two now in Ukraine).57 The shift in taste even in Poland’s 14. Chełmz˙  a cathedral, effigy of Bishop Piotr deep south could be seen in the former parKostka, c. 1595, by Giovanni de Simonis ish church (today’s cathedral) of Tarnów. Two (photograph by the author). funeral tombs, made of precious stone and rising up to the vault, stood on the north and south walls of the choir. Giovanni Maria Mosca (called Padovana) made the north wall tomb in the 1560s for hetman Jan Tarnowski (died 1561) and his son Jan (died 1567). This splendid aedicular wall tomb was made in the classical Venetian manner with freestanding Doric columns flanked by pilasters. On the opposite side, the tomb of Prince Janusz Ostrogski (died 1620) and his wife Zuzanna (died 1596), made between 1612 and 1620, represented the new dynasty of rulers of Tarnów (fig. 15). Ostrogski’s monument had to keep up appearances, at all costs, with that of his grandfather – and even surpass it. Jan Pfister, the creator of this wall tomb, was not Italian but German, born in Wrocław (Breslau) but active mostly in Lviv (Lwów/Lemberg, now Ukraine).58 Pfister was influenced by the community of sculpt­ ors from the Low Countries who had settled in Wrocław and Lviv in the second half of the sixteenth century as well as those working along the costs of the Baltic Sea. The Ostrogski 15. Tarnów, present-day cathedral, monument monument took the form of a triumphal arch of Janusz Ostrogski, 1612–1620, by Hans Pfister superimposed by two Corinthian orders and (photograph by the author). crowned by an aedicula with caryatids. This frame was enriched with an overwhelming display of ingenious sculptured details, reliefs, statues, and ornaments in the style of Willem van den Blocke’s wall tomb in Königsberg (see page 145, fig. 2). The interrelation between southern and northern influences was particularly tangible in the province of Greater Poland in the western part of the country. The artistic identity of 56 57

  On that artist see Mikocka-Rachubowa 1994.   See Wardzyn´  ski 2007 and Wardzyn´  ski 2009.

 On this monument see Ge˛barowicz 1962; the author wrongly attributes its parts to Willem van den Blocke. See also Oszczanowski 2011. 58

169

Franciszek Skibin´ ski this important Polish province in the early modern period has not yet been adequately researched and appreciated.59 Relative eco­ nomic prosperity on the one hand, and a lack of major local artistic centres on the other turned Greater Poland into a major importer of works of art. Italian works of Cracow origin began to appear early there, especially in response to the patronage of Archbishop Jan Łaski ­between 1515 and 1523.60 In the third quarter of the sixteenth century, important works by sculptors such as Girolamo Canavesi and Jan Michałowicz z Urze˛dowa (the only major Cracow-affiliated sculptor under significant Netherlandish influence) reached this region (fig. 16). However, at the same time some local patrons, particularly members of the Górka and Czarnkowski families, turned to Netherlanders (Herman Hutte from Aachen and Heinrich Horst from Groningen) active either in Lviv or in Poznan´.61 Silesia also exerted influence on the province. This Habsburg connection was important regarding both artists and ideas, despite its limited scale and lower quality compared to Cracow.62 At the turn of the sixteenth century, patrons 16. Poznan´ cathedral, monument of Bishop generally turned their attention towards Adam Konarski, 1574, by Girolamo Canavesi Gdan´sk, as evidenced by the patronage (photograph by the author). related to the cathedrals in Gniezno and Poznan´. Workshops active in Greater Poland combined southern elements (such as material, structure, and some ornament) with northern elements (primarily related to ornament), although the former usually prevailed.63 Despite the growing importance of Gdan´sk in the first half of the seventeenth century, key works were still commissioned in Cracow, as exemplified by the patronage of the Opalin´  ski family. The leading Cracow workshops, including those of Giovanni de Simonis and Sebastiano Sala, produced at least three of the four major funerary monuments, which were erected over half a previously, century, commemorating ­ members of this important family.64 As mentioned ­   See for example Ke˛błowski 1970.  Łaski ordered a number of tomb slabs from the studio of Francesco of Florence, active in Cracow, as well as built for himself in Gniezno a funerary chapel, arguably the first of this kind in Poland. 61  See among others Ge˛barowicz 1962, 15–72 and Harasimowicz 1986. Horst maintained relations with Poznan´  , where he settled in 1589/1590. 62   Harasimowicz 1991, 201–225. The scale of Silesian influence was sometimes overestimated, for example by Ke˛błowski; as has been shown by Harasimowicz, imports from Silesia were numerous, but much less grand than from Cracow and later Gdan´sk. 59 60

170

63  This applies for example to the so-called ‘Poznan´   workshop of 1600’, see Harasimowicz 1991, 218–220. Also later, around the middle of the century, some sculptors probably influenced by Gdan´sk and the Low Countries were operating in Greater Poland, see Karpowicz 2003, 49- 52. 64  The monuments of Maciej Opalin´  ski (c. 1590) in Kos´cian, Andrzej Opalin´   ski (c. 1600) and bishop Andrzej Opalin´  ski (c. 1625) in Radlin and Piotr Opalin´  ski (1541–1542) in Sieraków. For the monument by Sebastiano Sala see Wilin´  ski 1956.

The Expansion

of

Gdan´  sk

and the

Rise

of

Taste

for

Netherlandish Sculpture

between the mid-sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries, the relatively continuous influence of Cracow sculpture coexisted in Greater Poland with northern impulses. In the first half of the seventeenth century, Gdan´sk was undoubtedly Cracow’s main competitor. Primarily, the works of Netherlandish masters allowed the Baltic city to attain such an esteemed position on the sculpture market, especially between 1580 and 1630, when figures such as Willem and Abraham van den Blocke, Anthonis van Opbergen, and Willem van der Meer were active. The situation began to change around 1620. The great wave of immigration from the Low Countries stopped in the wake of the Truce of 1609, while the families of those who arrived earlier became more integrated into their new milieu. Consequently, the majority of leading local artistic figures after 1630 were non-Netherlanders. For instance, after Abraham van den Blocke’s death in 1628, his studio – which his father Willem established in the 1580s – was taken over by German sculptor Wilhelm Richter, originally from Bielefeld. Furthermore, a group of German masters, including such prominent figures as Hans Caspar Gockheller, and later Andreas Schlüter, achieved leading positions in Gdan´sk after the mid-seventeenth century. However, this shift did not implicate a break with the past. On the contrary, artists active in this period exploited the market for Gdan´sk sculpture created by Netherlanders and maintained artistic ties with the Low Countries, both with regard to formal influences and the import of sculpting material.65 Furthermore, some Netherlanders, such as the architect Peter Willer, were still present in Gdan´sk at that time. The long period of relative peace and prosperity in the Commonwealth ended suddenly in the middle of the seventeenth century. The Cossack revolt of 1648 and the so-called Swedish Deluge, an exhausting and devastating conflict with Sweden (and Russia) lasting from 1655 to 1660 nearly ended almost all artistic patronage for many years. In 1660, when the Swedes were finally driven out of Poland, the country hardly resembled the prosperous land of the pre-war years. Some works of art were ordered to refurnish the numerous churches and palaces plundered by the invaders. However, artistic commissions were less frequent and far more modest than before 1655. High artistic quality and costly materials, typical in the previous period, now became the exception rather than the norm. While continuing to export their products to the Polish heartland, the Baltic city masters apparently began looking for other possibilities. Unsurprisingly, one of the most important works of Gdan´sk sculpture in the second half of the century, the monument of Ernst Bogislaus von Croy in Słupsk (1680–1682) by Hans Caspar Gockheller, was ordered not by a Polish nobleman, but by an important official of the court of Brandenburg-Prussia, which was swiftly rising in power. The patrons’ choice between the South and the North The patronage related to Gdan´sk was socially broad. Kings and members of their entourage as well as high ranking nobility and clergy approached leading artists, such as Willem van den Blocke. Beginning in the 1590s, members of the Polish noble and ecclesiastical elites provided Gdan´sk masters with a constant flow of commissions. The example set by the elites inspired the lesser nobility, as exemplified by the humble sandstone epitaph of Katarzyna Krosnowska in the cathedral church in Włocławek (c. 1600) (fig. 17). The epitaph, following a design by Cornelis Floris, was likely made by a less skilled, yet well-informed anonymous Gdan´sk sculptor.66 In fact, throughout the early modern period the Polish nobility perceived Gdan´sk as the traditional market of luxury goods, even though the city itself was  See also Wardzyn´   ski 2007, 388–391; Wardzyn´  ski 2009, 447. 65

 Wardzyn´   ski 2010, 80. The work in question is Floris’s epitaph of Herluf Trolle and Brigitte Goye in Helsingør. 66

171

Franciszek Skibin´ ski often considered godless and corrupt.67 A separate group of patrons derived from patrician urban circles in Royal Prussia who usually employed artists based in Gdan´sk. A key question regarding patronage concerned aesthetic preferences of the clientele: did patrons intentionally choose Netherlandish rather than Italian art by approaching the artists based in Gdan´sk? King Stephen I Báthory’s commissions illustrated the complexity of this problem. As previously mentioned, he entrusted Willem van den Blocke in 1582 with the task of erecting a funerary monument commemorating his brother Christopher in the Jesuit church in the Transylvanian capital Alba Iulia. The monument must have proved very much to Báthory’s liking because shortly after its completion the king stated that his own tomb should resemble it.68 What exactly the monarch desired was not known. However, others admired the mag17. Włocławek Cathedral, epitaph of nificence of Van den Blocke’s opus and the Katarzyna Krosnowska, c. 1600, by an anon­ costly materials “brought from overseas”.69 ymous Gdan´sk workshop (photograph by the The Italian Santi Gucci made the monument author). of Stephen I a few years after the king’s death. The contract signed in 1594 between Gucci and the queen dowager, Anne of Jagellon, described the iconographical programme and elaborated on the materials used, leaving aside detailed stylistic issues.70 The contract revealed a strong adherence to the local Cracow tradition in materials, reaching back to exemplary Italian works from the first half of the sixteenth century; notably, the Sigismund Chapel, constructed by Bartolommeo Berecci between 1515 and 1533 was explicitly referenced in the contract.71 The document pointed to visual factors of particular importance for contemporaries – above all, monumentality of design and sumptuousness of materials.72 Recipients of the works probably distinguished between different visual models – such as the two-colour scheme of earlier, Italianate sculpture on the one hand and richer Netherlandish design on the other – that they associated with notions of tradition and innovation, respectively.73 67   A mention of persons travelling to Gdan´sk in order to acquire luxury goods is found in the diaries of an eighteenth-century petty nobleman, Marcin Matuszewicz. Długosz, 1, 194, 815. 68  “… et sepulchri praeparationem, quod simile fiat sepulchro fratris mei nuper me alte erecto.” Pawin´  ski 1882, 297; Krzyz˙   anowski 1958, 277. 69   Benigni 1840, 110. 70   Published in Fischinger 1969, 147–149, no. 30. 71   For the Sigismund Chapel see above all Mossakowski 2007. 72  Similar observation has been made by Nigel Llewellyn with regard to monuments in England, see

172

Llewellyn 2000, 225: “[…] they are designed to fulfill specific cultural and ideological expectations not to present high-art sculpture”. This appears to be true with regard to the majority of the Northern European sculpture in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, particularly commemorative monuments. 73  Wardzyn´   ski 2009, 428–429, 440–447. The twocolour scheme, employing red or brown limestone and white or gray sandstone or limestone, was often applied in early Renaissance sculpture in Central Europe, and became predominant in sixteenthcentury Poland.

The Expansion

of

Gdan´  sk

and the

Rise

of

Taste

for

Netherlandish Sculpture

Per patrons’ expectations, Italians, Netherlanders, and others provided grandiose designs and lavish materials, in addition to ‘antique’ decorative motifs. Netherlanders achieved great success in this respect in Scandinavia and in some German countries where, in the second half of the sixteenth century, rulers competed with each other by commissioning exquisite monuments, often imported directly from Antwerp, in the Netherlandish style.74 In the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth, visually attractive and costly materials, eye-catching decoration, and fashionable ‘antique’ references combined with the versatility in execution offered by the Netherlanders allowed them to successfully compete with the Italians. However, within the old Commonwealth no clearly defined division existed between Italian and Netherlandish ‘styles’ nor was an historical and aesthetic evaluation of such evident. Rather, from around 1580 to 1660, southern and northern influences enjoyed a relatively equal status. Patrons commonly employed both Italians – or at least those following the Italian tradition predominant in Cracow and Lesser Poland – and Netherlanders, the latter mostly based in Gdan´sk. The wide-ranging patronage of King Sigismund III Vasa reflected this coexistence of Italian and Netherlandish influences in Poland in the early seventeenth century. His major building enterprises – the renewal of the royal castles in Cracow, Vilnius, and Warsaw, as well as the erection of St Casimir’s Chapel in Vilnius – were executed by Italians, who usually provided designs, and Netherlanders, who supplied building and sculpting materials.75 Furthermore, the king was equally interested in collecting Italian and Netherlandish painting.76 A celebrated visit of Sigismund’s son and future Polish King Władysław in the studio of Pieter Paul Rubens in 1624 mirrored his visit to Guido Reni’s studio.77 The works carried out for Sigismund III, one of the greatest patrons of art to have ever occupied the Polish throne, played an important and trendsetting role comparable to the activities of other contemporary patrons. Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł ‘the Orphan’ commissioned two altars in Venice (1586) and elements of funerary monuments in Gdan´sk, which combined parts of Italian and Gdan´sk provenance.78 Jan Tarnowski, councillor to King Sigismund, vice-chancellor, and, later, Primate of Poland, employed artists from both ­southern Poland and Gdan´sk to carry out works in two chapels founded by him in Włocławek and Łowicz, including a sumptuous monument to his father by Willem van den Blocke. Around the same time, Grand Chancellor Jan Zamoyski, well-known for his admiration of Italian art, probably also approached this sculptor from Mechelen. A striking example of the coexistence of southern and northern influences was exhibited by the tomb of Wojciech Baranowski in Gniezno. The architectonical structure of the monument was executed in an anonymous Lesser Polish workshop while the kneeling effigy of the archbishop was brought from Gdan´sk. The same dichotomy persisted in a later period – for example, in the patronage of Maciej Łubien´  ski and Krzysztof Opalin´  ski, as mentioned previously. Opalin´  ski, an ambitious politician and poet, sustained family tradition by commemorating his father with a monument commissioned in the studio of an Italian sculptor from Cracow, Sebastiano Sala. Yet his correspondence revealed a keen interest in, and admiration for, Netherlandish painting,

  Those include the rulers of the duchies of Prussia, Saxony, Mecklenburg and Hessen, the kings of Denmark and Sweden and even the emperor himself. Some of those works, like the monuments of Maurice of Saxony in Freiberg and of Christian III in Roskilde, were popularised by means of prints and drawings that must have strengthened their impact. It must be underlined that northern and southern influences in Saxony were strongly mixed, and in the result the 74

situation there to some degree resembled that in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 75  Wardzyn´   ski 2007, 387–388, 393–394; Wardzyn´  ski 2009, 448. 76   On Sigismund’s activities as a collector, see Szmydki 2008. 77  Przybos´ 1977, 181, 270. 78  Krzyz˙   anowski 1958, 293; Matušakaite 2009, 126– 138; Goła˛b 1995.

173

Franciszek Skibin´ ski especially by Rubens. Moreover, Opalin´  ski acquired paintings in Gdan´sk and intervened in the interests of Franz Kessler, a painter working there.79 The heightened presence of Netherlandish immigration and the vivid relations maintained with both parts of the Low Countries by members of different social strata and religious groups in the Commonwealth resulted in wide appreciation for Netherlandish visual culture. Seventeenth-century Polish travel diaries reflected such high esteem of this art. During his travels undertaken between 1607 and 1613, Jakub Sobieski observed the Netherlandish fame for their skills as painters and sculptors, both in wood and stone.80 Twenty years later, Johann Heidenstein, son of diplomat and accomplished writer Reinhold Heidenstein, expressed his admiration for Netherlandish art by pronouncing that the world’s best artists lived in Antwerp.81 Apart from the practical success enjoyed by masters from the Low Countries across the Commonwealth, these testimonies also indicated that local patrons were conscious of the respected positions they and their colleagues held in European art. However, other late-sixteenth and seventeenth-century accounts revealed that Italy remained the key point of reference for Poles interested in art and architecture.82 Elucidating the exact motivation of the patrons has remained difficult due to lack of sufficient data. Reasonably, at least some patrons could distinguish between different art models. Nonetheless, preference for either Italian or Netherlandish art based solely on aesthetic grounds was rather unusual in Poland. Instead, the patrons’ choices were motivated by complex personal, economical, political, and sometimes purely incidental factors. Since the 1620s, the general visual characteristics of sculptural works executed in Gdan´sk and Cracow became more homogenous. The application of similar materials – such as black limestone and alabaster, though of different origin – led to a smoothing over of visual differences that was still evident in works executed around 1600.83 The strong presence of Netherlandish visual culture in the Commonwealth was made possible because the Low Countries provided a reference point for both Protestants and Catholics. For the former, particularly the Prussian bourgeoisie, the Netherlands provided an example of successful Protestant republicanism. For Catholics, the Spanish Netherlands embodied the success of re-catholicisation, as exemplified by the personal views of King Sigismund III Vasa.84 As a result, both groups were eager to adopt patterns, including those relating to art, already implemented in the Low Countries. Confessional differences did not affect art production in Gdan´sk in a significant way, and the patrons from the Polish heartland approaching artists active there were seldom Protestants. In fact, some of the key works by Gdan´sk masters were commissioned by higher Catholic clergy, or staunch adherents to the Catholic faith, like King Sigismund III. The interiors of several important Catholic churches, such as the cathedral in Gniezno, the Cistercian church in Oliva, and the Jesuit church in Warsaw, all planned to embody the triumph of the Counter-Reformation in Poland, were embellished with works executed in Protestant Gdan´sk.85 Oliva was particularly striking because works by Gdan´sk masters replaced furnishings destroyed by Gdan´sk Protestants in  Wilin´  ski 1955.   “The Dutch are very skilled in painting and in sculp­ ture, both in marble and in wood”; Długosz 1991, 61. 81  “Painting and sculpture are highly praised here, and the best artists of the world have chosen this place as their seat”; Pietrzyk 2005, 38. 82  See for example the diary of Teodor Billewicz (Billewicz 2004). Although Billewicz praised some Northern European works of art and architecture, including the town hall in Amsterdam, the main part of his diary is devoted to Italy. 79 80

174

 The great popularity of black limestone from De˛bnik since the 1620s could have been triggered by the earlier introduction of black Mosan limestone, see Michał Wardzyn´  ski 2005, Wardzyn´  ski 2007; Wardzyn´  ski 2008 and Wardzyn´  ski 2009. 84   On that see Szmydki 2008. 85  Wardzyn´  ski 2007, 389; For the main altar of the Jesuit church in Warsaw, see Wardzyn´  ski 2008, 326 fig. 13. 83

The Expansion

of

Gdan´  sk

and the

Rise

of

Taste

for

Netherlandish Sculpture

1577, thus contributing to the splendour of a leading Counter-Reformation centre located on the outskirts of the Catholic-averse city. Nevertheless, scholars have pointed to one special category of patrons whose choice between the northern or southern art traditions could have been motivated by religious, as well as political, factors: the patricians of cities in Royal Prussia.86 This particular vision of relations between Royal Prussia and ‘core’ Poland stressed the differences existing within the Commonwealth. Accordingly, the religious, social, and ethnic uniqueness of Royal Prussia was reflected in the Netherlandish visual language that dominated in Gdan´sk, Elbla˛g, and Torun´  . The issue of Royal Prussia’s identity under the rule of the Polish Crown presented a more complex issue.87 Nevertheless, the Low Countries were undoubtedly an important reference point for the Prussian elite negotiating its role within the Commonwealth. Additionally, some important works of art and architecture exhibited intentional allusions to the Netherlands. The High Gate in Gdan´sk, built in its final form between 1586 and 1588 by architects Hans Schneider von Lindau and Frederik Vroom, and sculptor Willem van den Blocke, copied St George’s Gate, also known as the Emperor’s Gate (Keizerspoort) in Antwerp.88 Its iconographic programme, legible in the coats of arms and inscriptions, underlined the ties – but also boundaries – between the city, the province, and the Commonwealth, thus citing the Antwerp gate symbols on the relation between the city and the Emperor. The iconography of the Great Arsenal, which included a façade figure identified as Maurits of Nassau, conveyed a different set of ideas. Here, the autonomy of the city was stressed more vigorously.89 Despite such references, the notion of Netherlandish art forms expressing religious and political ideas opposing close union with the Crown is farfetched. First, the message conveyed by artistic allusions to the Low Countries differed strongly; thus, any general interpretations must be treated with caution. Second, a variety of circumstances explained the dominance of Netherlandish art in Prussian towns, including issues concerning patrons’ artistic taste and the high proficiency achieved by immigrant artists and architects who were able to dominate local markets by purely professional means. The patricians of Elbla˛g and particularly of Torun´   were so dependent on Gdan´sk for artistic commissions because of the complex network of personal and professional interrelations between those towns. Religious and political factors were indeed important, but they must be seen in perspective with other possible motives and circumstances. Finally, meaning in architectural forms has always been prone to multiple interpretations. During the period discussed here, religious, moral, and political ideas, for instance, were conveyed by myriad inscriptions and figural decoration, often taking form in elaborate, highly sophisticated, iconographical programmes.90 Whether architectural forms also carried such meanings has remained an open ­question. To arrive at a fair evaluation of this problem, further research in art, architecture, and the political, religious, social, and cultural situation in Prussian towns would be indispensable.

 Bartezky 2001, 178–180. In his other paper Bartetzky reconsiders the issue, see Bartetzky 2005. The importance of the differences between Poland and Gdan´sk for art and architecture in the city has been recently advanced by Kalecin´  ski 2011. 87  For the most thorough study on this issue, see Friedrich 2000. 88  Cuny 1910b, 75. For the authorship see the documents in the State Archive in Gdan´sk, 300, 20/126, 86

1, 3 and 300, 36/65, 19–21; some of them have been published in Krzysiak 1999, 66–78. 89  Bartetzky 2001, 182; see also Kalecin´  ski 2011, 232–236. 90  As far as Gdan´sk is concerned see for example Iwanoyko 1986; Bielak 1997 and recently Kalecin´  ski 2011.

175

Franciszek Skibin´ ski Conclusion During the last decades of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century, Gdan´sk played a considerable role in shaping art production in eastern Central Europe, particularly in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The specific character of its rapidly ­ expanding artistic milieu was closely connected with the city’s unique position in the state’s economy. Control of the country’s maritime trade, stopping short of monopoly, turned the region into an important meeting point between artists and potential patrons. The émigrés from the Low Countries arriving there in the late sixteenth century usually chose the Baltic metropolis as a hub of their activities, but their interests were by no means limited to the town alone. Artists like Willem van den Blocke intentionally followed the model known to them from their own country, which centred on Antwerp. By establishing their workshops in Gdan´sk, they ­simultaneously achieved two crucial goals. First, as an important economic centre, particularly regarding the grain and wood trades, the great port attracted potential clients. Rather than associating themselves with the somewhat capricious court or seeking uncertain possibilities deep in the Polish heartland, artists could expect commissions to arrive literally at their door by staying in Gdan´sk. Second, the city’s convenient geographic and economic position ­allowed artists easy access to both skilled assistants and materials necessary for their practice. Access to assets and skills, versatility and familiarity with current formal visual vocabularies and models of workshop practice, and energy and determination were all key factors structuring the success Netherlanders enjoyed not only in Gdan´sk, but across Central and Northern Europe. The talent and ability to organise mass production allowed sculptors from the Baltic city to accept and execute numerous commissions from the Commonwealth and beyond, and subsequently to meet the demand for high-class works of art. The patrons themselves clearly appreciated the products from Gdan´sk workshops, and thus provided them with a constant flow of commissions. The sumptuous designs and ornaments, and the lavish materials used by the Netherlanders caught the attention of patricians and nobles across the Commonwealth. Accordingly, the Netherlandish visual vocabulary, though often a distinct and localised variety, penetrated deep into Poland in a quantity significant enough to change the taste of local clientele. This influence, in turn, led to the significant transformation of the Commonwealth’s artistic landscape that resulted in the Italian influence, which was well-established in Cracow at the beginning of the sixteenth century, losing its dominant position. Throughout the first half of the seventeenth century, Italian and Netherlandish traditions coexisted in the Commonwealth on a roughly equal basis; southern and northern traits were sometimes discernible within the same work of art. Both these tradi­ tions further evolved in line with patrons’ taste, namely in the direction of mutual convergence. This evolution applied particularly to Italianate sculpture produced in southern Poland, the visual characteristics of which underwent deep transformation during the first quarter of the seventeenth century. Thus, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth exemplified the ‘frontier’ land, where different artistic vocabularies existed side by side, leading to new local solu­ tions, as evidenced in the oeuvre of such diverse artists as the Pole Jan Michałowicz z Urze˛dowa from Cracow, the Fleming Abraham van den Blocke from Gdan´sk, and the German Hans Pfister active mostly in Lviv, all of whom were strongly influenced by Netherlandish art.

176

Chapter 2.7 The Cross-Influences in Architectural Patronage between Spain and the Low Countries as Revealed in the Letters of Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia (1598–1621)* Bernardo J. García García (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)

For the Archdukes Albert and Isabel Clara Eugenia, architecture represented a ­tangible means of assuming their new status as sovereigns of the Low Countries, and played a significant role in expressing not just their continuity as legitimate successors of the former dukes of Burgundy, but also the distinctive importance of their rank: an Infanta of Spain with links to the Habsburgs and the house of Valois, and an archduke of Austria with rights to the crown of the Holy Roman Empire. Architectural renovation was undoubtedly one of the most important elements of the transformation that palace residences underwent in the capital and elsewhere (Coudenberg, Binche, Diest, Ghent, Mariemont, Tervuren, etc.) in the first two decades of the seventeenth century, as they were adapted to the public and private requirements of the new sovereign regime and to the presence of the Infanta and her ladies. Another was the creation of numerous religious foundations and civil works (canals, ­hospitals, schools, universities and so on), which helped to boost the reconstruction and development efforts of the nobility, clergy and the cities.1 The purpose of this essay is to examine the cooperation and exchange that took place between the courts of Philip III and the Archdukes with regard to the architectural patronage of the southern Low Countries. These relationships are revealed in the interesting comments made by the Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia in her personal correspondence with her brother, Philip, and his favourite, the duke of Lerma.2 The unique and privileged nature of their letters, which are as yet largely unpublished, gives us an insight into the Infanta’s way of perceiving architecture and utilizing space that had been instilled in her from childhood by her father Philip II, the ‘architect king’.3 This was especially relevant in a palace environment such as the one in the Low Countries, which had been shaped by the dukes of Burgundy, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and various governors general, as well as by other famous women such as Margaret of York, Margaret of Austria, Mary of Hungary and Margaret of Parma. As Isabel Clara Eugenia herself states, architecture was one of her favourite pastimes: “I rejoice in expectation of the plans that you are to send me, since you choose the best entertainment of all, at least that is how it seems to me, as my father’s daughter”.4 In a personal letter sent to the duke of Lerma from Brussels on September 27, 1599, the Infanta describes the lamentable situation in which she and Albert had begun to carry out *

 This study, translated by A.S. Dawson, is also linked to other projects financed by the MICINN (ref. HAR2009–12963-C03–03) and MINECO (ref. HAR2012– 39016-C04–03), attached to the Fundación Carlos de Amberes, Madrid. I wish to give special thanks to my friend and colleague Anne J. Cruz for helping me so generously in improving the English version. 1   De Jonge 1998a and De Jonge 1998c. 2  At present, together with Dr Alicia Esteban Estríngana, I am coordinating a study and critical

edition of this correspondence, of which this essay represents a part. For the correspondence with the duke of Lerma see also Sánchez 2011. 3  Philip II examined architectural plans and projects with his daughters the Infantas Isabel Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela, see for example Bouza 1998, 132 and 164; and Pérez de Tudela 2011, 63. 4   Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Brussels, April 17, 1607; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 170 (letter 116).

177

Bernardo J. García García their functions as the new sovereigns of Low Countries. She appreciates the undoubted quality of their lands, but laments the dilapidated and unacceptable condition of the churches, monasteries and convents, the poverty of the peasants, and the severe difficulties faced by the troops. The almost forty years of conflict since the iconoclastic uprising of 1566–1567, the overwhelming burden of the cost of the war, and the lack of resident sovereigns had left the provinces “like an estate that has been so many years without an owner, that hardly anything has been done”.5 The Infanta was fully aware of the tremendous uphill task that had been entrusted to them with her ‘dowry’: to restore that crippling and compromised legacy. Many of the references to architectural issues mentioned in her letters concern the re­storation, reorganization and expansion of palaces and mansions. Although the replies to the Infanta’s letters have unfortunately not survived, she occasionally alludes to their contents, and we notice constant comments on the building work carried out by the king or his favourite, the duke of Lerma, who was well known for his active policy of constructing palaces, castles, gardens and convents.6 In the letters that passed between the Infanta and Lerma in the summer of 1600, we already find mention of a request for and the dispatch of ‘plans’. In mid-June, Isabel Clara Eugenia asks him to have the royal architect, Francisco de Mora, send her surplus plans and designs for use in the restoration of some of the FlemishBurgundian palaces, so that the urgent work to be carried out could be made use of later when new extension and improvement work was tackled: Please be so good as to tell [Francisco de] Mora that if he has any plans made up that are left over, he should send them to us, because I would not want any of the houses that we have here to end up collapsing; and although nothing more can be done right now except shore them up, I would like whatever we need to do now to serve in the future. I have not wanted anyone to carry them out without seeking Mora’s opinion, since I cannot find anyone here who knows half as much as he does; and if you have any free time, look them over, since I know what a good master [builder] you are, and I shall be glad of your opinion….7 It is worth noting that the Infanta then complains about the absence in Brussels of available architects and designers with Mora’s experience,8 or of anybody she could trust or who would do the work according to her taste in adapting the courtly spaces to her personal and public needs. She therefore asks for his opinion and also for any further suggestions that the duke himself, whose judgment in the matter she repeatedly praises in her private correspondence, might wish to make. At the beginning of October, she confirms the arrival of those plans: “The plans arrived and are very good: tell Mora so, although I think he had a good assistant…”.9 There were also many problems caused by poor workmanship and slow progress, as we see in this comment about the apartment (understood here as the suite of rooms) that the Infanta had had remodelled between 1608 and 1610 following the design of the architect and engineer Wensel Cobergher in the Coudenberg Palace,10 one of whose rooms was decorated exclusively with portraits of the Spanish royal family:   Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Brussels, September 27, 1599; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 4–5 ­(letter 3). 6  For this, see the studies by Cervera Vera 1981, Cervera Vera 1996, and Banner 2009. 7   Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Brussels, 17 June, 1600; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 17–18 (letter 12). When she was young, the Infanta used to reward 5

178

with rich clothes and other gifts the services and training provided by the royal architect Francisco de Mora, see Pérez de Tudela 2011, 98. 8   De Jonge 1998a, 191–198. 9   Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Brussels, October 8, 1600; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 28 (letter 19). 10   Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991, 101–108; De Jonge 1998a, 194–196.

The Cross-Influences

in

Architectural Patronage

…I have all of them now put in an apartment that we have refurbished, and which we could have made completely new with the time it has taken, two years, not to mention the cost; but all the building work we do is like this, and as I am used to [the way] my father’s [was done], I cannot bear it, because in addition to the delay, they do nothing properly, and for it to be so, it has been necessary to do and undo it a thousand times. We have been in this apartment for three days, and the portraits are the only decoration in mine, with whom I share my life, as I cannot enjoy them in the flesh….11 The apartments were located on the second floor, mostly above the rooms built for Mary of Hungary; they included an audience chamber, a large salon next to the porters’ lobby, an antechamber with built-in cupboards for fruit, a chamber, a closet, a wardrobe closet, a private office, a sewing room, a chamber for porcelain, an oratory and a bedchamber. Opposite the antechamber, there was a small wooden gallery with a copper balustrade. The completion of some of the new palace projects in Spain, such as the building of the royal palace in Valladolid by adapting Francisco de los Cobos’s palace, and the annexation of a whole complex of buildings surrounding the Plaza de san Pablo,12 was also ­commented on in correspondence between the Infanta and the duke of Lerma. In April 1602, Isabel Clara Eugenia thanks him for having sent the plans of this complex and draws his attention to the lack of a large hall for ceremonial and festive occasions, that will be resolved by incorporating the houses of the count of Miranda and building the Salón de los Saraos, a salon for soirées, inaugurated on the occasion of the baptism of Prince Philip in 1605: I am very grateful to you for sending me the plans of that house which, to tell the truth, is all so well laid out and appointed that I couldn’t believe it, and it is like being in the world and apart from it with the monastery [of San Diego]. It really needs the addition of an apartment with a large hall, which is what is missing. I have come across a garden there and a cage for pheasants. And I would like to know whether there are any, because we can supply them from here, and they are not as troublesome to keep as the ones my dear departed father had; and if there, the peacock in the painting seems strange, as it is a magpie, we can also send them, for we have the breed at home. They also tell me that my brother liked some little dogs, which over there they call zorreros [fox-terriers], which go down the burrows, and over here they are called tereres [terriers]. Let me know if so, because there are some very good ones here; and I wish there were a thousand things here that I would take pleasure in giving him.13 The Infanta requested the plans of the improvements made to the Spanish palaces in order to recreate more easily the changes undergone in spaces that she recalled and to keep alive the memory of the Spanish court, complementing the news that she received by letter and eagerly questioning anyone who arrived from there with the latest news. As a result, not only was she well informed, building up a valuable collection of graphic material which could be useful for her own projects in residences in the Low Countries, but she was also able to exert influence, by touching on common interests that brought her into close contact with her brother and his favourite. She asks for plans to be sent of the work carried out in 1615–1616 in the Madrid Alcázar to accommodate the new princess of Asturias, Isabel of   Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Brussels, May 3, 1610; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 214–215 (letter 174). 12   Urrea 1999, 27–41; Exh. cat. Valladolid 2003. 11

 Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Nieuwpoort, April 23, 1602; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 55–60 (letter 42). 13

179

Bernardo J. García García Bourbon, to help her distinguish, among other things, where the king’s bedchamber had been relocated, and she praises the transformation of the top corridor into the new northern gallery of the Cierzo:14 The apartment is well laid out; I was dying to know how they [the Infantas and the princess of Asturias] were being accommodated. I cannot figure out what space the new room is drawn from, and Your Majesty would be doing me a very great favour, if he could have the plan sent on to me; what Your Majesty has done in making a gallery of the top corridor is most opportune, but there is some doubt in my mind as to where Your Majesty sleeps, whether he has also made a bedchamber. The favour that Your Majesty does me in taking the time to write to me about everything makes me ask all these things and I am so grateful for it that I do not know how to thank him since we cannot speak to each other in any other way, therefore, there is no other consolation for me than that at every moment I imagine a host of things I would say to Your Majesty if I could see him….15 When she studies the plans, Isabel is quick to appreciate the advantages of the new apartment, recalling the inconveniences of the tower where the royal children are accommodated, and asking for more information about some stairs that appear to lead from the new apartments to the garden. Unfortunately, the letters from Philip III explaining this new construction and sharing confidences from their youth have not yet been located: I kiss Your Majesty’s hands for the plans of the apartment, which showed great kindness towards me, and everything Your Majesty tells me about this endeavour, which I esteem as I ought. The apartment has been greatly improved and is easy to understand. I only find that where Your Majesty has his bed that the light cannot be seen from there, and as for the tower where the royal children sleep, which is very hot in summer and extremely cold in winter, in truth, it is no wonder that I am so against it on account of the fury we felt when my father used to shut us in there while he gave his audiences. Something I cannot fully understand is that which appears on the plan without a legend; it looks like a staircase that is attached to the gallery of the Cierzo belonging to the princess and appears to go down to the garden, but because there is another staircase marked where one can go down to the garden, I am not sure what it can be.16 In 1618, when she receives the drawings of the new iron grilles for the high altar of the Royal Monastery of the Incarnation in Madrid, to be made by the House foundry installed at the Coudenberg Palace, the Infanta spots a detail which she brands as ‘bad architecture’. She consults the king to see if he wants to make a change to the design proposed by the royal architect, Juan Gómez de Mora: The drawings of the grilles are very good, although I really would say to Juan González (sic) which I think is the name of [Francisco de] Mora’s nephew, if I remember rightly, that his uncle did not finish the high altar grille with a half column, as is shown in the drawing and which is bad architecture, but in a half pilaster; if Your Majesty orders it to be modified, there will be time for the reply to come while the balustrades are being cast, if it comes with first post, and by just separating them a little more, it will be remedied and then they can get   Barbeito 1992, 87ff.   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Brussels, March 6, 1616, private collection. 14 15

180

 Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Brussels, Ascension Day (April 19) 1616, private collection. 16

The Cross-Influences

in

Architectural Patronage

to work on it together with the organ case, for the rest is well advanced.17 The Infanta focused on the conservation and remodelling of the Mariemont ­ hunting lodge as one of her main architectural projects.18 This complex had been the model for the renovation of the palace and ­gardens of Aranjuez initially ­ undertaken by Philip II in the 1560s (fig.1).19 To restore Mariemont, Isabel Clara Eugenia asked the Spanish court for a copy of the large detailed plans made by the ­ engineer Tiburcio Spanochi, whose location she remembered exactly:

1. Jean Lhermite, ‘Vraye pourtraicture de la Royalle Mayson, et situation de Haranjuez’ (plan of the Royal Site of Aranjuez, 1598), in: Le Passetemps (Royal Library of Belgium, Brussels, Ms. II. 1028).

…I am glad that my b ­ rother ­enjoyed the days spent in A ­ ranjuez so much, and that the governor [D. Luis de Cepeda] keeps it so well, so that I could never find fault with him. And on that subject, I have just r­emembered to ask you for something that, since I’ve been in Mariemont, I keep forgetting to mention whenever I write to you, which is that you should send me a copy of the plan of Aranjuez, which used to be in the recess of the ­window in the large hall, and which I think Tiburcio made. And even if it isn’t so large, that won’t matter; I want it because I often heard my father (may he rest in peace) [say] that most of the things he had done in Aranjuez were ­because of those in Mariemont, and now we find that it is so, because as we go about ­refurbishing it, we keep on finding many things that are like those over there, and some are not easy to understand and I think they will be understood with the plan. I ­really want to renovate it well, and always in the hope that my brother will spend a little time there someday; this makes me eager to renovate it well.20 As she pointed out to the duke in another letter of June 1608 – in response to the account by the king’s favourite of how much they had enjoyed their stay in the town of Lerma and at the duke’s recreational house and hunting grounds of La Ventosilla – the process of renovation continued in Mariemont: “I would give anything to see him and would love you to see this, which although it is not well appointed, as might be expected in wartime, it isn’t bad, and I’m trying to make it look better, because I hope my brother will spend a good while here…”.21 The following year, after the Truce was signed, Isabel Clara Eugenia mentions how much her ladies suffered certain hardships, and insists on her best efforts to improve that “little house”.   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, June 25, 1618, private collection. 18   See the studies by De Jonge 1998b, De Jonge 1998d, De Jonge 2002, and De Jonge 2005b. This project is comparable to the works promoted by her sister the Infanta Catalina Micaela at the castle of Mirafiori donated by her husband Duke Charles Emmanuel of Savoy after his wedding in 1585. Catalina kept the duke informed about the progress of works in Mirafiori and Torino sending letters with some architectural plans 17

and drawings made by her hand, see the information collected by Pérez de Tudela (forthcoming 2013). 19  Morán Turina & Checa Cremades 1986, 44–48, 83–85, 93–98, 110–114, 119–121; Checa 1993, 122– 130; and Exh. cat. Aranjuez 1998. 20   Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Brussels, June 10, 1606; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 148–149 (letter 101). 21  Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Mariemont, June 20, 1608; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 189–190 (letter 140).

181

Bernardo J. García García Although it offered many possibilities for extension, there was a particular difficulty in enlarging the apartment that belonged to her ladies and improving internal access by its single stairway: …We are fine here, and we came to this little house to enjoy the countryside, which is truly lovely, as is everything, without a doubt; and so I am not pleased when I see that my brother is not here to enjoy it. But the expectation that one day he will, makes me want to try and improve it. It is equipped for everything one might want to do to it, except enlarge the ladies’ apartment, for they are all in one room and every day they move their beds around to see if they can find more space to dress in; and now I have made them understand that I will have to suspend the beds in the air and they are to climb up to them on a ladder; and about whether there has to be only one ladder and who is to go up first and who last, leads to lots of fine tales being told. In short, country life is the best of all and I think you would share this opinion….22 This taste for the country life which Philip II himself had instilled in his children, and which Isabel and her brother Philip shared in particular, prompts many remarks about the virtues and uses of parks, gardens and woodlands of the various royal sites. The Infanta evokes her recollect­ ions of El Pardo, Aranjuez, La Fresneda and Valsaín and shares news about the Spanish royal family’s hunting grounds and excursions.23 She mentions this about her efforts to restore Mariemont: “…All those [days] here will be for walking in the country and going hunting, although they don’t kill as much as over there, because it is not so easy since the woods are so thick, and those [deer] in the park, we don’t want to touch yet, so that there will be more of them, even though there are plenty [now] and they are very large”.24 For her brother’s amusement, she narrates at length the vicissitudes of a fruitless deer hunt with crossbow and harquebus in which she played a leading role in July 1610 in the woodland of Mariemont, because it was impossible to hunt outside it: …and the deer there are so wild and the woodland so dense that one must work hard to be able to shoot; and for me, that is not the worst thing, because when they are tame I don’t like to shoot them; and I was so enthused that one day I proposed not to return home without having shot, and so we had the food brought to the countryside, for it was not the worst day, and after we had rested beside a stream, where the ladies enjoyed themselves for some time, we walked for more than three hours to be able to shoot, and often almost crawling on our hands and knees….25 In the summer of 1614, the Archdukes agreed to cancel their usual summer stay in Mariemont because the doctors and principal officers of Albert’s household advised against it, and it was decided instead to honour their promise to celebrate a novena in the basilica of Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel (Notre Dame de Montaigu). The Infanta expressed her displeasure at this change of plan to her brother Philip, considering that it owed more to the comfort of the archduke’s escort, and that the best thing for health was exercise in the fresh air and enjoyment of recreational spots such as Mariemont.26 She recalled her father, who if he had known those doctors and advisors, would have taught them how to live life:  Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke Mariemont, May 29, 1609; in Rodríguez 208–209 (letter 165). 23   Morán Turina & Checa Cremades 1986, 24  Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke Mariemont, July 27, 1608; in Rodríguez 190–191 (letter 142). 22

182

of Lerma, Villa 1906, 40–85. of Lerma, Villa 1906,

  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Brussels, July 26, 1610; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 217–223 (letter 176). 26   Pérez de Tudela 2011, 76–77. 25

The Cross-Influences

in

Architectural Patronage

2. Jan Brueghel I de Velours and Joost de Momper, Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia in the park of Mariemont (Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, inv. P01429).

…this visit [to Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu)] will replace the one to Mariemont, because I have not wanted to go there this year, for those who were tired of the life there, have taken it into their heads to say that it was doing harm to my cousin [Archduke Albert] and that he got nothing out of going over there, but that I took him to kill him, because I enjoy relaxing there. And I can assure Your Majesty, that he was never better nor had less gout, and that if he was ill this winter, he had already become so here: and I dare say it was because of the diet they gave him, thinking to cure him of the gout, and they made him so ill that it has been really difficult for him to get back to normal; and this is the good part: the very people who insisted [on not leaving Brussels for Mariemont] now want us to go there, fearing we will go somewhere where the accommodation might be worse. As this is what people are like over here, I amuse myself sometimes wishing that they might catch up with my father so that he can show them how to live, and I dare say that Your Majesty does the same thing too, and I know it would make Your Majesty laugh if I told you some of the things about these visits, but suffice to say, there is nothing else happening, except that we are not going to Mariemont because Your Majesty has written, ordering me not to go there. If only Your Majesty were here, then it would all turn out well.27 The Infanta, replying to some of her brother’s letters about the delightful time that he and his family, along with Isabel of Bourbon, princess of Asturias, had during their stay at Aranjuez in the summer of 1616, describes an exceptional spot in the park at Mariemont. She promises to send him a drawing of it, and of which an interesting canvas has fortunately survived (fig. 2):   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Brussels, May 24, 1614, private collection. 27

183

Bernardo J. García García …I wish Your Majesty were here where this letter is being written, which is near a very pretty, very cold fountain, and we have made some seats in the form of a stairway in a gully that is above it, where there is a hazelnut tree with the most wonderful shade and a thousand other trees and flowers with a fragrance that is like paradise, and opposite, a stream and a meadow which is my whole entertainment in the afternoons, and I always come to picnic here, and it is full of rabbits, and watching the young ones play is lovely, I won’t let anyone kill them there so they will always be around, and you can often see deer too. And if I can, I will send a drawing with this for Your Majesty to judge whether the spot is beautiful, and everything that makes me happy, I wish to place before Your Majesty.28 As we can see, the Infanta enjoyed writing her letters in these gardens, although the main drawback she saw in the stays in Mariemont were the numerous and unexpected visits from the many important neighbours who lived in the surrounding area: I was happily writing in an arbour in the garden, where I wish you were, and they came to tell me that the Duchess of Ariscot [Aarschot] had arrived, so I cannot write any more now, which is the only bad thing about this little house, that there are many neighbours within four, five, or three leagues, and even one, so that there are always visits with no possibility of avoiding them. This one now, I would avoid [if I could]….29 In the summer of 1618, the Infanta could see that the construction at Mariemont was almost completed. Although many had criticized it and could not understand the remodelling work directed by her, all the doubts and disputes would be resolved once it was finished. She promised to send her brother new plans that would explain all the details, which are obvious to some degree in the views of Mariemont (fig. 3): …Any time not spent in the country, I am busy working on making a few repairs to this house, and enlarging it and improving the stairways, which needed doing, and since I am the architect of this, I wish it to turn out well and so I am the overseer for as long as I can. When we came here, it was right at the start [of the building work] and everyone spoke badly of it, because they didn’t understand it, and I don’t think they will until it is finished, but I hope to emerge with my honour intact; I will send Your Majesty the plans so that he may honour me with his opinion of it, although the real honour will be for him to come here and stay in it, for if such a thing were to happen, Your Majesty would truly be the overseer to make sure it was finished properly.30 A week later, she added that, as promised, she put on a banquet for the journeymen responsible for the work at Mariemont, once the new staircases had been finished: “I have my staircases finished now, and with them, almost all the building work is complete. I promised the journeymen to give them a banquet the day we could go up the stairs, which made them hurry up. I kept my word and the feast was very good and it was a lot of fun…”.31 The ­following summer the new quarters for the ladies were inaugurated: “We found that it was very good and the 28  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, July 5, 1616, private collection. For the gardens in Mariemont, see De Jonge 2002 and De Jonge 2005b. 29  Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Mariemont, June 19, 1610; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 217 (letter 175).

184

30   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, June 17, 1618, private collection. 31   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, June 25, 1618, private collection.

The Cross-Influences

in

Architectural Patronage

3. Jan Brueghel I de Velours, Mariemont, 1611 (Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, inv. P01428).

work is almost finished so that the ladies can reside in their quarters and they are very happy with them; I certainly am for having managed to enlarge this house without taking away the view, as Your Majesty will see from the plans that I hope to send shortly”.32 A sure sign of the importance that Mariemont had for the Infanta can be found in the numerous paintings of it that she commissioned, and the fact that it was the background chosen for the portrait of Isabel Clara Eugenia that the studio of Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder painted in 1615–1617 (fig. 4), listed in the 1636 inventory of the Alcázar at Madrid. This portrait forms a pair with one of Archduke Albert with Tervuren in the background, which hangs in the “Gallery that looks south over the Garden of the Emperors”, that is, between the new rooms created when the main façade that overlooked the Plaza de la Armería was made more uniform in appearance.33 The Infanta’s correspondence also offers interesting assessments of other palaces in the Low Countries. As early as 1602 she expresses her liking for the Ghent palace (Prinsenhof), because its garden in the middle of the city gave the impression of living “as if one were in the country”.34 During the Archdukes’ visit to this city in August 1614, she once again praises the palace for its advantages as a place to stay and for its climate in comparison to the Coudenberg hill in Brussels:   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, eve of Corpus (June), 1619, private collection. 33  Martínez Leiva & Rodríguez Rebollo 2007, 88 and 148; for these portraits see also Exh. cat. Brussels 1998, cat. nos. 202 and 203 (H. Vlieghe), 149–151, and Madrid 1999, cat. nos. 30 and 31 (A. Vergara), 176–177. 32

  In a postscript (dated July 20) of a letter from Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Ghent, July 17, 1602; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 69–70 (letter 47). For the Prinsenhof in Ghent see Van Lokeren 1841 and Laporte 2000. 34

185

Bernardo J. García García

4. Studio of P.P. Rubens and Jan Brueghel I, Isabel Clara Eugenia with a view of the palace of Mariemont (Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, inv. P01684).

…we have found the place much improved with the Truce, and it cannot be denied that it is one of the best in the world at least for the summer and not having seen it for some days, it seems better and no less our home such that we might well change it for the one in Brussels, for there are apartments aplenty here and it is very cheerful with lovely views and although the garden is not very big, it is much improved thanks to a French gardener [monsieur Borluut] that we have, who is extremely good. It has an island that can be reached by a rope ferry that works very well; these days this island has three paths running round it each one higher than the other and at the top there is a plaza with a flower garden, all the paths are lined with fruit trees, all mixed with one another so that you cannot see anything lovelier than this now and the fruit from here is much better than from everywhere else, because that which comes from Spain is not as nice as that from here. This island is called La Motte and I should also like to be able to send it to you with this letter ….35 In the summer of 1618, when she recounts a new journey to Ostend to look over its advanced state of reconstruction, and to tour a large part of the new canal opened by Spinola  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Ghent, August 30, 1614, private collection. A more or less contemporary plan of the island of La Motte is kept in the Algemeen Rijksarchief, Brussels (ARAB), Hofwerken, 245, and is reproduced in Exh. cat. Aranjuez 1998, cat. no. 33, 55. According to the notes on this drawing, among the fruit trees that embellished it there were: cherry trees on the

35

186

lower level, apricots in the middle and almonds on the upper level; the flower bed comprised different varieties of rose bush, jasmines, sycamores and blue lilacs; and the slopes were bordered with hawthorn hedges at the bottom, grass from Spain in the middle and privet at the very top. See also ibidem, cat. no. 36, 57, with a sketch of the proposed flower bed on this island.

The Cross-Influences

in

Architectural Patronage

between Ostend, Bruges and Ghent,36 the Infanta reiterates her preferences for the virtues of those lands and residences because of the mildness of the climate in summer, the quality of the fruit and the comforts they offer (fig. 5): I confess that I am sorry to have returned [to Mariemont] for that land is very good and more so in s­ ummer, for it is like walking around the pathways at Aranjuez and the house in Ghent is very good and with a lovely view and a thousand amenities for boating and walking, and the garden, even though it is not large, has the best fruit in these States and is very necessary now that it is as hot as midsummer in Spain. The house in Bruges is huge and with rooms as large as those in the house in Toledo [the Alcázar], but it has no view.37

5. The Prinsenhof in Ghent, in: A. Sanderus, Flandria Illustrata, Amsterdam, 1641, vol. 1, 147.

The Archdukes would go hunting in Binche in the autumn and enjoyed those days in the open air “because the exercise and walking about the countryside fills us with life”, but the Infanta comments that the apartments in the palace, despite its attractions, failed to meet minimum living conditions: “this is very pretty if only the house were habitable”,38 and it was far from resembling the age of splendour of Queen Mary of Hungary’s time and the sumptuous festivities arranged for Charles V and Philip II in August 1549:39 There is no news to tell from here except for the hunting, which, since we came three weeks ago, is all we have been doing because the weather is so beautiful, and as is the evident good taste of Queen Mary [of Hungary]. I feel so sorry because I cannot put on the fêtes here for my brother like she did, although I do not give up hope even though the house is not like it used to be nor so well appointed ….40 When the Archdukes went on their annual pilgrimage to the basilica of Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel, they stayed at the Diest palace, the customary residence of Prince Philip William of Orange-Nassau. In the summer of 1614, they celebrated a solemn, well-attended novena as an act of thanksgiving for Archduke Albert’s health. In her account of this visit, the Infanta makes special mention of the easy access that she and the ladies in her service had to the gardens from their apartments, unlike the steps down they had to cope with at the palace in Brussels:  Lombaerde 1998, 173–176, and Lombaerde 2004, 113–125. 37  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, 25 June, 1618, private collection. See the engraving of this residence and adjoining buildings in Flandria Illustrata by A. Sanderus (1641), and Hillewaert & Van Besien 2007. 38   Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Binche, October 30, 1605; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 140–141 (letter 95). 36

  Calvete de Estrella 2001, 314–353; Marquet & Glotz 1991, and Glotz 1995. 40   Isabel Clara Eugenia to the duke of Lerma, Binche, October 10, 1607; in Rodríguez Villa 1906, 182–184 (letter 130). For Binche castle and its gardens, see the studies by Devreux 1935, Wellens 1962, Loriaux 1971, Capouillez 1985, De Jonge 1998b, De Jonge 1998d and De Jonge 2004a. 39

187

Bernardo J. García García …we spent some wonderful days because those when we did not go out [to the country] in the afternoons, were spent in Diest park which could easily be entered from my chamber as it is on the same level and there’s a garden where the women strolled all day long and with a thousand nightingales fluttering by the windows, which makes us feel very lonely here, because the garden here is not as easy to reach, in order to get to it, one must walk one hundred and forty steps, so having to return so promptly has disappointed all of us ….41 In the middle of April 1617, the Infanta sent her brother Philip some plans of Tervuren Castle (called La Bura in her letters), including a Relación (description) of the festivities held there, so that they could be better understood. The Archdukes had opted for a solution that they considered to be an improvement over the one proposed by the architect, Francisco de Mora: I am sending Your Majesty the plans of La Bura with its legend and the festivities that were held there because they will be better understood with the house even if they reach [you] a little late. May God allow me to make some better ones there for Your Majesty, for with this hope I shall remodel the house the more readily. I don’t know whether Your Majesty will think it looks better like that or the way that Mora had designed it, for I think Your Majesty will recall it….42 On the grounds of this old residence, whose apartments Isabel considered to be “very good…and very cheerful”,43 the Archdukes built a new chapel to Saint Hubert in the place where, according to tradition, his house had stood and where this patron saint of hunters died. Consecrated by Archbishop Mathias Hovius in November 1617,44 it had been designed by the architect Wensel Cobergher and its three altars were decorated with an equal number of altarpieces by Theodoor van Loon: The Conversion of Saint Hubert, Saint Hubert Receiving the Star, and The Virgin and Child between Saint John the Baptist and Saint John the Evangelist. The ceremony was followed by a day’s hunting: …Today the feast of Saint Hubert has been celebrated very well. The three altars of the new chapel, which we have built where his house once stood and where he died, have been consecrated and the first masses have been said. The first one sung and the others prayed lasted a while but there was time for a hunt and to kill a fine pig [boar] and very fierce it was as it wounded a horse. We also killed a roebuck with the greyhounds and a hare and a doe so that the feast day has been celebrated both in the spirit and in the flesh because nobody is considered a hunter today unless when he goes hunting he kills everything he finds.45 The rapid transformation that Tervuren Castle’s garden, new orchard and vineyard underwent caused astonishment. Isabella echoed this at the beginning of September 1617: “…we arrived four days ago at La Bura, which looks very nice as do the garden and the new orchard such that it seems to me that it was planted many years ago and yet it won’t have been a year come advent, and for the vineyard come March, for everything is amazing for 41   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Brussels, June 14, 1614, private collection. 42  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Diest, April 20, 1617, private collection. 43  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Tervuren, October 8, 1617, private collection.

188

44  Müller 1990, vol. I, 127–128 and II, 85; Exh. cat. Brussels 1998, cat. no. 212 (K. De Jonge), 157–158, and cat. no. 361 (S. Janssens), 260; Snaet 2011. 45  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Tervuren, November 3, 1617, private collection.

The Cross-Influences

in

Architectural Patronage

6. Jan Brueghel I de Velours, The palace of Tervuren, circa 1619–1620 (Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, inv. P01453).

its bloom”;46 and again in October of the following year: “We have been at La Bura house for four days and found it very nice, and the orchard and vineyard have really grown so that it seems like the Promised Land in view of the way it looks after such a short time, for it is scarcely two years since it was planted”.47 Together with other significant gifts on the occasion of Philip III’s Progress to the kingdom of Portugal and the swearing in of the prince as heir to the throne in 1619, the Infanta sent her brother (fig. 6): a painting of the house, orchard and parkland and grounds of La Bura all looking exactly like it is. We have only taken a little license with the orchard and the vineyard that are on a hillside opposite the house making it a little flatter because otherwise, it could not be seen and I cannot enjoy any of my works until I have placed them before Your Majesty for his approval and so that he can give me his opinion.48 As we can see, Isabel did her best to present Philip III with spectacular canvases of these residences to offer her brother pictures to complete the plans, descriptions and letters they exchanged with each other. By doing this and seeking his and Lerma’s approval, she  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Tervuren, September 5, 1617, private collection. 47   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Tervuren, October 8, 1618, private collection. 46

 Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, October 20, 1619, private collection. 48

189

Bernardo J. García García brought those spaces closer to the Spanish court. The paintings also served as a record and legacy of the construction and renovation work carried out by the Archdukes to restore and to give fresh splendour to the Low Countries, and were added to the paintings of other palaces that adorned the walls of the Spanish royal residences. Among the works of art sent to Madrid were the great series of eight canvases depicting, in detail, the celebrations of the papagayo (an archery competition involving ‘shooting the parrot’) or the Ommeganck in Brussels on May 31, 1615, which would be put on display in one of the main rooms of the Alcázar in Madrid, the Great Hall used for public celebrations (Salón de Comedias). In this way and in such a symbolic setting, the Archdukes reaffirmed their link with those States after Philip III was sworn in as their successor in 1616.49 According to the 1636 inventory, together with the papagayo celebrations series, there were twenty-four views of towns in Spain, Italy and Flanders, two series of Emperor Charles V’s battles, as well as some public entries of Philip the Fair and Philip II.50 In the middle of April 1617, the Infanta informs her brother that she has dispatched these paintings together with the belongings of Don Baltasar de Zúñiga, who was on his way back to Spain after completing his embassy at the imperial court: “…Don Baltasar, I think, will take a long time to arrive because his daughters are so young. He is taking the paintings that are being shipped with his clothing and I expect he will know how to show Your Majesty what each one is about and when he forgets something, his wife will know better than anybody what it is”.51 The corresponding passport is dated in Aranjuez on May 13, 1617: “…they are sending us three boxes of paintings clearly marked and numbered one, two and three …”.52 We should also remember that a minor series on the same theme was hung in Tervuren Castle in 1619. The Infanta’s letters likewise record a few accidents and mishaps that occurred in these palaces. One of the most serious took place in Tervuren in late August 1617 when a cartload of peat that had been put in the castle wine cellar accidentally caught fire. The fire could not be put out with water from the lake because it had been drained in order to finish the improvements to the island, so water had to be brought in barrels from another nearby pond. The wine vaults were located just beneath the hall built in the time of John II of Brabant (1275–1312) and Margaret of England (1275–1318) with special imported timber that prevented the formation of cobwebs and dust: …the day before departure putting a cartload of peat in the wine cellar where there was a lot already and six thousand bundles of wood and much firewood, the peat was not properly ‘dead’ and set fire to the other and the bundles, so that word was sent to us in Brussels that the whole house was burning down and there was not a drop of water in the lake at the time so that the island could be finished this year; it was dry in order to be able to work. With this news the Count of Añover set off with another steward and all the architects that we have and with the many people who are working on the site did it all so well that only the peat and the bundles were burnt, yet the firewood was saved. We were all afraid that the vaults would split open and that, as they are beneath the Hall, its ceiling would then have caught fire, something that had worried us a great deal since it is one of the oldest things in the States and made of a wood that doesn’t collect cobwebs or any grime at all and is the loveliest thing I have ever seen, for the princess of England who founded this house had it brought from afar  Thøfner 2007, 234–244; Esteban Estríngana 2008, 666–675; Thomas 2010, 267–303; and Van Sprang 2010, 305–321. 50   Martínez Leiva & Rodríguez Rebollo 2007, 89–91. 49

190

 Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Diest, April 20, 1617, private collection. 52  Archivo General de Simancas (AGS), Cámara de Castilla, Libros de paso, L-367, fol. 469v. 51

The Cross-Influences

in

Architectural Patronage

by sea. The vaults, which are of brick, held out a long time, because the fire was terrible and nobody could go in to put it out because those who tried fell as if dead from the peat smoke and some did not recover consciousness until the following day, but thankfully no life was in danger. The fire lasted two days and by dint of throwing water on it, which was brought in barrels on carts from another pond nearby, it was put out, although the vault is still hot.53 In October 1620, the drawbridge of the main entrance to Tervuren Castle collapsed half an hour after the Archdukes had set out on the first boar hunt of their autumn sojourn: On the first hunt Our Lord delivered us from a real danger as half an hour after leaving home the drawbridge collapsed. Had it collapsed when the coaches were crossing, no doubt one of them would have fallen into the moat, which is very deep and God willed that, as there are usually people on the bridge, at that time there was nobody and if a bridge from the island had not been made we would not have had any way to enter the house.54

7. Scherpenheuvel, Cobergher.

1609–1627,

by

The Infanta’s apartments in the palace of Coudenberg, which had been finished in 1610 after two years’ work and many changes, revealed serious structural problems in the summer of 1619 that needed urgent work. For that reason, the Archdukes were obliged to spend the rest of the year between Tervuren and Mariemont: …On another Ascension day, we came to La Bura because, although we intended to spend Easter in Brussels, as my apartment was falling down on top of us and it was necessary to remedy it quickly, so as to be able to spend the winter there; we stayed there as it is a more suitable place for receiving all those ambassadors who have come to offer their condolences upon the death of the emperor [Matthias].55 Without dwelling on other religious projects and foundations supported by the Archdukes in the Low Countries (such as the Carmelite convents in Brussels, Ghent and Antwerp, or the restoration of abbeys and monasteries), and leaving aside commissions and gifts for the convents of the Royal Discalced Nuns of Madrid, the Incarnation, Montserrat and Guadalupe, another of their great architectural projects should be mentioned: the basilica of Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel (fig. 7).56  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Tervuren, September 5, 1617, private collection. For Tervuren Castle, see in general Müller 1990. 54   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Tervuren, October 25, 1620, private collection. 55   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, eve of Corpus, 1619, private collection. 53

 For the characteristics of this basilica and its importance in the Archdukes’ policy of construction and reform, see the works by Lantin 1971; Meganck 1998; Lombaerde 1998, 177–183; Duerloo & Wingens 2002; Thøfner 2007, 277–297; Snaet 2011, 370; Duerloo 2012, 212–213 and 395–396. 56

191

Wensel

Bernardo J. García García It was as a result of the solemn novena that the Archdukes organized for their visit to this basilica in the summer of 1614 that the Infanta sent her brother Philip III the plans of the building and asked him to provide sufficient money to complete the construction of the dome and to indicate on the plan not only where he would like his coat of arms to appear in exchange for his donation, but also any other modification that he thought fit to make to the design: Here I am sending Your Majesty the plan of the church and all the site with what has been done and what remains to be done and from it Your Majesty will see the need for a donation, but since Your Majesty commands me to tell him my opinion, it would be that Your Majesty should top up all the donations and give the amount needed to build the dome of the church where Your Majesty’s arms could be placed and it is quite just, for since Our Lord has granted us so much that in times of Your Majesty he performs through the intercession of His mother so many marvels, a fine perpetual memory of Your Majesty may remain as there is in all the other shrines in the world, and Our Lady will pay Your Majesty handsomely and I hope she will have heard me to give Your Majesty and your children everything that I have implored of her that she might reach and keep us through her son as we need. We wished to build the whole church but we have been unable to; we have helped with what we can and we always shall. If Your Majesty should find something that doesn’t please him in the plan, I beg Your Majesty to tell me so that it can be amended. I hope that the building will advance quickly this summer because there is enough worked stone to reach as far as the cornice….57 The positive response to her request is recorded in another of her letters dated at the beginning of August that same year: I am very pleased with the donation that Your Majesty wishes to make to Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu). At the first opportunity, I shall send the estimate, which is not yet ready, and I await the plan so that the dome can be made in accordance with Your Majesty’s wishes, but do remember Your Majesty to tell me where your arms will go, both inside and outside, so that all may see that Your Majesty has had it built and I am certain that Our Lady will repay Your Majesty handsomely ….58 The building went ahead at a good pace in September 1617 as a result of the funds provided by Philip III,59 but delays in some outstanding payments threatened to disrupt a good part of the construction of the dome. The Infanta wanted all the construction to be an exclusive donation by her brother: I kiss Your Majesty’s hands for telling me that he will send the donation for Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu) with the first [courier]. I beg Your Majesty not to delay further because the work will have to be stopped or if not, the money sought from elsewhere in order to close the dome which is far advanced and if it were not to be closed this summer, what has been built would fall down. I should be very  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Brussels, June 14, 1614, private collection; she also mentions dispatching these plans of the basilica of Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu) in a letter to the duke of Lerma, dated the same day (Private collection): “I am sending the plan of the church to my brother and my wish is that a memory of him should remain there, as 57

192

is right, since in his lifetime everything has gone so well for us all”. 58   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Brussels, August 8, 1614, private collection. 59  Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Tervuren, September 24, 1614, private collection.

The Cross-Influences

in

Architectural Patronage

sorry if any money were spent on it that wasn’t Your Majesty’s, and that it should all be by Your Majesty’s hand, for Our Lady will reward Your Majesty very well.60 Work on the dome was still going on in the middle of June 1620. As the Infanta explained, the reason for the delays was that all the stone that was being used came from a place near Denmark and the icy winters had prevented its transport by sea and river. She therefore urged her brother to make a final effort to cover these extra consignment costs and asked the Virgin to favour the safe arrival of the fleets from the Indies: The building work is well advanced and the dome is going well. It has been impossible to finish earlier because all the stone is brought from near Denmark by sea and then by river in small boats as far as a quarter of a league from there, and as there has been such a freeze this year and it has gone on for so long, the boats have been unable to move and the stone could not be worked in time, but now it is all there. But for that reason it costs a lot because there is none of this stone in these States and so it will be necessary for Your Majesty to send a little more money with the fleet when it comes in, and do offer it Your Majesty so that the fleet arrives safely, as Your Majesty well sees that after this donation the fleets have been miraculously saved from the many perils that they have passed through and I tell Our Lady that if she wishes her church to be finished that she should defend the fleets, but Your Majesty must believe that more than this, I have implored her to grant Your Majesty and your family through her son as much health and life as we have need of.61 As we have been able to gather from the selected examples of the Infanta Isabel’s personal correspondence, the Archdukes paid particular attention to restoring and expanding their palaces and residences in the Low Countries. They were also actively involved in civil and religious architectural projects, which helped to strengthen their image and memory as sovereigns of those provinces in the tradition of the former dukes of Burgundy, yet they were closely linked to the pre-eminence of the House of Austria and its commitment to the Catholic Church. Their construction work was, besides, the ultimate expression of the policy of pacification and restoration that they championed and which had been the main purpose behind the cession of sovereignty. Brought up at the court of Philip II – who made profound changes to the royal sites in Madrid and its environs, and who created a veritable seasonal circuit in their use and enjoyment – the Archdukes had the opportunity to do the same at the court in Brussels and the other ducal palaces, thus establishing a constant dialogue between the Flemish-Burgundian traditions on the one hand, and their experiences in Spain on the other, in addition to the new projects developed during the reign of Philip III. Architecture as a means of expressing power and rank, and the transformation of the landscape as an instrument of recreation and enjoyment were ever present in the private letters that crossed among the Infanta, her brother Philip and the duke of Lerma. When they mention these topics, we notice the pleasure in their shared enthusiasm, nostalgia for places and occasions experienced in their youth, and a means of bridging the distance that separated these correspondents. Personal letters were essential to satisfy the need for contact and intimacy, and so were not only accompanied by portraits, presents, pets, and devotional objects, but also by plans, engravings, paintings and handwritten or printed relaciones, which provided a fuller, more precise context, and strengthened the bonds of affection and memory between brother and sister.   Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Mariemont, Eve of St. Mary Magdalene (21July) 1619, private collection. 60

 Isabel Clara Eugenia to Philip III, Tervuren, June 16, 1620, private collection. 61

193

1. Bird’s eye view on Amsterdam in 1597, by Pieter Bast, just after the enlargements of 1585 and 1592 (Stadsarchief Amsterdam).

Chapter 2.8 Amsterdam

and the International

Trade

in

Stone, Brick

and

Wood

Gabri van Tussenbroek (Amsterdam Office for Monuments and Archeology / Utrecht University)

The international trade in building materials has been a side theme in art historical studies. The grain trade, the main business in the Baltic Sea and North Sea region, was much more decisive for the development of networks that were also important for trade in other products.1 This section will focus on how the Amsterdam and Dutch trade in building materials developed, which building materials were imported and exported, and which European areas experienced an architectural influence from the Low Countries that can be linked directly to the trade in building materials. Stone, brick and wood will be surveyed to gain insight into the trade streams to and from Amsterdam and Holland. Economics, politics, and consumption needs closely connected various areas in Europe with different geographical, social, and cultural situations.2 However, the ­geographical range of Netherlandish-influenced architecture resulted from the network of operators who mutually influenced each other in their views on trade and ­aesthetics. The decisive ­condition for the reception, adaptation, and acculturation of ‘Flemish’ or ‘Dutch’ ­architectural forms diverged considerably in these different areas. Recipients of Netherlandish influence belonged to differently organised societies separate from the mainstream influence of prints and publications. Tradesmen and entrepreneurs held different social positions and belonged to distinct classes, of which only a few acted as important building commissioners. Accordingly, few examples are extant of entrepreneurs who, while importing large quantities of building materials, such as wood, into the Dutch Republic, simultaneously introduced Netherlandish architecture abroad. These conditions have prompted the following question concerning the role of building material trade networks in the dissemination of architectural ideas: To what extent did the expanding Dutch material trade in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries keep up with the diffusion of architectural concepts and forms?3 Stone In 1585, the Amsterdam city government decided to expand the town on a large scale, followed by a second enlargement in 1592 (fig. 1). The use of stone in Amsterdam and Dutch buildings changed considerably during those years. Previously, travelling building and stone entrepreneurs from the Southern Low Countries directed the architectural mainstream,4 but in the second half of the sixteenth century, the Northern Low Countries’ building trade became emancipated from the South. The enlargement of the Oude Kerk’s tower in Amsterdam in 1563 may be regarded as an early example of this change. Architectural designs were no longer supplied by masters from the South who were involved in the stone trade. Instead, Joost Janszoon Bilhamer from Amsterdam assumed responsibility for the design of the tower, forcing stone traders into the role of mere material supplier.5   van Tielhof 1995.   Kaufmann 2004b. 3   Dutch tiles (faience) are not regarded in this study.

  Hurx 2012.  van Tussenbroek 2006b, 85–91; van Tussenbroek 2007.

1

4

2

5

195

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

2. Map indicating most of the towns mentioned in this chapter (drawing by the author).

Workshops in Holland increasingly engaged in stone cutting.6 The last decades of the sixteenth century witnessed this development in Amsterdam. In 1594, the municipal building fabric was reorganised, and carpenter Hendrik Staets, mason Cornelis Danckerts, and stone cutter Hendrick de Keyser were brought into municipal service. These three men became responsible for most municipal building commissions over the next twenty-five years.7 The reorganisation of the municipal building agency resulted in a new creative architectural centre. Hendrick de Keyser assumed responsibility for the designs (modellen, patronen ofte ontwerpselen) and for anything cut and hewn (gesneden ende gehouwen).8 Little is known about his responsibility for purchasing stone for the city, but he was active as a private stone trader.9 Between 1595 and 1621, the year De Keyser died, two types of stone were dominant in the Dutch Republic – ‘blue’ stone from Namur and sandstone from Bentheim (fig. 2). The Van Neurenberg family, who originated from the Meuse Valley but resided in Dordrecht since 1585, controlled the trade in blue stone. Other families from the regions of Liège and Namur participated in the blue stone trade as well. In contrast, the sandstone trade was controlled mainly by entrepreneurs from the Northern Low Countries; the quarries were rented from the duke of Bentheim. In 1616, all the quarries were rented to Joost Krull from Zwolle, whose business became a staple market for sandstone.10 Bentheimer sandstone was used for quays or decorative elements in mainly brick façades. In most cases, Hendrick de Keyser’s architecture exhibited an intermingling of brick walls with sculptural decorations in stone. Most of the municipal buildings and prestigious private houses of his time demonstrate this use of materials (fig. 3). Luxurious marbles and homogeneous red, grey, and black limestones were conspicuous new materials on the northern market. From the 1590s onward, trade with northern Italy  The façade of the Leiden town hall is, along with some prefabricated decorative elements an exception. See Stenvert 1996 and Albrecht 1997. 7   Meischke 1994; van Essen 2011. 6

196

 van Dillen 1929, 521, no. 867. See also Gerritsen 2006, 43 and van Essen 2011. 9   de Beaufort 1931 and Ottenheym et al. 2008, 18. 10   Voort 1970, 92; Janse & de Vries 1991, 16. 8

Amsterdam

and the International

3. Amsterdam, Herengracht 170–172, ‘Huis Bartolotti’, by Hendrick de Keyser (attr.).

Trade

in

Stone, Brick

and

Wood

4. The use of nero portoro in the funeral monument of Willem of Orange in the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft, 1614–1622 (photo Franciszek Skibin´ski).

intensified. Grain from the Baltic Sea area was transported to Genoa and Livorno via Holland. On the return journey, luxury goods, such as marble from Carrara, were picked up and taken along.11 In 1612, Hendrick de Keyser declared himself the sole trader in the entire Republic who worked with this material.12 In rare cases, the exclusive nero portoro giallo, another Alpine marble, was shipped to the Republic. Hendrick de Keyser used it for the funeral monument of Willem of Orange in the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft (swerte Italiaensche gemengelde merber)13 and in the wall claddings of the guild’s chamber of the master masons in the Weigh House on the Amsterdam Nieuwmarkt (fig. 4). In 1611, the Amsterdam jeweller Hans van Wely hired Hendrick de Keyser to design a house that was more luxuriously wrought than normal buildings with coloured and black marbles, and which he built at the Oudezijds Voorburgwal 127 (fig. 5).14 For other projects, such as a statue of Saint John for the ’s-Hertogenbosch rood loft (fig. 6), he used English alabaster.15 De Keyser’s son-in-law, Nicholas Stone, and his sons, Pieter and Hendrick de Keyser Jr, purchased marble in Italy themselves. They relied on their good relations with the Van Neurenberg family for the supply of coloured and red marbles from the Southern Low Countries.16 De Keyser and Stone were also involved with a stone quarry in Portland.17   Scholten 1993.   Kossmann 1929, 287. 13   de Beaufort 1931, 89–91. 14  “boven de gewoonlijcken aert van Burgerlijcke Gebouwen, gantsch uyt-steeckende” (Architectura 11 12

Moderna 163, 19, plate 33). Ottenheym et al. 2008, 87–88. 15   About alabaster: Dubelaar 2009. 16   van Tussenbroek 2001, 60–61. 17   Ottenheym et al. 2008, 18.

197

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

5. Amsterdam, Oudezijds Voorburgwal 127, house of the jeweller Hans van Wely, 1611, by Hendrick de Keyser (Architectura Moderna 1631, plate XXXIII).

6. Rood loft from ’s-Hertogenbosch. Alabaster statue of St. John, by Hendrick de Keyser, 1611 (Victoria & Albert Museum, London), (photograph by the author).

In 1612, the States General awarded De Keyser a patent for the invention of an artificial marble – apparently a kind of stucco, which possibly justified his need for these materials.18 Only one kind of ‘marble’ – a very homogeneous species of Namur blue stone – was in use during the sixteenth century, often for gravestones. This deep black stone hailed from Mazy-Golzinne. However, this material was also used for epitaphs and paving stones. Soon the material was popularly combined with white Carrara marble for making pavements, as evidenced in the uttering of a French marshal, who, visiting Amsterdam in 1629, stated that almost all houses had marble floors.19 Export from Amsterdam The function of Amsterdam as a staple market and the innovative architecture of the municipal building agency made the city an export centre. Experts from other cities were brought to Amsterdam to provide design and technical solutions for difficult building projects, such as the Hoorn weighing house, which was designed in 1608 by Hendrick de Keyser, with   Kossmann 1929; Doorman 1940, 121.

18

198

  “… presques toutes les maisons [etaient] pavées de marbre”. Fock 1998, 194 and Groeneveld 2010. 19

Amsterdam

and the International

Trade

in

Stone, Brick

and

Wood

stone supplied by Pieter van Neurenberg.20 However, the export continued far beyond the boundaries of the Republic. Dutch traders were especially active in Northern Europe, thus continuing the way stone cutters and traders from Antwerp had worked until 1585. Cornelis Floris executed luxurious funeral monuments for the king of Denmark and the duke of Prussia. Sixteenth-century red marbles from the Meuse Valley could be found in cities such as Lübeck, Rostock, Wismar, and Stralsund.21� Such supplies hailed from Amsterdam in the first quarter of the seventeenth century (fig. 7). In 1618, the painter and agent Pieter Isaacsz supplied a marble floor in Fredriksborg for Christian IV of Denmark, which probably came from Hendrick de Keyser’s workshop.22 Also, at the marble gallery of Fredriksborg, designed by Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger, architect of the Danish crown, the sculptures were made in Hendrick de Keyser’s workshop (see ­chapters 2.3 and 2.4). Stone trader Laurens Sweys brought Gotland sandstone – for the statues in the marble gallery – to Amsterdam in 1619. A 7. Lübeck, St Mary’s church, funeral monument for Johann year later, the Danish king sent Sweys to the Füchting, 1633. Archdukes Albert and Isabel Clara Eugenia in Brussels with a request for a tax exemption on the transport of blue stone, red marble, and black marble from the Southern Low Countries.23 Most probably this material was needed for the marble altar of the Trinity Church (Trefoldighedskirke) in Christianstadt which Sweijs supplied in 1620 and which possibly was made by De Keyser’s studio as well.24 In the following years, Sweys delivered the same kind of red and black marbles from the Southern Low Countries to Vilnius to be used for the interior decoration of the St Casimir’s Chapel in the cathedral (1623–1636), designed by the Italian architect Constantino Tencala for King Sigismund III of Poland (fig. 8).25 The interwoven nature of the network of stone traders and building entrepreneurs was evidenced by the fact that Sweys was a son-­in-law of Amsterdam municipal mason Cornelis II Danckerts. In 1621, Sweys maintained contact with Willem II van Neurenberg for the deliverance of six blocks of marble, and this was not the only time.26 This period also witnessed the transport of coloured marble from the Meuse Valley to Wrocław, Königsberg as well as England. In 1636, Hendrick de Keyser Jr signed a contract to supply a black marble chimney piece and other objects to

  van Tussenbroek 2006b, 197–199; Ottenheym et al. 2008, 101–103. 21   Huysmans et al. 1996. See also Weissman 1912. 22   Fock 1998, 194. 23   Ottenheym et al. 2008, 119. 20

  Roding 1991, 93–94.   Žygas 2000; Jamski 2006. 26  Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notarieel archief 691 B - 889 (2). Notaris J. Warnaerts and 724–235. Notaris P. Carels and NA 724–388. 24 25

199

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

Sir John Byron. This delivery was dispatched by ship via Hull to Newstead in July 1638.27 In the second half of the seventeenth century, Amsterdam retained a central role in the export of luxurious stone products. In 1663, Hendrick de Keyser III was contracted to supply stone for the bishop of Durham’s works at Durham and at Bishop Auckland: “all such blacke marbell stones and stones as shall be necessary and expediënt to performe the worke abovesaid, and to procure it either from Holland, Newcastle or elsewere”.28 In 1660, Artus Quellinus supplied the first marble epitaph in Berlin in the Marienkirche for Otto von Sparr. On 24 January 1660, Amsterdam burgomaster 8. Vilnius, St Casimir’s chapel, 1623–1636 (photograph Witsen granted von Sparr permission to use Franciszek Skibin´  ski). marble supplies from Amsterdam provided 29 he paid one Thaler per foot. Quellinus supplied an epitaph of white Carrara marble and black Belgian marble, like the ‘model’ he sent to Von Sparr previously. The epitaph was sculpted in Amsterdam and then sent to Berlin where servants of Quellinus assembled it in the Marienkirche. The work was finished in 1663, and even the Prussian princes went to the church to see the magnificent epitaph (see page 327, fig. 16).30 In the same year, sculptor Bartholomeus Eggers supplied work to the Great Elector of Brandenburg, although the exact nature of the work has remained unknown.31 Eggers worked together with Artus Quellinus, and in 1682, the elector commissioned a Minerva figure. Eggers’ workshop and his fame were impressive. Thus, in 1687, when Swedish architect Nicodemus Tessin the Younger travelled to Amsterdam, he also visited Eggers’ workshop and described the statues Eggers prepared for the Brandenburg elector. The portrait of the elector was executed in marble, like two portraits of Apollo and Diana. In four weeks, Eggers left Amsterdam for Berlin to install the statues and sign a contract for five more.32 A portrait of Hendrick Ruse, military engineer in Brandenburg and Denmark, made by Eggers now stands in the National Museum Fredriksborg.33 In 1680, a sun and moon by Eggers stood on the terrace of the estate of Tamsel (Dabroszyn today).34 Between 1684 and 1686 Eggers also supplied marble statues of emperors and electors for the Great Hall in the Berlin Palace.35 Brick Although not a product of high ­status, brick proved to be an important export product. In the medieval period, sand was used as ballast for ships. However, by the fifteenth century, more harbour cities were faced with the problem of silting up. Additionally, captains recognised that using heavy trade goods such as coal, stone, and brick as ballast was more

27   Louw 1981, 18, n. 9. Hendrick Jr worked in Stone’s workshop since 1634. 28   Louw 2009, 85. 29   van Dillen 1974, no. 1437. 30  Galland 1911, chapter III; Glaser 1939, 35; Asche 1961.

200

  Galland 1893, 233; Halsema-Kubes 1979, 222.   Seidel 1890, 137–138; Upmark 1900, 126. 33   Römelingh 1973, 566; Pander 1935, 222–223. 34   Reißmann 1937, 128. 35  Galland 1893, 166–168, 221; Galland 1911, 212; Backschat 1932, 439. 31 32

Amsterdam

and the International

Trade

in

Stone, Brick

and

Wood

beneficial than just throwing away sand after use.36 In the Northern Low Countries, brick was mainly produced in Holland, Utrecht, and Friesland. Cities such as Delfzijl, Harlingen, Stavoren, Amsterdam, Enkhuizen, Hoorn, and Medemblik exported brick.37 In 1585, 632,500 Dutch bricks were transported through the Sound; in 1635, 1,953,000 bricks were exported. The Dutch brick trade mostly involved ships from Frisia and Holland, although many ships were only ballasted at the Dutch Wadden Islands.38 Britain was already importing bricks from the Low Countries in the late medieval period.39 The continuous influence of brick could be seen in the east of England.40 In the seventeenth century, Britain acquired considerable quantities of its basic building materials from the Dutch Republic because 9. Emden Town Hall, 1574–1576, by Laurens van of its high quality.41 Bricks and pantiles Steenwinckel Sr (pre-war photograph). were imported in great numbers, which led to concerns surrounding the effect of these imports on the English economy and efforts to reproduce the clay in England itself.42 Laurens I van Steenwinckel bought Dutch bricks for the Emden town hall in 1575 (fig. 9).43 ‘Klinkers’ and red and yellow bricks from Groningen as well as gable stones of sandstone, chimney pieces, and wood from Amsterdam were imported for the building of Friedrichstadt in Schleswig, founded in 1621.44 Like the ones exported to England, the Dutch bricks shipped elsewhere were of high quality.45 Examples of bricks imported from the Dutch Republic abounded in Denmark. Around 1520, the Amsterdam tradesman and banker Pompeius Occo sent 12,000 bricks from Gouda, 5000 bricks from Leiden, and pantiles to Sybrech Willemsdochter, agent of Christian II (see chapter 3.3).46 The bricks from Gouda and Leiden were meant for visual application. One hundred years later, many Dutch bricks existed in Glückstadt, in Holstein.47 Dutch bricks were used for Fredriksborg Slot (1602) as well as in the Copenhagen Exchange (fig. 10; see also page 136, fig. 11). Bricks from Frisia were imported for the restoration of Kronborg (1631).48 Little has been known about the export of bricks to Norway and Sweden. However, Dutch bricks were used in Finspång, built by Louis de Geer the Younger, replicating his father’s residence in Stockholm (see page 87, fig. 29).49   Arntz 1947, 61.   Arntz 1947, 73. 38   Arntz 1947, 68. 39   Andrews 2005, 143–144. 40   Arntz 1953. 41   Louw 2009, 85. 42   Clifton-Taylor 1972, 275; Louw 2009, 86. 43  “9250 Holl. steen zu 2 Th. […] 54 dübbelde Holl. Steen zu 31–4 gl”. Arntz 1947, 79.

  Arntz 1947, 81–82.   About gauged brickwork: Clifton-Taylor 1972, 244; Louw 1981, 21, n. 60; Lynch 2007. 46   Arntz 1947, 83. 47   Arntz 1947, 84. 48   Arntz 1947, 85. 49   Noldus 2004, 64ff and 164.

36

44

37

45

201

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

10. The Copenhagen Exchange, built from 1619 onward (photograph Ulrike Schwarz).

11. Gdan´sk, the Green Gate (Zielona Brama), 1563.

The export of Dutch bricks spread along the entire Baltic coast region. Dutch bricks were likely used in Rostock and Wismar. In Gdan´sk, Dutch bricks were certainly used, for example by Reinier of Amsterdam in the Green Gate (1568–1571) (fig. 11).50 In 1584, Dutch bricks were used in the palace in Königsberg.51 Although bricks were exported as bulk material, they should not simply be considered as filler material. Examples from Leiden and Gouda indicated that these bricks were bought and broadly applied because of their quality, more so than their volume. As such, brick should be considered, like the stone mentioned above, as a subtle contribution to visual architecture, and not just an interchangeable building material.52 Wood Contrary to brick, wood was imported to the Dutch Republic. Hundreds of dendrochronological datings gathered in 2006–2011 in combination with literature and publ­ ished sources have allowed insight into the origins and application of wood in Amsterdam.53 Dendrochronological provenance revealed the origins, shifts, and changes concerning the wood trade between 1500 and 1700.54 In the second half of the fourteenth century, the Amsterdam wood trade boasted a supra regional character. Between 1350 and 1370, traders from Hamburg transported considerable amounts of wood to Amsterdam.55 In 1373, wood was purchased for repair measurements of the castle of Muiden (Muiderslot), a stronghold east of Amsterdam, by ‘Peter Holland tot Aemstelredamme’.56 In the beginning of the fifteenth century, wainscoting was bought in Amsterdam for St Peter’s Church in Leiden. In 1412, the Leiden city council bought Prussian deals in Amsterdam for their town hall.57 For Utrecht Cathedral, wood for scaffoldings was bought in Amsterdam.58 Also, large amounts of wainscoting were purchased 50   Arntz 1947, 91–92. He mentions also the town hall, armoury, city gates and dwelling houses in Gdan´sk. 51   Arntz 1947, 93. 52  More research is necessary to come to more detailed conclusions. 53  Bärbel Heußner (Petershagen, Germany) was responsible for the laboratory analysis of the Amsterdam wood samples. van Tussenbroek 2009. An introduction to dendrochronology is to be found in de Vries 1994, 367–385. See also Jansma 1995.

202

54  It concerned oak wood and pine wood as well. For methodological aspects Heußner 2005, 127 and Eckstein & Wrobel 2006. 55   Maandblad Amstelodamum 1 (1914), 77; van Dillen 1914, 136. 56   Janse 1965, 38. 57   Maanblad Amstelodamum 1 (1914), 77; van Dillen 1914, 137. 58   Janse 1965, 39.

Amsterdam

and the International

Trade

in

Stone, Brick

and

Wood

in Amsterdam for the rebuilding of the castle in Hoogstraten (Brabant), under Rombout II Keldermans.59 Wood was also exported further away. In 1488, Jan Aertsz from Amsterdam supplied 500 pieces of wainscoting to a buyer in Newcastle.60 Between 1544 and 1545, wood accounted for between approximately 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent of the total export to areas outside the Burgundian territory. Most of this wood export – in the form of deals, rafters, wainscoting, and beams – went to Portugal.61 On 4 January 1610, the Amsterdam tradesman Volcker Overlander signed a contract with Captain Jacob Janes on behalf of Manuel Ximenes from Antwerp to ship 100 deals and 100 pieces of wainscoting to Setúbal in Portugal.�62 On 7 July, Overlander and Willem Hooft signed a contract to ship, among other things, “een hondert ende een quartier wagenschot” for Setubal.63 In 1616, tradesman Hillebrant den Otter from Amsterdam commissioned captain Dirck Jansen to transport “een 100 wagenschot, 2, 3, oft 4 met een partije claphout” to Setúbal.�64 Naturally, much of this wood originally came from elsewhere, which necessitates a closer look at the wood trade of Norway, Brandenburg, Gdan´sk, and the Baltic regions.65 Each area shall be analysed according to when the wood trade with the Republic reached its summit, and whether and how this trade can be linked to regional architectural influences. Norway In the 1440s, the trade between Dutch cities and Bergen in Norway, part of the Danish reign since 1380, was opened.66 Although wood was purchased in Christiansand and Trondheim, it could have originated in Central Sweden.67 The first dendrochronological dating in Amsterdam showed that the Swedish provinces of Dalarna and Jämtland were important to the import of construction wood, although these dates do not go further back than the end of the sixteenth century. The products that were bought included pine and fir deals, beams, and masts.68 The quantity of wood on the Dutch market originating from this region increased around 1580.69 Numerous sawmills were active in Norway at the beginning of the sixteenth century.70 In 1519, farmers from the Neset area paid their taxes with textiles from Deventer.71 From the sixteenth century until 1717, when direct trade with Norwegian farmers was forbidden by royal decree, the Norwegian wood trade played a major role in the wood supply in Holland and Scotland.72 Captains sailed by Stavanger and dealt directly with these local farmers and wood traders. After 1635, trade in Ryfylke controlled by the Scottish and the Dutch disappeared.73 However, larger and more important wood areas existed in Agder, Telemark, and further to the east. Here, the ‘wood nobility’ (Planke adelen) consisted of rich traders with international contacts, unlike the farmers from Ryfylke. Further inland, rivers were suited   Archive Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Amsterdam, letter by W. Aerts to H.J. Zantkuijl, 19 August 1979, with copies of the accounts; GelmelRekening, 4, Sept.–Dec. 1525, fol. 27 v: “Betaelt bijden drossaert voer de vrecht van eenen hondert wagescot gecomen van Amstelredamme tot inde logie iiii£ i st Ende noch voer de oncosten vanden anderen iic wagescots gesonden bijden Rentmeester van Noortholland XXXVII st.”. See also Mertens 2006. 60   Ketner 1946, 179–180; Meischke 1994, 48. 61   Meischke 1994, 48. 62   Winkelman 1983, 90, no. 1118. 63   Winkelman 1983, 108, no. 1148. 59

  Winkelman 1983, 456–457, no. 1741.   Schillemans 1947, chapter IV. 66  Tossavainen 1994, 30; Bruijn 1999, 63; ­ WubsMrozewicz 2008, 66. 67   Buis 1985, 509; Wubs-Mrozewicz 2008, 208. 68   Buis 1985, 510. 69  Buis 1985, 509; Sogner 2004, 45; Lesger 1992; Willemsen 1988. 70   Langhelle 1999, 25. 71  Ibidem. 72   Lillehammer 1999, 7. 73  Ibidem. 64 65

203

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

for rafting wood.74 In the sixteenth century, wood from the west of Sweden, pine as well as oak, was applied in Amsterdam. The Dutch import from Norway increased in the 1620s and 1630s due to the diminishing trade with Gdan´sk. In 1628, the Danish king permitted the export of oak wood to the Dutch Republic. The number of sawmills was enormous (fig. 12).75 Following reduced trade in the Ryfylke area, problems developed in 1640 prompting Denmark to halt the export of wood from Norway to Holland and leading to a war in 1645 between Denmark and the Republic.76 Over the course of the seventeenth century, the Norwegian trade shifted to the east as the south and west became deforested, which Stavanger led to increased transport by inland rivers.77 In 1647, the States General contracted a Danish-Norwegian envoy and arranged 10 km for Dutch ships in Norway to pay toll on the volume rather than the quality of the 12. Sawmills north of Stavanger (Norway), goods.78 Three hundred and eighty-seven between circa 1600 and 1630 (drawing by the ships of more than 50 last (a last equalled author, after Lillehammer 1999). approximately 1250 kilograms) transported Norwegian wood and were registered in the Dutch Republic. In 1647 and 1648, these ships transported at least 47,000, but possibly 60,000 to 70,000 last of Norwegian wood.79 Although the captains often lived elsewhere, 58 percent of the ships hailed from Amsterdam.80 Romsdal and Nordmöre, regions north of Bergen, served as loading ports, as did Tröndelag close to Trontheim, Swinesund, and Idefjord.81 In 1671, the Danish king granted Hendrick Ruse, the Dutch fortress builder, entrepreneur, and former municipal engineer of Amsterdam (see chapter 5.1), the trade in Norwegian masts for six years. The wood Ruse bought was exported to Amsterdam.82 Amsterdam tradesmen Jan and Heinrich Decquer held a monopoly on the trade; by September 1671, they had imported 10,000 to 12,000 masts.83 However, the Danish king attempted to reserve the best forest products for his own fleet. Thus, wood trade with the Republic was problematic in the second half of the seventeenth century.84 Brandenburg After the castle of Amerongen burned down in 1673, Godard Adriaan van Reede, the lord of Amerongen, wrote a letter to Michiel Matthijszoon Smids, the Dutch building entrepreneur and wood trader in Berlin, requesting wood (see chapter 3.7). Van Reede worked in Berlin as a diplomat and probably knew Smids personally, just as he knew the Great Elector.85   Lillehammer 1999, 11 and 19.   Newland 2007, 41. 76   Tossavainen 1994, 78. 77   Sogner 1996, 187–188; Sogner 2004, 45. 78   Schreiner 1934, 303, 326–327. 79   Schreiner 1934, 307; Bruijn 1999, 64.

  Lesger 1992.   Schreiner 1934, 324. 82   Römelingh 1973, 568. 83   Hart 1976, 85. 84   Hart 1976, 85; Schreiner 1934, 305. 85   van der Bijl & Quarles van Ufford 1991, 102.

74

80

75

81

204

Amsterdam

and the International

Trade

in

Stone, Brick

and

Wood

After mediation by Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen, the elector decided to give Van Reede the wood.86 Benjamin Raule, another wood trader of Dutch origin in Brandenburg, supplied deals of pine wood for Amerongen.87 This wood came from Königsberg, and the deals were selected especially for Van Reede to realise a spectacular floor in the great hall of Amerongen. Raule and Smids were active wood tradesmen who played an important role in introducing and realising buildings with Dutch architectural influences in Brandenburg during the second half of the seventeenth century. The wood trade between Holland and Brandenburg reflected the elector’s efforts in 1648 to restore his territory after the Thirty Years’ War (fig. 13). People like Michiel Matthijszoon Smids, Benjamin Raule, and Cornelis Ryckwaert were deeply involved in the organisation of the wood trade as well as their own building projects.88 In 1662, Michiel Smids rented two sawmills in Fürstenwalde and built new mills in Berlin.89 In 1668, he renewed an old sawmill on the Berlin Mühlendamm, where in the middle of the River Spree a number of watermills with different functions were situated. Shortly after the Oder-Spree canal opened, he built a bridge 250 meters long, in the vicinity of Köpenick, east of Berlin. Smids was paid in wood, which he used to build ships that were eventually sold in Hamburg.90 Smids’s masterpiece of mill building was a wind sawmill in the Stralauer Vorstadt east of Berlin, built in 1685 and 1686. On 16 December 1685, the elector ordered Benjamin Raule to oversee the building of a mill, which could increase the production of ships. The innovative sawing installation was imported from the Republic (fig. 14). Michiel Smids built the mill next to the Rosenfelde estate of Benjamin Raule. The new mill was much more effective than the traditional Brandenburg mills.91 A shipbuilding company was founded with electoral finances, and in 1676 Benjamin Raule established shipbuilding wharfs, first in Kolberg, then later in Havelberg, Berlin, and Pillau.92 Forests were replanted as wood was supplied from the inner regions of the country.93 The ships built on the Berlin wharf were sold to tradesmen in Hamburg. In Berlin, an oak tree cost only one and a half to two Thaler. In Hamburg, the cost was tenfold, and twentyfold in Holland.94 Gdan´ sk and the Baltic States From the middle of the thirteenth century, trade between the Low Countries and the cities along the Baltic coast developed, prompting cities such as Stralsund and Greifswald to export wood to the west.95 From 1360 onwards, merchants from Amsterdam were active on the Baltic Sea coast, where tradesmen from that region went to Amsterdam.96 The oak from the Polish inland of Gdan´sk became a ­regular product on the Dutch wood market. Wood also came from further away, probably fed by the increasing grain trade. Prussia (a source of oak, beech, and pine), the duchy of Mazovia (in central Poland), and Lithuania became important regions supplying wood (see the map of fig. 2). This wood was transported by river to the harbour towns.97

 Mulder 1949; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 29; Meischke & Ottenheym 2011. 87   Viersen 2008, 118–119. 88   In 1678 Cornelis Ryckwaert got permission to trade in wood with the privilege of toll exemption like Michiel Smids. Galland 1911, 231–232. 89   Herzberg & Rieseberg 1987, 136. 90   Galland 1893, 192. 86

  Herzberg & Rieseberg 1987, 137; Mager 1987.   Jorberg 1965; Jorberg 1968; Voigt 1938, 45. 93   Jorberg 1965, 4. 94   Müller 1938. 95   van Dillen 1914, 68. 96   van Tielhof 1995, 86–121. 97   Tossavainen 1994, 13; Winkelman 1971. 91 92

205

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

13. The Low Countries, Northern Germany and part of Poland (drawing by author).

Until the middle of the fifteenth century Gdan´sk profited even more from the steadily increasing demand for wood in Western Europe. However, a shift occurred in the second half of the fifteenth century and the amount of wood exported from Gdan´sk decreased.98 The wood trade in the region was by then almost entirely controlled by tradesmen from Gdan´sk, but the role played by Netherlandish traders grew rapidly in the second half of the fifteenth century.99� These traders bought wood in Königsberg (Kaliningrad), Memel (Klaipeda), Riga, Pernau (Pärnu), Reval (Tallinn), and Dorpat (Tartu).100 By opening their own trade posts, tradesmen from the Low Countries bought wood directly from local nobility and large landowners, and sailed around, thus circumventing, the staple market of Gdan´sk. Traces of these products in Amsterdam have been found in buildings dating only from the late sixteenth century onwards. By then, the Dutch had taken over large parts of the trade, especially in grain and wood, in the Baltic Sea region. Conflicts with Lübeck occasionally led to the closure of the Sound for Dutch ships, but a treaty in 1532 and the Peace of Speyer in 1544 put an end to this difficulty.101 For the remainder of the sixteenth century, the Dutch trade in the Baltic was threatened incidentally only by wars, bad harvests, and internal political problems.102 Pine wood from the Baltic was imported, in addition to enormous quantities of wainscoting. The various wood products included klap boards, wainscoting, deals, planks, staves, sticks, masts, and ready-made products.103 Until 1585, Gdan´sk exported more wainscoting   Tossavainen 1994, 29; Waz˙    ny 1990.   Tossavainen 1994, 29. 100   Tossavainen 1994, 30.

  Tossavainen 1994, 32.   Lesger & Wijnroks 2005, 19–20. 103   Tossavainen 1994, 16 and 48.

98

101

99

102

206

Amsterdam

and the International

Trade

in

Stone, Brick

and

Wood

and boards than any other harbour, and was followed by Königsberg, which was strongly developing its wood exporting role. However, after the start of the Eighty Years’ War, the trade in wainscot decreased in favour of the trade in boards.104 In the 1580s, the northern part of the newly created duchy of Kurland (the region south and west of Riga), a Polish fief from 1561 onwards, outstripped Königsberg in the wainscot trade. Wainscot could also be purchased in Lübeck and Stralsund.105 After the fall of Antwerp in 1585, the number of Dutch ships in the Sound increased remark14. Berlin, sawmill in the Stralauer Vorstadt, 1685 ably.106 As before, Gdan´sk, Königsberg, and (from: Herzberg & Rieseberg 1987). Kurland remained the main suppliers. The conspicuous newcomer was the export of deals and planks from Sweden. However, these products formed only a minor part of the entire wood export. Travels to the East Indies and changing trade policies in the East Sea area precipitated an increased need for wood for shipbuilding at the end of the sixteenth century. The demand for wainscot increased as well, even as forests began to thin in the exporting regions.107 In the first decade of the seventeenth century, Riga started to overtake the trade in wainscot. As the heavier wood products became scarce in the southern part of the Baltic, Finland and Sweden slowly began trading these products.108 The Baltic Sea trade also experienced the negative effects of the Thirty Years’ War. However, during the Twelve Years’ Truce Dutch trade increased again.109 The enormous ship building activities in Holland increased the demand for wainscot.110 Sweden, at war with Denmark, nonetheless managed to increase its wood export. Between 1610 and 1621, Sweden exported no less than 250,000 deals and planks.111 In the second half of the 1620s, the number of Dutch ships that passed through the Sound halved because of the war between Sweden and the Habsburg empire. Consequently, from 1622 until 1648, the export of wood from Gdan´sk was strongly reduced.112 Blockades, badly managed forests, and the increasing demand of growing inland Polish cities led to a dramatic setback in the supply of oak to Gdan´sk.113� The role of Dutch wood traders in the Baltic Sea trade diminished in the seventeenth century.114 Wainscot was still bought in Kurland, Riga, and Königsberg, while Sweden became more important in the export of deals, a development that had begun earlier. Additionally, as the harbour of Göteborg became the most important exporting harbour for wood, Dutch ships and traders were no longer dependent on passing through the Sound, a change in route that saved time and taxes. Most of the wood transported through the Sound between 1622   Tossavainen 1994, 50.  Waz˙    ny 2005, 116. 106  In 1586 2 million, in 1587 4 million, in 1589 and 1590 5 million and in 1595 even more than 6 million. Tossavainen 1994, 60. 107  Which can be deduced from the, perhaps incidental, planting of an industrial forest. PoklewskiKoziełł & Waz˙    ny 2006. 104 105

  Tossavainen 1994, 66; Lindblad 1990.   For a survey of Dutch traders in Gdan´sk: Bogucka 1990. 110   Tossavainen 1994, 70–71. 111   Tossavainen 1994, 72. 112   On Polish forest history: Waz˙    ny 1990, 68–69. 113   Tossavainen 1994, 77–78. 114   van Tielhof 1999. 108 109

207

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

and 1648 came from Sweden. Königsberg came second, with approximately 65 percent of the Swedish export, followed by Lübeck, which partly sold Swedish wood. Riga also remained an important centre for wood export.115 Conclusion In the history of building materials trade in the Dutch Republic, two different tendencies can be discerned: on the one hand, the export of high quality, luxury stone and brick, and on the other the bulk import of wood. The export of stone and brick was associated with the diffusion of architectural ideas and models. Stone was often cut in Antwerp or Amsterdam and exported from various ateliers elsewhere. Bricks were used for outer walls of buildings, due to their high quality. The wood trade was less unambiguous. The nature of the network of traders and building commissioners decided whether a Netherlandish influence could be discerned or not. The three geographical areas analysed in this chapter – Norway, Brandenburg, and the Baltic area – each had their own histories concerning the reception of architecture from the Low Countries. In Norway, this influence was nearly nonexistent because the Dutch were hardly present on a structural basis. They seem “to have stayed the necessary time to achieve what they had come for, and then returned home”.116 The Norwegian wood trade was mainly in the hands of local farmers, and thus without a strong, internationally oriented cultural network. Apart from some sixteenth-century examples, Dutch influences in Brandenburg were concentrated between 1648 and 1688. The presence of Dutch traders in Brandenburg was due to the restoration politics of the Great Elector Friedrich Wilhelm. He attracted traders and master builders who introduced Dutch architecture, and granted them the wood trade for export to Holland. In the Baltic area, more gradual influences were visible from the sixteenth to the end of the seventeenth century, with Gdan´sk as a main receptor in the second half of the sixteenth century, and later influences in northern towns such as Königsberg, Riga, Tallinn, and the surrounding countryside. Until the middle of the sixteenth century, the trade between Gdan´sk and the Low Countries was controlled mainly by merchants from Gdan´sk. Afterwards, Amsterdam traders began settling in Gdan´sk. After 1585, Amsterdam and the Dutch Republic took the lead in the Baltic Sea trade. Unlike Norway, a permanent Netherlandish presence was established in Gdan´sk. The interaction between Gdan´sk and the Low Countries in the second half of the sixteenth century left its traces in Gdan´sk streets and in Amsterdam interiors both.117 The shift along the Baltic coast took place in the second half of the seventeenth century, when Riga became an important harbour for the Baltic trade, and where Dutch traders, who built partly in a ‘Dutch’ way, settled down.118

  Tossavainen 1994, 79.   Sogner 2004, 43.

  Among others: Kucharski 1990; Glaudemans 2007.   Noldus 2004, 159, 204.

115

117

116

118

208

Part Three Influential Models

1. Rosenborg (Denmark), from 1606, by Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger and others.

Introduction The previous part addressed the various connections of foreign patrons to the Low Countries along with the patrons’ ability to recruit Netherlandish architects and sculptors for prestigious commissions or to engage those who were roving around. Yet the variety of ­mechanisms for diffusing Netherlandish architectural inventions abroad was even larger. Foreign patrons were able to build according to certain models from the Low Countries without the direct involvement of any Dutch or Flemish architect. Some noblemen and members of the civic elite sent their own architects to the Low Countries to study architecture, fortifications, and engineering. Additionally, Netherlandish architectural books and ornamental prints, the mass media of the period, were spread across Europe by travelling architects and patrons, and by the international book trade. The choice to follow Netherlandish examples as seen in the Low Countries or in books was motivated by the reflected prestige of a particular court or urban culture. These choices even crossed religious and political boundaries (see fig. 1). The models from the Low Countries reused in new circles abroad varied from building types with complex spatial sequences, such as the Burgundian-Habsburg residence and its state apartments, to the use of prints for specific architectural parts and ornamentation. Both the larger scale of Netherlandish building modes, characteristic elements and materials, and the smaller one of micro-architecture and ornament were broadly assimilated into European architecture, from Spain to Scandinavia and the Baltic region. Although the same sources may be detected in various regions, significant differences nevertheless persisted in the way they were transformed and adapted to specific wishes and demands.

211

1. Lviv (Ukraine), St Andrew’s church, 1602–1630, by Paolo Dominicini (lower part) and Andrzej Bemer (upper part).

Chapter 3.1 Foreign Architects in the Low Countries and the Use of Prints and Books Konrad Ottenheym (Utrecht University)

Foreign architects visiting the Low Countries In the middle of the sixteenth century, professional visits of foreign architects and engineers to the Low Countries were documented for the first time: At a time when numerous building masters and artists emigrated from the region, a reverse movement also slowly gained momentum. Friedrich Nussdörfer was the first known foreign architect who studied architecture in the Low Countries. In 1530, he worked on the reconstruction and enlargement of the ducal residence in Königsberg.1 In 1533, Duke Albrecht of Prussia sent him to the Low Countries to study architecture.2 Unfortunately, further details of his travels and the exact nature of his later work in Königsberg remain unknown, as are his activities after he left the Prussian court for Gdan´sk and Stettin/Szczecin in 1535. Presumably, his patron the duke retained special interest in residential architecture and specifically in the new idea to apply all’antica elements, since Count Hendrik of Nassau sent him a drawing of his new residence at Breda (started in 1536).3 In 1543, the duke acquired Jacques Du Broeucq’s design for Charles V’s residence in the citadel of Ghent, which apparently had attracted the duke’s architectural curiosity as well.4 In 1549, Du Broeucq’s palaces in Boussu (begun in 1539), Mariemont (begun in 1546), and Binche (begun in 1547) attracted the attention of the heir to the Spanish throne, the future King Philip II when he visited Hainaut with his father, Emperor Charles V. Later, in 1556 Philip II sent his architect Gaspar de Vega from Spain to the Southern Low Countries to study these buildings in order to use them as sources of inspiration for the new royal residences of Valsaín, Aranjuez and El Pardo (see chapter 3.2 by Krista De Jonge). In the second half of the sixteenth century, military engineers visited the Low Countries to witness the sieges and to obtain information about the experiments in fortification systems. However, this was not a good time for foreign architects to study residences, churches, and civic architecture. Further information about foreign architects visiting the Low Countries mostly dates from the seventeenth century. The city of Gdan´sk, which welcomed numerous Netherlandish architects and building masters in the decades before, sent its own local masters to Holland. For example, in 1607, Johann Lossius was nominated to become Stadtbaumeister, the superior of the municipal building team, of Gdan´sk the following year. He received a travel grant from the city council to study architecture in Italy and Holland in order to prepare for his new responsibility. His letters of recommendation attested to various authorities about these matters.5 Likewise, Hans Strakowski (c. 1567–1642) was nominated Gdan´sk’s master mason in 1594.6 In the first decades of the seventeenth century, he contributed to the construction of many new buildings, including fortifications and the Great Arsenal. Two city gates in the new fortifications built in 1626, the Legetor and the Langgartentor, were wrought   Wagner 2008, 99-105.   Roggen & Withof 1942, 102. 3   Ehrenberg 1899, 9-10; Wagner 2008, 103-104. 4   Roggen & Withof 1942, 102. 1 2

 “... umb allerley in der Architectur zu erkundigen, mit recommendation Briefen an hohe Perschonen”. Bartetzky 2000, 158. 6   Cuny 1910b, 50-57; Bartetzky 2000, 96-98; Skibin´ski 2012b. 5

213

Konrad Ottenheym according to his own design, evidently inspired by Vredeman de Vries’s prints of the Tuscan order with rustication (fig. 2). Exactly when Strakowski made his study trip to the Low Countries is unclear, but he surely visited there. In 1635, he retired and, in order to obtain an annual pension, he addressed a request to the city that enumer­ ated his c­onsiderable contributions to the city works in the past decades. Among oth­ ers, he said that he had been sent various times to Germany, Holland, and elsewhere.7 Strakowski claimed that he had learned the art of architecture and fortification in Holland, “the best source for all knowledge”.8 In the mid-seventeenth century, 2. Gdan´sk, the Low Gate (Legetor/Brama Nizinna), 1626, by architects with many different backgrounds ­ Hans Strakowski. visited Holland for long and short stays. Some architects were sent abroad by their patrons who could be both ruling princes and civic authorities. The Great Elector of Brandenburg especially highly rewarded Dutch architecture and engineering. He invited various specialists from the Dutch Republic, but his first architect, Johann Georg Memhardt (1607–1678), was of Austrian origin.9 In 1622, as a fifteen-year-old boy, Memhardt had immigrated to Holland with his family. He stayed for ­sixteen years to be educated as a military engineer and architect. In 1638, he entered the service of the elector of Brandenburg as a fortification engineer. Between 1641 and 1643, the elector sent him back to Holland several times to purchase mathematical instruments. His architectural work began in 1650 with the rebuilding of the residence in Berlin and its garden.10 From the 1650s onwards, he was engaged in all major residential building projects in Berlin and its surroundings (see chapter 3.7). Several young architects travelled to the Low Countries, often as part of a grand tour of important European centres of architecture. Nicodemus Tessin the Elder (1615–1681) hailed from Stralsund in Northern Germany, which belonged to the Swedish empire at that time. In 1636, he entered the Swedish fortification corps and began his a career as an engineer and royal building master. Apparently, his superiors noticed his talent for architectural design and sent him on a study trip to become an architect. By 1647, he had already been in Leiden for a short time as a student of mathematics.11 Later, between 1651 and 1653, he travelled from Sweden to Rome to study architecture, and on his way back, he went to Paris followed by a three-month stay in Holland.12 Once settled in Stockholm, he became one of the leading architects of his age, designing country houses for the court and nobility, in addition to churches and public buildings. Exactly what he saw in the Dutch Republic remains unknown, but a letter from Rome to his benefactor, Chancellor Oxenstierna, from 1652, revealed his architectural interests.13 Tessin explained that the quality of residential architecture in Rome was rather disappointing. Even the best-known buildings had only a few i­nteresting details which could justify their fame, while the   Cuny 1910b, 56.   “Holland ist die Quelle aller Erkenntnis”. Cuny 1910b, 53. 9   Heckmann 1998, 58–66. 10   Wendland 1979, 30; Dohme 1876. 11  ‘Nicodemus Tessin from Stralsund’ is enlisted in the Leiden university register of 1647 as a student in mathematics. Noldus 2004, 44.

  Neville 2009, 44–60.   Letter of 5 February 1652, Riksarchiv Stockholm E 739 Axel Oxenstiernas brevväxel. Published at full length in Neville 2007, 241–242 (Appendix 3), and discussed there on 48–49 and 175–177.

7

12

8

13

214

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

common houses were far too modest to be inspiring: “The palaces are mostly very large and richly built, decorated with many statues and paintings, but on the other hand the minor or burger houses are far poorer than I have found in any other place”.14 In short, he missed a category of houses that constituted an important part of the architect’s practice at home: the ‘mediocre’ residences for well-todo merchants and the lower nobility. He concluded that these modern buildings in Rome could not be used as models for the North because of the great differences in building materials and climate: “So also [are] the mate3. Tallinn (Estonia), Axel von Rose’s house, d ­ esigned in 1674 rial and the type of land all splendidly good by Jacob Stäel von Holstein (photograph Swedish Embassy and suitable, so that it is impossible to build in Estonia). in such a way on other places, and especially to the North. This entire winter I have seen no snow in Rome and thus fountains run both winter and summer”.15 Tessin’s observation highlighted the essence of the Netherlandish contribution to architecture in Northern Europe. The Netherlandish examples demonstrated how the classical ideals, according to the rules of Vitruvius and the models of his Italian interpreters like Palladio and Scamozzi, could be used under northern circumstances – namely, how Classicism could be adapted to the northern climate, its available building materials, and the specific building types that the Italian examples did not offer, such as Protestant churches, houses for the middle class, and public buildings. Jacob Staël von Holstein (1628–1679) had comparable motives to stay in Holland. He was born in Pärnu (or Pernau, in Estonia, then part of the Swedish empire) as son of Burgomaster Matthias Stahl.16 Between 1649 and 1652, he travelled to Germany, Holland, and Italy. When he returned in 1652, he entered the Swedish army and was ennobled as Staël von Holstein. He designed fortifications with Eric Dahlberg and became the Swedish artillery commander in Estonia and Livonia responsible for all fortification works there. He was also active as a private architect designing manor houses and city residences (fig. 3). The inventory of his architectural library revealed many Netherlandish publications, such as those by Vredeman de Vries, Hendrick de Keyser, Peter Paul Rubens, Philips Vingboons, Nicolaus Goldmann, as well as Dutch translations of Serlio and Scamozzi.17 Lambert van Haven (1630–1695) was another European voyager of the same period. He was of Dutch-Norwegian origin, born the son of the painter Salomon van Haven in Bergen (Norway), which was then still a province of Denmark. Between 1653 and 1670, he travelled throughout Italy, France, and Holland to study painting and architecture. In 1671, back in  Ibidem. “Ob nuhn woll ich vnterschiedene feine gebeuw gesehen, scheinet es doch dass von manchem offt ein mehres gemacht wirdt alss es an Ihme selber ist, den man nuhr hie vndt da etwan ein wolgemacht Stück in irgendt einem Pallatzio findet, von dem dass gantze gebeuw den ruhm bekompt, Sonsten seindt die Pallazzia alhier meistentheils sehr gross vndt Kostbahr erbauwet, gezieret mit vielen Statuen vndt gemälten, dergegen aber die geringeren oder burger heüser, auch so schlecht, alss ich die an keinem orthe gefunden”.

14

 Ibidem. “...wie auch ist die material vndt des landes Ahrt alhier treflich gudt vndt bequem, also dass es vnmöglich, an andern örtern, so weiter gegen Norden, also zu bauwen, den ich diesen gantzen winter in Rohm keinen Schne gesehen, darzu laufen die Fontanen beÿdes winter vndt Sommer, deren dan alhir trefflich viel verhanden (…)”. 16   Hein 1999. 17   Hein 1999, 105–108. 15

215

Konrad Ottenheym Denmark, he was appointed ‘general building master’ to King Christian V. Like his contemporaries, he knew how to use the various architectural styles of the day – the more lavish French interior decorations for royal state rooms, like the Audience Room in Frederiksborg, and the rather strict classical use of the orders in a brick structure like the Vor Frelsers Church in Copenhagen, a church on a Greek cross ground plan based on Dutch models (which will be discussed in chapter 3.8). English architects and building masters staying in the Low Countries were known from the early seventeenth century onwards when Nicholas Stone from London became 4. Eltham Lodge (Kent, UK), 1664, by Hugh May (photograph a journeyman in De Keyser’s workshop (see collection Utrecht University). chapter 2.3). Especially in the 1650s, during Cromwell’s Commonwealth, several British architects moved to the continent with their royalist patrons. During their nomadic life in exile, architects such as Hugh May, who stayed in Holland in the duke of Buckingham’s suite, and William Bruce, who lived in Rotterdam as a merchant, remained in the Dutch Republic for some time. Roger Pratt also probably passed through the Low Countries during his long journey surveying Europe’s architectural masterpieces. Examples of designs inspired by Dutch inventions appeared in English architecture during the first decades after the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Hugh May’s Eltham Lodge (1664, fig. 4) and Cornbury Park (1666), and Roger Pratt’s Clarendon House (1664) were especially well-known.18 Repeatedly, Robert Hooke used inventions and details from Dutch printed sources.19 Nevertheless, Hooke never left Britain; he took his information from printed sources and eyewitness accounts of English craftsmen who travelled abroad. For example, in 1674, master mason Abraham Story informed him about the latest buildings projects in Amsterdam.20 William Bruce (c. 1625/1630–1710), from Scotland, had been settled in Holland for some years by the late 1650s, living as a merchant and capitalist entrepreneur in Rotterdam.21 Bruce and his cousin, Alexander Bruce, were intent upon improving the latter’s industrial operations at Culross, Scotland – namely the extraction of coal and the evaporation of salt. Their search for new markets on the Continent formed the principal reason for their presence in Holland in 1657 and 1658. Dutch-Scottish connections became even stronger after Alexander Bruce’s marriage in 1659 to Veronica van Aerssen, daughter of Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck, an important diplomat of the Dutch government with close ties to the court of the Prince of Orange and the prince’s secretary, Constantijn Huygens. The Bruce cousins were also in contact with another important Scottish exile, Sir Robert Moray, who between 1657 and 1660 lived in Maastricht, the southernmost frontier city of the Dutch Republic.22 In 1658, preparations began for the construction of a new town   Worsley 1995, 21–36.   Stoesser Johnston 2000 and 2003. 20   Abraham Story contributed at least to two London City churches supervised by Wren and Hooke: Edmund the King (1670–1679) and St Peter upon Cornhill (1677–1687). Robinson & Adams 1968, 111; Louw 2009, 90. 18 19

216

 Exh. cat. Edinburgh 1970; MacKechnie 2002; Wemyss 2005. 22  Moray’s cousin was married to Frederik Magnus Rijngraaf van Salm, the military governor of Maastricht and a good friend of Constantijn Huygens. Robertson 1922. 21

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

hall in Maastricht designed by Pieter Post, the court architect. His plan was accepted by the city council on 3 January 1659, and two months later, on 10 March 1659, Moray’s advice was sought concerning where exactly on the central square the future town hall should be situated.23 Most grateful for his help, the city council of Maastricht elected him a freeman of the city that same day. Because all citizens had to belong to a guild, Moray was also made honorary member of the Maastricht stonemason’s guild. When the first stone of the town hall was laid in May 1659, Pieter Post came to Maastricht and must have met Moray at that time. William Bruce must have also had firsthand information about the town hall when he and his cousin Alexander visited Moray in Maastricht that same year.24 Following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, both William and Alexander Bruce returned to Scotland. Sir Robert Moray took up residence at the court in Whitehall where he became central to the political ambitions of the duke of Lauderdale who virtually ruled Scotland for Charles II from 1664 onwards. Moray became the first president of the Royal Society. As such, he met Wren and Hooke on a regular basis, presumably willing to share his information about Dutch architecture with the latter. William Bruce became one of Scotland’s principal tax collectors in 1671. He was also appointed ‘surveyor general and overseer of the King’s buildings in Scotland’, which launched his career as an architect. Bruce’s experience of Dutch classical architecture can be recognised in some of his works, such as Holyrood and Hopetoun House (see chapter 3.8). Destinations While there is enough evidence to show that many foreign architects visited the Low Countries, where they actually went, with whom they studied, and exactly what information they brought home has not always been clear. In the sixteenth century, the main destinations were the great cities and Habsburg residences in the Southern Low Countries, as the previously mentioned case of De la Vega showed. In the seventeenth century, the southern cities of Antwerp and Brussels were still relevant, but now more time was spent in the cities in the Dutch Republic and at the residences of the prince of Orange. Diaries of grand tour style travelling architects offer detailed insight into the places they visited, but these all date from the second part of the seventeenth century. In this period, Amsterdam was the most prominent destination and the new town hall was the greatest attraction within the city. Most diaries give rather brief reports, but some show a careful study of the building. For example, according to his sketches and notes, Wolf Caspar von Klengel (1630–1691), a military officer and architect from Dresden who visited the town hall in 1659, was fascinated by the heating system and its chimneypieces.25 Other buildings in Amsterdam commonly mentioned, or even briefly described, included the private houses along the canals, especially the Trippenhuis, as well as the monumental social institutions designed as sober and astylar variations of the town hall.26 In The Hague, the Mauritshuis was the most visited architectural site, followed by the Noordeinde Palace.27 Outside The Hague, the Prince of Orange’s palaces Huis Ten Bosch, Ter Nieuburg at Rijswijck, and Honselaarsdijk were the most visited sites. The diaries of Nicodemus Tessin the Younger and Christoph Pitzler offer the most comprehensive information about architectural tours through the Low Countries.

 Maastricht City Archive, Oud Archief 66, fols. 600–601. Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 177. 24   Wemyss 2005, 14–31. 25  230 Sketches by von Klengel are preserved in Stuttgart at the Württembergische Landesbibliothek 23

(Plansammlung). Passavant 2001; Vlaardingerbroek 2011, 55–57. 26   Ottenheym 2005. 27   Noldus 2004, 121, 133–152.

217

Konrad Ottenheym In 1685, the German architect Christoph Pitzler (1657–1707) visited the Low Countries as part of his three-year journey through Europe. He enriched his written texts with sketches of the buildings he visited, creating a highly valuable sourcebook.28 He departed from Saxony, travelling first to the Rhine valley, then to Holland, Brussels, Paris, Southern France, Genoa, Florence, Rome, and Naples. From there, he turned back north via Bologna and Venice to Munich and Vienna, Prague and, finally, back home to Dresden. Entering the Dutch Republic from the Rhine valley, he first came to Nijmegen, then to Utrecht. From there, he travelled on the river Vecht by tow-boat to Amsterdam. In Amsterdam, he sketched private houses along the canals, the new Lutheran church, the town hall, the civic towers of Hendrick de Keyser, and drawbridges. He visited Apeldoorn to see Het Loo, the brand new summer palace of William III; in The Hague he saw the Nieuwe Kerk, and in its surroundings, the suburban country houses Huis ten Bosch, Sorgvliet, and Clingendaal, and the princely residence of Honselaarsdijk. He paid special attention to the octagonal Marekerk in Leiden, the tomb of William the Silent in Delft, and the Schielandhuis in Rotterdam. From Holland, he travelled southward to Antwerp where he carefully observed the Jesuit church. He visited the Jesuit church in Brussels too, as well as the great church of the Beguinage.29 Two years later, in 1687, Nicodemus Tessin the Younger visited the Dutch Republic during his architectural study trip through Europe in order to prepare his designs for the modernisation of the royal castle of Stockholm.30 Accordingly, he showed a special interest in residential architecture and made detailed notice of the palaces of the prince of Orange, such as Huis ten Bosch and Honselaarsdijk. Nevertheless, he also admired the architecture of the private houses of the civic elite in Holland, especially the Trippenhuis in Amsterdam, although that was not the aim of his journey. During his stay in Holland, he bought several publications and prints on architecture and gardens, like those of the Amsterdam town hall and Honselaarsdijk. Lessons and courses in architecture Some foreign architects who travelled to the Low Countries proudly reported that they studied architecture there. Naturally, such pronouncements could have included everything from viewing nice buildings and making sketches on their own, to taking drawing lessons from experienced masters, or even courses at university. During the winter months, when building activities were reduced or discontinued, master builders and architects in the Low Countries used to give drawing lessons at home to pupils and apprentices. Some seventeenthcentury Dutch treatises and models books directly developed from this teaching ­practice. Even Philips Vingboons earned additional income as a drawing teacher.31 Even if solid proof is scarce, some visiting architects may have participated in such lessons, as shown by the following example. A set of drawings, all copies of Dutch seventeenth-century buildings made by Danish architects, resides now in the Krigsarchiv of Copenhagen (figs. 5–6).32 These drawings date from around 1670 and show various copies after engraved Dutch models – including three from Philips Vingboons’s publication of 1648 and Pieter Post’s façade for

28   The original diary was destroyed in World War II. Photographs of parts of the diary are preserved in Berlin at Charlottenburg, Plankammer. Lorenz 1998. 29   Lorenz 1998, 10–26, 224. 30   Upmark 1900. 31   Gerritsen 2006, 254–257.

218

32   Copenhagen, Krigsarchivet, Kortsamlingen, Krigsministeriets Afl. No. 32 Blad nos. 5- 12, 27–27b. The author is most grateful to the late Hakon Lund who, in 1997, informed him about the existence of this collection.

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

5 and 6. Copies of Dutch seventeenth-century architectural designs, drawn by anonymous Danish architects: the façades of Pieter Post’s Swanenburg and an unknown house (Copenhagen, Krigsarchiv).

Swanenburg as published in 1654.33 The set also contains drawings of middle-class houses in Amsterdam that were never published; one is dated 1669 and the other 1659. These drawings could have been copied only at one of the private architectural drawing classes that were given by experienced building masters during the winter. The special semi-university course on applied mathematics, surveying, and fortification in Leiden, the Duytsche Mathematique, probably also attracted foreigners (for the content of this course, see chapter 4.1). Unfortunately for later historians, students were not obliged to be officially inscribed in the university registers to enrol in this college. Therefore, proving a specific student’s attendance has been difficult. However, several students combined this course with lessons in mathematics at the university proper. Lacking any other sources, one may presume that those architects or dilettanti listed as students in mathematics at Leiden presumably also followed lessons at the Duytsche Mathematique. Such students might have included the Great Elector, Jerzy Lubomirski, Nicodemus Tessin the Elder, and Friedrich Statius von Dahlen from Kurland, who became city engineer of Riga. While civil architecture was not taught in this course, Nicolaus Goldmann kept his private institute for military and civil architecture almost opposite the university building in Leiden (fig. 7).34 Goldmann (1611–1665) came from Silesia and went to Leiden in the 1630s to study mathematics. When he finished, he remained in town where from 1639 until his death in 1665  Drawings after Vingboons’s designs for country house Vredenburg, and two town houses as published in 1648 (engraving nos. 14, 19 and 34). Swanenburg 33

was the seat of the dike authority of Rijnland at Halfweg. 34   Goudeau 2005.

219

Konrad Ottenheym he earned his money as a private teacher in the theory of fortification and architecture; in his courses, he expounded on his fundamental principle that all science and art must be based on mathematical rules. During his life, he published various treatises on these matters, including the principles of fortification, a new invention for a compass that solved various mathematical problems, and a set of dividers with the basic proportions of the five orders. His most ambitious project, a book on the universal system of architecture, remained in manuscript form throughout his lifetime. The book was dedicated to the Great Elector of Brandenburg but when the manuscript arrived in Berlin in 1665, the author died, leaving the illustrations missing. More than three decades later, in 1696, Leonhard Christoph Sturm reconstructed the 7. Nicolaus Goldmann, villa design inspired by Scamozzi’s illustrations and published the work with models (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Libr. pict. fol. A71). the title Vollständige Anweisung zu der Civil Bau=Kunst.35 Although this book has since been generally regarded as a source for eighteenth-century German architecture, it had its origin in mid-seventeenth-century Holland. The text of the book was based on Goldmann’s lessons in Leiden. Even before its posthumous publication, the book’s contents were studied for decades by Goldmann’s pupils, who carefully made copies of it. Goldmann declared proudly that he attracted many important people who wanted to study architecture, the field to which he devoted most of his life. Accordingly, he concluded, for this reason, people preferred to visit Leiden rather than Italy.36 Although the exact number of students he taught is unknown, he likely taught an average of four annually, yielding at least one hundred students over a span of twenty-five years. Presumably, most of his students took his course in addition to their study at the Duytsche Mathematique. Only a few of his former pupils are known by name, but those can indeed be shown to have contributed to the dissemination of Goldmann’s architectural ideas elsewhere.37 Samuel Reyher (1635–1714) was one of the first known of Goldmann’s students (but certainly not Goldmann’s first student). He studied in Leiden in the early 1650s. In 1655, he became a professor in mathematics and law at the newly founded University of Kiel (which then belonged to Denmark). In Mathesis Mosaica (1679), Reyer based his reconstruct­ ion of the Temple of Solomon on Goldmann’s interpretation. The German scholar Johann Christoph Sturm (1609–1670) was a professor in philosophy and mathematics in Altorf (not far from Nuremberg) who followed Goldmann’s course in 1660. He was the father of Leonard Christoph Sturm (1669–1719) who became the editor of Goldman’s opus magnum and one of the l­eading architectural theorists of the first half of the eighteenth century in Northern Germany. Willem Worm (1633–1704) and Thomas Walgensten (c. 1627–1681) were Danish  Nicolaus Goldmann (ed. Leonhard Christoph Sturm), Vollständige Anweisung zu der Civil Bau=Kunst, Wolfenbüttel 1696 (Braunschweig 16992; Leipzig 17083). 36  “(…) quam addiscere multi hic mallent quam italiam ejus rei gratia adire” (Leiden University Library, 35

220

Documenta Actorum A.S.F. 291, fol. 7). Goudeau 2005, 47 and 567 note 39. 37  Goudeau 2005, 46–52. The following part is also based on this source.

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

students who later were involved in royal building projects. In 1657 and 1658, both stayed in Leiden to study with Goldmann. Back home, Worm became a professor in physics and medicine as well as royal librarian. In this position, he supervised the construction of the new royal library in Copenhagen, designed by Albert Mathiesen, in the late 1660s. When Mathiesen died in 1668, Worm chose his old friend Walgensten to complete the building and to design its interiors. By then, Walgensten worked as a physician and judge in Copenhagen. After he completed the library, he remained active as an architect and became the city’s building master. The library room was a spectacular space – eighty metres long, six metres high, and featuring two rows of Corinthian columns supporting the galleries. The general layout of this room followed the Bibliothèque Mazarine in Paris but all details were designed according to Goldmann’s premises.38 Walgensten’s royal library no longer exists as such but part of the room was reconstructed in the National Museum of Copenhagen in 1992 (fig. 8).39 Whether other architects and theo8. Copenhagen, the Royal Library, designed by Albert rists attended Goldmann’s private school Mathiesen and Thomas Walgensten in the late 1660s, partly in Leiden cannot always be proven but cirreconstructed in the National Museum, Copenhagen. cumstantial evidence has made such speculation plausible at least. Between 1653 and 1656, the Swedish scholar Olof Rudbeck studied anatomy, botany as well as architecture and fortification at Leiden.40 However, such studies likely referred to courses at Goldman’s priv­ ate institute because a faculty of architecture did not exist at the university. Later, Rudbeck became a professor in anatomy at Uppsala, Sweden. He enlarged the university building, the Gustavianum, originally designed by Kaspar Panten with a central dome containing an anatomical theatre after the model of Leiden University. Even Nicodemus Tessin the Elder may have followed Goldmann’s lessons when he stayed in Leiden as a student in 1647.41 Tilman van Gameren, the Dutch painter-architect who became architect to the Polish Crown, may also have been a pupil of Goldmann. In an official Polish document from 1676, Van Gameren was praised as a military engineer who devoted his youth to military and geometrical sciences (togae literiae ac scientiae militaris et geometriae) and studied at various famous universities (in celebrerrimis Academiis).42 The first academy mentioned in this document was likely the mathematical college at Leiden where he had the opportunity to study civil architecture while joining Goldmann’s classes. There is evidence to suggest that Tilman van Gameren went to both Duytsche Mathematique and Goldmann in Leiden in the late 1640s. He was about   Goudeau 2005, 52.   Mejer Antonsen & Møller 1994. 40   Noldus 2004, 152. 38 39

 Noldus 2004, 151; Neville 2009, 43 questions this hypothesis. 42   Mossakowski 1994, 1. 41

221

Konrad Ottenheym

9a-b. Sanmiklaus (Romania), garden front and ground plan of the Bethlen villa, designed 1668 by Niclas Bethlen.

fifteen or sixteen years old at the time, which was the common age for entering university. He could have trained in military fortifications and engineering there. The rare extant drawings by him in this field indeed reveal his knowledge of the modern Dutch inventions relating to fortification and urban design as taught in Leiden. His library catalogue included Goldmann’s treatise on fortification published in 1643, and the two publications by Goldmann from 1656 and 1661 on mathematical instruments used to calculate the correct proportions of the orders. One of these texts was Goldmann’s private publication available only apud autorem, which strengthens the hypothesis that Van Gameren had connections with Goldmann. Also, his architecture revealed typical details inspired by Goldmann’s models.43 Not only future architects studied with Goldmann. His rather theoretical approach to architecture was even more attractive to theorists and patrons with a passion for architecture, such as Niclas Bethlen (1642–1716), chancellor of Transylvania in 1691–1704. Transylvania was at that time part of the Turkish empire but with a rather independent status and a mostly Lutheran and Calvinist population. Accordingly, many of the Calvinist Transylvanian noblemen visited the University of Leiden. According to his autobiography, Bethlen first went to Utrecht in 1662 where he took courses in military architecture taught by an old teacher called Wasner, who was apparently always drunk.44 From there, he moved to Leiden in 1663 to study with Goldmann who gave his lectures in architectura civilis and perspectiva in German.45 In his biography, Bethlen mentioned a book on proportio radiorum, apparently Goldmann’s Tractatus de usus proportionarii.46 He also claimed to have translated Adam Freitag’s Architectura militaris from German into Latin (or Hungarian).47 In 1668, back in Transylvania, he began building a country house according to his own designs in Sanmiklaus (Bethleszentmiklós/Niklasdorf), in today’s Romania (fig. 9a-b).48 The large, square, two-storey building featured a rear façade with a six-bay-wide recessed loggia with sturdy Doric columns on every floor. The arches between the columns rise from the column shafts, a capricious and rather unorthodox detail that certainly did not fit Goldmann’s theory. Nevertheless, the ground plan of the villa is quite simple. The square plan is divided   Exh. cat. Amsterdam 2002 and Warsaw 2003.   Bethlen 1955, vol. 1, 182. I am very grateful to Péter Farbaky, Budapest, who informed me about these publications. 45   Bethlen 1955, vol. 1, 187. In 1663 ‘Nicolaus a Betlem, Transylvanus’, 21 years old, was registered at Leiden University as politices studiosus (Album Studiosorum). 43 44

222

 Nicolaus Goldmann, Tractatus de usus proportionarii sive circini proportionalis, Leiden 1656. Goudeau 2005, 101–128. 47   Bethlen 1955, vol. 1, 183. 48  Nagy 1970, 158–168; Kovács 2003, 142–144. With many thanks to Cristina Purcar. 46

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

into nine minor squares with a staircase originally at its centre. This layout follows one of Goldmann’s first lessons on the mathematical division of the ground plan by a grid (fig. 10). He used this plan in his design for a small country house that was certainly not meant to be a serious proposal for a country house but just an easy first demonstration of his grid system. Presumably Bethlen used his notes from Goldmann’s lessons when he drew the ground plan of his new villa.  etherlandish architectural prints and N books Buildings in the Low Countries, closely observed by visiting architects, professionals, students, and dilettanti, served as models for new designs at home. But even those who lacked the opportunity to travel and view these examples in reality were able to follow the latest developments from Antwerp or Amsterdam pro10. Nicolaus Goldmann, design of a square villa vided they had access to the mass media of the period: (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Libr. pict. fol. A71). books and prints. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, these two cities were especially important publishing centres for architectural books and engravings with architectural inventions and ornament. The main examples among them are briefly presented here along with their role in the diffusion of Netherlandish architecture abroad, each accompanied by an appropriate example as pars pro toto. Sixteenth-century publications The publication of Serlio’s books translated into Flemish by Pieter Coecke van Aelst from 1539 onwards was crucial for the diffusion of knowledge of antique architecture and its basic principles in the Low Countries.49 Soon artists in Antwerp such as Cornelis Bos and Cornelis Floris began publishing their all’antica inventions as addenda to the schemes offered by Serlio-Coecke. Most of their printed inventions did not show architectural designs but rather ornaments to be used – among others – in all’antica architecture.50 In fact, only the publication of the Joyous Entry of Charles V and his son Philip into Antwerp in 1549 offered examples of new ‘antique’ buildings: the series of ephemeral triumphal gates – not quite a frequently needed type of structure.51 Thus, these prints merely offered a visualisation of ideal architecture, not solutions for daily tasks. On the other hand, Floris’s engravings of funeral monuments, published in 1557, were the first to illustrate micro-architecture that was part of common workshop practice (fig. 11). Funeral monuments were major commissions for most sculptors, necessitating not only the ability to invent statues, reliefs and ornament but also to create sophisticated antique architectural settings. Many artists in the Low Countries as well as abroad welcomed examples of the renowned Cornelis Floris workshop as sources of   De Jonge 1998e and 2007c.  Cornelis Floris’s most important print series in this respect are his antique vases from 1548, friezes with triumphal cars from 1552, cartouches with light grotesques 1554, masks 1555, strapwork 1556, and his 1557 series of funeral monuments and decorations. 49 50

  Cornelius Scribonius, Spectaculorum in Susceptione Philippi Hisp. Princ. Antverpiae aeditorum mirificus apparatus, Antwerp 1550. 51

223

Konrad Ottenheym

11. Design of an epitaph by Cornelis Floris, from his print series Veelderleij nieue invention van antijcksche sepultueren (…), Antwerp 1557 (from: Huysmans et al. 1996, 157).

12. Trier, portal of the pulpit in the cathedral, 1570– 1572, by Hans Ruprecht Hoffman.

inspiration, and many, especially in Western Germany, were seriously influenced by Floris’ formal vocabulary – so much so that the historiography often has suggested an apprenticeship or stay in Antwerp during a certain period. But to a certain extent, this phenomenon can also be explained by the use of prints. For example, from the 1570s onwards, the ­sculptor Hans Ruprecht Hoffman (1554–1616) headed up the most important workshop in Trier and the Mosel region for epitaphs, altars, and other micro-architectural objects.52 He was a member of the city council and, although he had no official appointment as such, he may be regarded as court artist to the archbishop of Trier. His pulpit in Trier Cathedral (1570–1572) was a splendid new composition of various Floris-like elements (fig. 12). As to their impact on the broader European scene, Cornelis Floris’s prints were soon surpassed by the series of engravings and books Hans Vredeman de Vries published between 1560 and 1606.53 Although his career as an architect was unremarkable and at times even halting, he was highly successful as an inventor and publisher of architectural and ornamental prints. Commercial results are unknown in the quantitative sense but qualitatively speaking his influence on the arts of his time was quite profound, and has since been well studied.54  Like the epitaph of Archbishop Hugo von Schönenburg (died 1581) in the Liebfrauenkirche, and Saint Peter’s fountain (Petrusbrunnen) of 1595 in the main market place of Trier. Chipps Smith 1994; Schmid 1995. 52

224

 See for a complete overview of all his prints Führing 1997. 54   See for recent overview of the amount of literature on this subject Exh cat. Antwerp 2002; Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005; Lombaerde 2005b; Ruszkowska-Macur 2006. 53

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

Many of his print series depict variations of specific types of ornament, such as cartouches, caryatides, arabesques, and strapwork, without an architectural setting. His most important architectural publications were the three series regarding the five orders and their additional ornaments: Dorica-Ionica (1565), Corinthia-Composita (1565) and Thuscana (1578), and his treatise Architectura (1577) on the five orders with various demonstrations showing how to apply them in typical Northern European architecture.55 He also published a few series with perspective views on idealised all’antica cities, such as the series on public fountains and the oval views made for intarsia panels. His contribution to the grammar of the five orders was mainly concerned with additional embellishments for friezes, capitals, shafts, and pedestals. Within the decorative system he invented for the five orders, he even presented ornaments and 13. Vredeman de Vries, Den eersten boeck architectural elements that typically did not ­ghemaect opde twee colomnen Dorica en Ionica, belong to columns, such as brackets, pinAntwerp 1565, plate F. nacles, windows, and even tables and overmantels.56 As such, he created a flexible system for the use of various all’antica or ‘modern antique’ elements in building types that did not exist in Roman antiquity and where the traditional, strict use of the column was not suitable nor wanted. In his introduction to Architectura (1577), he explained that the antique Roman way of using the orders was not always possible in Northern Europe because of the tall buildings and narrow building sites. He even integrated strapwork within the decorative system of the five orders, which offered a rather satisfying solution for integrating high rising gables into all’antica façade designs. However, he published just eight inventions of these scrolled gables, presented in two prints in Dorica-Ionica (1565, fig. 13). Attributing the almost worldwide use of the scrolled gable solely to Vredeman’s influence, as has often happened, is a gross overstatement.57 Because he was not the inventor of strapwork, he cannot be considered as the originator of the scrolled gable. Strapwork was developed in the 1530s by artists at Fontainebleau from cartouches and probably even from grotesques. Therefore, strapwork was regarded as an all’antica ornament. It was soon picked up in the Antwerp milieu, among others by Cornelis Bos from the early 1540s.58 The ephemeral triumphal gates erected in 1549 in Antwerp were crowned by capricious inventions combining cartouches and strapwork. The following decade witnessed the first application of this flexible ornament on exterior architecture. When

  Fuhring 1997, I, cat. nos. 183–200, 201–222; II, cat. nos. 442–453, 94–102; Zimmermann 2002. 56   This point of view to see the five orders as five sets of ornaments that can bestow a specific character upon a building even without columns, had already been 55

introduced by Serlio in his series of chimneypieces in his Book IV, 1537. Ottenheym 2007a, 115–122. 57   Hitchcock 1978; Schellekens 1992. 58   Schéle 1965. See also Uppenkamp 1993.

225

Konrad Ottenheym Vredeman published his prints, strapwork had already become part of an international modern antique vocabulary. Everywhere in sixteenth-century Europe, north of the Alps where high-­ pitched roofs had always been a common and necessary part of the architecture, architects struggled with the same problem: The classical examples and their contemporary uses as offered by Serlio did not fit these steep triangular upper parts of the façades. Moreover, in these regions high roofs were prestigious, and in the contemporary gothic interpretation, these gables were treated as showcases of refined architectural carving and detailing.59 In the first half of the sixteenth century, variations of the application of all’antica vocabulary on high gables were invented across Northern and Central Europe, most often by combining a stepped gable with C- and S-volutes, or with sculptural elements adjoining each step. The best 14. Nuremberg, ‘Fembohaus’, 1591-1596, by early examples of such gables in the Low Jakob Wolff the Elder. Countries were those of the Nassau Palace in Breda with its griffins, and of Maximilian Transsylvanus’s house in Brussels, both dating from the 1530s.60 In the 1550s and 1560s, the pattern of horizontal mouldings connecting the steps of both sides of the gable and the scrolled volutes alongside were transformed or replaced by strapwork in which horizontal lintels and scrolls became unified. In fact, this flexible decorative pattern was also a modernantique transformation of the late gothic framework used at the same time, with almost ‘organic’ mouldings applied on such gables. In regions above the Alps – in the Low Countries, Germany, Bohemia, and Poland – various experiments introduced a classical framework to façades with high gables, as for instance the well known ‘Fembo-Haus’ in Nuremberg, built in 1591–1596 by Jakob Wolff the Elder for Philips van Orly, a merchant from the Low Countries (fig. 14). This sumptuous scrolled gable, albeit constructed for a Netherlandish patron, is by no means ‘Netherlandish’ but rather of a typical Southern German design; it thus illustrates the international range of this development rather well. Vredeman de Vries’s inventions did not introduce something completely new but offered solutions that were developed in the Low Countries in response to problems that were solved elsewhere in a similar manner. Because patrons and architects in other northern countries recognised the design problem and because Vredeman’s solution was not completely strange to them, his engravings obtained such a huge success – and above all, for a long time his were the only inventions of their kind available in print. Countless examples of the use of his prints for scrolled gables can be found everywhere, from Britain to Transylvania and from Dalmatia to Estonia. Use of Vredeman de Vries-like ornaments did not imply per se a direct contribution of Netherlandish artists, as many old attributions have 59   For the status of high roofs in France see Pérouse de Montclos 2001, 43–51.

226

  van Wezel 1999; De Jonge 1997.

60

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

suggested. The famous arsenal in Gdan´sk (1600–1612) was long attributed to Anthonis van Opbergen only because of its ‘Netherlandish’ ornaments (see page 28, fig. 14). In 2000, Bartetzky convincingly showed that this building was in fact the result of a close cooperation of all major masters present in Gdan´sk at the time, except for Van Opbergen.61 Recently, Skibin´ ski has suggested that the master wood carver Simon Höerl, an artist of local origin, was responsible for the arsenal’s designs and model.62 The church of St Andrew’s in Lviv, Ukraine (formerly part of the Polish kingdom) offers another case in point (fig. 1). The church was built between 1602 and 1630 for the Observant order, a branch of the Franciscans. The initial architect was an Italian named Paolo Dominicini, called ‘Romano’. The church was designed, according to the basic basilica scheme of the Counter-Reformation, with a wide nave, two aisles divided by arcades of pillars accentuated by colossal Corinthian pilasters, and an apse at its east end. The church lacks a transept and a cupola. On the exterior, the façade and the side walls are organised by pilasters, which are of the Tuscan order on the ground floor and Doric on the upper level. In 1613, the architect died and was replaced by Andrzej Bemer. He originated from Wrocław (Breslau) and was active in Lviv from 1592 until his death in 1626. He finished the structure of the building according to Romano’s designs, up to the level of the roof. How Romano would have crowned his façade has not been known; he likely would have elected a classical pediment in front of a low, Italian-style roof. Instead, the church received a highpitched roof and a huge gable at its front, decorated with strapwork that remains close to Vredeman’s 1565 proposals. This example is remarkable for two reasons. First, according to the architect and his patrons, the combination of a strictly classical, ‘Italian’ substructure and a ‘Netherlandish’ scrolled gable fit well and created a coherent result. Presumably, the work of both architects was not regarded as belonging to two different or even ‘opposing’ styles as present-day art historians might think. Second, the engravings of Vredeman de Vries served both Protestants and Catholics in Europe and thus were not perceived as an expression of any specific religion. Seventeenth-century publications In 1622 and 1626, Rubens published in Antwerp his selection of palaces and churches of Genoa, Palazzi di Genova, a book that had a significant influence in the Northern Low Countries and in England.63 Additionally, in the seventeenth century, Amsterdam replaced Antwerp as the main international centre of architectural publications. In 1606, Coecke’s Serlio translations were republished in Amsterdam together with a first English translation of his five books. In 1617, Vignola’s Regola was published in Amsterdam in a five-language edition, enriched by additional prints of designs for gates by Michelangelo and Vignola, and reprinted twice in the 1640s with even further additions of various Italian and Netherlandish designs. In 1640, Scamozzi’s book VI on the orders was published in a Dutch edition for the first time, followed by many later editions and, in 1658, by the translation of his Book III on private architecture.64 These Dutch editions were found in many architect’s libraries in Scandinavia and in the Baltic region and thus served an important mediating role. Nevertheless, the aim of this chapter is to study the diffusion of specifically Netherlandish motifs and not of the   Bartetzky 2000.  In 1601 Höerl (who also contributed to the interior decoration of the main town hall of Gdan´sk) was paid for designs and a wooden model of the arsenal, although it is still uncertain whether these were the final designs that were finally executed. Skibin´ski 2012b.

  Lombaerde 2002.  See the introductions to the English editions of Scamozzi’s L’Idea della Architettura Universale, published in Amsterdam 2003 (Book III) and 2007 (Book VI).

61

63

62

64

227

Konrad Ottenheym Netherlandish contribution to the international development of architecture in general. Therefore, only publications of Netherlandish designs will be further examined here. As discussed previously, sixteenthand early seventeenth-century architects-­ sculptors were sometimes engaged only for creating the most luxurious elements of residential buildings, especially entrance gates. This phenomenon was also reflected in architectural publications from the Northern as well as the Southern Low Countries. Serlio’s Libro extraordinario (Lyons, 1551) was entirely dedicated to this subject, as were various addenda to later editions of Vignola’s treatise. In 1617, Jacques Francart (1583–1651), court architect to the archdukes in Brussels, published his Premier livre d’architecture, a series of eighteen engravings of portals designed by him and inspired by Michelangelo’s inventions, such as the Porta Pia, the doors of the Conservatori palace, and the windows of St Peter’s.65 As such, his publication may be regarded as a direct supple15. Jacques Francart, Premier livre d’architecture, ment to the Vignola editions that included 1617, plate 8. such examples. Although the book is rare today, it likely enjoyed some international circulation when it was published. For example, it seems to have been carefully studied and used in 1630 for the design of the garden entrance of St John’s College, Oxford (figs. 15–16).66 During this period, the quality of architecture was associated with the quality and ingeniousness of the sculpted ornaments. Accordingly, such publications were highly praised for introducing these novelties. Hendrick de Keyser (1565–1621), sculptor and city stonemason of Amsterdam, was Francart’s peer in the Northern Low 16. Oxford, garden entrance of St John’s College, 1630. Countries (see chapter 2.3). He too was renowned for his architectural inventions, although he did not publish them during his lifetime. In 1631, ten years after his death, a wide selection of his architecture was printed in Architectura Moderna ofte Bouwinge van onsen tyt.67 The forty engravings included his churches, houses, the   De Vos 1998.   Louw 1981.

65 66

228

67

  Ottenheym et al. 2008.

Foreign Architects

in the

17. Amsterdam, Haarlem Gate, 1615–1618, by Hendrick de Keyser (Architectura Moderna 1631, plate XXVII).

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

18. Tidö castle (Sweden), entrance gate, 1639.

town hall in Delft, a city gate in Amsterdam, and many gates for cemeteries as well as other specific functions. Hendrick de Keyser possessed many international connections. Years after his death, the international diffusion of his inventions continued due to this publication. The Swedish chancellor Axel Oxenstierna, who actually governed the country after the death of King Gustav Adolf in 1632, maintained a lifelong interest in the architecture of the Dutch Republic. In the 1650s, he would invite Justus Vingboons to Stockholm, but in the 1630s he already was well aware of the talent and styles available elsewhere. In 1639, he built a grand new country seat at Tidö, close to the northern shore of Mälern Lake and accessible from Stockholm by boat.68 Simon de la Vallée created the general layout and the stonemason Heinrich Blume, of German origin, made the details. The complex is arranged around a square courtyard with a three-storey, rectangular main wing at the rear that features three lower wings. Plain plasterwork covers most of the building but richly sculpted stone elements are on display on the main axis. The main entrance to the primary floor of the corps de logis framed by freestanding Doric columns is accessible by a double staircase in the courtyard and further accentuated by a scrolled gable in the attic zone. Even more impressive is the prelude on the outside of the front wing (figs. 17–18). This entrance gate is also completely sculpted in stone. Two freestanding Doric columns flank the entrance in semi-round niches and are partly wrapped in rustic bands adorned with lion heads and diamond pins. This   Axel-Nilsson 1950, 182-184.

68

229

Konrad Ottenheym composition follows exactly the example of Hendrick de Keyser’s Haarlemmerpoort (1615), the city gate of Amsterdam that was included in the Architectura Moderna (1631). Hendrick de Keyser was the first architect in the Low Countries whose actual buildings were published, albeit posthumously. Prominent mid-seventeenth century architects followed his example in their lifetime. Philips Vingboons (1607–1678) was the first to do so in 1648. He began his career as an assistant on projects of Jacob van Campen in Amsterdam. After 1637, he worked on his own as a private architect in that city. With his brother Johannes Vingboons, the engraver who was also associated with the publisher Blaeu, all conditions were fulfilled for a successful publication of the best designs (built and unbuilt) from the first ten years of his career.69 Afbeelsels der voornaemste gebouwen uyt alle die Philips Vingboons geordineert heeft contained sixty folio engravings of façades, ground plans, and sections of houses in Amsterdam, country houses, two ‘capriccios’ of grand country estates that his Amsterdam civic patrons would have never commissioned, and his (rejected) contribution to the competition for the new Amsterdam town hall. Twenty-six years later, he produced a second volume, Tweede deel der Afbeeldsels, containing another sixty-six engravings of façades and plans of town and country houses from the last decades of his career. In 1662, his younger brother Justus issued a separate publication with his designs of the twin houses of the two brothers Hendrick and Louis Trip, called the ‘Trippenhuis’, the most magnificent private residence built in Amsterdam in the seventeenth century. Evert Janssen in Denmark stands as an example of the international reception of Vingboons’ country houses as they appeared in print. Janssen was architect to the king and his court as well as civic architect from 1665 until at least 1682.70 The place and date of his birth are unknown. His name seems to point to a Dutch origin, but perhaps he hailed from Northern Germany. Whatever the case, he must have been fully aware of mid-seventeenth century Dutch architecture, especially the work of Vingboons and the various ways Vingboons adapted the villa designs of Scamozzi to northern building types. Janssen introduced Dutch classicist models for country houses in Denmark, for instance at Nysø, built in 1674 for Jens Lauridsen, mayor of Praestø, a city approximately fifty kilometres south of Copenhagen (fig. 19). This is not a mere copy of one of Vingboons’ prints but a new design combining various typical elements from the printed sources. The U-shaped brick building features a rectangular main block and two short projecting wings in front. Colossal Ionic pilasters, a pediment, and sculpted garlands under and between the windows adorn the central three bays of the main wing, both at the garden side and at the front. The combination of this central projection with colossal pilasters, set in a plain, astylar façade, even without an entablature, was a specific feature of Scamozzi’s villas depicted in L’Idea della architettura universale (1615), a text that was used in Holland by Vingboons and Post, and became more widely diffused by Vingboons’s printed examples (fig. 20).71 Pieter Post (1608–1669), who began as a draughtsman to Van Campen on his projects in The Hague, became architect to the court of Orange in 1645. As such, he was also the chief architect for various governmental authorities. He published his main projects in separate series of prints, most of which were engraved by Jan Mathijs, such as the series on Huis ten Bosch in 1652, the country house Vredenburg, the seat of the dike authority of Rijnland at Halfweg, called Swanenburg, and the Maastricht town hall in 1665. The renovation of Holyrood House, the royal residence in Edinburgh, shows how such models were transformed and adapted when used as sources of inspiration. The Holyrood complex was partly destroyed in 1650. As royal surveyor in Scotland, William   Ottenheym 1989; Exh. cat. Amsterdam 1989.   Nørregård-Nielsen 1984; Kaspersen 1988.

69 70

230

  Ottenheym 2010.

71

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

19. Praestø (Denmark), country house Nysø, built in 1674 for Jens Lauridsen, by Evert Janssen (­ photograph Merlijn Hurx).

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

20. Vingboons 1674, plate 74.

Bruce recast the palace as the seat of the regency of the duke of Lauderdale after 1671. Bruce and Robert Mylne reconstructed the palace following the Palais du Luxembourg in Paris, the residence of the French king’s brother, with three wings around a courtyard featuring a screen wall to the outer court. At Holyrood, the early sixteenth-century royal lodging, located to the left of the entrance, was retained and copied on the right side to provide frontal symmetry. The spacious courtyard within was enhanced by a splendid display of the classical orders through the superimposition of three orders of pilasters: Doric on the arcaded ground floor, Ionic on the first floor, and Corinthian on the second floor – all executed in stone (fig. 21). This courtyard, and especially the façade of the rear main wing with its central projection crowned by a pediment, was probably inspired by the architecture of the Dutch town halls well-known to Bruce.72 In particular, the three superimposed orders in the courtyard resembled the façade of the Maastricht town hall as designed and published by Post, but now turned outside in. The powerful central projection with its open arcade on the ground floor and pediment was likely inspired by the Amsterdam town hall. Jacob van Campen (1596–1657), the most important architect of the mid-seventeenth century, published nothing himself but nevertheless engravings of his masterpiece, the new town hall of Amsterdam (1648–1665), were available. Engravings of the sculptures by Artus Quellinus, based on sketches by Van Campen, were already distributed by Hubertus Quellinus in two volumes published in 1655 and 1663.73 In 1661, Jacob Vennekool, one of Van Campen’s former draughtsmen on this building site, published the entire project on a large scale in a series of façades, ground plans, sections, and details: Afbeelding van’t Stadthuys van Amsterdam. In dartigh Coopere Plaaten, geordineert door Jacob van Campen. Many architects and patrons abroad used these prints when referring to the design of the town hall. For example, John Evelyn visited the Republic in the mid-1640s when the building project of the new town hall had not yet begun. Nevertheless, in 1666, he mentioned the new town hall, which he could have known only from print.74 Examples of the use of the town hall prints as a source of inspiration to foreigners will be discussed in chapter 3.8.   Ottenheym 2007b. 73  Hubert Quellinus, Prima Pars praecipuarum effigierum ac ornamentorum amplissimae Curiae 72

Amstelrodamensis (…), Amsterdam 1655; Idem, Secunda Pars (…), Amsterdam 1663. 74  John Evelyn, London Redivivum, 1666 (The Writings of John Evelyn, 340–341).

231

Konrad Ottenheym

21. Edinburgh, the courtyard of Holyrood House, 1671, by William Bruce and Robert Mylne ­(photograph Merlijn Hurx).

In the seventeenth century, many architects, in addition to those mentioned here, gained fame abroad because of these publications. Several of these books and print series were listed in the few preserved library inventories of architects and patrons of this period. To foreigners the buildings represented here – the rich burgher’s houses along the canals of Amsterdam, their country houses, and the stately seats of the local governments – became icons of Dutch architecture, reflecting the Republic’s prosperity and power. The use of books and prints in the late seventeenth century Books were helpful to instruct those who lacked the means to travel, but they were also useful to preserve the memory of those who had travelled to the Low Countries, and to offer current information to others at home who had travelled to Holland long ago. For example, the Swedish count Magnus de la Gardie was rather interested in architecture in Holland. In 1653, he asked his agent in Amsterdam, Peter Trotzig, to send him “numerous illustrations of recent work, houses and gardens, of the best architects in Holland, that are available in good quantity over there”.75 More specifically, in 1661, Carl Gustav Wrangel requested the same agent to send him information about the latest buildings in Amsterdam, especially information pertaining to the Trippenhuis, which was almost finished that year: “Among those the house of the Trip brothers will be very well and excellent made and I would very much like  “... allerhand perspectivische sachen so wol von häusern als garten werck der besten und näusten autoren aus Holland wo selbigt in eine gute menge zu 75

232

zubekommen, in zimliches quantum verschreiben”. Stockholm, Riksarchiv; De la Gardie samlingen, E 1213, draft letter 27 May 1653. Noldus 2004, 147.

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

to see this new invention. Therefore I request of the gentleman below [Trotzig] whether he could acquire a drawing of said building from Mr Finckenboom”.76 At that stage, Wrangel was still building his grand estate of Skokloster, thus his interest in stately architecture was genuine. Nevertheless, the conspicuous luxury of the façade of the Trippenhuis was not a useful model for the completion of the austere exterior of his castle. This was a common phenomenon because not all patrons utilised new information immediately. For many patrons, their choices were driven by curiosity combined with a passion for architecture. Similarly, not all architects who possessed these books from the Low Countries actually used them in daily design practice. Differences in style between architects as well as commissions prompted different solutions. On Saturday, 7 November 1674, the scientist and architect Robert Hooke bought two books on architecture – one mid-seventeenth century text by the French architect Pierre Lemuet, and a brand new second volume of the best works by Philips Vingboons. Hooke immediately went to Sir Christopher Wren with his new purchases and together they spent over three hours studying them.77 As a scholar, Wren was interested to learn about the architecture of various parts of the continent, but afterwards he continued his work on St Paul’s Cathedral and the city churches without, it seems, taking any further notice of the Dutch books he perused. Hooke on the other hand carefully studied opportunities for using these elements in his own work – perhaps not in the churches he contributed to but certainly in some of his major public buildings, such as Bethlem Hospital where he reused Post’s design for Swanenburg for the two corner pavilions (see chapter 3.8).78 Architects and dilettanti used books and prints to find solutions for their own design tasks. Exact copies were not requested, and most likely were not appreciated. Unlike the Italian treatises on the orders which proposed a classical vocabulary and grammar that had to be followed closely, engravings of existing buildings were sources of inspiration that could be transformed, combined, and adapted freely as long as Vitruvius’s basic rules of proper design – such as symmetry, balanced proportions, and logical of division of space – were maintained. By using examples from the Low Countries as contemporary applications of correct ‘Vitruvian’ architecture, architects and patrons actually placed themselves within the international tradition of classicism. The Great Elector of Brandenburg’s penchant for models from Holland has to be understood in that sense. In 1657, Jacob van Campen died and his heirs, mostly distant family members, sold his possessions. Both Count Johan Maurits and Friedrich Wilhelm, the Great Elector, were anxious to obtain Van Campen’s drawings and sketchbooks. In April 1659, Friedrich Wilhelm was informed that Johan Maurits had obtained a book with original drawings by Van Campen. He insisted his friend to send it to him since he had heard that this was one of the best ­architects.79 In his answer a month later, Johan Maurits regretted that the heirs had not yet decided whether to sell the drawings or not.80 In the following years, the elector reminded   “... dass itzo dess orthes [=Amsterdam] trefflich schön gebäude ufgerichtet; und unter anderen die Trippen darinnen sehr wohl and Artig gemachtet werden sollten; Undt Ich dan dergleichen neue inventionen gern sehen mag; So habe den H. derunter zu ersuchen, ob nicht durch seine beforderung von dem Finckenboom ein Abriss von solchen gebäude zu bekommen sein möchte”. Wrangel to Trotzig 3 August 1661. Stockholm, Riksarchiv; Skoklostersamlingen E 8277. (Noldus 2004, 1). 77  Robinson & Adams 1968, 7 November 1674; Geraghty 2004. 78   Stoesser Johnston 2003. 79  “Ich habe vernommen das Ew. Lden. ein schon Buch von der Argitectur von Von Kamppen sollen 76

bekommen haben, ich wünschte das ich dergleichen eins bekommen kontte, weill ich vernehme das es eins von den besten Autoren ist”. Letter to Johan Maurits, 13/23 April 1659. Galland 1893, 27; Mielke 1979, 160. 80  “Ew. Durchlaucht gedenken eines Buchs von der Architektur, welches ich von Monsjeur van Kampen sollte bekommen haben. Es ist wohl wahr, dass ich nach seinem Absterben an die Erben begehrt gehabt, einige seiner Bücher in Sonderheit so von seiner eigenen Hand gezeichnet waren, es ist mir aber solches höflich abgeschlagen worden. So sie aber in meiner Macht wären, solle zu Ew. Durchlaucht Dienst, wie auch Alles, was ich auf dieser Welt besitzen thue”. Letter of 14 May 1659. Mielke 1979, 160.

233

Konrad Ottenheym Johan Maurits several times to retrieve the book for him. He was finally successful in 1663, and the drawings arrived in Berlin. It was more than curiosity which made the elector so insistent. As soon as he received the desired inventions by Van Campen, he applied them to his latest building project, the new residence in Potsdam,81 as shown by his own words: “Thank you very much for that beautiful book. I copied already some parts from it that I will use at my building projects at Potsdam”.82 These series of drawings by Van Campen have since been lost, leaving us to guess at their. Whatever the case, in the final version of the Potsdam residence, as printed in 1672 (fig. 22), specific details were derived from Dutch sources, especially from buildings in which Van Campen was engaged. Generally, the layout of this palace had much in common with Honselaarsdijk, 22. Potsdam, residence of the great Elector, while the corps de logis had much in common with 1664–1670, section of the corps de logis; engraving Huis ten Bosch as well as the Amsterdam town hall. from 1672 after the design by J.G. Memhardt. The cellar on the ground floor, below the saloon, was divided by two rows of pillars supporting vaults, like those on the ground floor of the Amsterdam town hall. Probably, this kind of vault was also included in Van Campen’s sketchbook, or maybe the elector had received a copy of the 1661 publication of Van Campen’s design.83 The double staircase at the side of the courtyard leading to the main salon on the first floor was probably inspired by Honselaarsdijk. This two-storey high hall was covered by a wooden vault crowned by a cupola, similar to the Oranjezaal in Huis ten Bosch (fig. 23). On the exterior, the cupola was accentuated by a small octagonal lantern tower. As at Huis ten Bosch, the tower was crowned by a pointed star, symbol of the ‘worthy prince’ who led his people during dark times into the light, a symbol applicable 23. The Hague, Huis ten Bosch, 1647-1652, by both to Frederik Hendrik in The Hague in the 1640s Pieter Post; engraving by Jan Mathijs, 1655. and the Great Elector in Brandenburg in the 1660s.84 The spire of the so-called ‘Duck Tower’ of the Holy Trinity-St Sergius Monastery at Sergiev Posad, located seventy kilometres to the north-east of Moscow (called Sagorsk in Soviet times), offers a rather unexpected example of the direct use of a model from a seventeenth-century Dutch architectural print.85 The holy monk Sergius of Radonesh founded the monastery in the fourteenth century. By the late seventeenth century, the

  Sommer 1993.  “Ich sage Ew. Lden. auch für das schone Buch grossen Danck. Ich habe schon Dinge daraus gezeignet, welche ich zu Potsdam applicieren werde”. Letter to Johan Maurits, 9 March 1663. Mielke 1979, 160–161. 83   Afbeelding van’t Stadthuys van Amsterdam (…), Amsterdam 1661, fig. C. 81 82

234

  Claude Paradin, Princeliicke Devissen, Leiden 1615, 257–258. 85  The connection between the Maastricht town hall and the Duck Tower was first noticed in 1969 by the Russian architect V. Baldin who corresponded with Jan Terwen, at that time professor for architectural history at the Technical University of Delft. Ottenheym 1994. 84

Foreign Architects

in the

Low Countries

24. Sergiev Posad (Russia), Duck Tower of the Holy Trinity and St Sergius Monastery, c. 1700 (photograph collection Utrecht University).

and the

Use

of

Prints

and

Books

25. Maastricht, tower of the town hall, engraving from 1664 by Jan Mathijs after the design by Pieter Post from 1656 (town hall built in 1659–1664, the tower only realised in 1684–1685).

­ onastery was already one of the major religious sites m in Russia, consisting of various churches and buildings ­surrounded by a strong wall. The round Duck Tower formed part of this medieval fortification. In the early eighteenth century (no exact date has been given), it was embellished with an octagonal turret based on the central spire of the town hall of Maastricht, which was designed by Pieter Post in 1655 and 1656, and constructed between 1659 and 1664. The spire in Maastricht was not realised until twenty years later, but it was already ­present in Post’s printed design published in 1664.86 The tower of Maastricht, which was a wooden construction covered in lead, was copied almost exactly on the same scale in Sergiev Posad, but in brick and stone (figs. 24–25). Although nothing has been known about its commission, presumably Peter the Great himself was involved. The monastery played an important role in his youth when he took refuge there in the 1680s during the rebellion of the Streltsy guard. In later years, Peter the Great became seriously interested in the Dutch Republic; he regarded its economy, industry, and architecture as a model for the modernisation of Russia. In 1697, he stayed in Holland incognito, as is well-known. In 1717, he visited the Dutch Republic officially, on which occasion he also visited Maastricht. During any of these trips, the tsar may have obtained, via his agents in Holland, the print series of the town hall as part of his extended collection of architectural models. Perhaps the ‘Dutch’ spire was erected on the corner tower of the Trinity-St Sergius Monastery as a sign of the tsar’s ambition to open Russian society – including its religious institutions – to the modern world.

 Pieter Post, Het Stadthuys van Maastrigt, ten engravings in folio by Jan Mathijs, published by F. de Witt, Amsterdam 1664, with a frontispiece, four ground 86

plans, three facades and two sections. Also published in P. van der Aa, Les Ouvrages d’architecture de Pierre Post, Leiden 1713.

235

1. Heverlee, Arenberg castle, formerly in possession of the Croÿ family, before 1519–1520.

Chapter 3.2 Netherlandish Models from the Habsburg Sphere: From Spain to Germany and Denmark* Krista De Jonge (KU Leuven – University of Leuven)

One of the mechanisms of influence and exchange, which helped to diffuse architecture from the Low Countries across Europe in the early modern period, is linked with the court milieu. Within the field of early modern court studies, the existence of an influential Burgundian model developed between France and the Low Countries in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries has been debated time and again,1 and its connection with the Spanish Habsburg court of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a powerful model in its own right, has been explored in various ways by court historians.2 Awareness of this mechanism can occasionally be found in previous work on the art history of Northern and Central Europe.3 An earlier census of Netherlandish sculptors working in Northern Germany, for instance, has stressed the fact that family ties and dynastic alliances between courtly patrons could account to a great extent for the movements of important architect-sculptors in the area under study.4 In a larger perspective a Burgundian model of influence has even been posited, next to the classic conception of a Renaissance coming out of Italy.5 However, much more ink has already been spent on the mapping of the Italian artistic migration in court circles.6 In the case of the court artist of Italian origin, the grounds for travelling apparently do not need much explanation; since Italian art is still all too often considered as the only norm in studies on early modern art, the diffusion of this potent model through the migration of its native practitioners is taken to be self-evident.7 But one limitative paradigm should not be exchanged for another, and especially not in the court milieu. The European courts, most of which were, after all, linked by ties of blood, ­however inimical their politics, looked to one another also in the matter of architecture.8 Cases of ­explicit rivalry are difficult to find, but there are examples of open interest expressed in  This essay is indebted to the discussions with many scholars at the occasion of the following conferences: the Galerien-Tagung organized by the Bibliotheca Hertziana in Rome, 23–26 February 2005; the symposium on La galerie en France. Étude d’un espace intérieur, Paris, INHA, 19–21 May 2006; the conference on Reframing the Danish Renaissance, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, and Museum Fredriksborg, 28 September–1 October 2006; the conference on El legado de Borgoña, Madrid, Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 28 November–1 December 2007; the symposium on The Low Countries at the Crossroads, University of Leuven, 30–31 October 2008; the twelfth symposium of the Residenzen-Kommission on Städtisches Bürgertum und Höfische Gesellschaft at Coburg, 25–28 September 2010; and the meetings organised within the context of the European Science Foundation Research Networking Programme Palatium. Court Residences as Places of Exchange in Late Medieval

*

and Early Modern Europe 1400–1700 (2010–2015, www.courtresidences.eu). 1   Amongst others, Paravicini 1991b; García García et al. 2010. 2  Pfandl 1938, 3–4; Elliott 1989; Hofmann-Randall 1995; Redworth & Checa 1999; Cools 2006; Duindam 2007; Duindam 2010; De Jonge 2010f, 61–62. 3  Amongst others, Wells-Cole 1997 and that author’s contribution to this volume (see chapter 3.6); Kaufmann et al. 2003; De Jonge 2005e; Kaufmann 2006b. 4   Jolly 1999a. 5   Belozerskaya 2002. 6  Maggiorotti 1933–1939, on architects and military engineers; Hermanin 1934. For a more critical approach to Italian military engineers abroad, see Viganò 1994–1999. On artist-patron interaction see Warnke 1993; Campbell 2004. 7   A more critical approach in, for instance, Kaufmann 1995. 8   In general, Thomson 1993, 143–151.

237

Krista De Jonge another monarch’s personal building projects. For instance, in 1554–1555 Mary of Hungary, regent of the Low Countries, wanted a copy of the drawing of Chambord, Francis I’s prodigy house par excellence, in the possession of Cardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle;9 she had just completed her own, Mariemont, but was facing its restoration after it had been singled out for destruction by the invading troops of Henry II of France (see c­ hapter 2.7 by Bernardo J. García García, pages 181–185).10 Francisco de Morães, secretary to the Portuguese ambassador to France, provided a detailed description of Chambord in Portuguese, no doubt read at the court in Lisbon.11 Similarly, the English ambassadors carefully described Francis I’s royal gallery at Fontainebleau, with its stuccoed décor created by Primaticcio and Rosso, not forgetting to stress how a great privilege was shown to them, since the king carried its key on his own person.12 It seems more than a coincidence that Francis I’s gallery, built from 1529, received a counterpart at the English court (the queen’s gallery at Hampton Court), and at the Habsburg court (Mary of Hungary’s gallery at Brussels), at the same time (1533–1537);13 a decade later, its decorative system would inspire the décor of Mary of Hungary’s great hall at Binche.14 Courtly building types, such as the compact, turreted banqueting house, and spatial prototypes, such as the long gallery – both incidentally not of Italian origin – carried great prestige, and regardless of style issues, they could be used in the game of one-upmanship linking rival courts. As for the transmission of models, courtly patrons – not only men trained in the military arts such as Moritz the Learned, count of Hesse-Kassel, but also women such as the Infanta Catalina Micaela, daughter of Philip II and duchess of Savoy – were able to understand architectural drawings and even to draw.15 Students of court patronage and of courtly artistic networks are very much aware of the fact that most early modern patrons – in Northern, Central and Southern Europe, including Italy – were entirely eclectic when choosing their artists and specialised artisans.16 Recruiting Netherlandish artists was obviously a matter of prestige and thus fuelled the competition between knowledgeable patrons, much like having the best Southern German armourer or Italian cook at your service. The common denominator of this polymorphous eclecticism is the nobility’s value system, first and foremost its emphasis on military virtues (which include a predilection for the hunt), on lineage and on dynastic honours, and only a long way second, on the merits which we consider to fit in with the concept of ‘Renaissance’: the interest in Antiquity in all its artistic and literary forms, and the interest in art, the beautiful, rare and precious per se.17 Both Netherlandish and Italian (or French, for that matter) artefacts and artists only travelled when they conformed with this particular logic. We could speak of the patron’s taste, but for the fact that this term carries almost exclusively personal connotations, and does not really do justice to the pre-determined value patterns of family and social rank. But we need to do more than just superimpose Italian and Netherlandish migration; there are   Between 23 November 1554 and 9 December 1555, her court architect Jacques Du Broeucq made a copy of the platte-fourme de Chambourch appartenant à Monsieur d’Arras (Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, bishop of Arras, later cardinal), for the emperor. Document quoted by Hedicke 1912, 431–432. 10   De Jonge 2005b. 11   Thomson 1993, 88. 12   McAllister Johnson 1972; Chatenet 2002, 252–253. 13  Béguin et al. 1972; Thurley 1993, 141–143; De Jonge 1994, 116–121. 14   De Jonge 1998d. 15  van den Heuvel 1996; Hanschke 1997; van den Heuvel (forthcoming); Pérez de Tudela (forthcoming) 9

238

quotes a letter of 1589 showing Catalina Michaela’s experience with architectural drawing. See also chapter 2.7 by Bernardo García García. With thanks to Almudena Pérez de Tudela and Bernardo García García. 16  An excellent case in point: Margaret of Austria, Charles V’s aunt and regent of the Low Countries until her death in 1531. Eichberger 2002; see also Gelfand 2003. 17   Not often enough considered in this light for early modern patrons, however. See Eisler 1983 and Exh. cat. Granada 2000a versus Checa Cremades 1999 for Emperor Charles V, for instance. In general, Thomson 1993, 28–48.

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

two other maps which should slide across this one. First of all, noble patrons were by definition travellers; court life was essentially nomadic.18 Moreover, noble patrons were not cut off from the marketplace, and while this is an angle usually considered only for the great urban centres, it is obvious that the vicinity of the urban markets played a fundamental role in many cases. A good case in point is the entire Weser region and the duchy of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel: Without the Bremer connections to Antwerp (and vice versa), artistic history of this part of Northern Germany would have to be written in a different way.19 Nevertheless, 2. Boussu, castle of Jean de Hennin-Liétard, 1540–1555, by Jacques Du Broeucq (Adrien de Montigny, Albums of Croÿ, proximity was a facilitator and not a necesearly 17th c.), (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, sary condition in the court milieu. Cod. min. 50, vol. V, fol. 61 recto). In this essay we will study the migration and reception of the most successful Netherlandish export product ever in the field of architecture: the particular conjunction of space and form born at the Burgundian court in the middle and second half of the fifteenth century, when the centre of gravity of the court’s peregrinations lay almost exclusively in the Low Countries.20 In itself the product of exchange between the customs and architecture of the local dynasties on the one hand, and the French manners of the first rulers of the House of Valois – Philip the Bold, John the Fearless and Philip the Good – on the other, this courtly way of building not only used a characteristic set of forms and materials, but was also characterised by a particular spatial organisation or disposition (fig. 2). According to the historian of court architecture the disposition results from the set of rules which govern day-to-day life at court and its more ceremonial moments, such as the reception of visitors and feasts, and its rites of passage, such as baptisms, marriages and funerals.21 In the first part of the essay, we will look at the complex exchanges between the Low Countries and Spain within the context of the Habsburg empire of the sixteenth century. In the second part of this essay, we will address questions of courtly self-representation, and the expression of political rivalry and allegiance for a set of cases taken from Spain, Denmark, and the Holy Roman Empire (see also chapters 2.7 by Bernardo J. García García, 3.3 by Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen and 3.4 by Heiner Borggrefe). Courtly ceremonial from Burgundy to Spain22 The Burgundian state apartment as developed in the residences of Bruges, Ghent and Brussels had much in common with other princely suites elsewhere in Europe. The spatial disposition of the residence was flexible to some extent, since the nomadic court often had to ‘camp out’ in less than comfortable circumstances, especially when hunting. Whether large or small, the set of rooms assigned to the duke always constituted a sequence  Discussed for the French court in Chatenet 2002, 15–35; point also made for the dukes of Burgundy, see Paravicini 1991a. 19  Exh. cat. Braunschweig 1998; in general, see Hirschbiegel et al. 2012. 18

  Paravicini 1991a.   Guillaume 1994; Paravicini 1997; Kruse & Paravicini 1999. 22   A more extended version of this part can be read in De Jonge 2010c, 61–74. 20 21

239

Krista De Jonge from public to private, with the boundaries between the two carefully marked by concierges guarding the doors. Access, or spatial proximity to the monarch, was determined by rank. Slightly later sources from the time of the first Habsburg successors around 1500 show that the model apartment consisted of four spaces, i.e. two rooms which preceded the chamber of the monarch and which served to sort out visitors according to rank; the chamber itself could be followed by the very private withdrawing chamber or retraite.23 The function of the first two rooms in the suite can be deduced from a source that reflects the state of affairs in the ducal palace on the Coudenberg at Brussels just before its extension in the last years of the sixteenth century (1594): The first one is a hall, and the second one is the room “where the baldachin is and where His Highness eats in public”.24 Accounts related to the various Burgundian and Habsburg residences in the Low Countries, and specifically to regent Mary of Hungary’s ideal palace at Binche (mainly built 1547–1549),25 confirm that the spaces preceding the chamber are indeed a salle and a sallette respectively, the latter of which is used for the very Burgundian ceremony of the public dinner where the court watches, from a distance, the prince eat alone, seated under a baldachin, at least if there are no guests of equal rank; other rules determine how he eats in company, during an official banquet. This ceremony astounded Castilian noblemen at Philip the Fair’s first visit to Spain in 1502.26 There was indeed perfect continuity between the Burgundians and their Habsburg successors on this point, until the eighteenth century.27 Matters become a little more complicated when we consider the most private part of the apartment. Access to the ducal chamber was restricted to the highest ranks, and its door was always guarded. From the surviving accounts and ordinances we may deduce that it sometimes served as a sleeping chamber, being furnished with a bed – a grand lit as the accounts of the Bruges residence for 1467–1468, at the time of the marriage of Charles the Bold to Margaret of York, have it.28 But the duke might also sleep in his “retiring room” using a lighter type of bed, called lit de camp in sixteenth-century sources; the retraite morphing into a garde-robe by the mid-sixteenth century (for instance, at Binche).29 A third type of room is furnished with a state bed: The chambre de respect ou est le lict de parade, according to the 1594 ordinance, corresponds with the grande chambre of the Bruges residence in 1467–1468 with its lit de parement, and with the camere van parement in the Brussels residence where, according to the 1468–1469 accounts, “Our Lord usually dresses”.30 This was a semi-public reception room where the duke could put on ceremonial robes; the state bed was used, for instance, to display a newborn heir, or at marriage ceremonies. It is clear from these slight shifts in terminology and function that the ceremonial use of residential spaces was no less susceptible to adjustment and change than the court positions listed in the ordinances. The enduring myth of the luxury and splendour of Burgundian

  Etat de l’hôtel de Philippe-le-Bel, duc de Bourgogne, en l’an 1496. Brussels, Royal Library, published by de Reiffenberg 1845–1846. Discussed at length with versions from 1500 and 1515 in De Jonge 1999b, 188–193 and De Jonge 2010c, 61–63, 66–67. See also Paviot 1999. 24  Draft ordinance made for Archduke Ernest of Austria, 1594. Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Audiëntie 33/1, no. 6: Memoire touchant les entrées en les sales et antichambres de la cour, 2 fols. 25   De Jonge 1994; De Jonge 1999a. 26   Domínguez Casas 1993, 557–558; Paviot 2007. 23

240

 Pfandl 1938, 18–20, 25–32; Hofmann 1985, 68–71, 157; Noel 2005. 28   Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Rekenkamer 1795, quoted in de Laborde 1851, 312. 29  In Binche, there are two cabinets flanking the sleeping chamber and there is a wardrobe chamber in the corner tower; although one of the cabinets is called petite retraicte by Jean de Vandenesse, the corner room – which he sees as a chamber – corresponds best to the old Burgundian ‘retiring room’. De Jonge 1994, 115. 30   Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Rekenkamer 2423, fol. 169. De Jonge 1991c, 19. 27

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

court life led, however, to a stressing of the Burgundian character of the ceremonial used by Charles V, Philip II, and their successors, particularly in Spain. The state of affairs c. 1545, known through several manuscript and printed sources,31 served as basis for the reforms introduced by the duke of Alva in the household of Prince Philip of Spain in 1548, over the protests of the Castilian nobility; Philip’s house was thus put on an explicitly Burgundian footing just before he travelled to Italy and the Low Countries for his official presentation as heir to the throne (1548–1551).32 The generally well informed Venetian ambassadors helped to diffuse this image throughout Europe. Marino Cavalli reported to the Venetian Senate in 1551 that “the court of the emperor ordered is according to Burgundian custom, as is the son’s, whose household is similar and almost equal in number to that of the father’s”,33 and Federico Badoero wrote in 1558 that Philip II’s court was not ordered according to the customs of the Spanish kings, but to those of the House of Burgundy.34 A century later, the Etiquetas de la Casa de Austria were allegedly still based on the 1545 customs.35 Nevertheless, Emperor Charles V used to answer criticisms on the changes he introduced to the rules laid down by his Burgundian forebears by saying that he had the right to adapt them to the needs of his time when necessary.36 Ambassador Paolo Tiepolo’s assessment came closest to the truth when he said in 1563 that both Charles V’s and Philip II’s households were “partly composed in accordance with the customs of the dukes of Burgundy, and partly according to the customs of the kings of Spain”.37 By the mid-sixteenth century matters were thus no longer clear-cut. A hybrid ceremonial was already in the making, and the royal apartment was slowly evolving. The organisation of Charles V’s apartment in his Spanish residences, such as the Alcázar at Madrid, can indeed be called neither wholly Burgundian nor wholly Castilian (fig. 3a). In the north wing we see a succession of sala, antecámara, and cámara or cuadra in the tower at the corner, with a small connecting gallery leading to the next suite of cámara, retrete and chiminea de alcobas.38 All these spaces, renovated in 1536, existed already in the fifteenth century, with the exception of the gallery and retrete. The basic suite of sala, cámara and retrete corresponds with the Burgundian customs we have discussed, as well as with the Castilian ones c. 1500. The latter were registered at the orders of Charles V in the ordinance of Gonzalo Fernando de Oviedo y Valdés (1546–1548), when the emperor was still debating what ceremonial to use for his son’s household.39 The room with open hearth and heated alcoves (chiminea de alcobas), however, is purely Castilian.40 Both in Madrid and in Brussels, this classic disposition could accommodate successive small changes in the ceremonial up to a decisive turning point, which for Spain must be  Jean Sigoney, Relación de la Orden de servir que se tenía en la casa del Emperador D. Carlos, Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Audiëntie 23/5, fols. 79–116v; other versions, see Brussels, Royal Library of Belgium, ms. 16436 and Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, ms. 1080; Hofmann-Randall 1985, 58–73. Nicolaus Mameranus, Catalogus familiae totius aulae Caesarae, Cologne 1550. Antonius Sanderus, Antonius, Status Aulicus, seu brevis designatio illustrium quarundam et magis eminentium personarum (…), Brussels 1660, 17–23. 32   Pfandl 1938; Hofmann-Randall 1995. An account of Philip’s travels in Calvete de Estrella 1873–1884. 33   Albèri 1839–1863, vol. 2, 205–208. 34   Albèri 1839–1863, vol. 3, 238–239. 35   Etiquetas de la Casa de Austria, approved on 22 May 1647. Rodríguez Villa 1913, 11. 31

 Gachard 1875, 60; Hofmann 1985, 58–59; Elliott 1989, 152–153. 37   Albèri 1839–1863, vol. 5, 71. 38   Gérard 1984, 15–73; Barbeito 1992, 1–32; Domínguez Casas 1993, 320–326. 39   Hofmann 1985, 31, 35, 40; Domínguez Casas 1993, 223–233. 40   It travelled north to the French court after Francis I’s captivity in Madrid (1525–1526), and could be found at the château de Madrid in the Bois de Boulogne, and at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Pérouse de Montclos 1982, 17–19; Chatenet 1987, 26–27, 72–73, 117–118; Chatenet 1988, 24; Chatenet 1991. 36

241

Krista De Jonge situated in the early 1560s, and for the Low Countries at the end of the sixteenth century. It is the architecture, and not the textual sources, which serves as the perfect barometer: Once the royal apartment could no longer adapt itself to the new ways, a major reworking became necessary. The Alcázar of Madrid offers a perfect case in point. Between 1562 and 1568, Philip II lengthened the existing suite of rooms by inserting other semi-public reception rooms or antechambers, which enabled him to sort out visitors in a more nuanced manner: the antecámara, also called cuadra del Rey, and the cámara de presencia or cámara de audiencia (fig. 3b).41 This is still fairly new, as evidenced by an anonymous testimony from the entourage of Venetian ambassador Tiepolo, dated 8 December 1572. The writer thinks it worth special mention that “His Majesty came to his chamber of Grandees, which is usually his antechamber and, leaning on a little table outside the baldachin, stood waiting for the ambassadors, as he does at solemn occasions”.42 Similarly, antichambres also showed up in the apartments of the French king at the time of Henry 3. Alcázar de Madrid, reconstruction after III and Charles IX, equally noted for their love Véronique Gerard. A 1536. 1 sala, 2 antecámara, of ceremony.43 Philip also added a sala donde 3 cámara/cuadra, 4 cámara, 5 retrete, 6 chiminea almuerza (a sallette) next to the retrete, which de alcobas. B 1562-1568. 1 sala, 2 antecámara, served as a more private reception room, 3 cámara / cuadra, 4 cámara de presencia, 5 retrete, 6, 11 gabinete, 7 alcobilla, 8 sala linked fairly directly (through a gallery) with donde almuerza el Rey, 9 pasillo, 10 cámara the new Torre Dorada in the south-east where grande, 12 sala con estufa, 13 private rooms Philip’s new chamber was situated.44 (Torre Dorada II). The increasing distance between the public reception rooms and the private room of the king mirrored the monarch’s growing remoteness from his court and his people, in itself thoroughly discordant with the Castilian tradition. At that time, the ‘sacralisation’ of the duke of Burgundy, evident in the ritual associated with Holy Mass (where he was hidden by curtains, or shown praying, similar to the Host), and in the public dinner from the fifteenth century, had no counterpart in Castile, where noblemen prided themselves upon their direct access to the king. We should thus not call it a Spanish transformation of the Burgundian ceremonial but rather a natural phase in the latter’s evolution, which happened in Spain rather

  Gérard 1998, 336; Barbeito 1992, 99–102.   Gachard 1856, 170–171, note 2. 43  Chatenet 2002, 135–140, 179–184, 250–253 points to Italian and English precedents for the earliest examples, which appear in Henry II’s time. See also Chatenet 2003. 41 42

242

 The fifteenth-century sallette in the Brussels Coudenberg Palace also was used by him for receiving visitors of high rank. Ceremony described in Rodríguez Villa 1913, 135; Hofmann 1985, 137. On the Torre Dorada, see Gérard 1984, 82, 86–89. 44

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

than in the Low Countries in a dialectic process. This increasing distance was not appreciated in Brussels either, when the new regents Archduke Albert of Austria and the Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia arrived there at the very end of the century, and brought the latest version of the ceremonial with them; especially not when it touched upon the traditional prerogatives of the nobility. Ottavio Mirto, bishop of Tricarico and papal envoy, wrote to Rome on 18 September 1599, stating clearly that “these reforms are judged to be excessive here since His Highness, who is not king, wants to govern his court and wants to be served in a similar manner to the King of Spain’s”.45 Particularly irksome to the local noblemen, especially to the Knights of the Golden Fleece, was the new obligation to kneel on the bare floor of the chapel, whereas they had long possessed the privilege of putting a cushion under their knees. As the palace was no longer managed “according to common expectations”, they could not hope to live with the Archdukes “as they had done with the dukes of Brabant”, as Mirto reported. The new customs necessitated extensive additions to the palace, quadrupling its volume while leaving intact the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century core; the new disposition faithfully mirrored the Etiquetas de la Casa de Austria in the version written down definitively in 1647–1651.46 At that time, two antichambres, one for the Grandees and one for the gentlemen of the chamber, and the audience room first seen at the Alcázar made their appearance at the Brussels palace, following the sallette “where Their Highnesses eat in public”. From the maniere van Brabant to the estilo austríaco. Habsburg kingly ­representation in architecture47 Documents from the first renovation phase of the Coudenberg Palace at Brussels (1598–1599), directed by the French ingeniaire and chevalier Hieronymus Hardouin, show that these “common expectations” extended to the level of architectural expression. The officials of the State Council, who objected to Hardouin’s drastic modernisation, apparently had a deep-seated awareness of the characteristics and qualities of the old residence: They complained that Hardouin’s doors and windows were too different from the old ones.48 The Coudenberg Palace in Brussels could be said to embody this Burgundian, or rather Brabantine, style. Surviving accounts and numerous depictions from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries show that the main wing was built of brick above a plinth faced with stone, judiciously strengthened by cut stone at the corners. White sandy limestone from Brabant was also used for window surrounds, door frames, cornices, and coping stones on the stepped gables. Modern scholars have identified this type of masonry with the whole of the Low Countries, so it is easy to forget that at least until the beginning of the sixteenth century, it was perceived by building masters from the periphery of the Netherlandish territories – such as the duchy of Limburg – as typical of the “Brabantine manner of building” (up die maniere van Brabant).49 The fact that its main diffusers were building masters from the Keldermans family  Rome, Archivio Vaticano, Nunziature di Fiandra, AA D 3401, fol. 611, Ottavio Mirto, Bishop of Tricarico, letter from Brussels, 18 September 1599. Gachard 1874, 102, note 1. 46  Discussed at length in De Jonge 1998a; De Jonge 1999b, 188–193; De Jonge 2010c, 70–74. 47   A more extended version of this part can be read in De Jonge 1998c; De Jonge 2003b; and especially De Jonge 2007c. 48  ARAB Audiëntie 197, fols. 108v-121v (different missives). Saintenoy 1932–1935, vol. 3, 13–16; De Maeyer 1955, 200; De Jonge 1998a, 192. 45

  See the contract of Master Lauwerys Ballen for the refuge of the Cistercian abbey of Herkenrode at Hasselt (Limburg, Belgium), 1542–1544. First published (without reference) by Van Even 1874, it is now in the archive of the Norbertine Abbey at Averbode, Register van Herkenrode VI, 112 (the register carries the nineteenth-century title Verdincknisse Clooster van Herckenrode 1512–1550). The contract is dated 14 January 1542; the patron was Abbess Mechtildis de Léchy (1519–1548). 49

243

Krista De Jonge and their network, who were of Brabantine origin, might help to explain the label.50 Its positive appreciation by the court was also of rather recent date. In 1462 Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, had tried to force white stone cladding upon the magistrates of the city of Lille, who had agreed to build him – at vast expense – a new residence, now known as the Palais Rihour;51 he had done the same with the great new hall he had persuaded the town of Brussels to build for his convenience at the Coudenberg Palace, and which had just been completed (1451–1461). The documents pertaining to 4. Bergen op Zoom, residence of Jan II Glymes, long the latter’s construction and the surviving gallery, 1503–1508, by Andries I Keldermans. images indeed testify to the great care taken with its outer facing, entirely executed in white limestone from the Brussels region.52 The duke did not entirely prevail at Lille, however. By the last decades of the century, brick-and-sandstone masonry had widely gained acceptance with the Burgundian-Habsburg elite,53 as it had with the French royal entourage during the reign of Louis XII (in the Loire valley and in Northern France).54 The court must be credited with its rise in status, and with its successful migration beyond the Low Countries. Four to six layers of brick, alternating with stone bands, constituted the pattern in fashion around 1500; some ten to fifteen years later, the use of stone was reduced to the structuring elements of the façade composition, stressing in particular the horizontals defined by the cross windows. Apart from a particular type of masonry, this manner of building a noble house soon included innovative types of plans, façade compositions, volumetric effects and staircase types. Following the example of Palais Rihour, regularly planned quadrangles became the norm. Inspired by the long gallery façade – a feature of Burgundian residential architecture from the middle of the fifteenth century –, uniform courtyard elevations with open porticoes on the ground floor, and regularly spaced, tall cross-windows above, were soon seen everywhere; one of the earliest examples of such an elevation can be seen in the long gallery of the residence of Jan II Glymes at Bergen op Zoom (1503–1508) (fig. 4).55 The arcades usually had columns sculpted in ‘blue’ carboniferous limestone imported from the Namur or Hainaut regions, exactly according to the definition of the “Brabantine manner of building” in the contract for Mathildis de Léchy’s house of refuge in Hasselt (1542).56 A marvellous invention, which can also be ascribed to the Keldermans masters, is the square, pavilion-like tower with a fantastic, bulbous, slate-covered spire, used for the first time to great advantage at Heverlee in 1519–1520 at the residence of the Lord High Chamberlain (premier et grand chambellan) William of Croÿ, lord   Janse et al. 1987; Hurx 2012.  Bruchet 1922; Paravicini 1991a, 241; De Jonge 2000a. 52  As prescribed in the building specifications, the town would face heavy penalties if it used another material. The masonry core, however, was executed in brick, as is also shown by the excavations. Brussels, City Archive, Perquement boeck metten taetsen (Inventaris Pergameni, Oud Archief, IX), fols. 165r-158r, 180r-v, 181v-183v, 185r-186r, 190v-192v, 196v-201v (new folio numbers).

  Cools 2001.   Sartre 1981, 39–40; Albrecht 1995, 103. 55  De Jonge 2010c, 74–81; De Jonge 2010d. On the Markiezenhof at Bergen op Zoom, see Meischke & Van Tyghem 1987, 135–141; Meischke 1987. 56  “... te metsen (…) met ghescakiert sicheneren [Zichem stone] ende kareelen [brick], up die manier van Brabant, ende allen wit sicheneren werck sal hy snyen, ende die blauwe steenen ende Gobbertinghe steenen effenen” (Van Even 1874, 6).

50

53

51

54

244

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

of Chièvres (1458–1521) (fig. 1).57 Its many tall windows, which allow the light to penetrate the rooms from all sides, and which offer an excellent view of the surrounding domain, unequivocally show that this is no longer a fortified castle, and that its few defensive elements are more a matter of status than of functional use. This complex volumetric effect must have been consciously sought after. Furthermore, great emphasis was placed on the staircase; lodged in a separate tower pavilion (like in Heverlee) or in an open loggia in the courtyard, it served as the main entrance and led to the principal reception rooms on the upper floor.58 This way of building was fit for a king, especially when combined with the antique repertory of forms and strictly proportioned, symmetrical designs, but its association with the glorious Burgundian past, celebrated at every court festivity during Charles V’s reign,59 must have been a decisive factor. Philip II greatly admired this specific style, which he had first encountered during his travels through the Low Countries in 1548–1551, especially in its most modern form, as represented by the residences of his aunt, Mary of Hungary, at Binche and Mariemont.60 The Pardo hunting lodge to the north of Madrid, the castle of Valsaín near Segovia, and the additions to the Alcázar in Madrid, built upon his return from the Low Countries in 1555, carry an unmistakable Netherlandish stamp.61 Jean Lhermite, an archer of the royal guard who came from the Low Countries, tellingly described Valsaín as “built in the manner of the houses in our country, with towers, turrets, spires and roofs covered with beautiful slate, roomy apartments, galleries, courtyards and gardens” (fig. 5).62 Philip II strongly appreciated the ‘Flemish’ manner’s particular technical characteristics and especially the comfortable living conditions it provided, as shown by his renovation of the Pardo (fig. 8). Visiting in 1590, Lhermite again related a significant anecdote, meant to illustrate the king’s “natural inclination towards building”: While staying there as a young prince with his father at an unspecified time in the past, Philip had passed a difficult night in its old, cramped apartments, and told the emperor that it would be good “to enlarge the house, or to extend it for everyone’s comfort”; upon which the old emperor austerely replied that kings should neither have houses, nor the will [to build], in keeping with the old Spanish royal custom of lodging in monasteries.63 Court architect Gaspar de Vega was sent on a study trip to France, the Low Countries and England, and on 16 May 1556, dutifully reported on the most splendid representative of the Netherlandish manner of building, the castle of Jean de Hennin-Liétard at Boussu (begun in 1540), where in spite of its unfinished and war-damaged state, the design and work were the best he had seen (fig. 2).64 Philip imposed these building materials and techniques on his architects; thus brick-and-stone masonry, tall windows with many-leaved shutters and stained glass, steep roofs covered in bluish-black slate, chimneys and chimney stacks, and bulbous spires placed on square, tower-like pavilions, became characteristic of the so-called estilo austríaco or ‘Austrian’, i.e. Habsburg style, in Spain until well into the eighteenth century.65 At first, this meant importing Netherlandish specialists capable of firing the new type of brick, of working  The towers are dated 1519/1520 at the latest (receipts in ARAB Arenberg Archief, Kwitanties 1517–1520 (not numbered), 28–30, payments vander cappen vand(er) nyeuwen toerre ter moele wert, beginning of 1520). De Jonge 2004b. 58   Examples in De Jonge 2007c, 60. 59  Overviews in De Jonge 2000b and Domínguez Casas 2000. 60   Extensive analysis in De Jonge 2007b, 58–70. 61  Martínez Tercero 1985; Barbeito 1998; Rivera Blanco 2000. 62  Lhermite 1890, 98; Bustamante García 1998, 495; Lhermite 2005, LXII, 142. 57

  Lhermite 2005, LX, 119–120; also Chueca Goitia 1982.  “Yo estuve en la casa de Bosu en Flandes medio dia, y yo prometo a v. Magd. que es un pedaço de edifiçio el mejor labrado y tratado que yo aca ni alla hasta agora he visto”. Cited from: Relacion que embio Gaspar de Vega a XVI de Mayo 1556 (Archivo General, Simancas, Obras y Bosques: Segovia, Leg. 1). Iñiguez Almech 1952, 165. On Boussu, De Jonge & Capouillez 1998. 65  Term coined by Chueca Goitia 1986 after the Spanish denomination of the House of Habsburg, Casa de Austria; see De Jonge 1998c, 347–348. 63

64

245

Krista De Jonge

5. Valsaín, from 1556, by Gaspar de Vega and others (attr. Juan Bautista Martínez del Mazo, early 17th c.), (San Lorenzo de El Escorial; Madrid, Patrimonio Nacional, inv. 10014329).

with slate, which was not a material commonly used in Castile at that time, and of erecting the towering wooden roofs and spires; for the Alcázar in Madrid, a full-size model of a window frame with shutters had to be created by Flemish carpenters.66 But into the ‘Austrian style’ also went the latest Italian elements, creating the imposing, severely classical look that was characteristic of the later architecture of Philip II, from the Alcázar of Toledo to San Lorenzo de El Escorial. If the roofs and spires of the Escorial were created by Flemish master carpenters,67 its monumental façades and basilica were meant to outrival the biggest pile of the time, St Peter’s in Rome, then still under construction. Architects Juan Bautista de Toledo and Francesco Paciotto of Urbino, and later on Juan de Herrera, used a strictly ordered, almost abstract set of components which were equally characteristic of the royal style in its later shape (fig. 6).68 Its message was clearly understood, and also used by others. For instance, when Francisco Gómez de Sandoval y Rojas, first duke of Lerma and the favourite of Philip III, renovated his residence at Lerma in this manner in 1613–1618, it constituted an accurate representation of his dominant position at court (fig. 7).69 The duke indeed played a key role in propagating the Habsburg royal style throughout Castile, standing in for the king.70 He must have taken a close interest in the previous monarch’s realisations, since it was he whom the Infanta Isabella   Gérard 1984, 81–83; Barbeito 1992, 37–38.  Replaced after a fire in the eighteenth century. Kubler 1982, 103–105. 68   Kubler 1982; Rivera Blanco 1984; Wilkinson Zerner 1993; Bustamante García 1998. 66 67

246

  Casa principal, final phase of a renovation process started in 1596, designed by Juan Gómez de Mora. Cervera Vera 1996. With many thanks to Javier Ibáñez Fernández. 70   Banner 2009, especially 114–122. 69

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

asked for the plans of Aranjuez, when she was restoring the gardens of Mariemont, Aranjuez’s source of inspiration, in 1606.71 Philip II took an active hand in the design of his ‘Flemish houses’, as shown by the way he employed the long gallery, a space of northern origin developed in the Burgundian-Habsburg residence from the middle of the fifteenth century chiefly in a ­representational role, and transformed its décor. By the mid-sixteenth century, no residence (whether urban palace or castle) of the Burgundian-Habsburg nobility in the Low Countries could be called complete without a gallery space; at the time 6. Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo el Escorial, from 1563, its standard architectural form was that of a by Juan Bautista de Toledo, Francesco Paciotto, Juan de long room, well-lighted by many tall winHerrera, and others ­(photograph Merlijn Hurx). dows at least on one side, placed above an open portico, and heated by at least two monumental chimneypieces (fig. 4).72 Its public variant closely resembled the salle in function, and could take different roles in the reception strategy. It could always serve as a recreation room, but more particularly, it could function as an additional reception space during festivities. To that end – this constitutes a significant difference with England and France – it possessed its own ceremonial staircase, which allowed for direct access from the courtyard. Furthermore, in two early sixteenth-century cases at least, it was associated with a semiprivate reception chamber with a tiled stove, 7. Lerma, palace of Francisco Gómez de Sandoval y Rojas, distinguished by an ornate bow window.73 first duke of Lerma, last transformation phase of 1613-1618, Interaction with private space could also be by Juan Gómez de Mora. noted in the example best known to Philip II, i.e. Mary of Hungary’s long gallery, added in 1533–1537 to the Coudenberg Palace in Brussels as we have seen. It had its own vaulted staircase in a separate volume leading up from the courtyard, and consequently it could function independently as a festive space; on the other end, it started near Mary of Hungary’s chamber and private study, so she could doubtlessly close it off from other users if she wanted to. One of the longest then known in the Low Countries – “eighty paces long and ten   García García 1998, 71–72. See chapter 2.7 for more particulars. 72   The function of this particular space and its place in the sequence of public and private rooms of the residence is today still very much a matter of debate for different contexts from England to France. Coope 1984; Coope 1986; Guillaume 1993; Chatenet 2008. 71

On the Burgundian-Habsburg variant, see De Jonge 2010c and De Jonge 2010d, 74–81. 73  In the aforementioned early sixteenth-century residence at Heverlee this arrangement is documented by inventories (De Jonge 2004b, 73). The resemblance to the configuration at the Bergen op Zoom residence is so striking that we can surmise a similar one there.

247

Krista De Jonge wide”, according to one witness –, it had portals decorated with columns and chimneypieces painted with différents enfants nus et différentes figures antiques by Pieter Coecke van Aelst.74 Philip II obviously felt the need for such a space when he redrew the plan of the hunting castle of the Pardo in his own hand (in the Rasguños).75 The king had the existing party walls broken out in the north and south wing, thus creating two closed courtside galleries on the first floor, which were doubled by open loggias on the external façades (from 1559). This remodelling was further more completed in a distinctly ‘Flemish’ style, by adding square towers with a bulbous spire to the corners; here smaller private spaces were concentrated, to replace the ones lost when the interior walls were demolished (fig. 8). In addition, high slate roofs in the Flemish mode were to cover the wings. Philip also affected galleries of the Netherlandish type at the hunting castle of Valsaín, which had several (fig. 5); the earliest (at the west near the entrance and at the east along the garden) can be seen in Anton van den Wyngaerde’s drawing of 1562.76 At the Alcázar of Madrid, he wished the open corridor or connecting loggia, which ran across the north façade, parallel to the Trastámara great hall restored by his father, to be transformed into a closed gallery on the first floor (1563); this is actually one of his first personal interventions on this palace.77 Lighted by many tall windows, the galería de Cierzo would be decorated with two chimneypieces in white stone from Tamajón. From its decoration and from its situation near the great hall we may deduce a public use. Philip’s early galleries from the 1550s and 1560s are decorated in a particular manner, without precedent in the Low Countries at the time.78 It may be deduced from the – admittedly not very precise – description by Diego de Cuelbis and from the 1600 inventory that the new gallery at the Alcázar of Madrid was hung with portraits of the royal family, and of other royal and popular personages, as well as with battle scenes. According to Jean Lhermite, a similar programme could be seen at the Pardo in 1590. One galerie haulte, not specified but situated in the south wing, had as its Spanish name Galería de Retratos indicates “several portraits of great lords and princes, all by the hand of two of the most famous painters of that period, Antonio Moro and Titian”, including a portrait of the emperor, his wife and his brother Ferdinand.79 Another one nearby had a great number of excellent paintings, most of them said to be by Hieronymus Bosch or Titian; some represented the famous festivities celebrated during Philip’s visit to Binche in 1549, others Charles V’s campaign against the duke of Saxony. Contemporary sources (such as Argote de Molina, writing in 1572) called the Galería de Retratos the “most majestic and most ornate hall [sala] possessed by His Majesty”, thus equating the gallery with a hall much in the Netherlandish manner.80 Amongst the galleries at Valsaín, there must be mentioned the galería de San Quintín which took its name from the main battle scene re­presented there (1568).81 Located above the main entrance, it served as official reception hall, while the gallery of mirrors (galería de los Espejos), which looked out over the garden, served as banqueting hall; between its windows there were views of the cities of the Low Countries.

  Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Rekenkamer 27400. De Jonge 1994, 111, 116–121. Dimensions “lunga passi ottanta e larga dieci”, according to Francesco De’ Marchi, Narratione particolare del Capitan Francesco de’ Marchi da Bologna, delle gran feste, e trionfi fatti in Portogallo et in Fiandra nello sposalitio dell’Illustrissimo, & Eccellentissimo Signore, il Sig. Alessandro Farnese, Prencipe di Parma, e Piacenza, e la Sereniss. Donna Maria di Portogallo (Bologna, 1566), fol. 15. D’Hondt 1989, 70–71, doc. no. 1. 75   Martín González 1970; Barbeito 1998, 96–99; Rivera Blanco 2000. 74

248

  Martín González 1992, 69, 79. Barbeito 1998, 91–96, ignores Flemish precedent in this matter. 77  Gérard 1984, 86; Barbeito 1992, 18–19; Barbeito 1998, 99–102. 78   Netherlandish décors discussed in De Jonge 2010c, 77–79. 79   Kusche 1991b; Kusche 1992. 80  Kusche 1991a, see doc. no. 4; Falomir Faus 1999, 133–135. 81   Martín González 1992, 96–98. 76

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

8. El Pardo, transformed from 1559 onwards, by Gaspar de Vega and others (attr. Giuseppe Leonardi, early 17th c.), (San Lorenzo de El Escorial; Madrid, Patrimonio Nacional, inv. 10014337).

The Escorial has a public as well as a private gallery, both of monumental dimensions. Lhermite informs us about the way the aging king used the private one, which was part of his private apartments at the choir end of San Lorenzo de El Escorial; his description refers very accurately to the numbers in the famous Primer diseño of Juan de Herrera, 1589.82 Situated at the easternmost end of the private apartment, which embraces the choir of the basilica on the first floor (this actually corresponds to the ground floor of the monastery), the gallery can be found in the middle of the main sequence of spaces. Fully thirty-five meters long, it follows an antichambre and an audience chamber, and precedes the private dining room and the royal chamber with its alcoves. In this “very beautiful” private gallery the king used to sit with his children in the afternoon, in his reclining chair which is also described by Lhermite. The walls were decorated with Flemish landscapes, in particular those showing the royal hunting grounds near Brussels, and with small maps taken from Ortelius’s Theatre of the World, and to this day it offers an excellent view of the wooded slope beneath the monastery. The Segundo Diseño, on the other hand, mentions a galería real privada, the present-day Salón de Batallas situated on the first floor at the south side of the Patio Real: a gallery which is in fact an audience hall, preceding the apartment proper (fig. 9).83 The term ‘private’ must refer to the fact that only visit­ ors of very high rank were received here, because this space was not really part of the private apartments, to which it was only connected by a stairway and a narrow turning corridor. Vaulted and decorated with battle scenes celebrating famous victories, two of which directly connected with Philip’s wars against Henry II, it is a splendid expression of kingly magnificence. Similar to the so-called Burgundian ceremonial and the apartment, the development of the Burgundian long gallery culminates with Philip II in Spain. The effect of Philip’s mixture of portraits, landscapes and battle scenes in the Low Countries was immediate, as ­evidenced by the long gallery built by Peter Ernst of Mansfeld, governor of Luxemburg and one of Philip II’s most able generals, in his new residence at Clausen between the  von der Osten Sacken 1984, 115–116; Lhermite 2005, 361–362. 82

83

  Bustamante García 1994, 672–673.

249

Krista De Jonge ­ id-1570s and the late 1580s.84 The galm lery wing ran from the entrance building towards the new lodgings and beyond them towards the sunken fountain court underneath the main house, at this point morphing into a cryptoporticus and vaulted grotto decorated with antique statues. The gallery space on the first floor was accessible by an independent staircase from the courtyard, and connected the apartments in the entrance wing with the private lodgings in the pavilion. It contained a great number of paintings hung in serried ranks between the windows; these depicted battle scenes from the time of Charles V and from the Dutch Revolt, with a continuous frieze of Burgundian and Habsburg princes, and other famous personages above, all of which were left to Philip III at Mansfeld’s death in 1604.85 There is a clear reference here to the Habsburg predilection for using dynastic portraits as an official status sym9. San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Salón de Batallas, bol, shown not only by Philip II but also by 1589, by Juan de Herrera (photograph Pieter most of his older and younger female relaMartens). tives.86 Unsurprisingly, his daughter Isabella felt she also needed a long gallery next to her apartment in the Brussels palace; after all, she was joint regent with her husband, and he had the gallery of Mary of Hungary on the first floor at his disposal. The latter was duly heightened by one story in 1608–1609; soon after, both galleries would be decorated with imperial imagery in sculpture and painting (on Isabella’s active interest in architecture, see chapter 2.7 by Bernardo J. García García).87 Whether the estilo austríaco or ‘Habsburg style’ actually translated to the Viennese court in the architectural sense is a question that must be answered more fully later.88 The Austrian branch of the Habsburgs, in the persons of Archdukes Ernest and Rudolph, had firsthand knowledge of Philip’s new architecture while they lived with him in 1564–1571, particularly of Madrid, Aranjuez and the Pardo; Rudolph II’s interest must have remained vivid since his ambassador, cultural agent par excellence Hans Khevenhüller, sent him drawings of Valsaín, La Aceca and Aranjuez in 1588.89 Rudolph II introduced two monumental galleries as collection spaces in the north wing of the Hradcˇany palace in Prague: the ‘Spanish Hall’ (now called Rudolph’s Gallery) above the eastern stables and the ‘New Hall’ (now confusingly called   De Jonge 2007d, 246–248.   Degen et al. 2007. 86  Jordan 1991; van den Boogert 1993b, 281–284; Eichberger & Beaven 1995; Falomir Faus 1999, 127– 132; Jordan 2000, 275–276, 291–292; Eichberger 2002, 94–97, 153–166; Cupperi 2004. 87   De Jonge 1999b, 191. 88  Ongoing research: Holzschuh-Hofer & Beseler 2008; Holzschuh-Hofer 2010a; Holzschuh-Hofer 84 85

250

2010b; Holzschuh-Hofer forthcoming a; HolzschuhHofer forthcoming b. On early sixteenth-century Austrian residences, still largely unknown, see Polleroß 1998, 92–100. 89   Rudolf 1992, 31; Jiménez Díaz 1998; Jiménez Díaz 2001, 155; Pérez de Tudela & Jordan Gschwend 2001, 74. With thanks to Almudena Pérez de Tudela for the document references and to Bernardo J. García García.

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

Spanish Hall), respectively serving to house his paintings and his sculptures.90 The earlier ‘Spanish Hall’ at Schloss Ambras, realized for Archduke Ferdinand II of Tirol between 1569 and 1572, fits in well with the contemporary Spanish galleries because of its length – forty-three meters –, its role – it is a public space for festivities –, and its décor – which shows the twenty-seven predecessors of Ferdinand as ruler of Tirol in full length between the pilasters (fig. 10).91 A single contemporary example, albeit a modestly sized one, suggests that the ‘Habsburg manner of building’ may have percolated some10. Schloss Ambras, “Spanish Hall”, 1569–1572, by Giovanni times from Spain to the Austrian nobility. Lucchese (photograph Stephan Hoppe). Schloss Eggenberg near Graz was built from 1625 for Hans Ulrich von Eggenberg, personal advisor to Ferdinand II, Knight of the Golden Fleece (1620), and governor of Inner Austria (1625); its four stumpy towers especially, aligned with the main façades and rising only two stories above the main block, seem to refer to examples such as the Escorial and Lerma.92 On a more general plane, the Austrian branch of the House of Habsburg had its own ceremonial, seen as distinct from the so-called Burgundian one by the Brussels court officials who wrote the draft ordinance for Archduke Ernest when he came to the Southern Low Countries (1594). This document offered a choice to the new governor: Did he want to organise his household in Brussels according to the custom of the House of Burgundy, or of that of Austria, or both?93 Other sources show an equally fluid image of the Austrian ceremonial, sometimes seen as contaminated by ‘German’ customs, and evolving throughout the sixteenth century. But by the second quarter of the seventeenth century, the powerful Burgundian myth had been officially adopted: Allegedly, the Burgundischer Hoffstatt had also been in use for a long time at the court of Vienna, even if that turns to be not quite true.94 In any case, ongoing studies on the Hofburg state apartments c. 1600 suggest interesting interactions both with Madrid and with Brussels on the organisational level.95  etherlandish or Habsburg, or both? Architectural allegiances in the Holy N Roman Empire Even before its reinvention as Habsburg style under Philip II, the ‘manner of Brabant’ must have been perceived as both Netherlandish and representational without the Low Countries; its association with the Burgundian myth must have lent it power. The Holy Roman Empire in particular offers material for discussion. Inextricably linked with Charles V,  Muchka 2009 looks for similarities in the German and Italian field only. See also Kaufmann 1978, 22–23; Brunner 1997, 518–519 (with overview of older literature). 91   Scheicher 1975. 92  By Giovanni Pietro de Pomis from Lodi, his court artist. Kaiser 2006. See also the forthcoming study by Paul Schuster (Universalmuseum Joanneum, Schloss Eggenberg). 93   “Avant povoir deuement satisfaire a ce que son Altesse commande il seroit bien de scavoir si sadite Altesse 90

veult composer sa Maison a la mode de Bourgoingue cest-à-dire de pardeca, ou a la mode d’Austrice, ou de tous deux, pour selon ce se regler, touteffois (soubs correction) il semble que sadite Altesse pourra ordonner touchant l’entree de sa chambre, antichambre et salle ce que sensuyt…”. Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Audiëntie 33/1, no. 6 (our transcription). 94   Duindam 2010, 39, 42–47. 95   Karner 2010.

251

Krista De Jonge and after his abdication in 1555, with his brother and successor Ferdinand I,96 the electors and reigning princes of lower rank of the Holy Roman Empire had to come to terms with Habsburg courtly models. The Battle of Mühlberg (1547), which meant victory for the emperor against the Protestant League, primarily meant the humiliation of the Electors of Saxony, and divided the different independent princely states amongst themselves. Not only superficial trappings such as scrollwork in the Antwerp manner97 but more significant elements of Netherlandish, Habsburg court architecture can be recognized in the architecture of the opposing factions. They must have consti11. Jülich, surviving palace wing, from 1549, by Alessandro tuted a political statement that was clearly Pasqualini of Bologna (photograph Michael Jeiter, Deutsches intelligible to court society, but only in some Dokumentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte, Bildarchiv cases we are able to decipher the message Foto Marburg c.439.603). more fully. When William V the Wealthy, duke of Jülich-Kleve-Berg, allied himself to Emperor Charles V, thus closing a long period of Gueldres opposition (1543), he was able to start an ambitious building programme centred upon his residence in Düsseldorf and on the town of Jülich, which was entirely redesigned on a grid with a bastionated enceinte of the latest Italian type.98 From 1548–1549 onwards the newly fortified town also received a palazzo in fortezza after an imperial pattern which had been introduced into the Low Countries by the imperial engineers at Ghent (1540–1542): a square citadel with bastions on the corners, and with a princely palace on an equally square plan in the middle.99 Its Italian sources have always received pride of place in scholarly literature, as has the presumed author, Alessandro Pasqualini of Bologna, who previously worked at Buren for the Egmond family and at other places in Overijssel and in the Meuse valley.100 In this context, however, the most intriguing element is the brick-and-stone masonry of the lateral portions of the wings and the towers, which is definitely neither Italian nor indigenous to the duchy;101 on the contrary, it conforms exactly to the contemporary ‘manner of Brabant’, with white stone mouldings underlining the sills, transoms, and lintels of the cross windows, and fortifying the corners (fig. 11). Not only the fortified palace model but also this masonry type, which looks falsely vernacular, carried the double message of allegiance to the emperor on the one hand and of presumption on the other, since the duke, while a sovereign ruler 96   Image-building discussed amongst others in Kugler 2003; see also Holzschuh-Hofer & Beseler 2008. 97  We do not consider the ubiquitous scrolled gable as specifically Netherlandish, or as Netherlandish only, contrary to Hitchcock 1978; see also Schellekens 1992. 98   On the Düsseldorf residence, see Küffner & Spohr 1999. On the town of Jülich, see Neumann 1986; Eberhardt 1993. 99   The fortress was designed by Donato de’ Boni and built under the direction of Adrien de Croÿ, count

252

of Rœulx, from 1540 onwards. Fris 1922; van den Heuvel 1991, 26ff, 150ff; van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000, 593–599. The designs for the palace, by Jean De Heere (or Mynheere) of Ghent and Virgilio of Bologna (1540–1542), and by Jacques Du Broeucq (1549) were never realized. Hedicke 1912, 296–297, 430–432; De Jonge 2007a, 85–86. 100  Bers & Doose 1994; von Büren 1995; Bers & Doose 1999. 101  As Henry Russel Hitchcock already conceded, Hitchcock 1981, 112.

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

in his territory, was not a monarch.102 As the palace was never actually completed, we do not know which type of roof would finally have covered the towers instead of the hipped structures known from later times. Other examples of Netherlandishlooking noble houses from the Rhineland with the tell-tale masonry include the partially conserved residence of Rütger von der Horst, who belonged to the noblesse de robe in the service of the Cologne archbishop and elector, at Emserbruch (Gelsenkirchen) in Southern Westphalia (1555–1572) (fig. 12).103 Its square, symmetrical plan with arcaded courtyard and four square corner towers comprising a single room was never completed; under close supervision of its patron,104 it was realized by Arnt Johansen toe Boekop, master builder to the city of Arnhem, with an important contribution from stonecutters and sculptors from the same region, such as Heinrich and Willem Vernukken, who realized the portico of the town hall of Cologne and subsequently worked for the count of Hesse-Kassel, 12. Emserbruch (Gelsenkirchen), castle of Rütger and Laurenz von Brachum from Wesel.105 von der Horst, façade masonry, 1555–1572, Although both generic French influence and by Arnt Johansen toe Boekop, Laurenz von local Rhineland tradition have been quoted Brachum, Willem Vernukken, and others. in the literature, the residence is clearly indebted to earlier Netherlandish examples such as could be found at Buren, in its turn influenced by the Nassau Palace at Breda.106 Rütger’s family connections included a distant relationship with William of Orange; at the accession of Archbishop Johann Gebhard von Mansfeld (1560) he became a marshal, playing an increasingly important role in the Revolt of the Low Countries. Although unfinished, Horst might be counted amongst the sources of the towers capped by octagonal domes with spires at Hovestadt, begun in 1563, since its designer is one of Horst’s building masters, Laurenz von Brachum; and ultimately the 1642 Leerodt castle in the Rhineland (destroyed), where the ‘Brabantine’ masonry and the square corner towers with bulbous roofs show up again.107 On the other hand, the residence of Mansfeld’s successor Archbishop-Elector Salentin von Isenburg at Arnsberg, underway in the 1570s, would probably refer directly to important examples from the Low Countries; its main front, turned towards the town, shows a long hall  On military architecture as imperial architecture, see De Jonge 2001; also the introduction to Hernando Sánchez 2000. 103  Hitchcock 1981, 138–146; Apfeld 1991; Alshut et al. 1996; Alshut & Peine 2010. 104   Gonska 1991. 105  Olde Meierink 1991; Kiene 1991; Jolly 1999a, 130–131; Kiene 2000, 152–153. 102

  van den Heuvel & van Wezel 1999, 499–503, 507– 509; van Wezel 1999; De Jonge 2007b, 62–65. On the connection, see von Büren 1996. 107   On Hovestadt, Hitchcock 1981, 142–143, who sees the towers as “French” and the patterned “mixture of brick and stone” in its walls as Henri IV avant la lettre; Herzog 2004, 173. 106

253

Krista De Jonge of approximately thirty-eight meters’ length, flanked by towers with the characteristic roof we have come to associate with the ‘manner of Brabant’ (fig. 13). Laurenz von Brachum was active on the site, together with Isenburg’s court sculptor Willem van Tetrode from Delft, who is known to have contributed to the west tower (1578–1580).108 Explicitly ‘Burgundian’ references could be found in the last Catholic bastion of the north which became Protestant in 1568 at the accession of Julius of Braunschweig and Lüneburg. This case straddles the religious divide; Julius’s father Heinrich, Knight of the Golden Fleece, had not adhered to the Protestant League in 1547, whereas his son went over to the opposition. Nevertheless, as shown by the 1589 inventory, Duke Julius had a so-called 13. Arnsberg, castle of Salentin von Isenburg, ‘Burgundian hall’ (der grosse Burgundische underway in the 1570s, by Laurenz von Brachum, Saal) and above that a ‘Burgundian dancWillem van Tetrode, and others (engraving by ing hall’ (der Burgundische Tanzsaal) at his Frans Hogenberg for Georg Braun’s Civitates disposal in his residence at Wolfenbüttel; orbis terrarum, Cologne 1572–1617, IV, 22, after this wing was located close to the main facsimile). entrance and was accessible through a polygonal spiral staircase at the corner 109 nearest to the gatehouse. One cannot help but be reminded of the stacked great halls (salle with armoirie or gallery space with armour) and galleries (galerie dembas, galerie den hault) in the south-west quarter and south wing of the residence of William of Croÿ at Heverlee, dated before 1519; an example Julius must have known personally when studying at the University in nearby Leuven.110 Not only the superposition of two hall-like spaces but also their decoration recalls Netherlandish examples of the Burgundian long ­gallery which Philip II further developed in Spain, while other furnishings also seem suggestive. Portraits attesting to the dynastic alliances of the duke (which included the Jagiellon House of Poland and hence also the Habsburgs of the Austrian branch) were mixed with battle scenes (which included the Siege of Tunis, Charles V’s main military feat, but also the Spanish Armada and the Siege of Antwerp), while in the upper hall hunting t­rophies took pride of place, together with a ­permanent buffet.111 The buffet, together with the baldachin, belonged to the most significant furnishings of the Burgundian sallette; the whole display indeed seems very close to a prominent Habsburg example not too far away, the contemporary Mansfeld gallery at Clausen (Luxemburg). Another feature suggesting ties to the Low Countries is the presence of rooms heated by chimneypieces next to the more usual Stuben heated by a stove in another of Julius’s residences, the castle at Hesse.112 Without the suggestive terminology and the disposition, the dynastic programme would not seem exceptional, however, even 108  It was rated an illustration in Georg Braun’s Civitates orbis terrarum, see Braun & Hogenberg 1980 (1572–1617), IV, 22. Scholten 2003a, 66. We could not consult Gosmann 1982.

254

  Uppenkamp 2002, 69–70.   De Jonge 2004b, 73. Also Jolly 1999a, 122. 111   Uppenkamp 2002, 77. 112   Kiesler 1996, 74–75. 109 110

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

when combined with battle scenes. Halls or long galleries with a similar decorative program can be found in other German residences of that period, for instance on the first floor of the residence in Kassel, which belonged to a prominent Lutheran.113 In 1581–1584 William IV the Wise, first landgrave of Hesse-Kassel commissioned the portraits of all Christian “emperors, kings, electors and worldly princes” who reigned between 1530 and 1580, twelve busts of the landgraves and their lineage, and a sumptuous sculpted and stuccoed ceiling by Willem Vernukken for the Golden Hall. Overt Habsburg sympathies may on the contrary be found with another branch of the Braunschweig family. Schloss Landestrost at Neustadt am Rübenberge, built by Duke Erich II of Braunschweig-Calenberg (1573) who was a prominent convert to Philip II’s cause,114 constitutes a creditable effort in realizing the mixed masonry of the ‘manner of Brabant’ with iron sandstone as a substitute for the white bands of the original; the use of brick in a region known for stone cladding is indeed significant (see chapter 3.4 by Heiner Borggrefe). One might also wonder whether the long, closely ordered ranks of tall windows shown in the Mattheus Merian view of Erich II’s lost Freudenthal residence at Uslar (see page 282, fig. 6) belonged to long galleries in the Burgundian-Habsburg manner; their ornament was probably created by the (unknown) Netherlandish building master whom Duke Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy, governor of the Low Countries, sent to Erich II in 1559, or by the Netherlandish craftsmen working on the site.115 Several elements with Habsburg connotations come together in the Johannisburg ­residence, built from 1605 onwards by the German architect Georg Ridinger (Rudinger) for Johann Schweikard von Kronberg, archbishop of Mainz, at the very edge of Aschaffenburg.116 Some authors have seen its square courtyard plan and especially its protruding corner towers as quintessentially French; however, the French late sixteenth-century pavilion is far bigger – it accommodates an entire apartment sequence of fair-sized chambre, garderobe, cabinet – and at the same time squatter, its descent of the medieval round corner tower long forgotten. The placing, relative size and height, and especially the crowning spires of the corner towers (fig. 14) on the contrary seem much closer to the Habsburg model, which by that time is Netherlandish and Spanish at the same time; they constitute a significant difference with other four-wing German castles with staircase towers in the corners of the courtyard, such as the Moritzbau in Dresden (1548–1556), the landgrave of Hesse’s residence at Kassel (1557–1562), and the Wilhelmsburg in Schmalkalden (1585–1595), also built for Wilhelm IV of Hesse-Kassel.117 The articulation of the two upper stories seems particularly significant: Set back slightly from the main body of the tower, they form a separate volume, surrounded by a balcony with balustrade on projecting brackets which serves as belvedere. This invention of Jacques Du Broeucq’s may be traced from the châtelet at Boussu (1540–1555) to the main pavilion of the new Mansfeld residence at Clausen (between 1575 and the early 1580s).118 Johannisburg thus fits in very well with the Catholic stance of its patron. Schweikard, who had converted to Catholicism in 1564, was a champion of the Counter-Reformation in his diocese, a fact not without importance as he was also the chief elector of the Reich. In Ridinger’s 1616 publication of the castle,119 the painted ceiling of the Kaisersaal figures prominently; with scenes 113  Schwindrazheim 1937; Heppe 1995, 81, 103–109. On great halls, see Hitchcock 1981, 266–269. 114   Borggrefe & Marten 2002. 115  Documented in 1562. Hitchcock 1981, 157; Uppenkamp 1993, 41. 116   Hitchcock 1981, 285–288. 117   Hitchcock 1981, 214–215; Glaser et al. 1992; Heppe 1995; Großmann 2010, 76–78, 81–82. Examples from

the Rhineland, see Herzog 2004; examples from Inner Austria discussed in Holzschuh-Hofer 2011, 316–318; general discussion in Großmann 2010, 59–64. 118   De Jonge 2007d, 255–256. 119  Georg Ridinger, Architektur des Maintzischen Churfürstlichen neuen Schlossbawes St. Johanns Purg zu Aschaffenburg… (Mainz, 1616), facsimile see Ridinger 1991.

255

Krista De Jonge

14. Aschaffenburg, castle of Johann Schweikard von Kronberg, from 1605, by Georg Ridinger.

15. Aschaffenburg, castle of Johann Schweikard von Kronberg, Kaisersaal on the second floor  (from: Georg Ridinger, Architektur des Maintzischen Churfürstlichen neuen Schlossbawes St. Johanns Purg zu Aschaffenburg… , Mainz, 1616, after facsimile).

ranging from Julius Caesar to Charles V depicted at Tunis, it lived up to its name (fig. 15). Situated on the upper floor and accessible through two spiral staircases with hallways in the corners of the courtyard, its curved ceiling was subdivided into flat coffers, as the section shows.120 The Kaisersaal is the most foreign element in a disposition which otherwise conforms to German models; in short, it may be called a long gallery, connecting two princely apartments. Models of kingly representation in the north: Denmark and Sweden The absence of the public long ­gallery from the Danish context is significant in view of the fact that the Danish kings of the House of Oldenburg consciously adopted the most up to date version of the ‘manner of Brabant’ as their own,121 as did their relatives, the dukes of Schleswig-Holstein. The superposed galleries of the east wing at Kronborg, built by Anthonis   See Chatelet-Lange 1997 on German halls situated on upper floors and the technical solutions for largespan ceilings; however, the fourteen meter-span of the coffered wooden barrel vault of the great hall at Binche (1547–1549), designed by Jacques Du Broeucq for Mary of Hungary, also comes to mind

120

256

(De Jonge 1998d, 162): It was suspended from the roof trusses, in accordance with local tradition in Hainaut. 121   With the latest ornament, see Ottenheym 2011 and chapter 2.3.

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

van Opbergen from Mechelen in the 1580s, indeed seem to function mainly as corridors between the main apartments and the great hall and chapel respectively, rather than as state rooms with their own autonomy in the Burgundian tradition, while in Frederiksborg castle, the picturesque Løngangen spanning the moat also primarily serves as private connection between the King’s apartment and the audience room in the Møntporthus.122 Since Frederick II and Christian IV definitively did not belong to the Habsburg camp (on their predecessor Christian II, who did, see chapter 3.3 by Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen), the 16. Hillerød, Frederiksborg castle, bath house, 1580–1581, by representational elements of the kingly style Hans Floris (photograph Merlijn Hurx). developed by Philip II adopted a new meaning here; the Burgundian-Habsburg long gallery, possibly too fraught with Habsburg connotations, was not among those selected. The particular brick-and-limestone masonry of the ‘manner of Brabant’ can on the contrary be seen quite early on, not only in princely buildings such as Reinbek (1571–1573) and Tönning (1580–1584) in Schleswig-Holstein, built for Adolf I of Schleswig-HolsteinGottorf who was a younger son of King Frederick I, and in the bath house at Frederiksborg (by Hans Floris, 1580–1581) (fig. 16), but also in manor houses belonging to high officials and noblemen, such as Rosenholm (1559–1562/67), built for Royal Counsel Jørgen Rosenkrantz, and Lystrup, begun in 1579 for Chancellor Eiler Grubbe.123 At Reinbek the Netherlandish character even extends to the window frames and the roof trusses.124 In this particular case, we would do well to remember that Adolf I had spent several years at Charles V’s court as a young man (1548–1553), amongst others in Brussels; during the famous festivities at Mary of Hungary’s palace in Binche in honour of Philip of Spain, in August 1549, he acquitted himself well during the jousts, and was honoured with a place at the royal banquet.125 The royal castle of Kronborg at Elsinore (Helsingør) originally showed the same masonry, but in 1580 Frederick II decided to have white stone cladding applied to the whole, effectively distinguishing it from the architecture of the nobility. A most decorative variant of brick-andstone masonry is still visible in the courtyard façades of the royal residence of Frederiksborg, begun in 1602, although in a damaged state because of later repairs: Here the red brick wall is adorned with a lozenge pattern in blue (sintered) brick (fig. 17).126 The exterior façade of Christian IV’s funerary chapel on the north side of the cathedral at Roskilde (1614–1620) also shows the characteristic banded pattern, augmented here with sumptuous ornament (see page 134, fig. 7).127 In any case, the use of brick in Habsburg royal architecture had elevated   Heiberg 2006b, 33.  Albrecht 2011, 206–207. In general, Bøggild Johannsen & Johannsen 2005 and Bøggild Johannsen & Johannsen 2006 (with bibliography). 124   Reinbek’s mason and carpenter remain unknown, some mention of a Joris de Vries and Hermen of Ghent (van Genten) in the documents excepted. Wendt 1991, 163–167. 125  Albrecht 1991, 18. On Binche, see Calvete de Estrella 1873–1884, vol. 3, 95, 99. 122 123

 Overview of Frederiksborg’s chronology and architects in Heiberg 2006b (with bibliography). See also Slothouwer 1924, 89–119; Skovgaard 1973, 41–66, and Roding 1991, 63–81 (all based on older source publications). 127  See Johannsen 2010a, and also chapters 2.1 by Konrad Ottenheym and 2.4 by Hugo Johannsen. 126

257

Krista De Jonge

17. Hillerød, Frederiksborg castle, 1602–1623, by Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger, Caspar Bogaert, and others.

this ­material to a new level of representation, and thus also validated a rich, local Danish and Northern German tradition.128 Of particular interest to Danish patrons and their relatives must have been the lively silhouette with towers and gables, which was characteristic of the ‘manner of Brabant’ from the earliest decades of the sixteenth century, as shown by the royal manor house of Rosenborg and the lost ducal residence at Tönning (fig. 18 and the Introduction to this Part, page 210, fig. 1).129 But we must sound a note of caution. Christian IV’s Rosenborg looks more Netherlandish than it actually is; it not only continues the local type of tall, rectangular manor houses but also connects with models from international court culture, from Germany to the Low Countries and Spain.130 Similarly, the palazzo in fortezza, created at Kronborg by the addition of a bastioned outer defence works, is a specifically imperial type, and the compact plan of Tönning is inspired by Italian and French models. It would not do to reduce the complex breeding ground of Danish royal architecture to the Netherlandish connection only. Equally complicated reasons must be sought behind the extension and sumptuous refurbishment of the royal castle of Stockholm in the 1570s under the younger son and second successor of Gustav I Vasa, the first king of newly i­ndependent Sweden: John III, who was married to Katarina Jagellonica, the sister of Sigismond II Augustus, king of Poland (fig. 19).131 The king had the entire castle whitewashed and decorated with a fake ashlar masonry   Albrecht 1995, 174–226; Albrecht 2011.   Recently discussed in Kristiansen 2006 (with older literature). Slothouwer 1924, 120–132; Skovgaard 1973, 67–73; Roding 1991, 41–61. On Tönning, see Albrecht 1991, 18–31 and in particular Frans Hogenberg’s view 128 129

258

from Georg Braun’s atlas Civitates orbis terrarum, see Braun & Hogenberg 1980 (1572–1617), V, 35. 130   Discussed in De Jonge 2011a, 224–225. 131   In general, Olsson & Nordberg 1940, passim.

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

pattern in the German manner,132 giving it a more coherent appearance. To the north of the old fortress of the Three Crowns (Tre Kronor), the iconographical sources available for the lost building show a trapezoidal new courtyard f­lanked by square towers with complex roofs, consisting of a pyramidal part topped by a ­ flattened octagonal bulb and a narrower octagonal lantern with a spire.133 The newly constituted Swedish royal court needed a proper royal residence; the use of such roofs, in particular, is suggestive, especially in the light of John’s overt 18. Tönning, castle of Adolf I of SchleswigCatholic sympathies (on the Netherlandish Holstein-Gottorf, 1580–1584 (engraving by artists and builders working at the Swedish Frans Hogenberg for Georg Braun’s Civitates court in the sixteenth century, in particular orbis terrarum, Cologne 1572–1617, V, 35, after Willem Boy from Mechelen, see chapter 2.1 facsimile). by Konrad Ottenheym). Material reasons certainly played a role in the kings’ choice: Both in Spain and in Denmark, experienced builders were actually imported from the Low Countries.134 In Spain the reason was obviously one of expertise, because the carpentry of the roof trusses and ­spires, the joinery of the window frames with shutters and especially, the art of covering such complicated roof volumes with slate, were previously unknown there. For Denmark there might be primarily reasons of ­commercial entrepreneurship, since the supervising architects were recruited from Antwerp in the 1560s when the last building boom before the Revolt came to an end (see ­chapter 2.4 by Hugo Johannsen). King Frederick II, but also the upper strata of Danish society – represented by patrons such as Herluf Trolle and Birgitte Goye – indeed had impeccable connections with the Antwerp milieu, as shown by the history of the tombs they ordered in the 1550s and 1560s from the sculptor Cornelis Floris135 (see also chapter 2.3 by Konrad Ottenheym). Antwerp builders, and builders of Antwerp descent, could be found on the royal building sites of Frederiksborg (from 1560), Kronborg (from 1574) and under Christian IV at Rosenborg (from 1606/7). The choice of Hans van Paesschen as master mason by Frederick II in 1574 may be explained by referring to Antwerp’s bastioned fortifications, amongst the most modern in Northern Europe at the time. In the same vein, the 1577–1578 study trip of Hans’s successor Anthonis van Opbergen to Antwerp at the behest of the Danish king is readily explained by the fact that by that time, Antwerp’s enceinte had been augmented by a citadel of the latest design, the work of Francesco Paciotto (1567).136 Although builders such as Van Paesschen had not gone to Italy, they were able to show other, equally attractive accomplishments. To a princely patron, 132   Heckner 1995 concentrates on figurative a sgraffito decorations, but there are also more architectural programmes, for instance on the Dresden stable court façades (rusticated work in trompe-l’oeil). 133  Frans Hogenberg’s view from Georg Braun’s Civitates orbis terrarum, see Braun & Hogenberg 1980 (1572–1617), IV, 38 shows one such roof on the southeast tower in the background; by the second half of the seventeenth century, all four corner towers had been provided with one, as shown by Erik Dahlberg’s

prints from Suecia antiqua et hodierna (situation c. 1670) and the view by Govert Camphuysen, 1661, see fig. 19 (known through an eighteenth-century copy, Museum Tre Kronor, Stockholm). 134  Causing Slothouwer 1924 to label the Danish Renaissance entirely as ‘Netherlandish’. See also Anderson et al. 2011, in particular Van de Vijver 2011. 135   Huysmans et al. 1996, 81–83, 86–92, 103. 136   Lombaerde 2009a.

259

Krista De Jonge military competence obviously counted for as much as familiarity with the latest ornament in the antique manner; efficiency and a talent for organisation must have been similarly prized. As a case in point, the Royal Exchange of London, built from 1566 until 1569 at the initiative of Sir Thomas Gresham on the model of the Antwerp New Exchange (1531–1533), was the work of a team of masons and carpenters from Antwerp led by Hendrik van Paesschen (or van Passe), 19. Stockholm, Tre Kronor castle, with late s­ixteenth- and possibly a relative of Hans, who was known early seventeenth-century ­ additions in the foreground, by in London as “Hendrick Fleming”. Gresham Willem Boy and others (­ eighteenth-century copy after Govert also imported brick, slate, stone columns Camphuysen, 1661, Stockholm, Museum Tre Kronor). and other stone components, ironwork, wainscoting, and even the statue of the Virgin above the entrance from the Low Countries (see page 24, fig. 9).137 Gresham, who had served the English Crown as financial agent in Antwerp from 1552 until 1567, had witnessed the speed with which the Antwerp building crews could erect large, modern buildings.138 Hendrik van Paesschen’s chief claim to fame indeed lay in his contribution to the most splendid and prestigious public building in the North: the Antwerp town hall, built largely between 1561 and 1565, which had been the subject of one of most important international architectural competitions of the period.139 In particular, Hendrik and the mason Jan Daems had been able to translate the sculptors Cornelis II Floris’s and Willem Paludanus’s façade designs into workable execution drawings; the foundations and the staircase – a true master builder’s test – were ascribed to these experts in later court documents (1595).140 The fact that these were public buildings rather than private ones does not really matter here. Another building attributed to Cornelis II Floris, the Hanseatic factory (1564–1569), was known as a ‘palace’ in contemporary sources, presumably because of its dimensions, but possibly also because it shared some features – such as its courtyard plan and its staircase towers – with the most avant-garde residences of the period.141 It constituted the centre of the new riverfront to the north of the old city in the New Town (Nieuwstadt). Antwerp may very well have served as the relaying station between the artistic milieu of the court of Mary of Hungary, where the ‘manner of Brabant’ had been modernised with antique ornament from Rome, thus creating the models that inspired Philip II, and the Danish court (fig. 2). One of the jury members judging the competition entries for the Antwerp town hall in 1560 had been her architect Jacques Du Broeucq, whom she had left behind when retiring to Spain in 1556.142 He obviously became well-known to the Antwerp elite, as suggested by the explicit way Lodovico Guicciardini mentions his work at Boussu and   Murray 1985, 298; Imray 1997; Saunders 1997.  Apart from the Antwerp town hall, see the Hanseatic factory (1564–1569), which was even bigger than the town hall; the Hesse factory (1564–1566); the English warehouses (1561–1563), etcetera. See below. 139   Duverger & Onghena 1938, 102; Rylant & Casteels 1940; Casteels 1961, 51–52. 140   Corbet 1936; Duverger 1941; Bevers 1985. 141  Its design, or at least its sculpted ornament, was attributed to Cornelis Floris by Karel van Mander, 137 138

260

writing in 1604. Miedema 1994–1999, vol. 1, 216– 217; Roggen & Withof 1942, 138–140. Sources, see Lodovico Guicciardini, Description de touts les PaisBas, autrement appellés la Germanie inférieure, ou Basse Allemagne… reveue & augmentée… par le mesme autheur…, (translation by F. de Belleforest), Antwerp: Christophe Plantin, 1582, 107 (“palays”); Himler 1974, 110. 142  Corbet 1936, 232–233; Duverger 1941, 40–41, 52–53; Adriaenssens 1980, 125.

Netherlandish Models

from the

Habsburg Sphere

Mariemont in his Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi of 1567.143 A significant role may also be attributed to the paper architecture of Hans Vredeman de Vries. Some of the more extravagant features of Netherlandish court architecture, which came from the oeuvre of Jacques Du Broeucq, were sublimated into Vredeman de Vries’s earliest architectural fantasies, e.g. the terraced roof adorned with a banqueting house, the compact, turreted pavilion placed in a pond, the sunken courtyard with water basin and fountains, the roof garden, and travelled around Europe in this way (fig. 20).144  n the Netherlandishness of O courtly models and court artists abroad

20. Jan and Lucas van Duetecum after Hans Vredeman de Vries, Small perspective view ­dedicated to Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, Antwerp 1562, pl. 28 (from: Fuhring 1997, vol. 1, fig. 100).

Not even Vredeman de Vries, who explicitly set Sebastiano Serlio’s “antique Italian manner and use” (antiquiteyte Italiaensche maniere and gebruyc) off against the architecture of “ingenious masters and experienced architects of these Low Countries” (ingenieuse meesters ende vervaren architecteurs deser Nederlanden) such as Du Broeucq, used the label ‘Netherlandish’ when alluding to the local manner of building in his 1577 treatise Architectura.145 Courtly models abroad similarly lost their Netherlandishness: The travelling model was Habsburg, or further afield even generically royal, of a quality and ­representational character befitting a kingly building, but no longer Netherlandish in particular. In this context, the ‘nationality’ of the court artist is indeed of lesser importance; whatever his geographic origin or his artistic roots, he was chosen for his capacity to realise his patron’s wishes and ideas. Nor should he be considered as the sole harbinger of innovation. The case-studies discussed here confirm that in a courtly perspective, questions of architectural innovation cannot be answered by focussing solely on the artist, but must also take into account the broader spectrum of the patron’s values – from the dynastic to the artistic, as we have stressed in the introduction – and consider his or her role, and possibly that of his or her agents, as a most active one; the example of peers of a similar or higher rank, especially, inspired change. By taking the broader view, eclectic careers such as that of the sculptor Alexander Colijn from Mechelen, first at the Palatine court in Heidelberg, and subsequently in Innsbruck and Prague, might make better sense. For instance, Colijn’s actual role as architect of the famous Ottheinrich wing façade of Heidelberg castle has been recently contested; his patron and the humanist circle at the Heidelberg court has instead been credited, justifiably so, with a major part of its invention, in particular the emblematic programme (1556–1557, one year before Colijn’s first contract), and a local master mason, Heinrich Gut, with most of its execution in the local reddish sandstone (fig. 21).146 Here as  Lodovico Guicciardini, Descrittione… di tutti i Paesi Bassi, altrimenti detti Germania inferiore…, 1st ed. Antwerp: Guilielmus Silvius, 1567, 101. Although of Florentine origin, Guicciardini had made his home in Antwerp, and the city and its artists have pride of 143

place in his text; as a result, he can be called a wellinformed witness. See Aristodemo 1991. 144   De Jonge 2005e. 145   Ottenheym & De Jonge 2007, 95–96. 146   Hoppe 2005; Hubach 2008.

261

Krista De Jonge

21. Heidelberg, Ottheinrich Wing, from 1556–1557, by Heinrich Gut with Alexander Colijn and others.

in many other cases the migrating court artist did not introduce a new building type, nor did he invent a new iconographic programme. This does, of course, not exclude that he ­contributed to the renewal of the repertory of forms, putting his original training and his travelling experience to the best use possible. Formal innovations which meshed with the patron’s preferences could indeed guarantee him enduring success.

262

Chapter 3.3 Promising Enterprises and Broken Dreams: An Early Incident of Netherlandish Architectural Import in Sixteenth-Century Denmark Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen (The National Museum of Denmark)

Introduction The magnificent royal castles of Kronborg and Frederiksborg in Northern Zealand have for generations epitomised the successful architectural export from the Low Countries to Denmark during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.1 Erected under the auspices of King Frederick II (1559–1588) and his son, King Christian IV (1588–1648), the castles represent the quintessence of a targeted process that implanted Netherlandish models and human resources into the fertile soil of the uprising nation-state of Denmark-Norway, which thrived on political and cultural hegemony in Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea. Rich visual and documentary evidence testifies to a multifaceted agenda involving a wide circle of agents and artists. Equally, impulses from the inspiring crucibles of the royal building sites emanated into other strata of society, influencing private residences and manor houses of the nobility, urban planning and town houses of the prospering citizens, and even leaving marks of Netherlandish origin in church architecture despite confessional inequalities.2 In contrast, a prior – yet generally overlooked – incident of architectural ­dissemination from the Low Countries to Denmark occurred during the brief reign of King Christian II (1513–1523), who was dethroned in 1523 and, after nine years of exile, became a captive in his former homeland until his death in 1559 (fig. 1).3 Admittedly, the actual outcome of the king’s promising enterprises appear more related to “the baseless fabrics of (…) vision, the cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples”, all melting “into thin air”, as depicted by Prospero, exiled duke of Milan, in William Shakespeare’s The Tempest.4 However, focusing in this context on processes and pretensions rather than on material products, a number of archival sources, hitherto not published in extenso nor previously systematically analysed, deserves attention in the present discussion because they illuminate the mechanisms   See the contribution by Hugo Johannsen (chapter 2.4).  A vast literature exists on the cultural relations between Denmark and the Low Countries or the Baltic Region in general, though primarily focusing upon the second half of the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. During the last decades, a number of international conferences and exhibitions have generated valuable reassessments on architecture and the arts from this period, dwelling as well upon issues pertaining to mechanisms of cultural diffusion and transformation. Mentioned in particular should be a series of conferences and exhibitions, chiefly in Copenhagen, i.e. in 1975 (Hafnia 1976), in 1988 (Exh. cat. Copenhagen 1988; see the discussion of Stand der Forschung in Kaufmann 1989, 19–22, reissued with an addendum in Kaufmann 2004, 227–235; 465–466), in 2003 (Turk Christensen 2003b), and in 2006 (Andersen et al. 2011, including a historiographic survey on the

1 2

architectural relations between the Low Countries and the Balticum/Denmark by Van de Vijver 2011). Further to be mentioned are conferences, including contributions on Danish issues by Hugo Johannsen and the author, in Gdan´ sk 2003 (Ruszkowska-Macur 2006), in Wrocław 2003 (Harasimowicz et al. 2006) and in Lemgo 2004 (Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005). An updated bibliography on Danish architecture and the arts is available in http://www.kunstbib.dk/databaser/ databaser_egne.html. 3   Research on the cultural achievements of Christian II has in particular focused upon his patronage of the visual arts, cf. recently Hendrikman 2005, 186, and below, note 16. The king’s “cult-like expenditure on representation” is briefly mentioned by Turk Christensen 2003a, 153. Further Bøggild Johannsen 2011, 59–62. 4   Act IV, scene 1.

263

Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen

1. Portrait of Christian II, c. 1525. Engraving by Jacob Binck after a drawing by Jan Gossaert (Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Copenhagen).

structuring an early case of architectural transmission from the Low Countries to Northern Europe. As shall be demonstrated, the architectural ventures of Christian II involved circles of active agents, artists, and artisans, in addition to material imports and printed or written media communicating expertise related to building practice. From a broader perspective, the

264

Promising Enterprises

and

Broken Dreams

enterprises of the king and his closest collaborators, in particular the Hollandish5 merchants Harmen Willemsz and his sister, Sigbrit Willemsdaughter, elucidate an early moment of cultural exchange in the Baltic region that was closely linked with a ­gradual restructuring of power relations between peoples, organisations (in particular the Hansa), cities, and nation states within this area from 1500 onwards.6 Two groups of documents in the Danish National Archives (Rigsarkivet) have provided the foundation for the ­present analysis. First, two collections of accounts belonging to the so-called Munich Collection (Münchensamlingen), the archive of the exiled Christian II, will be referenced.7 These accounts, pertaining to the late reign of Christian II and his early years in exile, circa 1520–1524, were submitted by his commercial, cultural, and diplomatic agents in Amsterdam, Pompeius Occo and Harmen Willemsz. The Dutch historian Gerhard Wilhelm Kernkamp published the accounts of Occo in 1915.8 Willemsz’s account books (fig. 2),9 extant in two parallel versions, were never printed nor discussed in the present context, although general references to the material were made, primarily by two Danish historians separated by more than hundred years, C. F. Allen (1854–1872) and Mikael Venge (1981).10 Second, two letters from 1521 addressed to Christian II by the master ­builder Michel Heynrick van Haarlem are included (fig. 3). In 1948 the Danish art historian Otto Norn published both letters with Danish ­translations and comments.11 The first section of the survey addresses the crucial question of why Denmark imported Netherlandish examples, by examining the dynastic and geopolitical context. The next sect­ ion entails a close reading of relevant persons, thus answering the question of who was involved. The final section discusses how the transmission occurred by analysing the nature of the actual import, which, at an early moment, boosted elements of Netherlandish origin as beacons from a prosperous area under imperial supremacy, and, in the longer term, presaged a pattern of transculturation that materialised several decades later. However, this chapter   Following a.o. Wubs-Mrozewicz 2007, in particular 87, ‘Hollandish’ is used here instead of ‘Dutch’, when referring directly to the former province or county of Holland or to Amsterdam. A broader definition, focusing upon the geographical area of the present Netherlands, but including as well the northern and southern provinces of the former political unity of the Low Countries, is given in the basic monograph on the political and cultural relations between the Low Countries and Denmark, cf. Fabricius et al. 1945, vol. 1, 8–9. 6  See also the recent volumes, published by the Groningen Hanze Studies, i.e. Brand 2005; Brand & Müller 2007, including the publications of the Baltic Connection project, coordinated by the National Archives of the Netherlands, in particular the archival guide to maritime relations in this area, comprising, as to the Danish sources, the Sound Toll accounts, though not extant from the reign of Christian II, see Bes et al. 2007, in particular 67–82. Not included in the abovementioned survey, however, is Münchensamlingen, nor the sources from the Danish Chancery, here referred to. 7   On the collection, discovered in Amberg in 1826, yet only in 1939 deposited in toto in Copenhagen after an interlude in Norway since 1829, cf. Rise Hansen 1958; Andersen 1969. 5

 Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen (henceforth abbreviated as RA). Münchensamlingen, G. 25. Regnskabsbøger og regnskabsssager 1519–1530. 5. Pompeius Occo’s accounts, 27 April 1520 – 12 June 1523, cf. Kernkamp 1915, 255–329. Not included by Kernkamp, however, is a list from 1521 of copper transport through the Sound at the instigation of the Fugger Company. 9  RA. Münchensamlingen, G. 25. Regnskabsbøger og regnskabsssager 1519–1530. 20. Harmen Willemsz’s accounts, 1521 – 6 November 1524, existing in two, almost identical versions (fols. 70 and 1669), including a supply from Willemsz, the response by Christian II from 1525, and a small amount of undated vouchers. I am grateful to Lasse Bendtsen, Danmarks Kirker, for assistance with the transcription. In the following, references to the accounts are given to fol. 70. 10  Allen 1854, 145; Allen 1864–1872, 3, 2, 105; 5, 284–286; Venge 1981, 60. 11  RA. Danske Kancelli. B. 38. Indlæg til registranter samt henlagte sager, 1481–1533. Letters from Michiel Heynrick van Haarlem, 10 June 1521 and undated (c. June 1521). Norn 1948. The letters were briefly mentioned in Allen 1864–1872, 3, 2, 104–105, this reference being quoted by Kernkamp 1915, 271 note 2. 8

265

Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen

2. Leaf from the accounts of Harmen Willemszoon, c. 1521–1524 (The Danish National Archives; ­photograph Lasse Jonas Bendtsen).

3. Leaf from the letter by Michiel Heynrick van Haarlem, June 10 1521 (The Danish National Archives; photograph Lasse Jonas Bendtsen).

presents only a preliminary introduction to the subject, equally cursorily addressing the eventual emanations from Christian II’s architectural enterprises.12 ‘Nach holendischer art’: The ­dynastic and geopolitical frameworks Around 1539, Wolfgang Utenhof, the German chancellor to the Danish kings Frederick I (1523–1533) and Christian III (1534–1559), penned in his chronicle of Denmark a pertinent yet biased characterisation of the reign of Christian II and the subsequent civil wars that led to the king’s exile and the accession of his uncle, Frederick I.13 Written after the imprisonment of Christian II in 1532 and under the apparent stability of Christian III’s early regime, the narrative was evidently influenced by the views of the victors. Consequently, Utenhof derogated the tyrannical regiment of Christian II, who had cruelly persecuted his political enemies, rejected old laws in favour of new scandalous ones, and, above all, led an immoral life. He rejected Elisabeth (Isabella), his lawful consort and sister of Emperor Charles V, instead preferring a Hollandish-born prostitute, Dyveke, the daughter of a female shopkeeper (that is Sigbrit Willemsdaughter), who had displayed an evil, rude, and aggressive temper and was even given supreme command of the government during the king’s absence, disregarding the queen and the Council of State (Rigsrådet). However, one  A systematic scrutiny of archival sources and the actual emanations from this early sixteenth century Danish-Netherlandish architectural transmission represents an obvious desideratum, preferably to be 12

266

undertaken as a joint venture between the involved countries. 13   Petersen 1851, 1–26.

Promising Enterprises

and

Broken Dreams

appeasing moment was emphasised in this negative balance of affairs. Utenhof acknowledged Sigbrit’s positive impact on the urbanisation politics of Christian II. As a person of tidy disposition, she favoured pretty and neat cities, houses, and streets, and proclaimed a consequent cleaning of the towns, for example, by banishing the cattle from the streets during the summer. She equally encouraged the citizens “to do the same inside their own homes and to embellish and decorate these according to Dutch customs, as was needed in these lands”. In short, had she restricted her activities to the domain of einer strassen fegerin, a streetsweeper, she would indeed have proven herself a useful woman!14 Anticipating aspects of the following discussion on agency and the nature of the Netherlandish influence, the verdict of Utenhof delineated central facts and problems during Christian II’s ten years of reign, yet – a priori – placed these problems within a preconceived pattern of tyrannical behaviour, a prevailing negative approach, which dominated the historiography of the king for later generations, thus overshadowing any appreciation of the visionary elements of his regime.15 However, the positive 4. Detail of ‘The Triumphal Arch’ of the value of Christian II’s dynastic affiliation with Emperor Maximilian I, representing to the the imperial family of the Habsburgs remained lower right, his granddaughter Elisabeth beyond question. This affiliation was assured (Isabella) with the composite coats of arms through his marriage in 1514 to Elisabeth, of Denmark and her personal e­ scutcheons. Woodcut by Albrecht Dürer et al. (from: granddaughter of Emperor Maximilian I. The ­ Bøggild Johannsen 2005). diplomatic alliance, boosted among others in Albrecht Dürer’s monumental print, ‘The Great Triumphal Arch’, strengthened NetherlandishDanish relations in every respect, providing a blank cheque of goodwill and almost unlimited political, commercial, and cultural contacts with princely courts throughout Europe (fig. 4).16 The promised dowry of 250,000 Rhenish guilders was a substantial value for which numerous cities in the Low Countries had to find bail. Yet this claim would burden

 “…dass sie solches In Iren eigenen heusern haben thun mussen und dieselben Nach holendischer art [my italics], schmucken und ziren, welchs den In den landen von Nothen gewessen”. Petersen 1851, 11. Four hundred brooms, delivered through Occo, may have been ordered for Sigbrit, Kernkamp 1915, 277. 15  On the historiography of Christian II and the ambivalent attitudes, not least towards his Janusfaced personality, see Hørby 1980, 261–268. A 14

more balanced evaluation of the king’s reign has characterized research during the latest decades, though a comprehensive reappraisal of his political, proto-mercantilistic and cultural projects still lacks; recent overviews are, beside Hørby 1980, a.o. Venge 1979; Beyer 1986; Wittendorf 1989; Albrectsen 2001; Lockhart 2007. 16   Bøggild Johannsen 2005, 80–81.

267

Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen the ­relations between the king and the Habsburg government throughout his reign and subsequent exile.17 The Habsburg connection became a crucial incentive for the expansive policy of the ambitious king, who pursued the agenda of his father, King John, to strengthen the Danish dominance of the Kalmar Union, a centralised federation established in 1397 and consisting of the three Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) equally seeking a destabilisation of the Hansa league in favour of Netherlandish and English trade.18 As commander of the key to the Baltic Sea, and thus control of the Sound, Christian II not only had the privilege of harvesting the considerable outcome of the Sound Toll for himself. Moreover, he purposefully reinforced the military and administrative apparatus in order to protect and hold the dominium maris Baltici, practising what was aptly described as ‘a policy of monopoly of violence over a large inland sea’.19 As the climax of his farsighted master plan, in 1520, the king projected a Nordic trading company that was independent of the Hansa and headquartered in Copenhagen, which since 1519 was the centre of the Sound Toll instead of Elsinore; further staples would be established in Stockholm, Viborg (in Finland), and Antwerp.20 A few years earlier, in 1517, he had invited foreign merchants to establish their trade in the Danish metropolis, particularly favouring tradesmen from Holland and Russia, adding a special request to the Fugger Company.21 This multifaceted strategy included the promotion of commerce, minting, mining, urbanisation, agriculture, the crafts and industries, and science and culture.22 The prophetic visions for Copenhagen as an international city embellished with beautiful buildings, an enterprising harbour, and fertile surroundings anticipated the ambitions of Christian IV by almost one hundred years, as visualised in Jan van Wijck’s prospect of Hafnia metropolis et portus celeberrimus Daniæ (fig. 5). A distinctive mark of the king’s visionary strategies was the preference for seeking knowledge in the Low Countries. Besides his leading advisers, primarily Harmen Willemsz and his sister, Sigbrit, who both hailed from the Hollandish colony in Bergen, he involved or directly invited to Denmark a wide circle of experts (further specified below), including merchants, minters from Delft, miners from Mechelen, peasants from the outskirts of Amsterdam, a wet nurse, shipbuilders, gunsmiths, coopers, furriers, singers to the royal corps of musicians, organists, ecclesiastics, and scientists, including among others Herman of Alkmaer, Adrian

 Since the nineteenth century, several Belgian and Dutch historians or art historians have focused upon the political and cultural relations between Denmark and the Imperial court in the wake of the prestigious marriage in 1514, from a. o. Willems 1838; Altmeyer 1840; and IJssel de Schepper 1870 to, more recently Gorter-van Royen 1990; Van Driessche 1990; van Berge-Gerbaud 1990; Exh. cat. ‘s-Hertogenbosch/ Utrecht 1993; Hendrikman 2001; Hendrikman 2005. Danish analyses of the cultural policy of Christian have hitherto focused upon single items, in particular his use of portraits, altarpieces and funeral sculpture, cf. besides the abovementioned, Sass 1970; Sass 1976; Plathe 1993; Mensger 2002; Bøggild Johannsen 2005; Bøggild Johannsen 2007; and Bøggild Johannsen (forthcoming). On the strategic implications of the portrait collection of Margaret of Austria, regent of the Low Countries, including as well the Danish family connections, see Eichberger 2002. The 17

268

topic of imported Flemish textiles and tapestries in Denmark during the early sixteenth century deserves a thorough analysis; a brief mention is Gamrath 1975, 73–74; Bøggild Johannsen 2005, 80; see also Kernkamp 1915, 304. Recently discussed is the king and queen’s activity as collectors of treasures, partly of Netherlandish origin, cf. Hein 2009, 28–29; Exh. cat. Munich 2006, cat. no. 17; Hein 2010, 2601–2638. Equally worth analyzing are the ordinances of the royal household, see Danske Magazin 1794, 307–318. 18  On the decline and fall of the Kalmar Union, Albrectsen 2001, 201–205; on the changes of balance in the Baltic region, Brand 2007a, 113–135; Brand 2007b, 6–10; Wubs-Mrozewicz 2007, 86–101. 19   Glete 2007, 20. 20  Allen 1864–1872, vol. 2, 269–273; 3,2, 344–347; Hørby 1980, 239–240; Venge 1987, 120–128. 21   Allen 1864–1872, vol. 2, 270. 22   Basically, Allen 1864–1872, vol. 2, 255–293; 3, 2, 3–40.

Promising Enterprises

and

Broken Dreams

5. View of Copenhagen in 1611. Engraving by Jan Dircksen van Campen after a lost painting by Jan van Wijck (The National Museum of Denmark).

of Schoonhoven, Cornelis of Gouda, Johannes de Myrica of Louvain, and Frans Vormodsen, probably from Amsterdam.23 When regarded as an integrated element of the king’s policy, the import of Netherlandish expertise caused noticeable negative reactions in contemporary Denmark. The disadvantages were reflected, for example, in the defamatory chronicle of Christian II (1523) by Paulus Helie: “Hollanders and rogues I brought forward, to the damage of the Realm and to the disgrace of myself”.24 In a similarly xenophobic vein, the Jutlandic members of the Council in December 1522 called attention to the “tyrants, rogues, witches and other foreigners” who were installed to rule in spiritual as well as temporal affairs, thus removing old privileges, and imposing dishonest tolls and other unnecessary new customs that condemned “the Kingdom of Denmark to eternal damage, slavery and ruin”.25 A decidedly softer wind would blow upon these matters less than fifty years later during the reign of Frederik II. Patrons and agents As previously stated, the royal couple (fig. 6) was situated in the nucleus of activity as patrons and mediators of Netherlandish influences. The king’s marriage by proxy to Elisabeth, born and bred in Brussels and Mechelen at the court of Margaret of Austria, was ceremonially framed in the Imperial Palace in Brussels in 1514 by an exhibition of the Trojan tapestries produced for the wedding of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York, thus placing the Danish connection in the Burgundian-Habsburg mythology of venerable antique origin.26 The queen’s entry into Denmark in 1515 was equally celebrated with – in the Danish context –  On the king’s preoccupation with music, a.o. Kernkamp 1915, 286–291; interesting enough, he paid the leading Habsburg court musician, composer and calligrapher, Petrus Alamire (Imhoff), related also to Occo, not for music, but for advice concerning mining, see Kernkamp 1915, 314, 325 (the issue not specified). On Alamire, active as well as envoy and spy (or double agent), see Schreurs 1999, 18–21. On the invitation of scholars, Allen 1864–1872, vol. 3, 2, 38; Schwarz Lausten 1991, 67–77. Equally Danish students went to the Low Countries, in particular to Leuven, see Jørgensen 1926. 23

 Severinsen 1932–1948, vol. 1, 174 (my English translation). 25  Venge 1975, 7. This complaint was elaborated in the coronation charter of Frederick I from 3 August (26 March) 1523, Wegener 1856–1860, 69. 26   For the wedding in 1514, see Allen 1864–1872, vol. 2, in particular 116; on the ceremonies in Copenhagen 1515, ibidem, 200–225; Bøggild Johannsen 2005, 80 with further references. On the tapestries: Brassat 1992, 189–191; in general, Franke 2007, 185–211. 24

269

Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen

6. Double portrait of Christian II and Elisabeth. Detail of a retable, c. 1517, figuring the Last Judgment, ascribed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Ostzanen or Jan Mostaert. Formerly at Elsinore, the Carmelite Monastery Church of St Mary, now at the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (photograph The National Museum).

a remarkably ostentatious display where she was accompanied by a legation headed by her relative, Philip of Burgundy. During the first years, she kept a retinue of Netherlandish courtiers and ecclesiastics, several of whom were later returned by the wilful king.27 When the queen expired during the Netherlandish exile in 1526, she was buried in St Peter’s in Ghent in an extraordinary monument that displayed an antique repertory and was ordered by the king from Jan Gossaert and the sculptors Jan de Smytere, Jan de Heere, Matheus de Smetyns Here, and Willem Dedelinc.28 The king personally acquired knowledge of the Low Countries during his state visit in 1521, which, among other political goals, allowed him to demand the remainder of his wife’s dowry. This economic injection contributed to financing his remarkable power-shopping during the stay, as documented in detail by the aforementioned accounts. Travelling through different cities in the provinces of Holland, Brabant, and Flanders, he became the object of several triumphal entrances, the main one celebrated in Brussels in   Allen 1864–1872, vol. 2, 309–314; Sterk 1980, 26–27.  Driessche 1990, 125–138; Mensger 2002, 104– 106; Bøggild Johannsen 2007, 214–215; Bøggild Johannsen (forthcoming). On the alleged project drawing in Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett (inv. KdZ 4646), referred to the queen’s monument, see Exh. 27 28

270

cat. ‘s-Hertogenbosch/Utrecht 1993, cat. no. 178; also Alsteens 2010, 395–398, rejecting the interpretation of the drawing as an alternative design for the monument for William II and Elisabeth of Brunswick-Lüneburg in Middelburg, mentioned a.o. by Dhanens 1985, 125ff and De Jonge 2005c, 134.

Promising Enterprises

and

Broken Dreams

the presence of his brother-in-law Emperor Charles V.29 Appearing before the public in the Low Countries, Christian II underwent a visual transformation, from an almost anonymous appearance to a status-laden representation befitting for a king, as demonstrated by the luxuriousness of his own and his retinue’s attires or paraphernalia, and by his princely conduct, which included generous offerings for church services, throwing of money, donations to private citizens, banquets, and musical performances. The king’s physiognomy was memorialised by artists such as Albrecht Dürer, Quentin Metsys, and Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, including a portrait made in clay (in erden) by an unnamed “sculptor from Leiden” (beldsnyder von Leyen), which was possibly a portrait bust in terracotta similar to the bust of Charles V that was previously ascribed to Conrat Meit or to the collection by Claude de Chartres, formerly in Philip of Burgundy’s residence at Duurstede.30 Two mints or medals with the king’s profile portrait may have also been connected with his vivid association with minters and goldsmiths, including the minter and city treasurer of Delft, Joris Dircksz de Bye, and two goldsmiths and engravers of Antwerp, Pieter and Gerbrand Dircksz.31 The administration of the royal commissions, the financial transactions, and the cultural diplomacy during his Netherlandish travel in this period rested in the hands of a small number of agents, the most important of whom were three previously mentioned citizens of Amsterdam. Pompeius Occo, born of a Frisian family, was a prominent agent of the Fugger House, a diplomat and learned patron of the arts, and a financial intermediary to the Danish kings since at least 1511. Thus, Occo was a key figure in the Dutch-Scandinavian trade relations. During Christian II’s visit, he entertained the king with dances, banquets, and tournaments in his private residence, the renowned ‘Paradise’ in the Kalverstraat.32 However, Occo was subordinated to two even more influential individuals within the innermost circles of power. Since 1515 Harmen Willemsz was the king’s main factor in Amsterdam and former lord lieutenant in Bergen. During the exile of Christian II, he was summoned by the court in Mechelen for financial irregularities and had to explain his accounts from 1521 through 1524, apparently the main reason for their preservation.33 The last influential agent was the sister of Harmen Willemsz, known as Mother Sigbrit, Sigbrit Willoms, or Willemsdaughter (“Willemsdotther”),34 a widow and merchant in Bergen and later in Copenhagen, and mother to the king’s concubine, Dyveke. From 1517 until the exile of the royal family in 1523, Sigbrit upheld an extraordinary position as a shadow chancellor and diplomat administering the finances and the Sound Toll, acting as vice-regent during the king’s absence, and even serving as a privileged guardian to the crown prince and midwife to the queen. These last positions of trust would be, in fact, more relevant to the king’s mother, the Queen Dowager Christine of Saxony. As mentioned previously, Sigbrit was directly involved in the urbanisation policy of the king and probably also influenced the Civic Laws of 1522 by implementing

 Allen 1864–1872, vol. 3, 2, 99–117; Sass 1976, 163–183. 30   Hendrikman 2005, 209, however incorrectly attributing the portrait sculpture, mentioned in Kernkamp 1915, 313, to Joris Dirksz de Bye, the king’s agent and city minter of Ghent, who only ordered the portrait. On the busts mentioned, cf. Exh. cat. Munich 2006, cat. no. 69; Sterk 1980, 130. 31  Christensen 1936, 415–418. These portraits were not included in Hendrikman 2005, 208–210. On the minters mentioned, Allen 1864–1872, vol. 3, 2, 104; Galster 1972, 25–28; further, on Joris Dircksz, 29

Kernkamp 1915; Nübel 1972, 106–107. Harmen Willemsz’s accounts comprise several references to minters, not only to the abovementioned, but also to other colleagues from Antwerp, Jan Heijlens, Ielcs van Ruijsbroeck and Peter, his son. RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 8v. 32  On Occo’s relations to Denmark, basically Nübel 1972, 64–195. 33  Allen 1854, 277–280; Nübel 1972, 66–67, 252; Venge 1981, 43–44. 34   Venge 1981, 44.

271

Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen administrative praxis from the Netherlands.35 She followed the king in exile and probably died in prison sometime around 1532. Her Danish tombstone, only partially preserved and possibly an earlier import from her native country, was vandalised, according to later traditions, during a subsequent campaign of damnatio memoriae (fig. 7).36  anpower, materials, and models: the nature M of the Netherlandish import As stated above, the documentary sources referenced illuminate Christian II’s late reign in particular. Yet an early case of Netherlandish import was reflected in a letter from Occo on 18 June 1515, promising to send via Willemsz three joiners (kistemakers) together with an organist to Denmark.37 A comparable case also appeared in a letter dated 9–10 August 1526 by the king’s secretary, Hans Mikkelsen, and delivered through the carpenter, Johan Spellemann of Antwerp, mentioning that Christian and learned men of unspecified profession in the threatened Evangelic communities of Lier and Antwerp would gladly travel to Denmark should the converted Lutheran king regain his throne – a motivation that anticipated the great exodus of Protestant Netherlandish artists in the wake of the religious wars in the second half of the century.38 7. Fragments of fragmentary tomb stone According to these documents, the royal enterfor Sigbrit Willemsdaughter, formerly at prises involved the transmission of architectural labour, Timgaard Manor in Northern Jutland, now processed building materials, and expert’s reports – in all at The National Museum of Denmark (from: subsidising both civil and religious architecture, preferably Petersen 1879). in Copenhagen. Deliveries to other parts of the realm were not specified, but the import of written knowledge concerning urbanisation and mining would evidently be intended for other destinations as well, including the Swedish and Norwegian provinces. With a number of exceptions, the majority of individuals mentioned were anonymous and comprised a varied group of craftsmen, including bricklayers, stone masons, carpenters, sawyers, joiners, glaziers, and smiths, as well as unspecified workmen (trawanten). These workers and craftsmen were listed in relation to travel money to Denmark and payment for work or deliveries deriving equally from the Northern (Haarlem and Edam) and Southern Low Countries (Bruges and Antwerp). Michiel Heynrick van Haarlem, master builder or architect (see below), an anonymous master carpenter of Edam,39 his colleague, Master Arent,  On Sigbrit, basically Venge 1981, 33–68; Scocozza 1992. On the Civic Laws, cf. Kolderup-Rosenvinge 1821–1846, vol. 4, 71–134. Among the commissions, given to Occo, was the collecting of charters from the cities of Mechelen, Ghent, Bruges and Antwerp, which offered paradigms unquestionably relevant to the royal reforms, cf. Kernkamp 1915, 322 and below. 36  Petersen 1879, 56–86; Jensen 1951–1953, vol. 1, 94–95; II, no. 172. 35

272

 RA. Danske Kancelli. B. 38. Indlæg (…) 1481–1533; published in Nübel 1972, 252. 38   Diplomatarium Norvegicum 1849–1992, vol. 13, 410–414; on problems in connection with this exodus, recently Bøggild Johannsen 2006, 5 and 15. 39  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 3v and Kernkamp 1915, 292. 37

Promising Enterprises

and

Broken Dreams

the carpenter40 and Master Otto, the blacksmith, were all expressly enumerated as master artisans.41 Other workmen distinguished by name or title included the masons Geroen van der Holst, Jacob Stuijfsack, and Oste Fromont;42 the king’s stone mason;43 Heinrick, the king’s sawyer;44 the joiner, Cornelis van Boxel;45 the glazier Jan Eversz;46 and the carpenters Jan de Blockemager,47 Gille Troch, Peter Schega (Schegaert), Jacop Brant from Bruges,48 and Jan Peterzs.49 Building materials specified included 12,000 bricks from Gouda directly ordered by Mother Sigbrit together with 5,000 clinkers from Leiden, fourteen barrows of cement from Delft, 4,000 tiles from Enkhuisen,50 readymade garnieren-hout (probably wooden panels),51 and various types of manufactured iron goods, such as bar iron ­(platijser), nails, and spikes.52 Engineering knowledge related to mining was personally transmitted or through printed books as well,53 while information on urban administration from numerous cities in Brabant and Flanders was copied by hand.54 One, somewhat extraordinary, incident in particular reflected the working ­conditions and diversified tasks of a Netherlandish ‘guest architect’. In the summer of 1521 in Amsterdam, the master builder Michiel Heynrick van Haarlem personally presented a p ­ roject ­(exemplaer or ontwoerp) to the king for a three-storey, octagonal spire crowned by an apple and d ­ esigned for the quadrangular so-called Bakery’s Tower at Copenhagen Castle. The p ­ resent – which included a drawing for an organ pulpit in the castle chapel and a small bat with balls for “the dearest, sweetest young King John”, the two-year-old crown prince – represented tokens of amendment as the master was involved in a fight in Copenhagen with a fellow townsman, one unnamed joiner, who also was active as a merchant and ship owner. After the conflict, Master Michiel hastily returned to Haarlem. During his short Danish career, the versatile architect was in charge of several commissions at the royal castle, including administering works upon the benches (die ghestoelten), a closet or chest (cas), and a painting belonging to Sigbrit, as well as arranging tapestries in the Great Hall to the order of the queen and even seeing to the supplies of wine and beer!55 Generally, the letters reflected an intensified building activity at the main royal ­residence in Denmark that included several artisans, carpenters, joiners, stone masons and bricklayers, all privileged to dine with distinguished members of the royal household in the Great Hall. Though not expressly stated, it is tempting to assume that Netherlandish workmen were present at this gathering. Judging from the reports, a thorough modernisation of the irregular medieval castle was undertaken. The campaign, which had its earliest phase already initiated around 1500, included a modernisation of the court façade and a renovation of the castle chapel (figs. 8–9). During works, the stair to the Great Hall was decorated with porch stones portraying King John and Queen Elisabeth (figs. 10–11), while the chapel was embellished with an Antwerp retable, one of twelve altarpieces known and likely imported from the Low Countries during the first decades of the sixteenth century.56 However, whether the  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 7v.  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 3v. 42  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 6v. 43   Kernkamp 1915, 327 (only mentioning his wife). 44   Kernkamp 1915, 279. 45  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 7v. 46  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 5r. 47  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 7v. 48  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 6v. On Peter Schega(ert), see also Kernkamp 1915, 293. “Jacob den tymmerman”, mentioned ibidem, 315, may be identical to Jacob Brant. 49  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 3r. 40 41

 RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 3r; Kernkamp 1915, 276–277; 51   Kernkamp 1915, p. 275. 52  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 2r and v; Kernkamp 1915, 275, 279. 53  RA. Münchensamlingen. G. 25.20, fol. 70, 7v; Kernkamp 1915, 271, 314. 54   Kernkamp 1915, 322 and above. 55   Norn 1948, XII-XXII; on Master Michiel, apparently nothing – so far – is known from Haarlem archives, cf. Norn 1948, 31, note 15. 56  Gamrath 1975, 67–72; Bøggild Johannsen 1983, 23–50; Plathe 1993, 94–110. 50

273

Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen

8. Copenhagen Castle, section of the courtyard facades including, from left to right, the Kitchen Wing, the Bakery Wing and the Great Hall with the two porch stones (figs. 10-11). Survey ­drawing, 1707 (The Royal Library, Copenhagen; from: Gamrath 1975).

9. Copenhagen Castle, to the right: transverse sect­ ion of the chapel showing the Antwerp retable, now in Viborg, church of Søndersogn. Survey d ­ rawing, 1707 (The Royal Library, Copenhagen; f­ rom: Gamrath 1975).

10. Portrait of King John, 1503. Porch stone, ascribed to Adam van Duren, formerly flanking the entrance to the Great Hall, Copenhagen Castle, now at the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (photograph The National Museum).

11. Portrait of Queen Elisabeth, c. 1523. Unfinished porch stone, ascribed to Morten Bussart, formerly flanking the entrance to the Great Hall, Copenhagen Castle, now at the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (photograph The National Museum).

274

Promising Enterprises

and

Broken Dreams

planned transformation deserved any comparison with contemporary residence architecture in the Low Countries remains uncertain.57 The drawings by Master Michiel remain unknown as well. Nevertheless, the ­description of his spire project proudly presented it as made according to the art of geometry (“na die ­conste van die gemetrie”), changing the great foot into the small, rightly proportioned (“na den rechten ordinanci”), and modestly adding that a painter might have produced a more ­ beautiful work, though not as true to the measurements nor accompanied by a plan.58 Destined as a showpiece confronting the main entrance, the construction would have ­ typologically anticipated by seventy-five years the storied spire of the Blue Tower, the castle’s great tower, updated by Christian IV in 1596 as a beacon of prestige and power (see fig. 5).59 Though never executed, the projected 12. Haarlem, tower of the Bakenesse Church, Bakery Tower belonged to the family of c. 1525 (photograph Hugo Johannsen). storied towers from the Low Countries that developed the quadrangular basis into an octagonal shape, as exemplified in the fifteenth-century Southern Low Countries, and crowned with a bulbous spire, a form that in the early sixteenth century was disseminated from the Southern into the Northern provinces, including Haarlem among others (fig. 12).60 Netherlandish reflections upon civic architecture and urbanisation might equally be deduced from the written sources, which alluded to a planned modernisation of the major towns, still dominated by half-timbered houses, into the ideal of the prospering Netherlandish cities embellished with richly ornamented buildings in stone. Knowledge of urban architecture in early sixteenth-century Copenhagen is extremely limited, but possible offshoots may be detected in Scania and Funen.61 The Malmø residence from the 1520s of Jørgen Kock, a Westphalian merchant and minter to Christian II, displays regulated façades decorated with moulded bricks and oblique pinnacles, including statues, profiles, and horizontal bands in limestone (fig. 13). Kock’s residence is related, for example, to the Utrecht residence of Cardinal Adrian Boeyens (Pope Hadrian VI) from 1517, an example of ‘the Brabantine ­manner’ in brick and sandstone initially developed in princely architecture and stately m ­ anors   De Jonge 1994; De Jonge 1999a; De Jonge 2005b.  Norn 1948, XX-XXI. On the term ‘ordinanci’ (ordinantie) and the Late Medieval and Renaissance practice of architectural drawings in the Low Countries: Meischke 1988, 127–207, spec. 136. On the emphasis upon ratio, the practice of geometry and arithmetic as a marker of prestige in a Northern European as well as in an Italian context, Günther 2003, 49–65. 59   Wanscher 1937, 17–21; Gamrath 1975, 98–99. 57 58

 Vermeulen 1928–1941, vol. 2, 23–29; Norn 1948, 27–29. 61  See also related statutory instruments 1520–22, Nielsen 1872–1874, vol. 1, no. 216; vol. 2, no. 219; Kolderup-Rosenvinge 1824, vol. 4, 105, 109–10. Further Lindberg 1996, vol. 1, 94–100. 60

275

Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen of the nobility in the Southern Netherlands.62 Pinnacle gables and decorated, polychrome exteriors could equally be documented from early sixteenth-century Odense, residence city of the Queen Dowager Christine, mother to Christian II, as witnessed by, for example, the south façade of St John’s Church – characteristics also reflected in contemporary church ­architecture in Funen.63 A possible later repercussion, if not an isolated case, is demonstrated by the courtyard façade of the western wing of Gottorp Castle, which was rebuilt by Frederick I around 1530.64 However, the majority of Netherlandish workmen presumably left Denmark again in the wake of their royal patrons. Conclusion Though almost “melting into thin air”, the architectural enterprises of Christian II, whether tycoon or tyrant, should be 13. Malmø, façade of the residence of Jørgen Koch, regarded as important elements in a cultural 1520s (from: Bygningsarkaelogiske Studier 1994, 42). and political strategy at an early moment that consistently promoted visual models and technical expertise from an area worthy of imitation for the dynamic potential of its economic development and for the prestige-giving and ostentatious display of imperial power. The ‘Hollandish manner’ of urban architecture was preferred as a metaphor of orderliness, beauty, and enterprise, while the Habsburg court culture constituted a paradigm of princely grandeur, as reflected in residence architecture, ceremonials, tapestries, and portraiture. The limited image of architecture and the arts during Christian II’s reign situated his patronage within the pattern typical of members of the Habsburg familia, advocating a stylistic pluralism, which, without any conflicts, encompassed Gothic in its modern Brabantine or Flamboyant versions, and the Renaissance’s new-fangled antique repertoire of Italian stamp, in particular signifying ‘the Imperial style’.65 Thus, the Danish case may be instrumental to two different agendas – first, illuminating the cultural physiognomy of the early sixteenth-century Danish court, which was distinctively more international in character than generally assumed; and second, anchoring the first wave of architectural transmission from the Low Countries into Northern Europe in parallel with the Spanish South.66

 Holmberg 1980, 67–88; Ottenheym 2003, 214; on the “Brabantine manner”, recently De Jonge 2008a, 271 and De Jonge 2011a. 63  Johannsen 1998–2001, 1307–1309, with further references. 64   Albrecht 1995, 221–222. 62

276

  See De Jonge 2008a, 266; on pluralism as a semantic marker, Mensger 2008. On the ‘Imperial style’, van den Boogert 1993a; Mensger 2002, 95–107. 66  Bøggild Johannsen 2011 for a discussion of the early ‘Danish Renaissance’; see also De Jonge 2011a. 65

Chapter 3.4 Building for a Career at the Spanish Court and Building Manner of Hans Vredeman de Vries in the Weser Region

in the

Heiner Borggrefe (Weserrenaissance-Museum Schloss Brake, Lemgo)

The Weser is a river formed by the confluence of its two large tributary rivers, the Werra and Fulda. The region possesses economic resources that gave rise to an intensive commercial exchange with the Netherlands in the sixteenth century. Sandstone, pottery, ironware, flax, dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) and grain were exported via Bremen to the Netherlands, with Antwerp as the most important international trading centre. The Middle Ages had seen the establishment of monasteries, towns and dynastic aristocratic rule. During the sixteenth century an early modern body politic replaced earlier forms. In this period one finds residences of territorial rulers and houses both of the lower gentry and civic patricians being built in the Renaissance manner.1 In the mid-1520s the princes of the region began to style their residences using decorative all’antica elements. The semi-circular gable (known as welscher Giebel) became the main stylis­ tic element in the architecture of territorial rule.2 They are to be found at Neuhaus Castle near Paderborn as early as about 1525. Thus, along with Saxony, the Weser region numbers among the Central European regions to which the Renaissance spread early. The interconnections with Saxony and Italy have recently been discussed elsewhere;3 this chapter on the contrary focuses on the Netherlandish aspect. It is far from offering an exhaustive catalogue of examples of Netherlandish influence in the Weser region. By concentrating on certain people and buildings instead, it will reveal those features that constitute the Netherlandish connection. In the end, it will contribute subject matter for the topic of cultural geography, which reflects on cultural transfer between European regions in order to lift the mythical veil of cultural nationalism. The local nobility as patrons The regions of the Weser and Saxony were subject to other cultural geographic influences than those of the Low Countries alone. The new ‘antique’ forms used differed at first, and it was not until the middle of the sixteenth century that they gradually adapted to one another. Soon the semi-circular gable disappeared from the Weser region, and scrolled gables came to characterise a kind of Central European Renaissance style. Henry-Russel Hitchcock regarded scrolled gables as a Netherlandish invention of the 1520s, inspired by Serlio’s design for the scena tragica. As an early example he cites the (rear) façade of Margaret of Austria’s palace in Mechelen.4 This idea has the drawback that its gable was rebuilt with scrolls in 1876, as Jona Schellekens has stressed in her discussion of the scrolled gable’s possible origins.5 With the help of other Flemish examples the author shows that the scrolled gable often made its appearance in the early years as the fusion of all’antica forms and Late Gothic ornament:6 Thus the Italian  Kreft & Soenke 1975; Exh. cat. Lemgo 1989; Borggrefe 1999; Exh. cat. Lemgo 2000; Bischoff & Ibbeken 2008. 2  Unnerbaeck 1971; Roch 1991; Großmann 2003; Borggrefe 2008; Borggrefe 2010. 3   Borggrefe 2008, see also Borggrefe 2010. 4   Hitchcock 1978, 23. 1

 As part of the Neo-Renaissance restoration of the palace by architect Blomme. See Schellekens 1992. A more accurate discussion of the palace and its contents may be found in Eichberger 2002, chapter 2. 6  Other examples, securely dated to the 1530s and attributed to court sculptor Jean Mone and his entourage, are discussed in De Jonge 2007b, 33–35. 5

277

Heiner Borggrefe

1. Dresden Castle, St Georg’s Gate (‘Georgentor’), built c. 1530. Engraving from: Anton Weck, Dresdner Chronik 1680 (Magirius 19923, 63).

2. Detmold Castle, with its arcaded walkway of 1555, bearing the initials I.R. (‘Jaspero Robyn’).

repertoire of forms did not represent an irreconcilable contrast with ‘­traditional’ architectural ornament. Its reception was sooner the result of synthesis than of polarising exclusion. The scrolled gable is not exclusive to the Low Countries. It was also known at an early stage elsewhere, as the façades of the palace in Dresden proves, built about 1530 under the elector, Prince Georg (fig. 1).7 It is in fact a European form with regional variants. In search for Netherlandish ­connections in architecture of the Weser region, the reception of stylistic features such as the scrolled gable should be combined with the network of patrons who prompted the cultural transfer or who took part in it. Their involvement in the European court networks forced them to restyle their residences in ­accordance with the models and leading examples of the international courtly scheme of demonstrating social prestige. In the course of this, Netherlandish artists, most of them sculptors, came to the Weser region in the 1540s alongside illustrated books and engravings. The arcaded walkway built in stone in Detmold Castle, erected in 1555, bears the initials I.R. (fig 2). They stand for Jaspero Robijn, who presumably belonged to a family of artists from Ypres in Flanders.8 The walkway is in the tradition of the open façade of an   Magirius 1989, 44–47.

7

278

  For Jaspero Robijn see Albrecht 1989; Borggrefe & von Büren 2008, 22. For the Robijn family see De Ren 1982. For Detmold castle see Borggrefe 2011. 8

Building

for a

Career

at the

Spanish Court

arcaded courtyard, as was also built in Breda. Since this Italian architectural form already made its appearance in the Weser region in the 1530s, namely in Celle Castle, one cannot speak here of a typically Netherlandish innovation either.9 In 1552 Jaspero Robijn constructed a well for the courtyard of Stadthagen Castle.10 Stadthagen was the main residence of the counts of Holsteinpossessed Schaumburg.11 The counts ­ valuable sandstone deposits in nearby Obernkirchen and thus participated in the trade of sandstone with the Netherlands. For example, they delivered sandstone for the construction of the town halls of Leiden and Antwerp. To the erect the latter the mayor of 3. Stadthagen Castle, commissioned by Count Adolf XIII of Antwerp sent the Antwerp citizens Anthonis Schaumburg in about 1535 (photograph author). de Seron and Peter de Haase to Stadthagen in 1561 to select stone for the prestigious building project (steen alhier in den nyewen Stadthuyse).12 A branch of the Robijn family had presumably also come to the Weser in the course of trading sandstone and settled here. Count Adolf XIII of Schaumburg commissioned the building of Stadthagen Castle in about 1535 (fig. 3). He had connections with the Low Countries.13 The most important of these was certainly the fact that Emperor Charles V placed him in charge of the council of guardians attending the young William of Orange, who was to be given a Catholic upbringing as the future governor of the Low Countries. Adolf was a cousin of William the Silent. He studied in Leuven and became canon in Liège in 1528. He took a remarkable interest in the Renaissance. In 1542 he donated a glass window to the church of St Hubert in the Ardennes, in which he is shown kneeling in front of a triumphal arch in classical style at a desk with an open prayer book, while Saint Lambert is protectively placing his hand on his shoulder.14 The window is an example of the Renaissance that was introduced to Liège by Prince Bishop Érard de la Marck and the painter Lambert Lombard from the early 1520s onwards.15 It is interesting to see that as a patron Count Adolf reacted with a different style in each case. While he employed semi-circular gables in Stadthagen, the window of St Hubert’s Church represents a typical example of Roman architecture with its characteristic arches. The choice of a specific style was thus more dependent on the context than on the patron’s preferences or previous knowledge of architecture. Count Adolf stood high in Charles V’s favour and was elected archbishop of Cologne in 1547 on the emperor’s urgent recommendation. At the Imperial Diet of Augsburg in 1548 the emperor appointed him to say the programmatic Mass at Whitsun that marked the Catholic victory over the Protestants. After Adolf’s demise, his brother and successor in the office of archbishop ordered a monumental wall tomb for Cologne Cathedral from Cornelis Floris in Antwerp.16 In designing it, Floris reverted back to Italian examples – to the tombs of   Albrecht 2003.   Borggrefe 1994, 63–69. 11   Borggrefe & von Büren 2008. 12   Bernstorf & Soenke 1964, 44–45; Jolly 1999a, 121. 13   Borggrefe & von Büren 2008, 27. 14   Borggrefe & von Büren 2008, 28–29. The composition refers to the great windows in the 9

10

transept of the collegiate church of St Michael and St Gudula in Brussels, important commissions from Mary of Hungary of 1537–1538 (van den Boogert 1992). 15   Denhaene 1990, 15–17. 16   Borggrefe & von Büren 2008, 28–30.

279

Heiner Borggrefe

4. Cologne cathedral, tomb of Archbishop Anton of Schaumburg (d.   1558), by Cornelis Floris, ­ 1558–1561 (photograph Merlijn Hurx).

the Cardinals Ascanio Sforza and Girolamo Basso della Rovere to be precise, that had been manufactured as double tombs by Andrea Sansovino for the church of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome. A few years later Floris created a second tomb for the count of Schaumburg’s ­ brother Anton (fig. 4). Both works were originally exhibited in the cathedral choir and since 1863 have been located in side-chapels. The monumental pieces marked a turning in the ­development of the Renaissance in Cologne. The remarkable expense can be explained by the fact that the Schaumburg counts had championed the preservation of Catholicism in Cologne.17 This glance at the activities of Count Adolf of Schaumburg shows that the Netherlandish cultural influence in the region of the Weser came about against the backdrop of political structures in Europe of that age. This is actually true of most of those who commissioned buildings or acted as patrons in the Weser region. The local lords were either for or against the Habsburgs and were hardly in a position to be politically neutral, even if they were reigning princes. Catholics and Protestants might both be in fact members of the Habsburg network. To borrow a phrase from Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, they were planets in the imperial universe.18

Duke Erich II of Braunschweig-Calenberg Another important person in the Weser region who maintained influential relations with the Low Countries was Duke Erich II of Braunschweig-Calenberg.19 He was educated as a Protestant, but then turned his back on the Reformation and took sides with Charles V. Later he entered the employ of King Philip II of Spain, who admitted him to the Order of the Golden Fleece. Erich was an illustrious and ruthless man, whose life would offer plenty of material for a historical adventure film. He was extraordinarily ambitious and wanted to have a successful career at the Spanish court, for he hoped to be appointed by Philip II in high office – either as the Spanish governor of the Netherlands, as the governor of Milan or as the viceroy of Naples. After the iconoclastic movement he joined forces with the duke of Alva and became part of his rule of terror. The iconoclastic movement occasioned him to fund a stained glass window by Wouter Crabeth in the Sint-Janskerk in Gouda (fig. 5).20 The topic is   Schmid 1999.   Kaufmann 1998, 9–19. 19  Kunze 1993; Borggrefe & Marten 2002; Edelmayr 2002, 187–202. 17 18

280

  van Regteren Altena 1938, 104–105; Ploys van Treslong Prins 1922, 302; De Goudse Glazen, in: Heemtydinghen 20, Woerden 1966, 2; Kunze 1993, 125, 129–131; Borggrefe & Marten 2002, 207; van Eck et al. 2002.

20

Building

for a

Career

at the

Spanish Court

the Expulsion of Heliodorus from the temple, made familiar by Raphael and intended as a ­critique of the iconoclasts. Although Duke Erich was constantly in need of money, as were so many of the king of Spain’s followers, he managed to amass a considerable fortune during his forays. At the end of his life he owned four castles on the Weser, seignior­ ial rights over two areas in the Low Countries, a palace in The Hague, another one in Madrid, the famous Venetian Palazzo Vendramin-Calergi and an estate in Pavia. In addition, Catherine de’ Medici presented him with sovereign rule over Clermont and Creil near Paris. Erich purchased from the Gonzaga a part of the margravate of Mantua. His second wife was a daughter of the duke of Lorrain. His unadorned tomb is in Pavia.21 Erich’s ancestral area of rule lay in the region of the Weser. The territory of BraunschweigCalenberg was spread out from the land north of Kassel to beyond Hannover.22 Three castles bear witness here to his extraordinary ambition and aspirations to his career at the Habsburg court. As a courtier or follower of Philip II, Duke Erich was influenced by the architectural policy developed by the Spanish king as a result of his victory in the colossal battle of Saint-Quentin. As is well known, he had El Escorial built on the groundplan of a gridiron, since the military victory was won on Saint Laurence’s Day.23 But the palaces of 5. Portrait of Duke Erich II of BraunschweigMadrid and El Pardo are to no lesser a degree the Calenberg, by Wouter Crabeth in the St expression of increasing royal self-assurance (see Janskerk in Gouda, 1566. chapter 3.2 by Krista De Jonge). The outcome of the battle, in which he took part, likewise spurred Duke Erich on to unusual building projects. These were the three castles that he had built by Netherlandish workmen after 1559. The most interesting building as regards Netherlandish influence was destroyed by fire. Uslar Castle, built around a square courtyard, measured an imposing ninety-five metres in overall length (fig. 6a).24 In 1612 it burnt to the ground and from then on was quarried for building material. One can still see the lower part of the walls with a few window frames (figs. 6b-c). In these details and in its fortress-type layout with four corner towers, Uslar bears witness to the influence of Netherlandish architectural tradition. It is a structural design such as was used also at Boussu Castle (see page 239, fig. 2).25 Uslar’s façades can no longer be reconstructed. They were presumably constructed in the Netherlandish masonry style with brick-and-stone masonry (so-called speklagen). Another of the duke’s buildings suggests this. The façades of Neustadt   Borggrefe & Marten 2002, 238–240.   Streetz 1998. 23  Francisco de los Santos, Description breve del Monasterio de S. Lorenzo, Madrid 1657, fol. 2v. 21 22

 Maier 1962; Reuschel 1987; Kunze 1993, 99–103; Borggrefe & Marten 2002, 191. 25   De Jonge & Capouillez 1998. 24

281

Heiner Borggrefe

6a. Uslar, Freudenthal Castle (engraving from Matthäus Merian and Martin Zeiller, Topographia Germaniae, Frankfurt 1642–1654).

6b and c. Details of the remaining substructure of Uslar castle, dating from 1559 (photograph author).   Kunze 1993, 223–275.   Streetz 2004. 28   Streetz 1999. 29   Borggrefe & Marten 2002, 182. 26 27

282

Castle near Hannover, built from 1573 on, were erected in this manner (fig. 7).26 The details show the same characteristic style of masonry as at Uslar. The duke could have had the façades erected in sandstone, as was customary in the Weser region, especially since this material was more prestigious. But if he chose the Netherlandish speklaag style, then this must also have served a representative purpose as well. The largest of the duke’s three castles was that of Hannoversch-Münden, the dynasty’s ancestral seat (fig. 8).27 After it burnt down in unfortunate circumstances in 1560, Erich had it enlarged at great expense in the years that followed. The wing ­facing the river Werra, still ­preserved today, is almost a hundred metres long. In the ­courtyard there was a portico with ­walkways on each of the five floors that were later demolished.28 While Erich undertook to construct a thoroughly ­ modern, i.e. Netherlandish building in Uslar, he kept some historical elements in Hannoversch-Münden. A late medieval tower-shaped oriel and the chapel’s Gothic windows conveyed the impression of a building that had grown through the ages, which well befitted the family’s ancestral seat. Erich’s father had enjoyed high ­standing as the first knight at the court of the Habsburg Maximilian I.29 Erich had several rooms in Hannoversch-Münden elaborately decorated on the basis of Netherlandish prints. The Naval battle of Lepanto was a topic very palatable to the Habsburg court.30 The so-called Chamber of the Romans and the Chamber of the white steed are better preserved.31 The Chamber of the Romans was painted in the style of illusionist ­architecture, with Romans such as Lucullus, Crassus and Sulla standing in the niches (fig. 9). In the Chamber of the white steed figures from the Old Testament are   Kastler 1989, 92.  Engel & Reichwald 1965–1969; Fusenig 2000, 276–279; Streetz 2004, 125–128. 30 31

Building

depicted (fig. 10). The ­illusionist motifs and the cartouches are modelled on ­examples by Vredeman de Vries and Jacob Floris. The figures of the Romans and the biblical heroes can be traced back to engravings by Marten van Heemskerck, as Thomas Fusenig has shown.32 For his building projects in Uslar, Hannoversch-Münden and Neustadt, Erich brought together Netherlandish builders and craftsmen. In the castle’s interior one still finds door jambs and mantelpieces that betray Netherlandish influence. Tradition has it that Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy, the Spanish governor of the Low Countries, ­procured builders for the duke. Documents do confirm that there were numerous c­ raftsmen from the Low Countries among the hundreds of people who were ­ involved on the building site. Only a few of the Netherlandish ­building workers are ­referred to by name, however; among them a ­certain master Balthasar who had taken up ­residence in Münden.33 He is named as early as 1540 and can thus be reckoned among the earliest Netherlanders known to have lived in the Weser region. Duke Erich’s architectural policy can be summed up as follows. As far as we can still judge about Uslar Castle today, Erich ­imitated the architectural language of the SpanishHabsburg ruling powers most ­radically in this building. The castle, ­ designed resolutely in

  Fusenig 2000.

Career

at the

Spanish Court

8. Castle Hannoversch-Münden, 1560–1563 ­(photograph author).

7. Castle Landestrost at Neustadt am Rübenberge (near Hannover), 1573 (photograph author).

32

for a

9. Hannoversch-Münden, ‘Chamber of the Romans’ (photograph author).

10. Hannoversch-Münden, ‘Chamber of the white steed’, with figures from the Old Testament ­(photograph author). 33

  Streetz 2004, 70.

283

Heiner Borggrefe Netherlandish style, was intended to serve his career, the ­crowning moment of which would have been the office of the Spanish governor of the Netherlands, the governor of Milan or the viceroy of Naples. Likewise, the castle in Hannoversch-Münden impressed the visitor through its sheer size and through its combination of Renaissance forms with medieval decorative elements, thus conveying the impression of time-honoured origins and of size that had grown in time. The castle in Neustadt am Rübenberge, in contrast, was a fortress constructed according to a state-of-the-art system of bastions, the progressive nature of which was reinforced by the Netherlandish elements in the castle façades. The role of prints To carry out the building work Erich required staff from the Low Countries. It also called for some quite demanding sculpting work. Netherlandish sculptors are in evidence at many residences in the Weser region.34 On the other hand, the pictorial decoration was often carried out by local painters, following models from Netherlandish prints as in the case of HannoverschMünden. Antwerp printed illustration sheets had an impact both on the architecture and on the fine arts in the Weser region after 1560. In the fine arts examples based on Frans Floris, Marten de Vos and Marten van Heemskerck are involved. A fireplace in Stadthagen can be cited as an example, the frieze of which imitates the title page of Heemskerck’s series Circulus vicissitudinis rerum humanarum.35 The fireplace was commissioned by Count Otto IV of HolsteinSchaumburg. He too studied at Leuven University, was later in the service of King Philip II of Spain and fought for him at Saint-Quentin.36 As Philip II’s pensioner, Otto often stayed in Brussels and Antwerp. It was he who conducted correspondence with the mayor of Antwerp in 1561 about the deliveries of sandstone for the construction of the new town hall. The question of how the printed sheets arrived in the Weser region from Antwerp is easily answered. Patrons and buildings commissioners such as Count Otto or Duke Erich were able to purchase the sheets directly in Antwerp or in Brussels where they were staying. This is borne out as well for those commissioning civic buildings, who promoted the use of modern antique forms outside the sphere of the court to display social status. The merchants from the North German Hanseatic towns were regular visitors in Antwerp, conducting their trade there.37 They were able to purchase the prints by Vredeman de Vries there to give to their master builders and stonemasons, so that they might use them to design façades. The entrance hall of the town hall in Lemgo is based on Vredeman de Vries’s Scenographiae sive Perspectivae. The master builder was clearly fascinated by perspective, so he executed the building’s beam-heads to heighten the effect of perspective.38 Vredeman de Vries’s influence on the Weser region was enormous, as a further example of the interior decoration of Wolfsburg Castle shows.39 The Vredeman de Vries boom can be explained above all by the demand throughout Europe for drawings as models.40 The printed illustrations offered a medium of serial ­production that enabled artistic forms to spread rapidly. As a result the forms became standardised. While the early scrolled gables were distinguished by regional nuances such as Flemish features in Bruges or Saxon ones in Dresden, Vredeman’s series entitled

  Overview in Jolly 1999a.   Borggrefe & von Büren 2008, 21–22. For Heemskerk’s series see Veldman 1986. 36  Husmeier 2002; Borggrefe & von Büren 2008, 30–32; Wieden 1974. 37   Exh. cat. Antwerp 1993b, 238. 34 35

284

 See illustration 46 in Borggrefe 2012; Vredeman de Vries, Scenographiae sive Perspectivae, Antwerpen 1560, plate 16, 20. 39   Uppenkamp 2001, 84. 40  For Vredeman de Vries see Exh. cat. Lemgo 2001 and Antwerp 2002; Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005. 38

Building

for a

Career

at the

Spanish Court

Dorica-Ionica or Corinthia-Composita and other books of columns led to a unified style across a number of regions. The ornaments of the arsenal in Gdan´sk, the town hall in The Hague or that of Lemgo resemble one another. Although Vredeman de Vries worked at the court of Wolfenbüttel, one would certainly have absorbed his stylistic innovations there without him actually being present. The Juleum in Helmstedt, the university set up in 1577 by Duke HeinrichJulius of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, is a typical example not only of the distribution of Vredeman’s ornamentation scheme, but also of the type of Netherlandish architecture with slim towers (fig. 11).41 This type, published in Vredeman’s Architectura, is a characteristic example for the town halls of Gdan´sk and The Hague.42 The internationalisation of the forms first required a technical innovation, namely the invention of printed illustrated sheets as a serial medium. Furthermore it needed an economic distribution network, for which a commercial 11. Juleum in Helmstedt, the university set up by Duke metropolis such as Antwerp provided the best Heinrich-Julius of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, built in conditions. One may ask, as a reflex, how the 1577–1578 by Paul Francke (photograph author). Weser region ‘on the periphery’ was able to become acquainted with products ‘of the centre’. Nevertheless it will be more useful to reverse this conditioned reflex. We could understand the centre as a place that is dependent on the periphery. Antwerp soaked up economic resources from the periphery and pumped back its cultural products into it. In fact, a centre can only grow because it has the periphery as a source and a market. Duke Julius of BraunschweigLüneburg was planning a huge network of waterways to be in a better position to deliver his principality’s quarried minerals to Antwerp via Hamburg and Bremen.43 Vredeman de Vries and a few Netherlandish engineers were working on this. The plan was however shattered by Antwerp’s decline and the duke’s death. After 1585 Antwerp was the Netherlandish trading centre par excellence.44 There had been industry located here since 1550 and an export market for artistic products had arisen that had great influence on Central Europe and the Baltic. Painters’ workshops in Antwerp worked for the export market. One example from the Weser region is the supply of paintings by Marten de Vos in 1569 for the chapel of Celle Castle.45 As the centre of a progressive economy Antwerp became a plaything of the political powers. It is not easy to say whether the city’s downfall in 1585 meant a break in the influence of its export culture in Europe. But the Netherlandish   Thies 1997; Uppenkamp 2010.  Hans Vredeman de Vries, Architectura oder Bauung der Antiquen aus dem Vitruvius, Antwerpen 1577, plate 28.

  Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2001.   Van der Wee 1963. 45   Zweite 1980, 85–146.

41

43

42

44

285

Heiner Borggrefe culture in the Weser region began to ebb away around 1590. This went along with Philip II’s resigned withdrawal from the Empire. The loss of contacts that ensued in the Weser region was replaced by other relations. In the decorative architectural elements one can discern a shift in interest. Instead of Vredeman de Vries’s examples one now finds those of Wendel Dietterlin, championing the so-called auricular style, being used in the rebuilding of Bückeburg Castle.46 While the influence of Netherlandish ‘paper architecture’ declined, Netherlandish engineers remained in demand. Around 1600 they were working at many of the courts and cities of the Weser region, to erect fortifications modelled on new types invented at the court of the prince of Orange, as for example in Bückeburg.47 Around 1600, Ernst of Holstein-Schaumburg, who commissioned the castle in Bückeburg, took little interest in the Netherlandish culture of his day. The prince, who was inclined both to the arts and to Italy, turned to Italian culture and to that of the imperial residence in Prague.48 He had studied in Bologna and Florence and had his gardeners trained in Rome for more than ten years. He fetched the musicians for his court chapel from England. This selective approach to European culture can also be observed at other courts. Landgrave Moritz of Hesse had his musicians trained in Venice and fetched actors to Kassel from London.49 His designs for a villa suburbana that he drew up himself betray French influence – he was a friend of King Henry IV of France.50 Ernst of Schaumburg and Moritz of Hesse possessed statues by Giambologna and Adriaen de Vries, such as one saw at the time at the leading European courts. Ernst became one of Adriaen de Vries’s most important patrons. These two artists of Netherlandish origin were perceived as representatives of Italian sculpture, however. In the Weser region, Netherlandish models lost influence around 1600. It even came to a reversal of production and export. In 1595 the front of Leiden town hall was pre-fabricated in Bremen, albeit modelled on a design by Lieven de Key from Holland, thus representing a specimen of reciprocal cultural transfer from the Weser to the Low Countries.51 If the Weser region had at first only served the Low Countries as a source of raw materials, Netherlandish expertise now spread out along the Weser. Here too it was individual people who were the driving force behind the moves. The brothers Andries and Daniel van der Meulen had found refuge in Bremen after their exodus from Antwerp and continued their business here, and this included the façade of Leiden town hall.52 Faced with such a variety of influences in the Weser region, one should observe that it always involved conscious acts of cultural adoption. Absorbing Netherlandish culture was part of a selective approach to the European culture of the day. Patrons sought purposefully whatever promised to help them display their power. Alongside the striving for political power, technical and economic progress spread out in the shape of the Antwerp export market. Against this backdrop one has to call the Weser area an open region that was engaged in exchange with the European centres.

 Wendel Dietterlin, Architectura, Nürnberg 1598. For the influence of Dietterlin’s Architectura see Borggrefe 1994; Forssman 2007. 47   Soenke et al. 1974. 48   Borggrefe 2007, 9–12. 46

286

  Exh. cat. Lemgo/Kassel 1997.   Hanschke 1997; Hoppe 2006. 51  Meischke 1989; Albrecht 1995, 69–74; Exh. cat. Lemgo 2000, 174–175. 52   Exh. cat. Lemgo 2000, 290–292; Hoppe 2006. 49 50

Chapter 3.5 Joris Jorissen Frese and the Origins Sacral Architecture in Livonia

of

Renaissance

Oja ¯ rs Spa ¯ rı ¯ tis (Latvian Academy of Sciences, Latvian Academy of Arts)

Introduction In terms of politics, trade and religion, the sixteenth century was a period of fundamental change in the Baltic regions. Between 1558 and 1583, the confederation of the Teutonic Order and Catholic bishoprics in Livonia disintegrated, due to conflicts among its feudal states and two attacks by the Russian army. The duchy of Courland was formed in 1561, while Riga acquired the rights of a free city. The country was constantly under the threat of attack by Swedes, Poles and Russians. After the Russian forces were repelled in 1578, the Swedish-Polish alliance re-divided Estonia and Vidzeme/Livland into spheres of influence and the duchy of Courland became legally subordinated to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The forces of the Polish king, Stephan Báthory, occupied Riga in 1581 and the city was forced to swear loyalty to the Polish-Lithuanian crown. The dominant positions in international trade also shifted. After the activities of the Hanse merchants in the Baltic Sea basin had shrunk, traders, book-printers, engineers, architects and builders from the Low Countries supplied Livonia with new knowledge about city defence, as well as sacral and civilian construction. Between 1591 and 1597, Netherlandish entrepreneurs held the leading position in the Baltic Sea transport turnover and trade, and three-quarters of the four hundred ships that annually entered the port of Riga belonged to the Dutch.1 Livonia had irrevocably adopted Protestantism between 1521 and 1524 and the city of Riga became an important centre of the new religion. In the rural areas, Protestantism was supported by the Teutonic Order in Livonia, whose administrators were allowed to preach Lutheranism in the chapels of their castles and residences. Immediately after the Reformation, followers of Martin Luther in Livonia started using the churches that had been alienated from Catholics, as had happened in other Protestantism-affected European countries, thereby developing the basic principles of a new liturgy (Kirchenordnung) within the existent architecture. In response to Luther’s vehement appeal in his letters to the citizens of Riga, the people of Livonia followed the Wittenberg example and secularised Catholic churches and monasteries in Riga, Ce-sis/Wenden and Valmiera/Wolmar.2 On this basis, the people founded secular schools, formed libraries and organised care of Evangelical clergymen. Livonian Protestants followed the instructions of Luther and his followers against the barbaric aggression against the interiors of former Catholic churches and, as a result, they did not immediately develop   Latvijas PSR ve¯sture. 1. se¯jums, Rı¯ga, 1986, 73. lpp.  Den Auszerwelten lieben Freunden gottis/ allen Christen zu Righe/Reuell und Tarbthe ynn Lieffland/ meynen lieben herren und brudern ynn Christo. Mar. Luther Eccle. Wyttem. M.D.XXIII.; Der hundert und Sieben zwentzigst psalm ausgelegt an die Christen zu Rigen ynn Liffland. Wittemberg. M.D.XXIIII.; An

1 2

die Ratherren aller Stötte Teutscheslands, daß sy Christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen. Wittemberg, M.D.XIIII.; Eyne Christliche vormanung von eusserlichem Gottis dienste unde eyntracht / an die yn Lieffland / durch D. Martinum Luther und andere. Wittemberg. M.D.XXV.

287

Oja¯ rs Spa¯ rı¯tis their own vision on church architecture. Former Catholic churches and chapels in the rulers’ castles were adapted to the new situation. They were redecorated in accordance with the newly developed simplified Lutheran liturgy by identifying new ways to express the transposed theological accents in modern works of art. The existing sacral buildings provided sufficient congregational space for Luther’s followers and their liturgical activities and, up to the third quarter of the sixteenth century, there was no need to build Protestant churches. The three new Lutheran churches constructed in Livonia in the 1570s and 1580s are remarkable early examples of churches that are specifically designed and built for the Protestant religion. The church of Lyon Huguenots from the 1550s, known as ‘the temple of paradise’, is one of the earliest examples of original sacral architecture built exclusively for the needs of an early Protestant congregation and presented a totally new type of cult building. Here, the concept of the Biblical Great Temple of Solomon has been converted into a centrally planned rotunda-type structure, the interior of which is reminiscent of a university auditorium or anatomic theatre with the pulpit in its centre.3 The chapels in the residences of the Reformationsupporting German dukes and princes can be regarded as transformations of the previous pre-Reformation type of residence chapel. In the court chapels of buildings such as Neuburg an der Donau (1540–1543), Hartenfels Castle in Torgau (1544), the Elector of Saxony’s residence in Dresden (1548–1555), and the castles of Stuttgart (1559–1562), Schwerin (1560–1563), Augustusburg (1568–1572) and Wilhelmsburg in Schmalkalden (1585–1590), the adaptation to the new religion was most noticeable in how they were furnished with new altars, pulpits and patronage pews.4 The earliest evidence of typologically new samples of sacral architecture for religious ceremonies of Lutheran congregations dates back to the late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century churches, such as the German parish churches in Tilsit (1598–1610) and Insterburg (1616–1612), St Mary’s church in Wolfenbüttel (designed by Paul Francke in 1604, built 1608–1625) and the parish church in Bückeburg (built 1610–1615).5 The first temporary Calvinist churches in the Low Countries dated from the 1560s, while the first permanent constructions in the Dutch Republic were built in the 1590s (Willemstad) and in the first decades of the seventeenth century (the well known Amsterdam Protestant churches).6 Joris Jorissen Frese Soon after the Reformation, in the second quarter of the sixteenth century and at the early developmental stage of artillery and fortification structures, Riga’s Town Council launched construction works to improve the city defensive wall by means of a moat and primitive ramparts. During the Livonian War, the role of fortifications again became a topical issue. Upon the death of the former city architect Hans Ries in 1564, the Town Council asked Gert, alias Joris Jorissen Frese, to appraise the defensive wall and to propose ideas for its reinforcement.7 Frese had come to Riga from Bremen in 1565 and was known as a woodcarver and a building master. Nothing is known about his origins. His surname ‘Frese’ obviously points to ‘Friesland’, one of the two most northern provinces of the Low Countries, but in Bremen this could also have been the German region of Ost-Frisland.8  See the oil painting, dated 1564, preserved in the University Library of Ghent, ascribed to the painter Jean Perrissin; Mai 1994,15, ill. 4; Snaet 2007. 4   Großmann 1994; Fürst 2005. 5   Kadatz 1983, 106. 6   Ozinga 1926; Snaet 2007. 7  Campe 1951–1957, vol. 2, 11; Thieme-Becker vol. 11, 408–409; Spa¯rı¯tis 2006. 3

288

 J.J. Frese’s extraction may be connected with the family name of “Frese” or “Frise”, popular in the vicinity of Bremen (information kindly supplied by J.G. Kohl). Since the Riga Town Council had many trade and denominational contacts with Lüneburg, Daniel Frese, the versatile artist and cartographer who worked mainly in Hamburg and Lüneburg and died in 1611, might have been related to the Riga architect.

8

Joris Jorissen Frese

and the

Origins

of

Renaissance Sacral Architecture

in

Livonia

Frese initially presented himself in Riga as a joiner and a sculptor, which only points to his road to his education as a builder. In Northern European countries, such a road typically started by learning the practical skills of sculpture, carving or furniture making and the knowledge of decorative forms of the interior. In the next step, the apprentice would continue his education under the guidance of an authoritative master. It can be assumed that Bremen was not Frese’s place of origin, since in a letter to the city council of Riga dating from 1569 (discussed below), Frese stated that he had already travelled a lot and served various patrons and cities. 1. Riga, the Port Gate, engraving after Nikolaus Unfortunately, he provided no further inforMollyn (1612). mation about his former whereabouts. On 21 January 1567, Frese submitted his considerations for the fortification of Riga on the harbour side, the improvement of the Ma¯ rstal i Gate’s defensive potential, as well as sketches and description of the new Harbour Gate (Hafentor) above the site where the Rı¯dzene stream falls into the Daugava river. Frese mentions a drawing of the Harbour Gate together with a detailed description in his correspondence with the Town Council: “I made a design for the harbour […] but for a better understanding of the drawing I will give some additional written explanation: For the construction of such an harbour the foundations must be constructed from the bottom up with well cut square stones as shown; […] For the walls above the foundations only the best bricks may be used. […] The doors of the harbour gate must be reinforced with iron and will need good locks”. 9 The only reliable existing document with a picture of the gate is the engraving by Nikolaus Mollyn of the panorama of Riga in 1612. The façade of the Harbour Gate as an extension of the city wall behind the Ma¯ rstal i Tower testifies to a convincing advent of Renaissance forms in the architecture of Riga (fig. 1). Two rounded arches of different size and made of different stones stand out in the brickwork façade: The smaller one was meant for carts and pedestrians, with the larger one intended for the Rı¯dzene River and the ships to enter the city port. Above the latter arch, there used to be a rectangular field, which could have been intended for the traditional chronostic dedication. Along the upper edge of the façade ran a decorative frieze with alternating rustication, rosettes and lions’ heads – an element of Riga’s coat of arms. In 1569, Frese applied to the Town Council for the post of the city architect (Stadtbaumeister) as follows: ´

´

 “Habe ich solche Visierung wie solch eine Haue soll gebaut werden (...). Die Visierung aber inmassen sie allhier vorgestellt zu verstehen, habe ich nicht unterlassen können schriftlich wie solche ein Gestalt habe zu eröffnen: erstlich die Haff anzurichten muß das Fundament aus dem Grunde mit gehauen Quadranstein oder im Quadrant gehauen gleichst dem Erdreich aufgezogen werden inmassen alldar

9

vor Augen; ...was aber über dem Fundament gesetzt ist, soll und muß mit guten gebrannten Ziegelsteinen gemacht werden ... Die Befestigung des Loches oder Hafen betreffen müssen die Türen außen und inwendig verhauen und dergleichen mit Eisen beschlagen und mit Schloß und Riegeln wohl verwart werden...”. Campe 1939, 245–250.

289

Oja¯ rs Spa¯ rı¯tis I noticed that in these times of war, Your Honourable Council lacks a city architect. I have now been living in this city for some four years working as a sculptor, but in these difficult times I urgently need more work to survive. Without bragging, I may say that I have seen many other places and thank God I have learned how to serve one’s patron, city, and community. Therefore, if it will please your Honourable Council, I will be at your disposal to serve as city architect and to work piously and truly with all my talents and energy for the benefit of this city.10 However, it was not until Easter 1576 that Frese was confirmed in this sought-after post, after which time he could expand his activities and live up to his expectations. During his first years spent searching for employment in Livonia, Frese had found a way to the duke’s court. The duke had to solve problems connected to the construction of his residence and a chapel in Jelgava/Mitau, the capital city of the duchy, as well as building new Lutheran churches in the same city. In 1573 (probably), the Latvian Lutheran community in Jelgava had started the construction of St Anne’s church, and the following year, the German Lutheran community of the same city launched the construction of their Holy Trinity church. There are undeniable similarities in the architect’s touch, planning, volume, composition of the façades, and even the decorative details in the brickwork in the two Jelgava churches. This meant that, even before taking up his position as the Riga city architect, Frese was able to work out the designs, do the construction calculations, and supervise the early stages of building works in the two Jelgava/Mitau churches, the construction stages of which were protracted over a long period of time. By the time Frese assumed his duties of the city architect, he had already spent ten years in Livonia working as a joiner, sculptor (Schnitzer), architect, and building master, also by exercising his skills as a builder of defensive structures during the attacks by Ivan the Terrible in 1577–1578. Frese’s duties in 1582 included reconstructing the drinking water canals for Riga, and the water had to be of sufficient quality that it could be used both for baking bread and washing linen. His work on the construction of public and secular buildings was more conspicuous. In 1578, Frese had to organise the reconstruction of St Peter’s spire. Between 1587 and 1589, he devoted himself to the architecture of church towers, and after his sketches the master carpenter Hinrich Bastian built a new spire for the cathedral.11 Prior to the fire of 1773 that damaged the tower, the spire had a unique and impressive variety of forms. A platform with an ornate balustrade ran all around the upper edge of the tower brickwork. The base of the spire presented a cupola, on top of which was an open colonnade crowned by a tall, slender spire with a gilded rooster. Frese occupied the post of the Riga city architect for approximately twenty-five years and the last mention of his name is in the outgoing documents of Riga’s Town Council in 1602. From that year, Lambert Janssen from The Hague was employed under Frese’s supervision in the capacity of a bricklayer. After Frese’s death, Jansen combined the two functions for several years until the post of city architect was filled by Bernt Boddecker (also called Bötticher).12  “Ich vermerke, daß E.E. Rat in diesen jetzigen Kriegsläufen mit keinem Baumeister diese Stadt versehen sein, ich aber um mein Amt des Schnitzer Handwerkes ein Jahr oder vier in dieser Stadt gebraucht nun aber in diesen schweren Läufen mir meine Nahrung zu suchen fast sauer wird. Dann bin ich ohne Ruhm zu reden mich andern Örtern erhalten, daß ich Gott Lob erfahren und gelernt wie man dergestalt für sein Herrn, Städten und Kommunen 10

290

dienen soll, also bin ich nicht ungeneigt sofern mich E.E. Rat anzunehmen gewilligt mich für dero Stadtbaumeister gebrauchen zu lassen auch nach all meinen Vermögen und Fleiß alles was zu Nutz und Fromm dieser Stadt getreu vorzustellen und in Werk zu richten”. Campe 1939, 251. 11   Campe 1951–1957, vol. 1, 11. 12   Campe 1939, 251–252, 357.

Joris Jorissen Frese

and the

Origins

of

Renaissance Sacral Architecture

in

Livonia

The Jelgava residence Livonian architecture of the Renaissance period has various roots. Firstly, the uniting atmosphere of the period enabled each country to make use, through printed books, of the universal scientific achievements and novelties in the military sphere, which came from Italy, the Low Countries, and other European countries; and also to integrate the budding humanism into their own religious and civilian life. Secondly, Livonia and the duchy of Courland were open to the mercantile policy of the Low Countries. Along the Hanse-established roads, ports and town network, this policy ensured the flow of ideas, goods, printed works, artists, and concepts of taste and fashion that reached Riga, Ventspils, Windau, Kuldı¯ga/Goldingen, and Jelgava. An excellent example of the reception of imported ideas is Court Marshal Georg Preuss’s letter to Duke Gotthard Kettler, dating from the 1560s, which describes the progress of the palace construction and mentions that “an Italian gable (welsche Giebel) is nearly completed and will please Your Princely Grace. Your Gracious Prince and Master can place confidence in my word that Italian gables will definitely adorn the whole edifice”.13 Kettler had ordered that the former convent of the Teutonic Order at Jelgava on the island between the Lielupe and the Driksa rivers be transformed into a residence worthy of a duke. He gave instructions to build an impressive gate, to adorn the convent castle with decorative cornices and turrets, to construct two residential blocks, several household buildings and a future dowager house for his wife, Princess Anna of Mecklenburg. There were ten buildings in total, all of which were decorated with pilasters, horizontal cornices and strapwork gables, in keeping with the latest architectural trends in Germany and the Low Countries. Archives and libraries in Latvia and Sweden have preserved plans of the placement of the buildings and drawings of the panorama of Jelgava (fig. 2). These plans show that one long residential block runs parallel to the Lielupe River. Perpendicular to it was another residential building with two wings, joined at a right angle; the one facing the river was concluded with the chapel, which was larger than the residential building. Because of its size, the chapel with its strapwork gable and wide façade with three windows dominated the residential buildings. This had clearly been the aim of both the customer and the architect, in order to accentuate the denominational allegiance of the Lutheran-oriented ruler with the help of a sacral building that was characteristic of Luther’s followers and supporters among the German princes. The consecration of the chapel in 1582 was enhanced by the duke’s fourteen-yearold son, Friedrich, who made a speech in Latin dedicated to Novae Aedis S. Mitobiae ARCIS.14 The vista that opened from the entrance gate was reminiscent of a street, at the end of which was the concluding accent, the widow’s house, a free-standing two-storey building with a graceful staircase tower. The palace ensemble was largely finished by 1578, at which time the duke discontinued his episodic stays in his other palaces and took up residence permanently in the capital city. Separated from the mainland by two river-like canals and removed from the rest of Jelgava’s urban development by ramparts and bastions, the duke’s residence on the island proposed a new attitude towards living space. It urged him to stop hiding behind the ­castle walls and moved the battle line far beyond the bastions, ramparts, and canals. When it was clear that no castle could offer protection against modern artillery, the aristocracy ­relinquished the idea of palazzo in fortezza as a fortress-and-residence hybrid in favour of spacious parks and palaces suited to entertainment and collections of art objects, ornate interiors  State Historic Archive of Latvia (LVVA), 554. f., 3. apr., 118. l., 17. lpp. 13

14

  Döring 1868, 236.

291

Oja¯ rs Spa¯ rı¯tis

2. Fragment of a panoramic view of Jelgava/Mitau, c. 1701, by Karl Magnus Stuart (The Royal Library in Stockholm).

and ­sumptuous court life. The archaeological finds of 1990 provided evidence of the above: ­cast-iron columns of Gotthard Kettler’s palace, graceful cast-iron dolphins as construction details for porches or balconies, elaborate façade decorations.15 It is clear that, prior to the launch of construction works of the Kettler dynasty’s new residence, the placement of buildings on the fortified island had been carefully considered and verified on drawings from both military and visual aspects. Since all the new buildings were built in a relatively short time – about ten years – they must have been part of a clientapproved initial master plan, with street perspectives, arrangement of building volumes, and silhouette outlines. Unfortunately, the names of the architect and building masters have remained unknown. One cannot exclude the participation of Joris Frese in the construction of the duke’s residence between 1565 and 1576, before he took up the duties of the Riga city architect, as Frese had been involved in designing churches in Jelgava from 1574 onwards. The duke could have heard about the architect in Riga because during the first years of his reign, before he had his own residence, Gotthard Kettler resided in the old castle of Riga. In this city, the duke may have learned about the skills and abilities of the job-seeking builder to work in the new manner that the duke keenly sought. The few existing graphic sources of the city of Jelgava and the ducal residence are captivating, with a panoramic view and the composition of the ensemble. With its numerous aqueous elements, the scene is reminiscent of a ‘little Holland’, presenting a structure of urban development filled with a stagger of river banks and castle moats and accentuating the landscape values of the development, perspective, rhythm, outlines, and façade decorations of the buildings, involving elements of the orders and sculptures. One may assume that the interior of the Kettler residence matched the architectural feature of the exterior with the elements borrowed from the characteristic forms of Netherlandish buildings. The whole setting can be compared with scenographic views on Netherlandish prints of idealised urban landscapes or stage-design composition.16 Hans Vredeman de Vries’ collections of copper engravings, entitled Scenographiae, sive Perspectivae (1560), his series of small architectural views (1562) and Artis Perspectivae (1568), presented ideal city views by applying p ­ rinciples of scenography to   The sixteenth-century complex completely disappeared in the mid-eighteenth century (1738–1772) during the transformation of the ducal 15

292

palace into a grand baroque residence by architect Bartolomeo Rastrelli. 16   Uppenkamp 2005.

Joris Jorissen Frese

and the

Origins

of

Renaissance Sacral Architecture

in

Livonia

the placement of buildings and the formation of outlines and street perspective.17 Vredeman de Vries suggested involving canals, bridges, and fountains to create an expressive foreground. In order to overcome the uniformity of façades, he proposed vertical accents: balustrades, pavilions, towers, and heightened and richly decorated gables. Although the rampart-embraced ducal residence in Jelgava was less densely developed than a city street, the courtyards and squares evoked images of a comparable consciously created perspective. Proceeding from the palace gate towards the Lielupe, past the residential block, one had to physically reckon with the considerable volume of the chapel and walk around it. The wall on the right allowed movement only in the direction of the river and created an impression of moving down a confined space, such as a street or a longitudinal square. The vista concluded with the widow’s house, which was richly decorated with strapwork gables and a tower. The churches at Jelgava and Riga In 1561, after the duchy of Courland was founded and Lutheranism was proclaimed as the principal denomination, superintendent Stephan Bülau carried out a church visitation. When he repeated this tour in 1566, the court clergyman Alexander Einhorn from Lemgo and the Weimar-born ducal chancellor Salomon Henning detected an inadmissible shortage of church buildings and clergymen. Soon thereafter, on 28 February 1567, Duke Gotthard Kettler came out with an order to construct seventy new churches in manors and populated places. Concerning Jelgava, the duke’s orders stipulated that a parish church, a school and an almshouse must also be built.18 There are no analogies to the duke’s initiative in the history of European Protestantism. In no other country was the adoption of Lutheranism followed by a mass campaign for the construction of churches. This unique prescript obligated the nobility of Courland, as well as former knights of the German Order and the duke’s former allies, upon receiving a gift or liege of land ownership, to construct churches for themselves and their serfs everywhere in the country, and to set up pastorates, schools and almshouses for the spiritual and social care of the peasants.19 The duke himself set an example in this context by undertaking the patron’s duties in the construction of the first German Lutheran parish church of the Holy Trinity in Jelgava. He also participated in the laying of the foundation stone in 1574 and provided funds for the construction of the grand edifice. Building works progressed at a good pace until 1579, when a redistribution of funds brought the construction to a halt.20 The duke wanted first to complete the building of his residence and the palace chapel, which was consecrated in 1582. After Kettler’s death in 1587, there was another lull, which last for several years. In 1592, the duke’s widow, Princess Anna from Mecklenburg, resumed financing of the construction, which she continued to do until her death in 1602. The Holy Trinity church was completed soon after and was open for burials. Nevertheless, the church was only consecrated in 1615.21 Despite its long building history, the Jelgava/Mitau church of the Holy Trinity must be considered as one of the earlier examples of Protestant parish churches in Europe. In the history of Latvian Church, it is traditionally assumed that the Latvian Protestant community in Jelgava had its own new parish church as early as 1573, a year in which the records mention David Bresemeister, priest of the Latvian Lutheran parish of St Anne.22 However, this   See for example Vredeman de Vries, Scenographiae, sive Perspectivae, Antwerp 1560 (Fuhring 1997, vol. 1, 59, 63, ills. 31, 39); Series of small architectural views, Antwerp 1562 (Fuhring 1997, vol. 1, 101, ill. 86). 18   “folgends im Gebiete Mietau die Pfarrkirche, schul und armenhauss”. Döring 1868, 218. 17

  Pistohlkors 1994, 244.   Kallmeyer 1910, 48. 21   Kallmeyer 1910, 48. 22   Kallmeyer 1910, 51. 19 20

293

Oja¯ rs Spa¯ rı¯tis assumption cannot be proved either by documents or by exploring the architectural details of the church since there is no information available regarding St Anne’s particular construction stage. Duchess Anna’s active funding between 1592 and 1602 meant that the construction works had progressed rapidly, but the tower was added to the church only in 1619–1621.23 The hypothesis of the early launch of St Anne’s construction is supported by its conceptual similarity with the architecture of the Holy Trinity Church, as well as the analogy of the 3. Riga, St. John’s Church, interior of the new chancel, 1586–1589, by J.J. Frese (Bildarchiv Foto façade’s composition and stylistic details of Marburg). the interior with those of Riga’s St John’s Church, the latter undeniably being the work of J.J. Frese from 1586–1589. Both sixteenth-century Lutheran churches of Jelgava were destroyed in the final years of World War II, which means that Frese’s work can now only be well seen in St John’s Lutheran church annex in Riga.24 Construction started in 1586 by order of Latvia’s Lutheran community, which decided to expand the fourteenth-century former Dominican church. In 1589, the 25-metrelong, three-aisle annex to the church, with its polygonal apse, was consecrated. The annex is a three-bay-long, pseudo-basilican structure, with Tuscan columns supporting rusticated arches that divide the nave from the side aisles (fig. 3). Above the columns are elongated astylar consoles that support transverse arches of the vault. The inner walls are white-washed, which makes the interior look simple, in line with the rational spiritual tradition of the Reformed church. The red brick exterior provides colour uniformity with the gothic part of the church. In contrast to the flat gothic walls, the walls 4. Riga, St John’s church, exterior of the chancel. of the annex are remarkable for their pronounced constructive forms. These consist of the proportionally harmonised elements of the Tuscan order: The pilasters mounted high above the ground floor separate monumental round arched window openings filled with ‘modern’ tracery; that is, in the gothic style (fig. 4). The architectural concept, as well as many of its details, was comparable to the Holy Trinity Church of Jelgava. The exterior architecture of the polygonal apse shows some references to the court chapel of the palace   Busch 1867, 381.

23

294

24

  Spa¯rı¯tis 2006.

Joris Jorissen Frese

and the

Origins

of

Renaissance Sacral Architecture

in

Livonia

of Jülich (Germany), built in 1549–1551 by Alessandro Pasqualini. They are close in terms of the plan, division of storeys, forms of the apse, window apertures and decorative niches (fig. 5). However, it is uncertain whether or how Frese or his patrons could have known this building. When considering the architecture of the Jelgava church of the Holy Trinity, it is important to identify its sources because the building that was created in the period between 1574 and 1610 is significant for European Protestant culture. It is even more striking to consider that the idea of a standard Protestant sacral building was formed before printed models were available (such as those by Jacques Perret, Hendrick de Keyser and Joseph Furttenbach). The church’s t­ripartite ground plan generally followed the ­traditional scheme of an elongated German urban or rural parish church with a tower, an added congregation space and a small s­anctuary at the eastern end (fig. 6). It ­differed from a country church in its size (76 m long, 22 m 5. Jülich (Germany), sanctuary of the palace wide), and there was also the congregation ­chapel, 1548–1655, by Alessandro Pasqualini. space, which was divided into three naves by four pairs of Tuscan columns (fig. 7). The heightened central nave and skylight windows converted the church into a classical basilica-type edifice. The sanctuary to the east of the congregation space was of a polygonal or trapezium plan. Both in its width and height, it was consciously made narrower and lower than the principal volume of the church. The drawing of the panorama of Jelgava by the Swedish surveyor Karl Magnus von Stuart from 1701 shows the silhouette of the Holy Trinity Church rising above the roofs of the city, to which the author, with 6. Jelgava/Mitau (Latvia), drawing of the façade topographic precision, has added the inscript­ and plan of St Trinity Church, 1574 –1579, 1592– 25 ion: “Templ: Chatedrale” (see fig. 2). The 1602 (State Historic Archive of Latvia, 1399, low, pyramidal roof of the tower, characterRegister 1, Opus 441, p. 5). istic of Courland’s churches, dominates the drawing. Behind it is the impressive plane of the congregation space span roof, which eventually concealed the basilica construction of the church. Initially, the sanctuary was also covered with a span roof. The Lutheranism-embracing  The drawing with two views of Jelgava – the city panorama as seen from the east and the palace 25

ensemble from the west – is preserved in the collections of the Royal Library in Stockholm, Sweden.

295

Oja¯ rs Spa¯ rı¯tis

7. View of the middle nave of St Trinity Church (photo archive of Herder Institute, Marburg).

8a. Jelgava, St Trinity Church, view from the Market Square on the tower and gate to the churchyard (Herder Institute, Marburg). 8b. Jelgava, St Trinity Church, view on southern façade (Bildarchiv Foto Marburg).

 In the 1930s Wilhelm Ludwig Nicolaus Bockslaff, a Latvian architect of German origin, described this similarity: “The frieze that I had noted stood out as a decorative element which consisted of mosaic arrangement of bricks in a variety of patterns. In the 26

296

client’s desire to see the basilica form concealed under the massive span roof can be explained by the negative attitude of the early Protestants towards basilica as a church type, given that it was strictly associated with the architecture of Catholic churches. However, the basilican interior appeared to be acceptable to this stereotype because the German parish with the duke at its head considered this interior c­ oncept positively more sumptuous and suited to the status of a court church. Until the repairs of 1842–1843, the appearance of the Holy Trinity Church was preserved intact. The church roof was altered in order to supply more light and, instead of the earlier span roof, each nave was given separate, gently sloping tin roofing. The parish reached a compromise whereby the façades would be plastered (figs. 8a-b). For approximately 250 years, the church had been part of the townscape as a red brick building with details of white limestone – bases of pilasters and capitals. Decorative architectonic motifs reminiscent of triumphal arches were added on all façades, involving pilasters of the Tuscan order and horizontal cornices above the arched windows. Whiteplaster rustication was applied alternately on the smooth planes between the arched windows and brick pilasters. Under the roof cornice, a frieze of decorative mosaic embraced the building like an illusory entablature. In the mosaic, rectangular, semicircle and hexagonal bricks, fixed with lime mortar, formed an expressive band of red-white ornament, identical to the frieze on the façade of St John’s Church in Riga (figs. 9a-b).26 Along with the borrowings collected in his work or travels, Joris Frese’s buildings feature impressions of Vredeman de Vries’s printed graphic patterns, which have been considerably adapted in the sacral buildings of Jelgava and Riga. This applies to the development of the façades as well as the façade of Jelgava [i.e. the Holy Trinity Church] we see the same form like in Riga [St John’s Church] only the walls there had been subsequently smoothly plastered and forms blurred”. Grosmane 2004, 56–57.

Joris Jorissen Frese

and the

Origins

of

Renaissance Sacral Architecture

interiors. Frese might have derived his ideas for rustication and mosaic friezes on the church façades in Vredeman de Vries’s book Architectura, which was published in Antwerp in 1577 and offered various compositions of orders. It is exactly the variations of the Tuscan order that can be traced in the composition of façades of the Holy Trinity church in Jelgava and St John’s Church in Riga.27 The conceptions of the interior of both the Holy Trinity Church in Jelgava and St John’s Church in Riga (compare figs. 3 and 7) combine the traditional concept of a three-aisle parish church with the spirit of the new era, with elements derived from the classical architectural heritage. Thanks to the Tuscan columns, the three-aisle spaces leave an impression of a magnificent and solemn building. One can imagine the early Protestant theologians’ train of thought as they looked for an expressive image of the church interior with classical columns that might allude to Solomon’s temple. Evidently, clergymen in Lutheran Northern Europe, including the duchy of Courland, were not preoccupied with the Catholic origin of these Italian Renaissance elements, unlike Protestant advocates who wished to see particular forms in their sacral architecture. The expressiveness of the walls in the Holy Trinity Church in Jelgava and St John’s Church in Riga was enhanced with the help of plastering. The walls of the Holy Trinity Church were covered with smooth and whitewashed plaster, which repeated the essential contours of architectonic elements by means of strapwork. Along the perimeter of the interior walls ran a flat plaster band, which also traced the outlines of the twin arches in the walls. Another richly profiled band ran at the height of the window sills. The window arches were divided by rustication segments and were seemingly supported by horizontal double-cornices of plaster. Flat bands of plaster and rustication repeated the separating arches between the columns. High above, the window apertures of the central nave were given arched bands of plaster, with their support imitated by a kind of stretched consoles of the Tuscan order with the pointed end down (fig. 10). Although the archives yield no information, the plastering masters must have been high-class. They followed the architect’s vision by precisely transferring the finishing elements from Vredeman de Vries’s Architectura to plaster.28  Vredeman de Vries, Architectura, Antwerp 1577 (Fuhring 1997, vol. 2, 63, 67, figs. 409 and 413). 27

28

in

Livonia

9a. Ruined St Trinity Church with decorative mosaic frieze (photograph author). 9b. Fragment of frieze of St John’s church in Riga (photograph author).

10. Plasterwork in the middle nave of St Trinity Church (photograph Latvian Museum for National History, inv. 23799).

  Fuhring 1997, vol. 2, 62, fig. 38.

297

Oja¯ rs Spa¯ rı¯tis

11. Plastered vaults in southern nave of St Trinity Church (Bildarchiv Foto Marburg).

12. Hans Vredeman de Vries, building in the gothic fashion from his Perspective I, Leiden 1604 (from: Fuhring 1997, vol. 2, 207, fig. 563).

  Vredeman de Vries, Perspective, Leiden 1604–1605 (Fuhring 1997, vol. 2, 207–208, figs. 563, 565). 30   Hipp 1990, 163. 29

298

The arched ceiling of the Holy Trinity Church in Jelgava was enhanced by narrow ribs of decorative plastering, which cast deep shadows from the sidelight (fig. 11). The rib pattern formed large diamonds in the aisles, while in the central nave and the sanctuary they imitated the typical ornament of stellar vaults. There are no such plaster ribs in St John’s Church in Riga. What could have caused such bias towards quotations from the Gothic style in Jelgava? The answer may be found in Jelgava’s ambitions of becoming the capital of the duchy. In the concluding stage of the construction, shortly before 1610, preference was given to more sumptuous ornamentation and rib patterns for the vaults. Again, the novelties might have been found among Vredeman de Vries’ graphic patterns in his two books dedicated to the studies of perspective (fig. 12). These books were published in Dutch and German in Leiden in 1604–1605 and they illustrate the continuous popularity of Gothic forms at the morphological level of the style elements.29 Borrowings of medieval architectural forms, such as complex vault patterns and window traceries, should be viewed as a decorative phenomenon of a new quality within Renaissance framework, not as a diffuse reception of Gothic.30 Consequently, the imitation of Nachgotik stellar vault ribs in the ceiling of the Holy Trinity Church in Jelgava may be regarded as a part of a wider Northern European peculiarity. Their emergence in the system of Renaissance or any other subsequent style can be characterised as a reduction of the tectonic function of Gothic vault ribs to an element of ­ornamental rhythm.31

 See for a discussion at full length on Renaissance Gothic Kavaler 2000; Chatenet et al. 2011; Kavaler 2012. 31

Joris Jorissen Frese

and the

Origins

of

Renaissance Sacral Architecture

in

Livonia

Conclusions By the mid-sixteenth century, the amount of printed models of architecture and interiors had increased to such an extent that the work of both military engineers and building masters was unthinkable without them. If such a situation occurred in any European country, the use of published guidebooks by Italian, French and German or Netherlandish architects had become normal practice. In the case of Frese and the Lutheran churches in Jelgava and Riga, it is not known exactly which buildings the architect had in mind as a point of reference and inspiration. The question is even more intriguing since these buildings are among the first built specially for the new religion, at a time when there were no standard solutions available. The chosen building type, the (pseudo)basilica, is in line with the tradition of Northern European parish churches. However, for the details, the architect and his team looked for modern all’antica models, as well as references to traditional ‘gothic’ church architecture. The result has made it possible to reach the following conclusions. Firstly, in the second half of the sixteenth century, modern construction processes in Riga and the capital city of the duchy of Courland, Jelgava (that is, the prominent cultural centres of Livonia at the time) synchronically and thoroughly reflected the theoretical and practical achievements of Northern European renaissance architecture. Secondly, the architect Joris Jorissen Frese implemented Hans Vredeman de Vries’ design ideas in the architecture of at least two Lutheran churches: the Holy Trinity Church in Jelgava and St John’s Church in Riga. Thirdly, the new findings, which are the result of the research of regional adaptation processes of renaissance ‘ideal architecture’, as well as the typological and architectonic peculiarities of Latvia’s churches, should be integrated in the cultural system of the Baltic and European Renaissance and Reformation.

299

1. Longleat (Wiltshire, UK), hall screen, 1580s (photograph author).

Chapter 3.6 Paper Architecture: Mechanisms for the Migration Architecture from the Low Countries to England

of

Anthony Wells-Cole (Formerly Senior Curator, Temple Newsam House, Leeds, UK)

In 1573 a man sent by Queen Elizabeth as her special envoy to Paris bought there (so it seems) a copy of the cabinet-maker-turned-architect Hugues Sambin’s book, Oeuvre de La Diversité des Termes, published by Jean Durant in Lyon in 1572. The envoy wrote his name on the title page, “Worcester”, for William Somerset, third earl of Worcester. Someone – possibly the earl himself – wrote out on a blank page his motto, mutare vel timere sperno, presumably for a mason to copy. As the architectural historian Howard Colvin (who owned the book) pointed out, Somerset was transforming his family seat, Raglan Castle in Monmouthshire, Wales, into a grand Elizabethan mansion, in the same way that Robert Dudley, first earl of Leicester, was converting his castle at Kenilworth into a country house suitable for a visit by the queen.1 Somerset marked a couple of Sambin’s designs with a large cross, as though selected for use, and sure enough these two were adapted as supporters for the chimney­ piece in the new Gallery at Raglan, where they survive to this day. Although the publication used at Raglan was from France rather than The Low Countries, this is a very rare instance where not only the building itself survives but also the printed design on which an element of its architectural decoration was based – in the owner’s personal copy of the pattern-book. Here is a clear example of the patron obtaining the book and prescribing the precise source. Unfortunately this is all too uncommon. Although books and prints have for some years been identified as the principal means by which architecture and decoration migrated from Continental Europe to the British Isles, still too little is known for certain about the mechanisms that made this migration possible; in particular, whether it was the patron or the craftsman – mason, plasterer, painter, joiner, goldsmith, ­embroiderer – who acquired the prints, and where. So this contribution focuses on a few places – not many of them – where responsibility for the use of Netherlandish prints can be shown to have been shared by patron and craftsman in different measure. It brings together examples which have been discussed and fully illustrated, in scattered form, throughout the present author’s full-scale study; so it will not be necessary here to reproduce more than a selection of the examples cited.2 The early reception of Vredeman de Vries’s prints The probability that it was the craftsman – in this case, a mason – rather than the patrons who employed him who was the likely possessor of prints he used in carving Manneriststyle decoration is most readily visible in the south-west of England. This is an area with its mid sixteenth-century architectural focus on Longleat near Warminster in Wiltshire, the great house which Sir John Thynne started to restore after a disastrous fire in 1568. Thynne was steward to Edward Seymour, first duke of Somerset, Lord Protector during the reign of his nephew, Edward VI, who came to the throne in 1547 aged nine. Longleat’s most obvious ­stylistic debt is to France externally, and to Italy within. Allen Maynard (a Frenchman) ­sketched an idea for an elevation – probably for Longleat – which derives its details from   Colvin 1999, 113–116, figs. 90–91.

1

2

  Wells-Cole 1997.

301

Anthony Wells-Cole two prints by Jacques Androuet Ducerceau. The clues are to be discerned in Maynard’s ­suggestions for the sculptural embellishment of the ­windows above the entrance: ­grotesque crouching figures and atlantes with their ­twisted tails derive from printed sources, the first from a furniture design and the second from a design for a triumphal arch.3 Inside, several surviving chimneypieces adapt elements from Sebastiano Serlio’s Book IV, first published in Venice in 1537. The first hint of Netherlandish influence is to be found in the hall screen, presumably dating from the 1580s (fig. 1), where two of the cartouches derive from an influential suite of prints designed 2. Hans Vredeman de Vries, Multarum ­variarumque by Vredeman de Vries and published – ­protractionum, 1555, plate 12. along with another set of similarly virtuosic cartouches – by Gerard de Jode in Antwerp in 1555. The two sets are titled Multarum variarumque protractionum and Variarum protractionum (fig. 2). Prints from one set or the other were employed in architectural decoration, as on the Elizabethan gatehouse at Wilton in Wiltshire, built by Henry Herbert (b. 1534), second earl of Pembroke (1570–1601), a noted patron of the arts, who married Mary Sidney, sister of Sir Philip Sidney; and for the armorial cartouches on the tombs of the nobility in local churches – for instance, on the tomb of Sir Maurice Berkeley (d. 1581) at Bruton in Somerset (fig. 3).4 Sir Maurice was a courtier and favourite of Thomas Cromwell and a convinced Protestant whose successful Parliamentary career lasted well into the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He died in 1581. Who carved these handsome car­ touches? The answer may be provided by the Red Lodge in Bristol, a town which was, even at this date, a significant port. Another car­­­ 3. Bruton (Somerset, UK), the tomb of Sir Maurice Berkeley touche from Vredeman’s first set was copied (died 1581), (from: Wells-Cole 1997). for the overmantel in the Great Chamber – the principal reception room – of this house which was built in the 1580s – an architectural context which offered a wonderful oppor­ tunity for expressing the owner’s elevated position in society (fig. 4). This spectacular example was very probably carved by the freemason responsible for the Wilton and Bruton ­cartouches. He clearly had a plate from Vredeman’s Multarum variarumque on   Wells-Cole 1997, figs. 201–207.

3

302

4

  Wells-Cole 1997, figs. 84–85.

Paper Architecture: Mechanisms

for the

Migration

of

Architecture

his work-bench and copied the cartouche absolutely literally, translating Vredeman’s indications of relief into a boldly threedimensional cartouche – a little stiff perhaps, but still pretty virtuosic (fig. 5). He also had a plate from another influential Vredeman set, his Caryatidum Sive Athlantidum of c. 1563. Mark Girouard attributes this great overmantel to the freemason Thomas Collins who seems to have been the leading local man in the 1580s: the evidence for this is his will dated 1594 in which he specifies “I give my bookes of building unto John Frend and Anthony Frend” and goes on to ­mention “draft plats”, “tools” and “freestone”.5 So here, apparently, is an itinerant freemason working for a close-knit group of patrons, a mason who owned “bookes of building” which included at least two sets of prints of Vredeman designs. Where did he buy them? It is at least possible that 4. Bristol, the overmantel in the Great Chamber Bristol supported a bookseller – there was of the Red Lodge, built in the 1580s (from: Wellsone in the market town of Shrewsbury at Cole 1997). this date, owned by Richard Ward, whose stock-list survives, dated 1585 – although it unfortunately does not include any obviously architectural books.6 Alternatively, Collins’s Bristol patron might have sourced the prints himself, for John Yonge was not of aristocratic birth but was a wealthy merchant who would surely have had the opportunity to buy the prints in Antwerp. He became a sufficiently ­successful member of the local community to earn a knighthood and a burial-place in the Cathedral. Evidence that the popularity of these two early suites of Vredeman ­ cartouches proved enduring is provided by a ­spectacular 5. Hans Vredeman de Vries, Multarum plaster cartouche – this time not forming an ­variarumque protractionum, 1555, plate 8. overmantel but framing a pious text in the post-Reformation manner, in the chancel of the church at East Knoyle in Wiltshire (fig. 6). It was part of the improvements to the church commissioned by the Rev. Matthew Wren, father of the architect Christopher Wren (b. 1632) and an influential churchman and scholar who supported Archbishop William Laud in his ­campaign to enrich churches with the “beauty of holiness”. The improvements, which take the form of decorative plasterwork in the chancel of the church, were apparently planned   Girouard 2009, 46, 326–327, 486–487, notes 24, 27.

5

6

  Mark Girouard, in conversation with the author.

303

Anthony Wells-Cole

6. East Knoyle (Wiltshire, UK), the chancel of the parish church, stucco decoration executed ­between 1623–1639 (from: Wells-Cole 1997).

7. Hans Vredeman de Vries, ­protractionum, 1555, plate 3.

Variarum

in 1623 and were finished by 1639.7 They include figurative scenes of the Sacrifice of Isaac, Jacob’s Dream and the Ascension of Christ, the last of which, particularly, was very controversial on account of the Second Commandment and led to Wren’s trial in 1647. The strapwork cartouche reproduces exactly a plate in Vredeman’s Variarum protractionum of 1555 (fig. 7), and was executed by a plasterer named Robert Brockway of Frome St. Quentin in Dorset. There are two significant points here. The first is that more than half a century had passed from the earliest recorded use of these suites of cartouches in the 1570s or 1580s. This suggests some continuity of craftsmen. The second is more significant: Although this region of the country saw several instances of the use of these two early suites of cartouches, they were hardly ever used anywhere else in Britain – the only other recorded instance is at Wirksworth in Derbyshire, on the tomb of Anthony Gell who founded the local grammar school.8 Indeed, all the instances occur within a twenty-five mile (40 km) radius of Longleat. Add to this the fact that all the patrons were well-known at court and it is clear that there was a network of patronage in which one nobleman probably recommended a craftsman to another; and the craftsman must have taken his stock of prints with him. These instances all involve a single detail of architectural decoration and it is worth mentioning, in passing, that any close correlation between a print and the elevation of an entire building was rare in sixteenth-century England. At first sight, an exception seems to be provided by a drawing of a half-­elevation of a two-storey house inscribed “½ a front or a garden syde for a noble man” and in the tablet “. . . Dnˇi Sara¯ . . .”.9 Although this inscription – indicating Lord Salisbury – suggests an association with Theobalds in Hertfordshire (built 1564–1585), it is very   Pevsner & Cherry 1975, 231.   Wells-Cole 1997, 70.

7 8

304

  Summerson 1966, plate 9 (Sir John Soane’s Museum, vol. 101, no. T24).

9

Paper Architecture: Mechanisms

for the

Migration

of

Architecture

unlikely that the house, which has long disappeared, was built to this design – the more so because the façade is directly based on a plate in Vredeman’s Architectura of 1577. In fact, comparison of the drawing with the engraving after Vredeman plainly shows that John Thorpe, the English mason responsible for the drawing, was attempting to adapt the Flemish design to what was required of a house in England, including projecting corner turrets and an oriel window over the entrance arch. The result is pretty unconvincing. Wollaton and Hardwick Two houses in the Midlands, where prints were much used, seem to show that the owner, perhaps in partnership with an agent, collected the prints and dictated the direction that the building took. Robert Smythson, who had worked for Thynne at Longleat, was involved at both.10 At Wollaton near Nottingham, Smythson’s patron was the extremely academic Sir Francis Willoughby, who came into full possession of the estate in 1564 and, by the time that the house was started in the 1580s, had amassed a substantial personal library which certainly included several suites of prints after Vredeman de Vries (fig. 8). Indeed, Wollaton is the one house in the British Isles which not only displays details derived from Vredeman but also approaches the fantastical spirit of his most extravagant designs. Externally, the articulation of the main elevations reflects the elaborate detailing of many of the plates in Vredeman’s Architectura of 1577, whilst the fenestration of the Prospect Room which rises above the centrally-placed hall is close to the glazing patterns of more than one of Vredeman’s designs in the same publication (fig. 9). The scrolled gables that surmount the corner towers are closely based on a design in Vredeman’s earlier set of plates dealing with the Doric and Ionic orders of architecture, Den eersten boeck, published in Antwerp in 1565, plate M (figs. 10–11).

8. Nottingham, Wollaton Hall, c. 1580–1588, by Robert Smythson.

9. Hans Vredeman de Vries, Architectura, Antwerp 1577, plate 21-B1.

  Girouard 1983; Girouard 2009, 378–389.

10

305

Anthony Wells-Cole The cost of ­ building this vast house, which was completed in 1588, crippled Sir Francis Willoughby financially, and Robert Smythson is next found a few miles further north at Hardwick, designing what Mark Girouard has described as the perfect house for Elizabeth countess of Shrewsbury, a four-times-married widow with huge business interests, substantial estates and a passion for building. Hardwick New Hall was built adjacent to an earlier manor house which the countess had acquired in 1583 and greatly 10. Wollaton Hall, detail. extended (fig. 12). She began to lay the foundations of the new house as soon as her estranged husband (her fourth) died, in November 1590 and she moved in October 1597. It is immediately apparent that the resulting building outside was very different from Smythson’s Wollaton Hall, the classical orders only expressed in the loggia and the entablatures marking the divisions between the floors, the only hint of Antwerp Mannerism in the pierced crestings on the skyline. Smythson’s involvement at Hardwick may only have consisted of devising the overall form of the house, a rectangular block with six towers attached, a design perhaps inspired by Jost Amman’s woodcut depicting Solomon’s Palace;11 for providing the ground plan, perhaps the elevation and conceivably some chimneypieces. But he certainly designed the countess’s monument, in the parish church in Derby: His drawing for it survives in the RIBA collection in London, and it displays an obvious awareness of Netherlandish tomb designs such as those by Cornelis Floris, which were published more than 11. Hans Vredeman de Vries, Den eersten boeck half-a-century earlier, in 1557. (…) Dorica en Ionica, Antwerp 1565, plate M. An overmantel design for which Smythson may just have been responsible is the one in Bess’s bedchamber, which closely follows a cartouche in Jacob Floris’s Compertimentorum (Antwerp 1566), but this suite was in use in the Shrewsbury household during the 1570s, before Smythson is known to have worked for the family. Nevertheless, responsibility for the use of continental prints at Hardwick must surely have been divided between the countess, her master-mason Robert Smythson, and her painter John Balechouse   Wells-Cole 1997, figs. 417, 425.

11

306

Paper Architecture: Mechanisms

12. Hardwick New Hall (Derbyshire, UK), 1590–1597, by Robert Smythson. (from: Girouard 2009, 214).

for the

Migration

of

Architecture

13. Hardwick Old Hall (Derbyshire, UK), the ­overmantel in the Hill Great Chamber, c. 1591 (from: Girouard 2009, 226).

(a man probably of French origin) who took authority for supervising and even making alterations to the building works whilst she was away in London. She seems to have incorporated several decorative features from her earlier house at Chatsworth which she was busy with in the 1570s, all of them dependent on printed sources. An alabaster overmantel relief, for instance, depicting the marriage of Tobias and Sarah probably came from Chatsworth, and it was copied from a print after Marten van Heemskerck. This was a series she was particularly fond of, having used it for a table carpet dated 1579; and she was to use it again for an overmantel relief in the Old Hall.12 It is clear that the countess must have owned a considerable stock of continental prints, presumably acquired in person, or by agents, in London. These were deployed for the creation of decoration and furnishings in many materials, alabaster, stone, plaster, wood, textiles, and probably metalwork, though none remains in the house. Through the objects that do survive it is evident that Netherlandish prints enabled her – through the probable involvement of her John Balechouse – to express in the most public fashion the qualities that she wanted to project. To take but two examples, the plaster overmantel relief, in the Hill Great Chamber of the Old Hall (fig. 13), depicts the virtue the countess seems to have valued above all others: Patience, identifiable only because of the print from which this central figure was abstracted, from the Triumph of Patience, by Marten van Heemskerck.13 Similarly, the rare set of four painted cloths in the chapel of the New Hall proclaims publicly the countess’s outward adherence to Protestantism. They were probably painted by John Balechouse in 1600–1601 by the unusual expedient of composing the required subjects from a surprising group of Netherlandish prints depicting completely different subjects. More than a dozen print series were brought into play, including Philips Galle’s rarely-surviving set of the Nine Worthies dating from about 1590, Maarten de Vos’s The Divine Charge to the Three Estates of c. 1585–1586 and Marten van Heemskerck’s The Triumphs of Petrarch of c. 1565.14 So it is clear that Netherlandish prints were able not only to influence the appearance of architecture in England generally, but – at Hardwick Hall, in the hands of a distinguished team of craftsmen – also to express the most personal aspirations of the second most powerful woman in the country, the Countess of Shrewsbury.   Wells-Cole 1997, figs. 428–429, 431, 450.   Wells-Cole 1997, figs. 452–453.

12

14

  Wells-Cole 1997, 275–88, figs. 473–497.

13

307

Anthony Wells-Cole Netherlandish models for figurative scenes The situation in a more northerly town could hardly have been more different. Newcastle-upon-Tyne was in the seventeenth century an extremely prosperous port whose wealth was primarily based on the export of coal to London and other parts of England, and to Europe. The focus of the town was (as it remains to this day) the River Tyne, where wealthy merchants built impressive townhouses. For this community of merchants an ­unidentified joiner-carver supplied an extraordinary series of overmantels, all deriving their decoration (not their overall design) from Netherlandish prints. There were at least twelve of these but only one remains in anything like its original context, which probably explains why they had not been identified as a group – let alone discussed – before 1997.15 All the others have been moved at least once, one of them ending up in the USA. These twelve overmantels derive their figurative scenes from as many different suites of Continental prints. These include a rarely-surviving set of prints designed, engraved and published by Philips Galle, titled Prosopographia, and dating from about 1590; an allegory of virtue from an engraving by Cornelis Cort after Frans Floris, published in Antwerp in 1564; The Sacrifice of Isaac from a print by Egbert van Panderen after Pieter de Jode, published c. 1600; scenes from the life of Christ – The Adoration of the Magi and The Presentation in the Temple – from prints after Maarten de Vos, published by Adriaen Collaert as Vita, Passio et Resurrectio Iesu Christi in Antwerp; the Elements, by Crispijn de Passe, published in 1602; The Triumph of the World, from The Cycle of the Vicissitudes of Human Affairs, engraved by Cornelis Cort after Marten van Heemskerck and published in 1564; two prints after Rubens (The Judgement of Solomon and The Miraculous Draught of Fishes), and print series by Maarten de Vos (the Planetary Deities) and Jan van der Straet (the Senses). These overmantel reliefs were all the work of a single exceptionally-talented carver, with an idiosyncratic manner of depicting facial features, an as-yet unidentified craftsman who, on the evidence of the prints used in his work, probably came from the Netherlands. Employed by merchants, both individually and as a community (the Corporation of Newcastle), his name must have been passed on from one to another by word of mouth. There can be little doubt that it was he, rather than his many patrons, who brought to his commissions this remarkable anthology of Netherlandish prints. Because the prints that were employed by craftsmen have generally not survived, in all of the contexts that have been examined thus far it is only at Raglan Castle – at the very outset of this study – that the precise mechanism by which particular prints came to be used can be demonstrated. So, two instances of the use of Netherlandish prints as the basis of pictorial scenes in early seventeenth-century painted glass assume ­considerable ­importance. Windows of painted glass were being made anew in the first and second d ­ ecades of the century as part of the move towards the restoration of churches and chapels, ­furnishings, vestments and ­ritual, championed by William Laud.16 Under Laud’s influence, as President of St John’s College, Oxford, from 1611, Wadham College (along with several others) ­commissioned a complete set of painted glass windows by Bernard van Linge in 1622. Three different suites of prints have been identified as sources for this glass. Two of them were designed by the ubiquitous Maarten de Vos in Antwerp, but although these prints were clearly in general circulation in England it is not known precisely who owned these particular examples. The third suite is very much more unusual. Jerónimo Nadal’s Adnotationes et Meditationes in Evangelia was essentially a Jesuit text and it had a wide influence on Counter-Reformation imagery   Wells-Cole 1997, 184–200, figs. 184, 304–345.

15

308

 For the early seventeenth-century glass in Oxford chapels see Archer et al. 1988; Parry 2006, 59–76. 16

Paper Architecture: Mechanisms

for the

Migration

of

Architecture

through its illustrations. Although these were designed by the Italian painter Bernardino Passeri (1540–1596) they were engraved by Netherlandish engravers and published by the Jesuits in Antwerp in 1594, having first appeared the previous year under the title Evangelicae historiae imagines, ex ordine Evangeliorum. Even taking into account the self-contained environment of an Oxford college and the doubtless comforting support of such a powerful patron as William Laud (who became chancellor of the University in 1630, bishop of London and finally archbishop of Canterbury), it is amazing that the Fellows of Wadham commissioned a window of such overtly Catholic character at a time when there was widespread suspicion that attempts were being made to reintroduce popery in England. Almost as remarkable is that Nadal’s book is still in the college library, and it is known how it came to be there: it was given in 1613 by Dr Philip Bisse, an Oxford-educated cleric who, although he left to become archdeacon of Taunton in Somerset (where he may have met the founders of the college, Nicholas and Dorothy Wadham), maintained close relations with the university and would undoubtedly have known William Laud. William Laud became archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 and the following year began to restore and redecorate the chapel of his palace at Lambeth in London with a complete series of pictorial glass in its windows. This was a highly controversial move which ultimately brought his arrest, trial and conviction for treason; and his execution in 1645. The interesting thing about the glass – which does not survive, although the chapel does – is that there is contemporary evidence of what prints were copied for them, and where Laud had obtained them. This comes in the form of a book published in 1646 by the chief prosecutor at Laud’s trial for treason William Prynne. In his book, Canterburies Doome, Prynne specifies two of the illustrated texts used by the glazier – Mr Pember – in painting the windows. One of them was published in Antwerp, the Vitae, Passionis, et Mortis Domini Nostri Iesv Christi published in 1623. Here again there is no doubt who was responsible for commissioning the glass and providing the illustrations, the patron William Laud. All that is uncertain is how he acquired the book, although Catholic books were freely smuggled into England or obtainable through friends or agents on the Continent. Of course there was a very lively legal trade in books and prints in London. This was mostly centered on the area around St Paul’s Churchyard, near the great Gothic cathedral which was to be destroyed in the Fire of 1666. It must have been amongst the booksellers here that Thomas Trevelyon or Trevilian, born in 1548, spent much of his free time. Perhaps a professional embroiderer (as men often were), in 1608 and 1616 he compiled two great manuscript books which not only form a veritable personal testament of a good God-fearing Protestant but also provide incontrovertible evidence of the sheer quantity and variety of printed images that were available to anyone living in the capital. Both have been studied in considerable detail for possible sources for Trevelyon’s drawings.17 And both have been reproduced in facsimile – the later only partially but, in it, Trevelyon depicts himself with a Bible in his hand and throughout the book – which runs to 1062 pages – the illustrations provide moral messages, many of them copied from prints published in Antwerp. Trevelyon was clearly aware of architectural prints of the kind that were used by masons in the decoration of features such as screens and overmantels: There is a page in which he copied no fewer than three term figures from Vredeman’s Caryatidum Sive Athlantidum of 1565. In fact, these two great manuscript compilations provide a mountain of evidence – some of it not available in any other place – of the existence of printed images in England at this date. One instance is all that is needed here. Trevelyon included a set of the Four Parts of the World in the form of figures seated in triumphal cars drawn by various creatures. So, a figure of America appears,   Wolfe 2007; Barker 2000.

17

309

Anthony Wells-Cole minus the animals that pull the car because the left-hand part of the fold-out page on which Trevelyon painted it has been lost. From what remains, however, it is clear that he copied an Antwerp engraving, not the one by Julius Goltzius after Maarten de Vos proposed by Barker but from an engraving after Gerard van Groening.18 This print is not otherwise known to have been in England at this time. Conclusion These examples, drawn from different parts of England are part of a wider picture of dependence on Continental, particularly Flemish prints, during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. The printed page, whether illustrating a designer’s ideas for the decoration of the classical orders of architecture, or an artist’s interpretation of moralising scenes from the Bible or mythology, were by far the most effectual mechanism for the spread of Flemish Mannerism through the British Isles. Too little secure information has survived concerning the actual mechanisms involved, obliging present-day investigators (as here) to deduce the relative responsibility of the patron and the craftsman, which was shared in different proportions in each and every instance.

18   Barker 2000, vol. 1, plate 96; Schuckman & Luijten 1997, no. 202.

310

Chapter 3.7 Classicism in Berlin and Brandenburg: Architects, Entrepreneurs and the Restoration after the Thirty Years’ War (1648–1688) Gabri van Tussenbroek (Amsterdam Office for Monuments and Archeology/Utrecht University)

In 1648, Brandenburg’s territory was devastated, buildings everywhere crumbling into ruin. Civilian enterprises hardly existed and the middle class played no role in economic life. Inflation was high and farmers committed slash-and-burn agriculture. At the start of the Thirty Years’ War, Lutheran Brandenburg had tried to refrain from participating in the conflict, but it was unluckily situated between the territories of the Habsburg empire and Sweden.1 Brandenburg had been used as a battlefield, winter quarters and plundering area for both imperial and Swedish troops (fig 1).2 In October 1648, after the peace, Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg decided to ­conduct an inventory of the situation in his country. Between fifty and sixty percent of the population had died or fled. In Frankfurt an der Oder, the population had decreased from approximately 13,000 prior to 1618 to 2,366 in 1653. Four of the two hundred fifty-one v­ illages that were visited during the survey had been completely destroyed, and a further forty-four contained a total of only seventy-five farmers.3 In Neuruppin, north of Berlin, only 600 out of 3,500 inhabitants remained. While Berlin itself had lost ‘only’ a quarter of its inhabitants, more than a third of its houses stood empty and many buildings were dilapidated.4 The old Hohenzollern Palace, which dated back to 1442, was in a poor state.5 It had been reshaped in the sixteenth century as a Renaissance building but since then hardly anything had been done to keep it in shape. During his reign, from 1648 to 1688, Elector Friedrich Wilhelm was continuously working on the restoration and modernisation of Brandenburg. Born in Königsberg ­ (Kaliningrad), Friedrich Wilhelm spent a large part of his childhood in Küstrin (Kostrzyn).6 In 1634, at the age of fourteen, he was sent to the Dutch Republic for further education. Friedrich Wilhelm paid visits to Amsterdam and to Prince Frederik Hendrik (his future fatherin-law) in The Hague, and became acquainted with Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen, who was to play a leading role in Friedrich Wilhelm’s rebuilding policy for Brandenburg twenty years later. During the Thirty Years’ War as many as twenty-seven percent of the students at Leiden University were of German origin.7 The intellectual climate was a catalyst for theorybased influence and the Brandenburg intellectual milieu in the second half of the seventeenth century was deeply influenced by the Dutch.8 In matters of architecture, fortification and mathematics, the lectures of Nicolaus Goldmann drew many foreign students to Leiden. Goldmann, who was born in Silesia, started his lectures in Leiden around 1640 and published about military building and architecture (see chapters 3.1 and 4.1). His last book, Tractatus   Schmidt 1999.   Opgenoorth 1971; Materna & Ribbe 1995, 290ff. 3  In Löcknitz, up in the northeast, no less than 85% of the farms stood empty. Materna & Ribbe 1995, 306. 4  See for the history of Berlin: Escher 1998; Ribbe 1998. 5  Geyer 1936; Peschken & Klünner 1982; Wiesinger 1989. 1 2

 He was educated in Polish, French, Latin, history, religion, mathematics, fortress building and in using arms. Baumgart 1990, 41. 7  Schneppen 1960; Oestreich 1968, 14–16; Beuys 1980, 47–48. 8  Oudesluijs 1994, 17. See also Griesa 1994, 31–33; Oestreich 1968. 6

311

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

1. The eastern part of Germany with most of the towns and villages mentioned in this chapter (drawing by the author).

de stylometris, appeared in 1661 and was dedicated to Friedrich Wilhelm and Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen.9 Goldmann was granted one thousand Thaler by Friedrich Wilhelm to publish his architectural handbook but he died in 1665, before he could bring his work into print. Returning to Brandenburg in 1638, Friedrich Wilhelm was impressed by the prosperity of the Dutch Republic.10 In 1640, he succeeded his father as elector and in 1646, he married the Dutch princess Louise Henriette, the eldest daughter of Frederik Hendrik. One of Friedrich Wilhelm’s agents who kept him informed about the situation in the Republic was Matthias Dögen, who was appointed resident of the elector in 1647, having already worked for Elector Georg Wilhelm. Matthias Dögen had studied in Frankfurt an der Oder and then in Leiden, where he attended the Duytsche Mathematique. Like his fellow agents, Dögen reported on political  van den Heuvel 1994; Goudeau 1995; Goudeau 2005.

9

312

  Oestreich 1968, 6–13; van Gelderen 1994. See also Upmark 1900; Bientjes 1967, 161–182. 10

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

issues and cultural matters, and sent books, prints and art, and art objects and craftsmen to Brandenburg (see also chapter 2.1). New settlements Brandenburg’s rulers had already tried to build up Brandenburg with Netherlandish help and Friedrich Wilhelm did the same.11 Johan Wijngaert, who like Matthias Dögen was agent of the elector, brought two groups of peasants together in Holland and Frisia.12 Both groups sent surveyors to the east. One of those people was Gerrit Dirckszoon Loos from Wormer, who in October 1648 had left Enkhuizen to go to Lenzen. At that time, Lambert Wijngaert had already left Holland, together with ‘engineer’ Haye Steffens,13 to inspect the environments of Zehdenick and Liebenwalde. Maps were being drawn and proposals were made for land improvements. Although some of the surveyors feared problems with the old inhabitants, sixty-five peasants eventually signed a contract and moved with their families to Brandenburg (fig. 2).14 However, villages in which 2. Contract between the Elector of Brandenburg to settle were not available and, contrary to what had and sixty-five Dutch peasants, 1649 (Geheimes been agreed, the groups were divided. Due to their bad Staatsarchiv Berlin). relationship with the elector, the local nobility was not willing to support Friedrich Wilhelm’s rebuilding politics. Despite negotiations from electoral gamekeeper Jobst Gerhard von Hertefeld, the newcomers were not helped at all; in some cases, they were even thwarted.15 Complaints, negotiations and the search for even more immigrants went hand in hand.16 New contracts were signed but many of the expectations were far too optimistic. A lack of supplies, lack of infrastructure, tense relations and the fact that agreements were not fulfilled caused many immigrants to return within a few years. Every newcomer expected to profit from his migration and there are indications that some of them soon turned to a kind of sub-tenancy in which they let other people work for them, as they might have planned to do from the start. For a structural restoration of Brandenburg, however, the elector had to find people who could turn their presence in Brandenburg into a financial advantage, or who no longer had any choice or prospects in their own country any more and were willing to put their skills at his service. This situation lasted another thirty years, until the Edict of Potsdam in 1685 systematically attracted large numbers of French Huguenots to Brandenburg with a personal motive to build up a new existence.17 Around 1650, the elector was more successful in his efforts to restore Brandenburg by tying skilled individuals to his personal network. One of those people was Aernoult Gijsels van  For medieval influences see Adler 1861; Rudolph 1889; Glaser 1939, 10; Materna & Ribbe 1995; Oudesluis 1997, 38. For the sixteenth century: Schumacher 1902; Theunisz 1943, 97. 12   Theunisz 1943, 124. 13  This Haye Steffens turned out to be an imposter. Galland 1893, 17 and 213; Uhlemann 1994, 104; 11

Heckmann 1998, 60; Galland 1911, 193; Glaser 1939, 31 and Arends 1994, 16–31. 14   Theunisz 1943, 131–132 and 139–149. 15   Theunisz 1943, 168 and 172–173. Details about the conflict between elector and nobility see: Glaser 1939, 24–26; Theunisz 1943, 178–181. 16   Theunisz 1943, 186–187 and 192–195. 17   Materna & Ribbe 1995, 310.

313

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

Lier from IJsselstein. Already over fifty years of age, he had had a rich career as governor of Ambon and commander of a VOC fleet. After a bitter conflict with his superiors, he resigned from duty and took up the plan to start a new East Indian Company in Brandenburg.18 Apart from these plans,19 Gijsels leased the amt of Lenzen in 1651, two and a half years after land surveyor Gerrit Dirckszoon Loos had visited the site. The small town, located approximately 140 kilometres northwest of Berlin, had been occupied and destroyed by the Swedes in 3. The Berlin palace garden with the ‘grotto’ on the right 1633. The number of inhabitants dropped and the greenhouse in the background. Drawing by Johan from 3,000 to 300 and, in the vicinity of Stridbeck (Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Lenzen, complete villages had disapBerlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz). peared. Gijsels started to reinforce the Elbe dykes and recruited workers from Holland to Lenzen.20 Potatoes, tobacco and flax were produced while Gijsels faced a plague of wolves, reorganised the guild system and had houses rebuilt, all of which helped improve education and morality.21 Gijsels was one of the first persistent residential Dutchmen to support the elector in his efforts to restore Brandenburg.22 This personal involvement of individuals from Holland was crucial in respect to the goals Friedrich Wilhelm had set himself. To understand the introduction of Dutch Classicism in Brandenburg and Berlin, it is necessary to look not only at that architecture alone. The fate of centrally organised Brandenburg depended on an aristocratic in-crowd that was respons­ ible for restoring infrastructure, rebuilding residences, making enterprises profitable and bringing new élan. Unlike in the Dutch Republic, civilian initiatives in Brandenburg hardly played any role. On the other hand, the motives of Dutch immigrants were to gain money or to improve their living conditions. However, this collaboration did not arise from mutual initiatives. Had it not been for the Great Elector and his wife, there might never have been any Dutch-influenced Classicist architecture in Berlin and Brandenburg at all. Palaces: Berlin, Oranienburg, Potsdam The first example of Dutch architectural influence was the restoration of the palaces of Berlin, Oranienburg and Potsdam. In 1647, when he was residing in Cleves (Kleve), Friedrich Wilhelm commissioned the renewal of the pleasure garden at the Berlin palace and the realisation of Unter den Linden, the lime-tree avenue connecting the city with the ducal hunting park. The inspirations for the project were the new gardens and avenues in Cleves, designed by Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen, and the Lange Voorhout in The Hague and the Maliebaan in Utrecht.23 The geometrical pattern of the new pleasure garden was set out on site with trees and privet hedges. Two terraces, one higher than the other, with the upper part containing a flower garden, were decorated with a statue of the elector by François Dieussart from The Hague (fig. 3). The lower part was filled with elm trees and privet   Meilink-Roelofsz 1969.  For the colonial ambitions of Friedrich Wilhelm see: van Tussenbroek 2006a, chapter 5. 20   Küttner 2001, 5.

  Peitsch 1985, 53–54.   Zander 1901, 166–173; Hoppe 1929, 99–105; Voigt 1938, 85–94 and Rodegast 1999, 12–16. 23   Küchler 1979, 453; Nadler 1968.

18

21

19

22

314

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

hedges and more marble statues. In a pond, a Neptune figure held a trident that spouted water, probably made by Pieter Streng from Rotterdam. A botanic department was realised in the northern part of the garden, in which spices for the pharmacy were grown. There was also a vegetable garden, where potatoes were grown for the first time in Brandenburg in 1651. In 1652, an orangery was built made of brick “in the Dutch manner”, quo aedificando modo Batavi delectantur, as court gardener Elsholz wrote.24 Also, a summer house, Lusthaus, was designed by Johan Georg Memhardt. It was two storeys high with a polygonal ground plan and two towers at the front of the building (fig. 4). The façades, decorated with colossal pilasters, enclosed four octagonal spaces. The ground floor contained a grotto with shell decorations and a water organ. A banquet hall was situated on the first floor. The façade on the Spree side contained niches with statues of antique gods.25 The garden was not merely intended for entertaining; the production of vegetables, fruit and spices were at least as important. The elector’s catastrophic financial situation forced him to reorganise his household. During the works on the palace garden, wages were lowered and lower officials were fired.26 There was a lack of funds for the necessary surveying work at the palace, so only a new chapel was built and repa4. The ‘grotto’ in the Berlin rations were carried out.27 After a first campaign, the palace garden, designed by elector ordered five hundred linden trees from Matthias Johan Georg Memhardt, 1652 Dögen to plant in his Berlin palace garden.28 (from: Martin Zeiller and In the summer of 1650, the old castle of Bötzow, Matthäus Merian, Topographia electoratus Brandenburgici about thirty kilometres north of Berlin, changed its name […], Frankfurt am Main 1652). to Oranienburg.29 In September 1650, after the castle had been damaged in the Thirty Years’ War, the elector gave it to his wife, who was to turn her new rural estate into a prosperous enterprise (fig. 5).30 In restoring Bötzow, Louise Henriette set an example for the restoration of all of Brandenburg and her example was meant to be taken over by her husband, courtiers and noblemen. In the years that followed, she would extend the land that belonged to Oranienburg, creating a model farm with cows, sheep and a b ­ rewery. In 1651, she signed a contract with Dutch immigrants, who were to lease one hundred farms and rebuild surrounding villages.31 The bricks for the castle were supplied partially from the former monastery of Lindow, the ruins of which were torn down to build Oranienburg. A year later, Louise Henriette signed a contract with the Dutch kiln master Julius Arendsen to open a brick factory in nearby   Wendland 1979, 30 and Dohme 1876.  Rietzsch 1987; Exh. cat. Krefeld/Oranienburg/ Apeldoorn 1999, 232–233. 26   Beuys 1980, 93–94. 27   Peschken & Klünner 1982, 45; Heckmann 1998, 70. 28   Beuys 1980, 127; Heckmann 1998, 56. 24 25

 Bötzow dated back to the twelfth century, was changed into a Renaissance palace by Elector Joachim II in 1550 and refurbished in 1579 by Johann Georg. Boeck 1938, 9-13; Grafe 1999, 80. 30   Glaser 1939, 26. 31  Exh. cat. Krefeld/Oranienburg/Apeldoorn 1999, 8/83. 29

315

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

Velten.32 In Rüdersdorf, a lime oven had to be built, while Swedish tiles, lead and mortar had to be bought in Hamburg.33 During her absence from the site, Louise Henriette was regularly informed about the progress. In her answers, she continuously stressed the need to hurry up.34 In 1662, on one of her journeys in the Prussian provinces, she wrote a letter asking for a painting illustrating the present state of the works.35 Louise Henriette complained about the slow progress and emphasised the importance of productivity in the garden.36 In Oranienburg, court gardener 5. The palace of Oranienburg on a print by Johan Peter Jurgens from Holland planted the garGeorg Memhardt, 1652 (from: Martin Zeiller and Matthäus Merian, Topographia electoratus den with Dutch fruit trees. There was a surBrandenburgici […], Frankfurt am Main 1652). rounding canal and terraces, similar to those that Louise Henriette had known from her youth in Honselaarsdijk and Ter Nieuburg. Meanwhile, Friedrich Wilhelm decided to concentrate his attention on Potsdam, into which he invested large sums of money.37 His enthusiasm for Potsdam was caused by his passion for hunting, combined with the fact that the beautiful landscape of Potsdam was at the crossroads of navigable waters that would develop into trading routes, like the Spree and Havel. Works started for the entire renewal of the castle of Potsdam. In 1672, a series of prints by Johan Georg Memhardt was published (fig. 6). Ground plans and perspective views showed the new palace with four wings, a main building, pavilions and galleries, which resembled the palace of Honselaarsdijk that Frederik Hendrik of Orange, Friedrich Wilhelm’s father-in-law, had built in 1621–1647. The idea of a large main building with galleries and pavilions was applied both in Huis ter Nieuburg and in Oranienburg. Potsdam Palace offers a striking resemblance with Huis ten Bosch in The Hague in its main hall. It was thirteen by twenty-two metres wide, with a height of not less than twenty metres. The vault reached up into the roof construction; the windows in the lantern tower on top provided light. In the basement beneath the great hall, a cellar was situated, which was used as a dining room during the summer (see page 234, figs. 22 and 23).38 As in Berlin and Oranienburg, Potsdam had a large garden, which contained an orangery, statues and a fountain.39 Michael Hanff, who also worked in the Berlin

  Boeck 1938, 15–16; Lange 1996.   Boeck 1938, 22. See on Rüdersdorf Bothe 1992. 34  Boeck 1938, 18. In August 1653 the ruins of the electoral house in Zehdenick – burned out in 1631 – were torn down for further building materials. Autumn 1653 the main building was almost finished. In the same year an orangery was built. See Schroedter 2001. In 1654 glass was ordered in the glass house of Marienwalde. Friese 1992, 62. 35  Boeck 1938, 27; Glaser 1939, 27; Boeck 1938, 31; Volkmann 1996. 36   Sierksma 2002. 37  In the midst of lakes and swamps, Potsdam an der Havel was an old settlement, dating back to the 32 33

316

year 993. Elector Joachim I resided in Potsdam in the sixteenth century but later, as Johann Sigismund got into financial problems, he pawned Potsdam in 1614. After more than thirty-five years Friedrich Wilhelm tried to get Potsdam back, in which he succeeded in 1660. Potsdam itself however was not enough. Between 1660 and 1664 he acquired also Bornim, Caputh, Drewitz, Geltow, Eiche, Golm, Bergholz and Bornstedt, in 1678 followed by Glienicke, for the enormous sum of 90,000 Thaler. See Sello 1888; Mielke 1979, 159; Giersberg 1998, 15; Sievers 1969 means 1677. 38   Boeck 1938, 55; Mielke 1983. 39   Küchler 1979, 455.

Classicism garden, was responsible for it. In 1668, another gardener from the Netherlands, Dietrich van Langelaer, realised avenues, as Johan Maurits had done in Cleves. These axes led to a striking point in the landscape, such as a hill or a summer mansion, like Bornim, Caputh (fig. 7) or Glienicke (see page 337, fig. 7).40 Other, smaller ­projects followed. In Bornim, Van Langelaer reali­sed a garden of 700 x 220 metres, ­surrounded by canals and hedges, with ponds, fountains, trees, statues of river gods, nymphs, sea dragons and a water organ. A total of 1,595 fruit trees were planted, including apricots, peaches and almonds, hundreds of linden trees, chestnut trees and a vineyard.41

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

6. Ground plan of the palace of Potsdam, 1672, probably designed by Memhardt (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz). Compare with the section on page 234, fig. 22.

 rchitects and building A entrepreneurs The central figure behind the projects in Berlin, Oranienburg and Potsdam was architect Johan Georg Memhardt. Born in Austria in 1607, he came to the Dutch Republic as the child of refugees. Circumstantial evidence suggests that he was probably educated in Leiden, and in 1638 (the same year that Friedrich Wilhelm concluded his stay in the Low Countries), Memhardt came to Brandenburg as a civil and military engineer.42 Memhardt made 7. The palace of Caputh at the beginning of drawings of Dutch watermills, studied the twentieth century (collection Technische horse-driven pump systems and tested Universität Berlin). instruments for fortress building. For a time, he was responsible for the fortifications in the East Prussian harbour city of Pillau; in the mid-1640s he stayed for a longer time in Cleves and made plans to reinforce Kalkar.43 In 1650, he was called to Berlin, again around the time that the Great Elector and his wife decided to move there. A year later, Memhardt led the construction of Oranienburg. He was ­nominated court architect, and supervised the extension of the Berlin quarter Friedrichswerder, designing its streets and tracing its building lots.44

  Giersberg 1998, 22. On Glienicke: Spatz 1912, 133; Küchler 1979, 456. 41  Freusberg 1878, 282–284; Boeck 1939a, 8–9; Küchler 1979, 456; Schumacher 1993, 54; Heckmann 1998, 96 and 136. 42   van Veen 1939; Oudesluijs 1994, 13. 40

  Galland 1911, 27.   In 1653 he was awarded the first building lot on the Friedrichswerder, where he would build a dwelling house. Galland 1893, 214; Galland 1911, 212 and Heckmann 1998, 60. 43 44

317

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

After 1648, Memhardt was the first architect to draw and execute prestigious designs for the elector. While the Great Elector and his wife had chosen Otto von Schwerin to be responsible for the education of the young princes, Memhardt was assigned as their drawing teacher.45 The way in which Friedrich Wilhelm depended on Memhardt in matters of architecture and architectural theory is clearly expressed in the case of the manuscript of Nicolaus Goldmann’s work. In 1665, as negotiations took place between Goldmann’s widow 8. The orphanage in Oranienburg, built by Michiel Smids, and brother on one side and the Great 1663 (photograph circa 1925, Brandenburgisches Landesamt Elector on the other regarding the legacy of für Denkmalpflege, Wünsdorf). Goldmann, Memhardt was asked to draw up a close report on the works of Goldmann.46 In practical matters, many of Memhardt’s designs became reality thanks to entrepreneur and organiser Michiel Matthijszoon Smids from Rotterdam.47 Smids had come to Berlin as a ship builder, probably in 1652, and stayed in Brandenburg until his death in 1692. He not only earned several fortunes in building projects, wood trade and industry, but was also responsible for the practical execution of most of Friedrich Wilhelm’s building projects, like Oranienburg and its surrounding buildings, church and houses.48 A few years later, in 1665, Louise Henriette founded an orphanage in Oranienburg, the first in Brandenburg,49 after Smids had sent Louise Henriette a design and a tender for the orphanage in 1660, which was a modest brick building with colossal pilasters and decorative festoons (fig. 8). An important project in improving Brandenburg’s infrastructure was the digging of the Oder-Spree canal. Plans to connect the rivers Oder and Spree dated back to the fourteenth century, but it was under Friedrich Wilhelm that these plans were realised.50 In 1660, Michiel Matthijszoon Smids was commissioned to inspect the existing waterways51 and a commission followed two years later to dig a canal twenty metres wide. The project took hundreds of diggers and carpenters until 1667 to finish it. Engineer Joachim Ernst Blesendorf did the technical planning and Michiel Smids was responsible for the practical execution and the financing of the project.52 Thirteen locks and eight bridges were realised, at a total cost of approximately forty thousand Thaler.53 In 1668, the first ship passed the canal.54 The connection between Oder and Spree increased trade in Berlin, as ships could now sail from Silesia via Berlin to Hamburg.55   On Schwerin see Hein 1929. On education: Galland 1893, 77. 46   Goudeau 2005, 63. 47   van Tussenbroek 2004; van Tussenbroek 2006a. 48  Boeck 1938, 19. On 25 December 1660 and 28 March 1661 he signed a contract in which was described how to execute the work. Schönfeld 1999a, 139–140. 49  Exh. cat. Krefeld/Oranienburg/Apeldoorn 1999, 8/87 and 8/88. 50   Berghaus 1855, 178; Trebbin 1938; Uhlemann 1994, 77–80. 51   Trebbin 1938, 32–34. 52   Galland 1893, 222; Heckmann 1998, 77–79 and 95–97. 45

318

 Uhlemann 1994, 81–83; Galland 1893, 214; Glaser 1939, 33–34. 54   Glaser 1939, 34. 55  For Dutch ship builders in Brandenburg: Glaser 1939; Galland 1893, 192. On Raule: Häpke 1923; Gieraths 1924; Rachel 1938, 79–84; Jorberg 1965, 2–3. Benjamin Raule from Middelburg organised Brandenburg’s fleet and ship building activities. On Raule’s estate Friedrichsfelde: Wipprecht 1981; Rohrlach & Badstübner-Gröger 1994; Heckmann 1998, 128; Hahn & Lorenz 2000, vol. 2, 155–156. For its garden: Hennebo 1955; Küchler 1979, 456. 53

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

People like Johan Georg Memhardt and Michiel Matthijszoon Smids were willing to stay in Brandenburg for a longer time because they were able to make a good living there. Like Count Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen, these were exceptions.56 When the elector decided to start rearranging the landscape around Potsdam, he wrote to Johan Maurits: “The whole island must be a paradise”.57 His plans dated further back and Johan Maurits, who was frequently in Berlin and Sonnenburg, visited Potsdam in November 1661, “to make a design”.58 Some weeks later, Johan Maurits wrote to Otto von Schwerin that the elector had done him the honour of instructing him to look for fountains, a task he had been working on for three weeks already.59 It is not certain whether Johan Maurits made designs himself. In Cleves, he was helped by Jacob van Campen to realise a new park. In 1652, the elector had asked Johan Maurits to involve Van Campen in the production of a series of prints.60 After Van Campen died in 1657, the elector tried via Johan Maurits to get his hands on a portfolio with Van Campen’s designs.61 It was not until 1663 that Johan Maurits managed to buy such a book, which he sent to Berlin as a gift (see chapter 3.1).62 The friendship between the elector and Johan Maurits dated back to the 1630s. Between 1636 and 1644, Johan Maurits had been in Brazil, where he had contributed to the colonisation effort. During his absence in The Hague, his famous Mauritshuis was built. In Brazil, he mapped the land, cultivated it, built a palace in Classicist style and founded a city, Mauritsstad (today part of Recife). He drained the land, built bridges, planted trees, and so on.63 The many scientists that accompanied Maurits to Brazil documented the foreign land, which was painted by Frans Post, the brother of architect Pieter. Upon his return, Johan Maurits was appointed by Friedrich Wilhelm as vice-regent of Cleves in 1647.64 As Friedrich Wilhelm was reorganising his finances and starting to delegate the many trivial matters that reached his desk,65 he was able to surround himself with people who were able to help and support his restoration politics.66 The examples of Berlin, Oranienburg and Potsdam had to be copied and taken over by others. With this intention, the elector appointed Johan Maurits Herrenmeister of Sonnenburg (now Słonsk), at the east bank of the River Oder, near Frankfurt.67 Sonnenburg was an important seat of the Knights of St. John.68 In the sixteenth century, the Knights had converted to Lutheranism. After 1641, there had been no Herrenmeister on Sonnenburg. Like everywhere else in Brandenburg, the castle and its belongings suffered severe damage in the Thirty Years’ War and its condition was poor when Johan Maurits visited Sonnenburg for the first time in December 1652.69 To improve things, Johan Maurits took Dutch craftsmen with him, including the land surveyor Arnold van Geelkercken, who was to map all the belongings of Sonnenburg, report on their state and make proposals for improvement.70 Like Friedrich Wilhelm and Louise Henriette, Johan Maurits tried to interest people in moving to Sonnenburg.71 In January 1662, shortly after he had made preparations for the building of the palace in Potsdam, Johan Maurits  Friedrich Wilhelm had tried to get prominent painters to Berlin as well, but since Berlin did not offer an appropriate art market, they stayed in Holland. Seidel 1890, 125; Börsch-Supan 1980; Börsch-Supan 2000, 9. 57   Giersberg et al. 1988, 40. 58   Orlich 1838–1839, I, 464. 59  Erdmannsdörfer 1879; Urkunden und Actenstücke 1879, 473, n. 60   Ottenheym 1999, 291. 61   Mielke 1991, 13, quotes from Meinardus 1906. 62   Mielke 1983; Ottenheym 1999, 295. 63  Galland 1893, chapter 1; Bots 1979; de Moulin 1979; Palm 1979; Terwen 1979. 56

  Opgenoorth 1979.   Beuys 1980, 96 and 153. 66   Bahl 2001, passim. 67   Galland 1893, 94–96; Rödel 1979. 68  The site was first mentioned in 1295. After 1341 a castle was built, in 1426 it came to the Markgraf of Brandenburg, who gave it almost immediately to the Herrenmeister of the Knights of St. John. Galland 1893, 93; Blok 1935; Kubach 1960, 185ff; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 71–82; Kleiner 1998. 69   Galland 1893, 97–99; van Kempen 1924, 198. 70   Ottenheym 1999, 297. 71   Galland 1893, 101; Kubach 1960, 188. 64 65

319

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

visited Sonnenburg again. He had decided to finance most of the castle’s rebuilding out of his own pocket. He made the design himself, probably with the help of Pieter Post, his favourite architect at home in The Hague (fig. 9). It is certain, however, that architect­ ural prints have played a role. Around 1655, a small booklet appeared in Amsterdam with twelve prints of new garlands, designed by Jacob van Campen for the new Amsterdam town hall. As Sonnenburg was finished ten 9. The palace of Sonnenburg, restored by years later, one of these garlands decorated Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen in the 1650s the façade of the castle (fig. 10).72 (photograph collection Utrecht University). Jean de Bonjour, whose father had probably accompanied Johan Maurits as steward to Brazil, was responsible for the ­ organisation of the works.73 Practical works were led by master carpenter Cornelis Ryckwaert and master mason Gorus Person (or Perron).74 In addition to Ryckwaert and Person, another twelve Dutch craftsmen were present in Sonnenburg, together with German carpenters and masons. In 1665, Gorus Person’s appointment was terminated and Cornelis Ryckwaert became the leading master.75 In May 1665, Ryckwaert sent a list of questions to Johan Maurits in Cleves concerning the completion of the castle.76 In his reply 10. One of the festoons designed by Van Johan Maurits was continuously concerned Campen, published in 1655 and adapted in about keeping the costs low, so he preferred Sonnenburg. Michiel Mozijn after Francoys Dancx to use the cheapest glass they could find, the (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). bridge was to be put on wooden pillars, and a tower would not be realised. The façades were not to receive the usual thick layer of plaster, but just a thin layer of chalk. The ceilings in some rooms had to be plastered and Johan Maurits wrote of the chimneys that the prints of Pieter Post (published in 1664) had to be used as an example. In Amsterdam, one had to enquire whether posts of stone could be bought there and stone tiles for the large cellar also had to be purchased there, although the use of less expensive tiles from Sweden was also an option.77   Galland 1893, 110 and 120–127; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 80; Ottenheym 1999, 296; Vlaardingerbroek 2011, 60. 73   Galland 1911, 78. 74   Galland 1893, 110–111; Galland 1911, 79. 75   Blok 1935, 123; Galland 1893, 121. 76   Galland 1893, 120ff. Ryckwaert’s questions concerned matters such as the gallery, the materials of the bridges, if there should be a tower on top of the castle, whether more blue tiles should be 72

320

produced and how the outside finishing, ceilings and floors should be. van Kempen 1924, 202. These blue tiles were a novelty in Brandenburg. Ryckwaert also wanted information about the windows; he wanted to know what kind of glass was needed and if it was possible to obtain cheap blue stone from Amsterdam, via the harbour of Stettin. 77   Galland 1893, 120ff.

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

In 1667, Sonnenburg was inaugurated in the presence of Johan Maurits.78 Although some of the medieval walls were incorporated into the new castle, it looked like a Dutch Classicist building, showing some similarities with Huis Ten Bosch in The Hague. Both buildings have garlands under the central windows of the upper floor and there are similarities in the division of spaces, such as the double staircase in the back of the vestibule with a large hall behind it. Other motifs, such as pillars decorated with niches and hanging garlands, appear more often in the work of Pieter Post, like in the Mauritshuis.79 After the works in Sonnenburg were completed, Cornelis Ryckwaert was appointed as the elector’s fortification engineer in Küstrin.80 This city had become a modern fortress in the second half of the sixteenth century and was one of Brandenburg’s main strongholds.81 Nothing is known about Ryckwaert’s background in the Netherlands.82 In Küstrin, Ryckwaert worked under Christian Albrecht von Dohna, the military governor, handling the maintenance and reinforcement of the fortress.83 In 1672, Ryckwaert realised the Brandenburg bastion, a ravelin with the name Christian Ludwig and a hornwork. Old photographs of Küstrin show the Zorndorfer Gate, in the east of the town, with classicist features of a colossal order and a low pediment. Ryckwaert made inspections and drew maps and, although some scholars have viewed his activities as inferior, the fortress he was responsible for, with its bombfree casements, was one of the most strategically effective and one of the most modern in Germany.84 In addition to Küstrin, Ryckwaert was active in many other sites as an architect and contractor. One of his earliest assignments may have been the centralised church of Lindenberg (Lkr. Oder-Spree) of 1667, one of the first to be built after the Thirty Years’ War (fig. 11).85 Much is also known about Ryckwaert’s role in building the palace of Schwedt an der Oder. In 1670, the elector’s second wife Dorothea bought the old and damaged castle for her son Philip Wilhelm.86 After signing a contract in Potsdam, Ryckwaert started construction on October 1670, together with a group of Dutch masons and carpenters.87 The design, probably by Johan Memhardt, already existed in this case. Ryckwaert listed the necessary materials, took care of the supply of wood, lime and bricks, and sent his son Adriaen Daniel to Schwedt. In 1673, a new brick oven was built in Schwedt due to problems with the supply of bricks. Philippe de Chieze coordinated the delivery of lime, while Michiel Matthijszoon Smids was responsible for its transportation. In June, the elector ordered that Ryckwaert be sent glass from the glass factory in Marienwalde.88 In late 1673, dark roofing tiles like those used in Sonnenburg were sent from Küstrin.89 It was not until 1675 that the roof was constructed, however. The palace was close to completion when the Swedes invaded Brandenburg and looted the palace (although they did not set it on fire). Ryckwaert managed to save two expensive oaks, destined for woodcarving. In 1677, construction works were able to resume. What followed was a series of minor catastrophes. There were not enough craftsmen, the   Galland 1893, 112–113; van Kempen 1924, 208.  van Kempen 1924, 204 and 206; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 80–81. 80   Galland 1911, 229. 81  Gebuhr et al. 2001, 30–33. On Küstrin: Fredrich 1913; Berg 1916; Hoppe 1928; Melzheimer 1989. 82   Possibly he was related to poet and medical doctor Justus Ryckwaert from Brielle, an acquaintance of Caspar van Baerle (Barlaeus), who went to Brasil with Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen. Van Haute 2000, 7–12; Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek II (1912), 1248–1249; III (1914), 1114–1115 and IX (1933), 917–918. See in general van Kempen 1924.

  Galland 1911, appendix; Berg 1916, 141.   Kutschbach 1849, 145–146, 156; van Kempen 1924, 208–210; Hoppe 1928; Melzheimer 1989, 79. 85  Vinken 2000, 596–597, although the attribution is not documented by written sources. The building commissioner was Raban von Canstein from Westphalia. Schönfeld 1999a, 90ff. 86   Galland 1911, 83. 87   Böer 1979, 25 and 170–171. 88   Galland 1911, 232–233. 89   Böer 1979, 25–29.

78

83

79

84

321

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

brick factory collapsed in the summer of 1677, followed by a lack of building materials. In the spring of 1679, beams started to bend, threatening collapse and obliging Ryckwaert to add supporting pillars in the middle of the rooms (a rather clumsy procedure, probably due to an insufficient technical solution for such a huge span). In June 1679, Ryckwaert was in Schwedt once again in order to work on the floors, windows and the roofs of the garden towers.90 Court painter and art expert Hendrik de Fromantiou was commissioned to paint the palace, which included ceilings and overmantel as well as the façades, doors and stairs. Pilasters and mouldings were painted white, garlands and other decorative elements received a gold leaf finish and the pediment was to be painted in white and stone colours. The ceilings were to be made of stucco. This work was executed by Giovanni Belloni, who along with other 11. The Evangelical church of Lindenberg Italians was well known as a stucco worker (Landkreis Oder-Spree), probably designed by in Brandenburg in the late seventeenth cenCornelis Ryckwaert, 1667–1669 (Brandentury.91 The result was a three-storey high burgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, main building with seventeen bays and Wünsdorf). a large, double-height salon at the garden side, to which side wings were to be added later. It was one of the major Brandenburg palaces of that time (fig. 12).92 Another of Cornelis Ryckwaert’s building projects was the Junkerhaus in Frankfurt an der Oder (fig. 13). The old medi­ eval building, close to the river Oder, had been used as a lodge for noble students at 12. Schwedt an der Oder, former palace from Frankfurt University since 1598 but had been the north-west. The corps de logis was built unfit for habitation since 1631.93 Restoration between 1670 and 1688 by Cornelis Ryckwaert. works commenced in 1670, after Cornelis Destroyed in 1945/1961 (photograph from Ryckwaert had been assigned to lead the circa 1925, Brandenburgisches Landesamt für works. Due to his many projects in Küstrin Denkmalpflege, Wünsdorf). and Schwedt, work progressed slowly. In 1678, Michiel Smids was told to check the building administration. Between 1670 and 1678 not less than five thousand Thaler were spent, which was apparently not enough to finish the works.94 In 1680, Ryckwaert listed

  Böer 1979, 29–35.   Böer 1979, 38. 92   van Kempen 1924, 216. 90

93

91

94

322

  Nülken 1992, 57.   Ladendorf 1937, 161. Cf. Nülken 1992.

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

the works that remained to be finished and calculated that the necessary sum was 3,446 Thaler.95 The main construction was finished, but the chimneys and chimneypieces, dividing walls, windows, doors, floors, stairs, a balcony and general finishing still had to be completed. Like in Schwedt, however, static problems caused Ryckwaert to rethink the structure; in fact, in 1681 a part of the façade collapsed over two storeys.96 13. Frankfurt an der Oder, former Junkerhaus, Ryckwaert finally solved the problem, the nowadays Museum Viadrina. Restoration and damage was repaired and the building was enlargement by Cornelis Ryckwaert, 1670–1690 finished with richly decorated ceilings and (photograph from 2002, Brandenburgisches overmantels by Giovanni Tornelli, Giovanni Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Wünsdorf). Simonetti and Giovanni Belloni, the latter of whom had already worked in Schwedt.97 A number of commissions followed, also in Sachsen-Anhalt, which was ruled by Johann Georg II of AnhaltDessau, who was married to Henrietta Catharina of Orange and kept close ties to the court in Berlin.98 Ryckwaert was sent to Anhalt for work on various prestigious residences like the renewal of the castle of Zerbst, for Carl Wilhelm von Anhalt-Zerbst (fig. 14).99 The new castle, started in 1681, was to have three storeys and three wings. 14. The palace of Zerbst, started by Cornelis The ground plan of the main building, with its Ryckwaert in 1681 (collection Technische staircase and large hall, again showed strikUniversität Berlin). ing resemblances to The Hague, Potsdam and Sonnenburg.100 After Ryckwaert died in 1693, works were completed by Giovanni Simonetti.101 Dutch tiles, furniture from Brabant and a symmetrical garden ­completed the palace. In Zerbst, Ryckwaert furthermore was respons­ ible for the building of the reformed Trinitatis Church (fig. 15). Construction work started in 1683.102 It was to become a centralised church with a pyramidal roof. Originally, a dome was planned, but due to cutbacks it was not realised.103 In 1683, Ryckwaert was given a prestigious building commission by Henrietta Catharina of Orange c­ oncerning Oranienbaum, the history of which shows similarities to Oranienburg (see c­ hapter 2.1).104 A new town on a regular ground plan was founded that contained a palace, a church, a park and a market.105

  Nülken 1992, 67–68.   Nülken 1992, 61. 97  A number of richly decorated buildings were concentrated in the period from about 1655 until 1680. Hahn & Lorenz 2000, vol. 1, 63; II, 353. 98  van Kempen 1924, 222; Bechler 2002, 27; Weiss 2003, 382. 99   Herrmann 1998, 11; Galland 1911, 233–234. 95 96

  Herrmann 1998, 16; Galland 1911, 233.   Herrmann 1998, 16. 102  Galland 1911, appendix III; van Kempen 1924, 230. Schönfeld 1999a, 85–90. 103   van Kempen 1924, 230–245. 104   Bechler 2002, passim. 105   van Kempen 1924, 253. 100 101

323

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek Cornelis Ryckwaert died in 1693, rather unexpectedly.106 In civil engineering matters, he was succeeded by his son Adriaen Daniel, while Jean Louis Cayard from France succeeded Ryckwaert as a fortress builder and military architect. Fortifications and infrastructure

Along with the Leiden education for military engineers based on the writings of Simon Stevin and others, the army introduced daily exercises, discipline and practising with arms (see chapter 4.1). After 1600, battles in the open field were reduced 15. The Trinitatis Church in Zerbst, built by Cornelis Ryckwaert as much as possible and the role of the miliin 1683 (collection Technische Universität Berlin). tary engineer increased.107 The influences of these Dutch developments can be seen in Brandenburg. The writings of Justus Lipsius found an audience in Brandenburg and the time that Friedrich Wilhelm spent in Leiden left its traces.108 The ways in which a Dutch engineer could reach Brandenburg can be illustrated by the case of Hendrik Walman. Walman reached an agreement with an agent of the elector, Frederik Hendrik van Langerack and was paid for two months in advance plus expenses.109 Both parties had agreed that Walman would receive his orders only from the elector or a general, governor or commander, depending on the actual situation. The contract was signed for a year, after which time Walman (not the elector) could decide if he wanted to stay on. Another engineer, Jacob Holst, had been called to Berlin in 1639 in order to clear the field of fire around the city, for which he had to demolish all the houses and barns that had been erected too close to the city walls. He went to Cleves for mechanical instruments, later to be collected by Johan Georg Memhardt, and educated young fortification engineers.110 He remained in Brandenburg until the end of the 1650s (which is probably when he died), and was appointed general quarter master in 1655. In the 1630s, Like de Groot became fortress engineer in Pillau (nowadays Baltijsk), but he died in 1640 and was succeeded by Memhardt and Johan Corneliszoon van Doesborch, whose father was Stadttechniker in Gdan´ sk.111 Other Dutch engineers in Brandenburg were Johan Bates and Geraert van Belcum.112 No matter how hard the elector tried to get the best and most expensive people, he was not always successful. This happened, for instance, in the case of Hendrick Ruse. Born in 1624 in the province of Drenthe, Ruse joined the army at the age of fifteen, but he soon left the Republic and fought for the French, Weimar and Venice. In 1653, he published Versterckte Vesting, which was to be reprinted and translated in German and English.113 In 1652, back in the Netherlands, Ruse was appointed municipal engineer and captain in Amsterdam, but did not have much influence on the development of Amsterdam’s fortification.114 On 16 March

  Galland 1911, 234.   van Deursen 2000, chapter 5. 108   van Gelderen 1994, 39ff. 109   Galland 1911, 220. 110   Galland 1911, 19 and 196–199. 106 107

324

111  Galland 1911, 21. About Van Doesborch see Galland 1911, 31–34 and 203–206. 112  Galland 1911, 6–7, 195, 206–207, 212; Ehrhardt 1960, 17–18. 113   Ruse 1653; Römelingh 1973, 566. 114   Römelingh 1973, 566 and van Essen 2000, 108.

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

1657, Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen wrote a letter to the mayors of Amsterdam saying that the city of Kalkar had to be fortified; Johan Georg Memhardt had already made designs for this back in 1645. Johan Maurits pled for Hendrick Ruse to come to Kalkar and advise on this matter.115 Ruse did come to Kalkar and promised that he would take care of the fortress as soon as he could free himself from other obligations. Ruse entered the service of Brandenburg in August 1658.116 He travelled to Berlin to inspect the fortification works, drew a map of Spandau and prepared the work in Kalkar. In May 1659, Johan Maurits reported to the elector that work was progressing well and would be finished in the summer of 1660.117 Taking Ruse into service was an experiment as his theories had not been tested in practice.118 At the same time, he was not the kind of person to stay in one place for a long period. He was released from his Amsterdam services in August 1659, but his work for the elector would also end soon thereafter. In June, Ruse had told Johan Maurits that he had received an offer from Denmark. Johan Maurits objected and reminded him of his promise to work for the elector.119 Without Friedrich Wilhelm being aware of it, however, Hendrick Ruse changed his service to Denmark to become general quarter master and inspector of the Danish fortresses, for which he earned an incredible three thousand Thaler a year. In Kalkar, the work was left unfinished, and the costs appeared to be much higher than Ruse had calculated.120 Friedrich Wilhelm successfully introduced new taxes and the war finances were separated from the state household. Part of the tax income was invested in new fortifications. The old fortresses were modernised almost everywhere in Brandenburg, including Berlin,121 with Friedrich Wilhelm commissioning Memhardt to make plans. Suburbs were partly torn down and levelled, while building lots and acres were expropriated. During the building activities that had started March 1658, other Netherlanders were involved apart from Memhardt, including Tieleman Jonkbloet, Hendrick Ruse and Johan ten Verhuys. Electoral lock master Walther Matthias Smids – probably a brother of Michiel – is said to have worked on the canals.122 The new fortification comprised a rampart eight metres high and six metres thick with thirteen bastions, new city gates and a canal of about twenty to fifty-five metres wide. It appeared outdated as soon as the works were finished, however, because Berlin had grown and needed more space. The dismantlement began in 1680. In 1672, after France had threatened the Dutch Republic, the elector chose the side of the Dutch.123 The elector went with his army to Cleves but many soldiers, including Prince Karl Emil, fell ill and died.124 At that time, the Swedes who were allied with France invaded Brandenburg.125 Friedrich Wilhelm managed to surprise the Swedes and defeated them near Fehrbellin on 28 June, 1675. Consequently, the emperor granted his support to Friedrich Wilhelm, who decided to keep on fighting and allied himself with Denmark.126 During the next three years, the Swedes were chased away from Pomerania. In the meantime, Brandenburg had become a state of international importance. The investments and reforms of the past twenty-five years had finally started to pay off.

  Galland 1893, 217.   Galland 1893, 27–28; Galland 1911, 216–217. 117   Galland 1893, 217. 118   Taverne 1979, 152. 119   Galland 1911, 218. 120   For Ruse’s activities in Denmark, see Pander 1935, 222–223; Römelingh 1973, 566–567; Roding 1991, 129; Westerbeek Dahl [s.a.]; Bertelsen et al. 2008, 845–846. 115 116

 Gebuhr 2001. On Berlin’s fortress, see Schierer 1939. 122   Nicolai 1786; Galland 1893, 214; Mauter 1974. 123   Galland 1893, 192 and 214–215. 124   Beuys 1980, 342. 125   Beuys 1980, 346. 126   Joseph 1895, 469. 121

325

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

Private initiatives On 6 April 1672, diplomat Godard Adriaan van Reede wrote to Johan Maurits about his visit to Sonnenburg. He was clearly impressed by the buildings and the crops that grew in the gardens.127 Johan Maurits had managed to reorganise the belongings of Sonnenburg and to rebuild the castle, but he had also mobilised people and motivated them to take over the restoration works that the elector had initiated. Others followed his example, such as Otto von Schwerin and Jobst Gerhard von Hertefeld who were prominent at court. Von Schwerin bought Altlandsberg, east of Berlin, in 1654 and the renewal of the castle started three years later. The two-storey building received two side wings and the old Altlandsberg city walls were incorporated into a beautiful garden. In 1664, von Schwerin – responsible for the education of the elector’s heirs – decided to enlarge the castle. It was richly decorated with gilt leather hangings and tapestries. The Protestant chapel belonging to the castle had a square ground plan that resembled the Amstel Church in Amsterdam. The church was inaugurated in 1671 and had a pyramidal roof with a bell tower. Unfortunately, few details are known about von Schwerin’s building activities.128 Philippe de Chieze from Amersfoort visited Altlandsberg repeatedly and in 1671 the architect and painter Rutger van Langevelt from Nijmegen came to Altlandsberg to educate the princes in fortification sciences.129 He was also to educate two of the elector’s sons from his second marriage. De Chieze’s lessons were further attended by a son of Cornelis Ryckwaert and by a son of Johan Georg Memhardt. Johan Maurits was another regular visitor. Jobst von Hertefeld came from the Cleves area and was appointed Brandenburg gamekeeper in 1627. In 1650, he leased one hundred farms to the west of the river Havel between Liebenwalde and Grüneberg. He was to cultivate the place at his own cost and, two years later, he obtained Liebenberg, in the middle of the Havelbruch. In 1659 and 1661, von Hertefeld signed contracts with Peter Salandt from Brabant and a certain Jan Gert, who were to colonise the later village of Neuholland near Liebenwalde.130 At the same time, von Hertefeld imported Dutch cows. Dutch vicars were active in the area.131 Otto Christoph von Sparr came into the service of the elector in 1649. Around 1657, he started to restore his estate of Trampe, northeast of Berlin. The new building received two storeys and a mansard roof, the lower part of which was covered with Dutch black tiles and the upper part with slate. The three bays in the middle were crowned with a pediment. The entrance hall was covered with Swedish tiles; its double staircase evoked the Mauritshuis in The Hague. The garden was divided symmetrically into four parts.132 Von Sparr was one of the first to invest in the countryside, possibly at the instigation of Johan Maurits, a personal acquaintance of his.133 Artus Quellinus from Amsterdam was hired to create von Sparr’s epitaph (now the oldest marble epitaph still extant in Berlin). On 24 January 1660 Amsterdam burgomaster Witsen granted von Sparr permission to make use of the marble supplies of Amsterdam, provided he paid one Thaler per foot.134 Quellinus was to supply an epitaph of white Carrara marble and black Belgian marble, like the ‘model’ he had already sent to von Sparr. The epitaph would be sculpted in Amsterdam and then sent to Berlin, where servants of Quellinus would assemble it in the Maria Kirche. The work was finished in 1663 and Otto   Blok 1935, 125; van der Bijl & Quarles van Ufford 1991, 119. 128   Boeck 1939b, 363–364. 129  He came into electoral service in 1678, the year Memhardt died. Galland 1911, 232; Heckmann 1998, 65 and 88; Kieling 1987, 156. 127

326

 Exh. cat. Krefeld/Oranienburg/Apeldoorn 1999, 8/85. 131  Oudesluis 1994,15; Schönfeld 1999a, 40. See also Küttner 2001, 5–7. 132   Hahn & Lorenz 2000, II, 605–609. 133   Halsema-Kubes 1979, 221. 134   van Dillen 1974, no. 1437. 130

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

von Schwerin took the princes with him to see the magnificent result (fig. 16).135 Around this time, Michiel Smids was to build a new spire on the Maria Kirche, probably designed by Memhardt.136 Philippe de Chieze from Amersfoort bore the title of chamberlain and would become general quarter master to the elector. In 1666, he was granted the ­ general inspection over the fortification ­ and palace building of Berlin. He regularly ­cooperated with Memhardt and Smids.137 In 1662, the elector gave him the small ­castle of Caputh, probably as payment for his ­services.138 With the help of Dutch craftsmen, Chieze rebuilt Caputh into a modest building with an external double staircase. He had a brick kiln installed, together with a Dutch-style garden with statues, vases, fruit trees and a linden avenue. In the cellar there is a ‘tile room’ that has approximately 7,500 Delft tiles.139 16. Berlin, Marienkirche, the von Sparr monument The castle of Pförten (now Brody, (Bildarchiv Foto Marburg). Poland) was rebuilt by Count Ulrich Hipparch von Promnitz, chamberlain, Kriegsrat and Generalwachtmeister. The castle was to be three storeys high with three lower wings. The corps de logis had a rusticated base. At the courtyard side, the façade had a profiled moulding with a broad middle ressault, and each storey had double pilasters and a pediment. The other side had colossal pilasters. At the back of the corps de logis there was a one-and-a-half-storey-high hall with wooden vaulting, comparable to that of Huis Ten Bosch, Sonnenburg, and Potsdam. The palace and adjacent farm were surrounded by a system of canals. A vegetable garden, south of the palace, had symmetrical terraces and five fountains.140 Not only was Pförten one of the largest palaces in Brandenburg, it was also innovative in its architecture; however, it is not known who was responsible for its design. The Dohna family had cultivated ties with the Netherlands for a much longer period. Abraham von Dohna, who started building the palace of Schlobitten, described as “very Dutch”, had studied in Leiden and Groningen and served in the army of Prince Maurits. Christian Albrecht von Dohna bought the estate of Niederschönhausen, north of Berlin, where work soon started on a petit palais. Just like Louise Henriette in Oranienburg, Christian Albrecht’s wife (who was close with Louise Henriette) had a forecourt realised and a very rich garden, with tulip terraces and a labyrinth, all in the Dutch tradition.141

135  Galland 1911, chapter 3; Glaser 1939, 35; Asche 1961. 136   Leh 1957, 21; Nicolai 1786, 65. 137   Mielke 1964. 138   Fiek 1911.

  Küchler 1979, 456; Schurig & Sommer 1998, 7–9.   Hahn & Lorenz 2000, II, 437–442. 141  Boeck 1939b, 10–11; Küchler 1979, 456; Hahn & Lorenz 2000, II, 410. On Schönhausen see Schonert 1937; Finkemeier & Röllig 1998. 139 140

327

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

17. Berlin, Friedrichsgracht, c. 1910 (from: Gut 1917).

Not only high nobility but also army generals and servants at court followed the example set by the elector and his wife.142 Classical forms and a corps de logis with two or three storeys thus became standard. The ground plan was symmetrical and the main façade was often provided with a middle ressault, sometimes with a pediment. Especially in the higher circles, the façades had pilasters, similar to the first Baroque dwelling houses in Berlin. A symmetrical garden offered food and income. In this way, a lifestyle was copied that was prescribed by the Brandenburg electoral court but leant heavily on Dutch tradition.143

Changes in Berlin – churches and houses In the 1670s and 1680s, more so than at the beginning of Friedrich Wilhelm’s reign, there was money for luxury, large-scale projects and impressive architecture. After the death of Louise Henriette, in June 1667 Friedrich Wilhelm married Dorothea von HolsteinGlücksburg and continued his restoration politics.144 In these years, Berlin started to change rapidly. In 1658, the quarter of Berlin called Friedrichwerder had become intra muros and by 1666, ninety-two houses had already been built. However, the number of civilians who were financially able to build a new house or repair an existing one was limited. In order to improve the financial situation of the lower classes, the elector decided to reform the tax system by introducing excises.145 Within two years, one hundred and fifty houses were restored. From the 1670s onwards, the Friedrichswerder and new Dorotheenstadt boomed.146 For the exteriors of new houses, architect Johan Arnold Nering turned to Holland. Façades with colossal pilasters appeared in Berlin similar to those realised in Amsterdam by Philips Vingboons (fig. 17).147 Most of the façades were designed by Nering himself; between 1689 and 1691, orders were given that no one else but Nering should design the houses, under pain of demolition.148 Nering is said to have designed over three hundred houses.149 Smids built himself a house with nine bays, pilasters and a tympanum, on the corner of Breite Straße and Scharrenstraße.150 In the Dorotheenstadt, he had built another house next to the wharf he founded for Friedrich Wilhelm in 1680.151 Insofar as the bird’s eye view of Berlin by Johann Schultz of 1688 is reliable, Smids’s house had distinctly Classicist features (fig. 18).152 142   Fieldmarshall Hans Adam von Schöning in Tamsel (now Dabroszyn). On his terrace stood a sun and a moon figure by Bartholomaeus Eggers. Reißmann 1937, 128; General von Görtzke in Friedersdorf, Hahn & Lorenz 2000, vol. 2, 146–147; Generalwachtmeister Bernhard freiherr von Pölnitz in Buch, Küchler 1979, 457–458; Brandenburg generalmayor Georg Friedrich von Derfflinger in Gusow, Eggers 1992, 1; Hahn & Lorenz 2000, vol. 2, 231–236; Daniel Enckevort in Suckow, ibidem, 587; Court gardener Michael Hanff in Rudow, with the support of Louise Henriette, Küchler 1979, 457; Hahn & Lorenz 2000, vol. 2, 406. 143   Hahn & Lorenz 2000, vol. 1, 62–63.

328

  Beuys 1980, 275–277.   Beuys 1980, 256–258, 316–317 and 374. 146   Schachinger 2001, 7–10. 147   Mertens 2003, 99. The long lost houses Friedrichsgracht 57 and 58 have long been attributed to Michiel Smids. 148   Nicolai 1786, 181; Rudolph 1964 and 1965. 149   Heckmann 1998, 125. 150   Demps et al. 2001, 92–93 and 150. For more details and more houses see van Tussenbroek 2004; van Tussenbroek 2006a. 151   See more general Müller 1938. 152   Schachinger 2001, 75. 144 145

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

18. The city of Berlin on an idealised plan by J.B. Schultz of 1688 (Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz).

The improvement in Brandenburg’s situation was also reflected in the changes of the Berlin residence.153 In 1679–1681, the wooden booths outside of the palace were removed and replaced by sixteen arcades of stone in which tradesmen could sell their goods. The design was made by Nering, but the practical realisation lay in the hands of Michiel Smids.154 In 1684–1686, the large hall of the palace (more than one ­hundred years old by that time) was replaced by the Alabaster Hall, which served 19. The Berlin palace in 1690, with the as a ­meeting room for the nobility. Again, unfinished library on the left. Drawing by Joh. it was the Nering-Smids duo that handled Stridbeck (Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen the ­ten-metre high hall, with dimensions of zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz). 16 x 27 metres. The walls were articulated with pilasters and in the niches between them were placed marble statues of emperors and eleven e­ lectors, together with a statue of Friedrich Wilhelm himself, made by Bartholomaeus Eggers. The floor was made out of ­black-and-white marble. The ceiling was decorated with large paintings and stucco motifs (fig. 19).155 In 1685, Michiel Smids signed a contract to build a new orangery in the palace ­garden, designed by Johan Nering.156 In 1687, Smids built a new library wing designed by Nering on the eastside of the palace garden, directly along the Spree.157 The building was to be 434 feet long and 46 feet wide and should have three pavilions, connected by two ­galleries.158 The death of the elector, on 9 May 1688, terminated building activities; only the walls of the ground floor were built.159   Konter 1991; Streidt & Feierabend 1999, 78.  Heckmann 1998, 117. See on Nering also: Boeck 1938, 35–40; Nehring 1985; Heckmann 1998, 116–136. 155  Galland 1893, 166–168. About the enlargements outside the palace see Tacke 1990. About twelve statues, ordered by Smids to Bartholomaeus Eggers see Seidel 1890, 137–8; Galland 1893, 221; Upmark 1900, 126; Galland 1911, 212 and Backschatt 1932, 439. 153 154

  Geyer 1936, 59, n. 223; Wiesinger 1989, 97.  About Friedrich Wilhelm’s books: Galland 1911, 104–105; Theuerkauff 1981, 13–28; Giersberget al. 1988, 69. 158  See Paunel 1965, 22–23; van Tussenbroek 2004, 34–36 and 42–43. 159   Pick 1913; Herzberg & Rieseberg 1987, 61. 156 157

329

Gabri

van

Tussenbroek

20. Berlin, Dorotheenstädtische Kirche, probably designed by Rutger Langevelt (engraving by Johann David Schleuen, c. 1760).

21. The palace of Köpenick, designed by Rutger van Langeveldt in the 1670s (collection Technische Universität Berlin).

Other projects in Berlin included the church of the new Dorotheenstadt, designed by Rutger van Langevelt a few years after the founding of the town enlargement in 1673.160 Michiel Smids was hired to build the church, although his exact activities are not known.161 Inaugurated in 1687,162 it was the first new Protestant church in Berlin (fig. 20): a cross-shaped centralised building, typologically resembling Dutch models like the Nieuwe Kerk in Haarlem by Jacob van Campen (1645–1649), the church of ’s-Graveland (1657–1658), the church of Oudshoorn (1663–1665) by Daniël Stalpaert and the Oosterkerk in Amsterdam (1669–1671) by Adriaan Dortsman. Like the Oosterkerk, it had a central cupola vault resting on four pillars; in the eighteenth century it became a very important model for new churches in Brandenburg (see also chapter 3.8).163 Painter-architect Rutger van Langevelt is only known to have been responsible for the design of one other building: the palace of Köpenick near (nowadays part of) Berlin (fig. 21).164 The elector gave Köpenick to his sons in 1669, and in 1674, after the death of Karl Emil, it became the property of Friedrich, the future elector. In 1681, a three-storey-high palace was realised with a façade facing the water, and an axial garden layout with avenues to the other side. Conclusion

The many building projects of Elector Friedrich Wilhelm, Brandenburg’s nobility and, finally, its citizens, clearly show the success of the restoration politics started in 1648. Forty years later, towns were prospering, Brandenburg’s finances were relatively sound, and a market of luxury goods was developing.165 In addition to people from the Netherlands, others had wandered to Brandenburg.166 In 1685, a large group of French Huguenots arrived when Louis XIV cancelled the old Nantes Edict in October 1685 and some two hundred thousand Protestants lost their civil rights. In his Potsdam Edict, Friedrich Wilhelm declared that the French were welcome in Brandenburg; approximately twenty thousand Frenchmen heeded 160   About the Dorotheenstadt: Schachinger 2001. See on Van Langevelt: Ekkart 2002; Heckmann 1998, 89. 161   Güttler 1997, 16–19; Schachinger 2001, 59–63. 162   Stechow 1887, 6–7. 163   Schönfeld 1999a, 74–95. 164   About Köpenick: Friebe 1907.

330

165  See Huth 1957; Holzhausen 1959; Huth 1971; Schloss Oranienburg 2001, 53; Heesters 1988, 30–31 and 41–42; Koldeweij 2000; Seidel 1890, 139–140; Peipst 1978; Bechler 2002, 102–103. 166   Beuys 1980, 299–301.

Classicism

in

Berlin

and

Brandenburg

his call.167 Unlike the Dutch forty years earlier, the immigrants were interested in building up a new, permanent existence in Brandenburg; they committed themselves to their new homeland and would not go back. Among the newcomers were lawyers, doctors and craftsmen; their presence stimulated the production of luxury goods. Already at the end of the 1670s patrons like Christian Albrecht von Dohna, Joachim Ernst Blesendorf and Otto von Schwerin, and experts like Johan Georg Memhardt and Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen had died. In the late 1680s the Dutch-inspired restoration period finally came to an end when another group of important people passed on. May 1688 saw the death of Friedrich Wilhelm, which unlike that of his wife Louise Henriette earlier meant the end of the direct Dutch influence in Brandenburg. Michiel Smids died in 1692, Cornelis Ryckwaert in 1693, and Rutger van Langevelt in 1695. On 21 October of the same year, young Johan Arnold Nering died of a stroke after a journey to Fürstenwalde. Nevertheless, the elector’s successful restoration politics left lasting effects on town development, economics, infrastructure and architecture. His personal ties with the Dutch Republic had been reflected in the way his country was restored. Dutch ideas, people and organisational patterns had been decisive for the restoration of Brandenburg, which also explains the involvement of the Dutch in Brandenburg’s seventeenth-century architecture.

  Beuys 1980, 386.

167

331

1. Riga, Reutern house, 1685, by Rupert Bindenschuh.

Chapter 3.8 Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

Konrad Ottenheym (Utrecht University)

In the second half of the seventeenth century, the architecture of the Northern Low Countries, which focused on a rather strict interpretation of the classical vocabulary according to Palladio and Scamozzi, was widely diffused in Northern Europe. As mentioned in previous chapters, Dutch architects travelled to Brandenburg, Poland and Scandinavia while their colleagues from these areas went to Holland to study recent buildings. Also, books and prints of these buildings served as models, especially to those lacking the means to travel. Interior upholstery exemplified one aspect of the Dutch contribution to foreign domestic architecture, like the wide spread use of Netherlandish ceramic tiles. Flemish and Dutch glazed tiles could be found all over Europe. Sixteenth-century Antwerp workshops, such as Den Salm, already exported masses of these ceramics to Spain and Portugal (fig. 2). Jean Floris, brother of Cornelis Floris, started a faience workshop in Seville that produced wall tiles with landscape and biblical scenes.1 These colourful tiles contributed to what would become one of the typical Portuguese crafts.2 In the seventeenth century, Dutch tiles led the international trade in coloured tiles in Europe, especially in blue and white, alluding to even more precious porcelain. Netherlandish tile makers continued to export to the Iberian Peninsula. In 1698 Willem van der Kloet and Jan van Oort from Amsterdam, for instance, delivered series of tile panels with biblical scenes for the walls of the church of the royal Convento da Madre de Deus (today the Museo Nacional do Azulejo). They must have been made on order because both the monumental scale and the Catholic iconography of these tile panels were uncommon in Dutch interiors at that time. While the use of tiles in Holland was limited to plinths and kitchen walls (but there only plain white), elsewhere in Northern Europe they were applied in various unorthodox ways – as luxurious decoration for mantelpieces, on walls in residential apartments and even as ceiling decoration as in, for example, Menshikov’s palace at St. Petersburg (fig. 3). At the Trianon de porcelaine at Versailles, even the outer walls were covered with Dutch tiles to imitate the effect of a chinaware pavilion. Also, exotic elements of princely interiors in Northern Europe were often bought in Holland, the centre for luxurious works imported from Asia. Amalia van Solms, princess of Orange, introduced the taste for Asian elements, such as porcelain cabinets and lacquered panelling, in state apartments.3 This taste was further diffused into the German countries by her four daughters. Other precious materials produced in the Low Countries as export products to refine residential interiors included tapestries and gilt leather.4 In the second half of the seventeenth century, Amsterdam also became the international shopping mall for luxurious and refined interiors. Not only cultural agents did this kind of shopping for their esteemed clients. Sometimes architects travelled to Holland especially for this purpose, as evidenced in 1680 by the Scottish architect Robert Mylne, who previously worked with William Bruce at Holyrood House: “Robert Milne has come from Holland for lining of some rooms in his new house”.5  Like in the garden pavilion (Casa do Tanque) of the Quinta do Bacalhoa with scenes of the story of Susanna, dated 1558. Pleguezuelo Hernández 2002. 2   Marggraf 1991. 3   Fock 1997. 1

  Scholten 1989; Koldewey 1998.  Letter of Sir Thomas Moncreiffe to Patrick Smyth, 14 October 1680, regarding the supply of suitable timber for wainscoting (National Archive of Scotland). Quoted from Wemyss 2008, Part Two, 113.

4 5

333

Konrad Ottenheym

2. Sixteenth-century tiles from the Den Salm workshop, Antwerp, applied at the Braganza palace in Villa Viçosa, Portugal (collection Museu Nacional do Azulejo, Lisbon).

3. St. Petersburg (Russia), Menshikov’s palace, 1710–1722, room with Dutch tiles on the ceiling.

The interest in precious interior furnishings from Holland went hand-in-hand with the positive reception of Dutch Classicist architecture abroad, especially in the countries around the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. Nevertheless, even there Dutch architectural models were used in c­ onjunction with other sources. Netherlandish models became part of a pluriform palette of references from various international architectural idioms. Choosing which was to be used became a matter of decorum dependent on the level of prestige and representation necessary for a specific building type. French and Italian palaces were the ideal model for new official residences of ruling monarchs and princes striving for absolutism while recent Roman ecclesiastic monuments served as guidelines for new churches, altars and tombs in Catholic countries such as Poland. At the same time, Dutch architect­ ure was regarded as the prime source for residences of the lower nobility, for private residences of rulers and for public buildings. The transformation of Venetian villas and palaces into civic public building types was one of the major achievements of the Dutch seventeenth-century architects, because such buildings were nearly absent from the Italian treatises. By adopting Vitruvian principles and applying the orders of Scamozzi, Dutch architects created Protestant churches and mercantile buildings such as weigh houses and guildhalls in the city centres and gigantic storehouses in the harbour. Buildings for social institutions erected in this style included orphanages, alms houses and hospitals.6 The zenith of the hierarchy of these civic building types was the town hall, the centre of civic power and justice in the Republic. The design of these civic building types in a correct classical manner could be found nowhere else in Europe on such a scale. Astylar villas and pilaster façades In the second part of the seventeenth century, a selective use of Dutch models could be found in all Northern European countries, as illustrated by examples from Sweden, Germany, Poland and England.   Ottenheym 2005.

6

334

Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

In Sweden, both Nicodemus Tessin the Elder and Jean de la Vallée were masters in the conscious use of models with different origins. In seventeenth-century Holland, pilaster façades were used alongside astylar schemes in which proportions and rhythm of doors and windows became the essential quality of the architecture. In other countries, this sober, abstract yet dignified architecture was limited to country houses of a lower rank – for members of the lower elite or for secondary country seats of the ruling class. Östermalma was such a building in Sweden – a country seat built between 1665 and 1668 by Jean de la Vallée for his brother-in-law Wilhelm Drakenhielm, general tax controller (fig. 4).7 Vingboons’s cubic ideal villa of 1648 may have served as a model for this 4. Östermalma (Sweden), built between 1665 country house, including the layout of its and 1668 by Jean de la Vallée for his brothergarden. Nevertheless, the ground plan of the in-law Wilhelm Drakenhielm (engraving from building was inspired by the Villa Cambasio Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna, 1672). as published in Rubens’ Palazzi di Genova (1622).8 Drakenhielm was a fortunate man but not of noble origin. The astylar architect­ ure of his country house expressed modesty not surpassing certain unwritten rules of decent behaviour. On the other hand, De la Vallée’s country houses for the high nobility showed a splendid display of pilasters covering the façade, as at Fullerö, which was begun in 1656 for Erik Oxenstierna, son of the former chancellor (fig. 5). This house could be regarded as a miniature edition of both the Riddarhus (but now with Doric pilasters),9 and Mariedal (1669–1674) built for Magnus de la Gardie, with Doric pilas5. Fullerö, for Erik Oxenstierna, 1656, by Jean de ters and a central projection that rose above la Vallée (from: Ellehag 2003). the surrounding cornice.10 In Stockholm, the most conspicuous Classicist residences according to Dutch models were built by the new financial elite who, in most cases, were only recently ennobled, such as Louis de Geer, Jacob Momma, his brother-in-law Isaak Kock, and Thomas van der Noot (as ­discussed in chapter 2.1).11 The same tendency could be found in the cities at the southern shore of the Baltic Sea that were under Swedish rule at that time. Examples of that category in these areas included Axel von Rose’s house in Tallinn, designed in 1674 by Jacob Stäel von Holstein, and Rupert Bindenschuh’s designs for the Reutern house in Riga from 1685 where the colossal   Ellehag 2003, 179–181.   Palazzi di Genova 1622, fig. 10. 9   Ellehag 2003, 126–127 and fig. cxxxix. 7

10

8

11

  Ellehag 2003, 157–159 and fig. clxi.   Noldus 2004, 62–94.

335

Konrad Ottenheym pilaster scheme was integrated with the latest Dutch examples of heavy, sculpted, ornamental façade decorations (fig. 1).12 Also, in Northern Germany examples of Dutch Classicist architecture, especially those available in print, were often used for designing country houses of the nobility. An early example of such is Schloss Rossewitz, northeast of Güstrow (Mecklenburg), built between 1657 and 1680 by Charles Philippe Dieussart for General Joachim Heinrich von Vieregge 6. Schloss Rossewitz, northeast of Güstrow (fig. 6).13 The rectangular building with (Mecklenburg), built between 1657 and 1680 by Charles Philippe Dieussart for General Joachim two short wings at the rear features Heinrich von Vieregge (pre-war photograph). two main storeys, each with an additional mezzanine. As a building type, it is related to Vingboons’s published designs of 1648. For example, the building shows several typical details, such as the round windows surrounded by garlands on the top of the central projection that reference Vingboons’ town hall design. Schloss Glienicke (1682–1684) was another example ­probably by the same architect.14 Built in the ­surroundings of Potsdam as a hunting lodge and modest summer retreat for the son of the Great Elector, the estate was part of a far-reaching project to embellish the landscape and surroundings of Potsdam with three smaller courtly estates with elaborate gardens. Glienicke ‘castle’ was built on a square platform surrounded by a ditch as the centre of a symmetrically arranged estate in the style of Vingboons’s country houses (figs. 7a-b).15 It was an astylar building with a central projection crowned by a pediment and with rustic reinforcements of the corners of the building and the central projection. On the other hand, the strict, symmetrically arranged ground plan was closer to formal residences, such as the Huis ten Bosch, than the commoner’s summerhouses of Vingboons, which generally never featured strictly symmetrical ground plans. Glienicke was two storeys high, with a vestibule, an open double staircase, like in Huis ten Bosch, and, on the upper floor, a grand saloon and two apartments for the duke and duchess.16 In Poland, the work of Tilman van Gameren (1632–1706) provided the best examples of Dutch models.17 Van Gameren was born in Utrecht and raised in a family of merchants and artists. Although the details of his architectural education are unknown, he likely studied the new Classicist architecture arising in the Dutch Republic in the 1640s. Probably he studied fortification architecture at the Duytsche Mathematique, the state college for military engineering and land surveying at Leiden (see chapter 4.1). Van Gameren, like many of his compatriots, left the Netherlands in the mid-seventeenth century, circa 1655, to seek his fortune as an artist in Italy. He gained a reputation as a painter in Venice but left for Warsaw in 1660 with hetman and marshal Jerzy Sebastian Lubomirski to practise as a fortification engineer in the war with Muscovia. This proved to be a momentous step, as Van Gameren remained in Poland for the rest of his life. In time, he ascended to the nobility and married a  Compare with Pieter Post’s façade of Rapenburg 8 in Leiden, built 1670–1674 (Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 144–147). For Bindenschuh and the Reutern house, see Campe 1944, 32–35; Ancane 2010. 13   Heckmann 2000, 23–28; Köhler 2003, 168–171. 14   Giersberg 1993, 60–61. 12

336

  Illustrated in Broebes 1733.   From 1715 onwards it was used as a hospital, later as an industrial workshop; in the second half of the nineteenth century the building was reconstructed in Neo-Renaissance style. 17   Mossakowski 1994; Exh. cat. Amsterdam 2002. 15 16

Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

Polish aristocrat. He initially worked primarily as an artillery officer and designer of fortifications, but beginning around 1670, he became increasingly preoccupied with civil architecture. As the leading architect in Poland in the last three decades of the seventeenth century, he received commissions from the aristocracy for palaces and churches of a magnificence rivalled in the Low Countries only by Jacob van Campen’s town hall of Amsterdam. Van Gameren’s work in Poland consisted of country houses, palaces, convents, ­monasteries and churches. He also designed their interiors including such details as ceilings, wall decorations, mantelpieces, altars and m ­ ausoleums, as well as their gardens and ­surroundings. His versatility reflected his prodigious knowledge of the European art of his day. He was conversant with the latest trends in French interior styles and baroque Roman sacred art, but he was also knowledgeable about the Classicism of Northern Italy, which in the seventeenth century was still profoundly influenced by Palladio and Scamozzi. He was exposed to it at an early age when Jacob van Campen, Pieter Post and others brought this architecture based on classical principles to the northern Low Countries. Van Gameren was inspired by all of these contemporary developments. He did not simply imitate French, Italian 7a-b. Schloss Glienicke, 1682–1684, attributed to and Dutch forms, but created a system of archiCharles Philippe Dieussart (from: Broebes 1733). tecture that drew upon different influences for varying purposes, always dictated by the classical principle of decorum. Thus, different styles of architecture and decoration were considered appropriate for different types of buildings. The interior elements such as ceilings, wall panelling and mantelpieces that he designed for the residences of the high nobility all followed the latest French taste, as expressed in the prints of Jean Lepautre. His altars and designs for funeral monuments resembled inventions by Bernini and his followers in Rome. Traces of Dutch Classicist architecture can be discerned in his palace designs. These urban palaces for the aristocracy were designed according to Classicist concepts and principles, rigorously symmetrical, and wellproportioned. To lend grandeur, pilasters were added to the façade with a pediment crowning the central projection. Nevertheless, Van Gameren’s architecture in Poland could not be regarded as ‘Dutch’. During his stay in Italy, he familiarised himself with important examples of Italian Classicist and Baroque architecture, which exerted more influence on his later work than the Dutch models. Nevertheless, in some cases inspiration may have come from Dutch examples that he knew from his early years. For example, such influence becomes evident when c­ omparing his Gnin´ski palace in Warsaw with Van Campen’s country house at Maarssen (fig. 8).18   Ottenheym 2002a.

18

337

Konrad Ottenheym In England, classical architecture was transformed in the 1670s and 1680s by applying inspiration from Dutch houses to the grander scale needed for noblemen’s residences and urban public buildings.19 In the first half of the seventeenth century in Britain, classical architecture was restricted to the royal court and deemed suitable only for palaces and royal lodgings. In contrast, the wide acceptance of Classicism among the civic elite made this style so prominent in Holland. There, classical principles were used not only for a handful of palaces but for hundreds of private patrician residences in both cities and rural areas. These coun8. Warsaw, Gnin´ski Palace, c. 1681–1684, by Tilman van try houses, especially those that were availGameren. able in print, as designed and published by Vingboons in 1648 and by Pieter Post in the 1650s, were a genuine source inspiring England’s gentry who wanted to rebuild their country seats after the Civil War. Royal buildings were not useful for this kind of building type, but the modest country houses of the Dutch nobility and patricians surely were. Well-known examples included Hugh May’s Eltham Lodge (1664), which was obviously inspired by Van ’s-Gravesande’s Sebastiaansdoelen (1638) at The Hague (see page 216, fig. 4), and Roger Pratt’s Horseheath House (1663), which followed examples like Vingboons’s astylar design for the country house Vredenburg.20 The buildings of William III and Mary illustrated the specific use of Dutch sources in late-seventeenth-century England for projects that did not require an exposure of magnificence. The formal royal residences at Hampton Court and Whitehall were modernised by Sir Christopher Wren and in these state palaces not the slightest reference to Dutch architecture could be found. At the same time, the king built his private residence at Kensington where a certain ‘Dutch’-inspired country house style was introduced, c­ omparable (but not identical) to his palace Het Loo.21 Alongside these specific residential building types in England, Dutch examples were regarded as proper models for public buildings. The Amsterdam exchange, designed in 1608 by Hendrick de Keyser after close examination of Gresham’s exchange in London, became, in turn, the model for the new London Exchange built after the Great Fire of 1666. This commercial trade centre, constructed by Edward Jerman and completed in 1671, was inspired by the Amsterdam exchange and its new entrance wing built by Stalpaert in 1668.22 Also other buildings for financial institutions followed the example of Dutch public buildings, like the customs house annex merchants exchange of King’s Lynn, built 1683–1688 by Henry Bell. The rectangular building with its superposition of Doric and Ionic pilasters and small lantern on top of the roof, resembles very much a small Dutch town hall (fig. 9). Dutch brick Classicism became a reference point for utilitarian buildings and social institutions such as orphanages and elderly people’s dwellings. Nowhere else were these building types treated on such a monumental scale and with such a dignified but sober manner. For those in England, like Robert Hooke, who worked on comparable projects, these buildings really offered new   Louw 2009; Kuyper 1980.   Ottenheym 2010, 58–59.

19

21

20

22

338

  Thurley 2009.   Louw 2009, 99–100.

Models

of

solutions in style as well as in logical plan organisation. Dutch inspiration in Hooke’s work is evident for example in Bethlem Hospital (fig. 10).23 The complex consisted of four wings around a central square. The front façade was rather wide, with a central pavilion and two corner pavilions. Hooke referenced Pieter Post’s Swanenburg as published in 1654 as a model for the architecture of these pavilions, including the cupola on top, and in the final designs he changed the triangular pediments into segments. Nevertheless, not all Dutch examples were useful for England. Some believed the Dutch went too far in their desire to monumentalise utilitarian buildings. Sir William Temple, the former English ambassador in The Hague, caustically wrote in 1682 about the gun foundry of the province of Holland, erected between 1665 and 1668 by Pieter Post in The Hague: “The house at The Hague built purposely for casting of cannon, was finished in the same summer during the heat of the English War and looked rather like a design of Vanity in their Government than Necessity or Use”.24

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

9. King’s Lynn (Norfolk, UK), Custom House, 1683–1685, by Henry Bell (photograph collection Utrecht University).

The Amsterdam Town Hall as a role model The building that attracted the most attention from foreigners was the new town hall of Amsterdam (see also chapter 3.1). Its reputation, scale and magnificence made it an appropriate model for other civic authority centres abroad. In his London Redivivum, John Evelyn advised the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire of 1666 by underlining the importance of public squares and public buildings and by using the Amsterdam Town Hall as an example for the new Guildhall, the City of London’s ‘town hall’: “But especially, should the Guild, or Magistratical Hall of assembly have something of more pompous and great, after the example of the State House at Amsterdam, at least to some proportion”.25 Nevertheless, the Amsterdam Town Hall was, in fact, too grand to be imitated in cities of more modest scale, wealth and power. In actual use, the model was always modified to a moderate scale that reduced the architectural display. In most cases, such a reduction made the hall a wide but rather narrow building, with only one zone of colossal pilasters on the front façade, a pediment over the central three or five bays, and with a central tower or turret on the roof, like the town hall of Narva (Estonia, then part of the Swedish empire), built between 1668 and 1671 by Georg Teuffel, a German architect who spent some years in Holland (fig. 11).

  Stoesser Johnston 2000; Stoesser Johnston 2003.   Temple 1682 /1922, 87; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 201–204. 23 24

 John Evelyn, London Redivivum, 1666 (The Writings of John Evelyn, 340–341). 25

339

Konrad Ottenheym

10. London, Bethlem Hospital, 1675–1676, by Robert Hooke (engraving R. White, 1677).

In an exceptional case, the Amsterdam Town Hall was also regarded as an appropriate model for prestigious private residences, as evidenced in the Krasin´ski Palace (1687) in Warsaw designed by Tilman van Gameren for Jan Bonaventura Krasin´ski (1640–1717), count palatine of Plock, who studied in Groningen and Orléans between 1656 and 1658.26 This suburban palace is nineteen bays wide and two and a half storeys high (fig. 12). The original garden façade with its strong rhythm of corner pavilions and a central projection, colossal pilasters and crowning pediment (but without the arcaded galleries erroneously reconstructed after World War II) resembled the front façade of the Amsterdam town hall but reduced in height, lacking the upper storeys and the second zone of colossal pilasters. The relief decorations covering the triangular pediments feature imagery evocative of the Netherlandish style. Until then, the Dutch Republic was the only country in Europe where this type of meticulous reconstruction of classical temple sculpture was found. Jacob van Campen was the first to give sculpture such a monumental place in Classicist architecture, as done in his designs for the Mauritshuis (1633–1644) and Noordeinde Palace (1639–1647) in The Hague, and for Amsterdam’s new town hall (1648–1665). Tilman van Gameren made similar use of the outstanding potential of pediment sculpture in several of his works; the Krasin´ski palace was his best example. The young Andreas Schlüter (c. 1659–1714) from Gdan´sk was invited to sculpt the pediment reliefs, which depict scenes from the stories of the Roman heroes Marcus Corvinus and Messala, and illustrated the Krasin´ski ­family’s claim to ancient Roman noble ancestry.27 Publications of rejected contributions to the Amsterdam Town Hall competition of the 1640s were also regarded as suitable models for various prominent building projects. In many cases, these rejected town hall proposals were even more useful because they presented buildings on a slightly smaller and less magnificent scale than the chosen project. One of these was published in print and signed with the monogram SGL (or SCL). Its front façade is eleven bays wide, with two smaller turrets on the outer bays and two superimposed open arcaded loggias in between. The main hall behind the central three bays is crowned by a huge dome that dominates the silhouette of the front façade as well. Around 1667, Nicodemus Tessin the Elder took this model as a point of departure for various proposals for the new town hall of Göteborg.28 Even more powerful was Philips Vingboons’s contribution to the town hall competition, designed around 1643 and published as the ‘grand finale’ of his architecture book in 1648 (fig. 13). In this design, he attempted to rework the antique Roman senator’s palace

  Mossakowski 1994, 159-179.   Mossakowski 1994, 283–301.

26 27

340

28

  Neville 2009, 133–144.

Models

of

11. Narva (Estonia), town hall, 1668–1671, by Georg Teuffel (photograph Peeter Säre).

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

12. Warsaw, Krasin´ski Palace, 1687–1699, by Tilman van Gameren.

into a modern town hall, the seat of the contemporary ‘senators’. His ground plan was based on Scamozzi’s interpretation of Vitruvius’ description of a Roman house (casa de’ senatori ­romani) as published in L’Idea della architettura universale (1615).29 Nevertheless, Scamozzi did not give the façade of his Roman palace and Vingboons created his own interpretation, with corner pavilions crowned by octagonal domes, a central projection enriched by monumental colossal pilasters crowned by a pediment, a tall open tower on the roof and a wide double staircase in front of the entrance. Apparently, Philips 13. Vingboons’ town hall design as published in Vingboons gave his brother Justus a port1648 (Vingboons 1648, plate 61). folio full of details of the rejected town hall design when the latter went to Sweden in 1653. Justus Vingboons integrated elements of this façade – such as the Corinthian orders, the central bay with its decorative scheme of garlands, and the round windows of the upper storey and their surrounding garlands – into his designs for the Riddarhus in Stockholm (fig. 14). In the late 1660s, references to the scheme of Vingboons’s town hall façade could be found elsewhere in Sweden. These references included the front elevation of Finspång Castle (c. 1668) designed by Dortsman in Amsterdam, and the royal country house Strömsholm by Tessin the Elder (fig. 15), which dated from the same years, where the flanking tower pavilions were also used (at Strömsholm, even with segmented domes on top) in combination with the central ­projection, colossal pilasters and the wide double s­ taircase in front (which in Finspång was later replaced by one straight flight of steps). Strömsholm was built as a summer retreat for Queen Hedwig Eleonora, ­consort of King Carl X Gustav. Her main building project was Drottningholm, close to Stockholm and by the same architect, a far more formal ­residence  Scamozzi 1615, Book III, 221; see also the introduction to the Amsterdam 2003 edition of Scamozzi’s Book III. 29

341

Konrad Ottenheym evidently designed with more references to French royal ­ palaces. On the other hand, Strömsholm served a more informal function. The Dutch interpretation of Classicist architecture was regarded as appropriate for this kind of modest royal building that occupied a similar level as the country seats of the lower nobility, such Louis de Geer Jr’s Finspång. The Copenhagen palace of Ulrik Frederik Gyldenløve, half brother to the Danish king Christian V, was another ­example of the transformation of the same model. This residence was built by Evert Janssen, who was active in Denmark after 1665 as an architect for the court as well as the civic elite.30 Between 1670 and 1672, he made various preliminary designs for this palace that later was called Charlottenborg (today, it is the seat of the Academy of Arts in Copenhagen). In 1669, Gyldenløve became acquainted with this kind of Classicist archi14. The Riddarhus in Stockholm, detail of the tecture while in Holland on his way back from central window, 1653–1656, by Justus Vingboons a diplomatic mission to England. Whatever (for the façade, see page 66, fig. 12). the case, presumably the patron wished his palace to resemble the Amsterdam example. Janssen delivered three different proposals for the main façade, each based on various aspects of the Amsterdam town hall designs by Van Campen as well as those published by Vingboons.31 Janssen’s first design featured colossal Ionic pilasters and a central projection. The two bays flanking this projection at both sides remained plain with round windows, similar to the side façades of the Amsterdam town Hall. A second drawing is close to Vingboons’s town hall façade as published in 1648, with corner pavilions crowned by cupolas and a 15. Strömsholm (Sweden), 1668, by Tessin The central projection with a colossal order and Elder. a large pediment (fig. 16a). In the third proposal, the cupolas on the corner pavilions are eliminated and replaced with more sculpted wall decorations on the pavilions and the central projection, partly copied from the publication of the Amsterdam town hall sculptures in 1655. Again, the final result is close to Vingboons’s published town hall design with its corner pavilions, but now lacking crowning cupolas, and with a central projection with colossal

  Nørregård-Nielsen 1984; Kaspersen 1988.

30

342

31

  Coll. Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet, Section 2.

Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

16a. Design by Evert Janssen for the Copenhagen residence of the brother of the Danish king, later called Charlottenborg, 1670–1672 (The National Museum, Copenhagen).

pilasters, a balcony and windows framed by garlands, but without a pediment on top or a staircase in front. While the scale of this residence met royal standards, its reduced architectural exposure as well as the complete brick construction of the walls underlined that it was not the residence of the king himself. Vingboons’s interpretation of a Roman senator’s palace must have occasionally inspired patrons and architects in the first half of the eighteenth century. Between 1722 and 1735, the English Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole built his new country house at Houghton, Norfolk (fig. 17). The first designs were delivered in 1720 and 1721 by James Gibbs, and probably adapted in 1723 by Colen Campbell.32 In 1720, Walpole appointed Thomas Ripley, chief carpenter to the king’s works, as its architect.33 Ripley revised the plans according to Walpole’s own ideas, including trans16b. Copenhagen. Charlottenburg, 1672 and following forming the corner pavilions into towers years. with cupolas. All walls are built in sandstone shipped from Yorkshire and astylar except for the central projection of the west front, which features colossal Ionic half columns, crowned by a pediment and fronted by a double staircase. Accordingly, the west front is close to Vingboons’s model for a senator’s palace, an appropriate reference for a statesman such as Walpole.34

  Harris 1990. In 1727 William Kent was called in for the decoration of the interior. 33   Klausmeier 2007; Klausmeier 2001. 32

 A later echo from Houghton may be found at the garden front of Foremarke Hall, near Repton, Derbyshire, 1759–1761. Gomme 1985. 34

343

Konrad Ottenheym Orange palaces

17. Houghton (Norfolk, UK), 1722–1735.

The residences created in Germany by the four daughters of Frederik Hendrik, stadholder and prince of Orange, were briefly discussed in chapter 3.1. Especially in Oranienburg, north of Berlin, and in Oranienbaum, close to Dessau, specific elements from the prince of Orange’s palaces at Honselaarsdijk and Ter Nieuburg were introduced in the Northern German countries. Afterwards, these palaces became important models for other noble seats in the region. Meanwhile, other Orange residences were also regarded as appropriate models for various types of dwellings for the European nobility.

Huis ten Bosch and its ‘Oranjezaal’ Huis ten Bosch (1645–1647) in The Hague was built by court architect Pieter Post as the summer retreat of Amalia van Solms, spouse to Stadholder Frederik Hendrik, prince of Orange.35 The remarkable central hall, called the Oranjezaal, featured a wooden vault opened in the centre and crowned by an octagonal cupola (figs. 18a-b). Essentially, the architect combined two types of hall: a cruciform space, as shown in Palladio’s Villa Barbaro at Maser or in Scamozzi’s Villa Badoer at Peraga, and an octagonal domed space, as shown in Scamozzi’s Villa Rocca Pisani. After the death of the prince, the hall’s walls and ceilings were ­decorated with paintings that expressed a single iconographic program – the triumph of Frederik Hendrik as the bringer of Peace and the Golden Age.36 In the second half of the seventeenth century, this residence, and especially the central hall, became another important source of inspiration for new villa designs in Germany, Poland and Sweden.37 The building became well-known to important patrons and architects almost immediately after it was finished. Esteemed guests from abroad visited the palace, as demonstrated by reports in the diaries of travelling courtiers and architects. Moreover, in 1655, architect Pieter Post published prints of his design;38 this publication could be found in many inventories of seventeenthcentury architectural book collections all over Northern Europe. In 1664, the Oranjezaal inspired the main hall of the Great Elector of Brandenburg’s new palace at Potsdam. Court architects Johann Georg Memhardt and Philippe de Cieze headed the building process while the elector himself sketched the first designs inspired by drawings by the late Jacob van Campen. The same kind of open ceiling was used at Sonnenburg Castle (today’s Słonsk, Poland), the seat of the Brandenburg branch of the Knights of St. John, designed by Count Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen with Pieter Post’s assistance, and erected between 1662 and 1667 by a team of Dutch craftsmen supervised by Cornelis Ryckwaert (see page 320, fig. 9). Both at Potsdam and at Sonnenburg, the cruciform   Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 56–72.  Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij 1982; Buvelot 1995, 132–141. 37   Ottenheym 2009. 35 36

344

  De Sael van Orange, ghebouwt bij haere Hoocht. Amalie, Princesse Dovariere van Orange, Amsterdam 1655 (ten engravings by Jan Mathijs, published by F. de Witt). 38

Models

of

Modesty

18. The Hague, Huis ten Bosch, 1647–1652, groundplan (engraving by Jan Mathijs, 1655, after Pieter Post).

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

19. Design by Nicodemus Tessin the Elder for a royal pavilion near Gripsholm castle in Sweden, 1655 (from: Neville 2009).

central space of the Oranjezaal was modified into a less exceptional rectangular hall. Closer reference to the cruciform-octagonal hall of Huis ten Bosch is evident in an unrealised design for a royal pavilion near Gripsholm Castle in Sweden by Nicodemus Tessin the Elder dating from 1655, almost contemporary with the completion of Huis ten Bosch (fig. 19).39 Tessin may have seen the building during his visit in Holland two years earlier in 1653 or he possessed already the print series of 1655. Similarity to the Oranjezaal in The Hague was limited to the ground plan, 20. Design by Van Gameren for a Lubomirski specifically to the cruciform-octagonal cen­ villa at Przeworsk (from: Mossakowski 1994). tral room, which Tessin surrounded with four series of apartments at the corners instead of the two flanking apartments in the Dutch original. The proposed façade on the contrary had nothing to do with the Dutch model: Instead of a sober and astylar brick exterior, Tessin designed a decorated summer palace in the French manner, much in the style of Antoine Le Pautre. A few decades later in Poland, Tilman van Gameren imitated Huis ten Bosch’s cruciform-octagonal hall in several of his villas, such as his design for the Lubomirski villa at Przeworsk and two designs for garden pavilions (fig. 20).40 As mentioned previously, a comparable ground plan existed in neither Palladio’s nor in Scamozzi’s work. The only source for this specific type of central room – this combination of an octagon and a Greek cross – was the Oranjezaal of Huis ten Bosch.

 Coll. National Museum, Stockholm. Karling 1955; Neville 2009, 194–198. 39

40

  Mossakowski 1994, 57–58, 310–311.

345

Konrad Ottenheym William and Mary’s Het Loo Frederik Hendrik’s grandson William III, stadholder in the Dutch Republic after 1672, married Mary Stuart, daughter of King James II of England. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689, they ruled England as king and queen. In the 1690s, William gained great prestige as the leader of the international alliance against Louis XIV’s France. This explained why his summer residence in the Dutch Republic, Het Loo at Apeldoorn, attracted attention abroad and became a model for others during this period as well. From the European 21. Apeldoorn, Het Loo Palace, 1685–1691, by Jacob perspective, this residence was certainly Roman and Daniel Marot. not the most magnificent new residence of its time; rather, the prestige of its owner made it a desirable model for others. Het Loo was built in two phases (fig. 21). Jacob Roman, the prince’s architect, erected the corps de logis between 1685 and 1688 as a hunting lodge. This volume was connected to the two service wings alongside the forecourt by two curved, open loggias with Ionic columns. Just after this was completed, the prince became king of England and the complex had to be enlarged to serve as a summer residence to the court. Between 1689 and 1691, the two curved colonnades were removed and replaced at the back of the garden (which was also enlarged). At both sides, the gap between the central building and the service wings was filled by two additional rectangular buildings, all constructed in brick like the main block. Accordingly, the front view of the palace was dominated by this expanding composition of five rectangular brick volumes and its adjacent lower service wings. Two fair examples of country houses inspired by Het Loo could be found in Scotland: Hopetoun and Dalkeith. The Hope family was a wealthy Scottish family that had made its fortune in trade and mining. In the seventeenth century, a branch of the family settled in Holland to run a commercial and financial enterprise in Rotterdam and Amsterdam.41 The Dutch and Scottish relatives maintained their relationships over centuries; therefore, references to Dutch architecture were evident in Hopetoun House, the new country seat of the Hope family outside Edinburgh. The family was ennobled in the early seventeenth century, but decades later they still lacked an appropriate seat for the dynasty even though John Hope had purchased the necessary land to build a fine mansion not far from Edinburgh. The building project was finally initiated by his widow on behalf of their son, Charles Hope. The residence was built between 1699 and 1707 by William Bruce, who maintained a connection to the Low Countries (see chapter 3.1).42 Later in the eighteenth century, the entrance front of Hopetoun was replaced by a new façade and adjacent wings. Bruce’s work is still visible in the main building behind the new entrance, and his original front design was published in Colin Campbell’s Vitruvius Britannicus.43 The Hope family was closely linked to the royal   Buist 1974.  Rowan 1984. See for Bruce’s French and Italian inspiration sources Howard 1995, 53–67; Ottenheym 2007. 41 42

346

 Colin Campbell, Vitruvius Britanicus, London 1717, pls. 75–77. 43

vol.2,

Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

court in London and its representatives in Edinburgh. Therefore, Bruce’s engagement as the architect was unsurprising. Although he lost his formal position as Surveyor of the Royal Works, he remained one of the most capable architects in Scotland designing country houses in the classical taste favoured by the court. Bruce’s sources of inspiration for Hopetoun House were revealed in Dutch elements in the ground plan. The original plan of Hopetoun, as published in Vitruvius Britannicus (1717), showed a way of connecting the corps de logis and the side pavilions like at Het Loo (fig. 22). On the other hand, the spatial division within the corps de logis at Hopetoun – with its octagonal stairwell in the centre, vestibule in front, and grand parlour behind, flanked by apartments – was not the scheme of Het Loo but resembled Middachten castle, another contemporary Dutch country house of 22. Hopetoun House (Scotland), as built in the Orangist elite. Middachten, renovated 1699–1707, by William Bruce (Vitruvius Britanicus 1717).  between 1695 and 1697, was the seat of Godard van Reede-Ginkel, commander of William’s army in Ireland, who was made earl of Albermarle and baron of Aughrim after his Irish victories in 1691.44 Like Hopetoun, the house featured a central staircase covered by a dome suppressed within the main fabric of the house. The dome of Middachten, visible only from inside, was the first of its kind in a private house in Holland while the dome of Hopetoun was the first example in Britain. No evidence has suggested that a copy of the Middachten plan was available to Bruce; however, its design was known among British courtiers and the royalist network. In 1721, only fifteen years after the house was finished, Charles Hope commissioned William Adam to transform the entire front façade. Apparently, the references to Het Loo that were desirable in 1699 were no longer wanted and thus were replaced by a screen architecture that gave the house the appearance of a genuine palace. Dalkeith Palace (1702–1705) built by James Smith (c. 1645–1731) is another Scottish example (fig. 23). Smith was trained in Italy in the 1670s, travelled abroad frequently, and possessed an evident knowledge of mainland Europe. In 1683, he succeeded William Bruce as Surveyor of the Royal Works in Scotland.45 As a typical architect of his time, he applied various ‘styles’ of architecture depending on the level of ostentation demanded by decor­um. He could design in a grand style with opulent Classicism for the high nobility, like at Dalkeith; with ­ consciously chosen, archaic, chivalrous references, as demonstrated at Drumlanrig castle (1680–1690) when the lineage of the family had to be exposed;46 or in a astylar Classicism for the upper-middle class, like his own country seat Whitehill/Newhailes (1686). Anna Scott, duchess of Buccleuch and Monmouth, was the patron for Dalkeith. She wanted to transform her ancestral seat into a monument to her tragic husband, the duke of   Hoekstra 2002.   Dunbar, MacKechnie & Stewart 1995.

44

46

  Wemyss 2008.

45

347

Konrad Ottenheym Monmouth, a natural son of Charles II. Monmouth had close connections to the Orange court where he was received as a royal guest in 1683. He supported a Scottish rebellion but was executed in 1685 after the rebellion failed. The semiroyal ambitions of the late Monmouth and his widow were shown in the grandeur of the new Dalkeith Palace, as expression of the dream of an independent Scottish kingdom.47 The utmost royal model of the time, Versailles, was not an appropriate example to be imitated under these circumstances. Instead, the far more modest residences of the Orange court were well suited for this 23. Dalkeith Palace (Scotland), 1702–1705, by James Smith purpose. The front wing of Dalkeith, dis(photograph collection Utrecht University). played to all visitors, featured symmetrically arranged rectangular and square volumes at the left and right side of the main block that brought the appearance of Het Loo to mind. Unlike the Dutch model, Dalkeith’s façade is built entirely in stone with colossal Corinthian pilasters on the central projection. The internal arrangement also differs from Het Loo. Instead of two principal apartments symmetrically positioned along the central hall and staircase, in Dalkeith the staircase is situated at the far left of the entrance hall while the rooms of the one state apartment are along the back of the main wing. Nevertheless, the reference was evident to the educated beholder, such as John Macky, who in 1723 stated that the house followed “the very model of King William’s Palace at Loo”.48 King-Stadholder William III’s palace at Het Loo also seemed to be the right model for the Prince Bishop of Münster Christian von Plettenberg’s new grand country seat at Nordkirchen in Westphalia.49 In 1694, the prince bishop bought an old castle and estate there. Beginning in 1696, he made various designs for a new residence. Gottfried Laurenz Pictorius was his main architect but the prince bishop also consulted with leading Dutch architects. Court architect Jacob Roman visited the site in 1698 and delivered a design from which at least two drawings have survived. Pictorius altered and enlarged the design according to the wishes of his patron. In May 1702, Pictorius was sent to Holland to discuss his drafts with Steven Vennekool, the architect of Middachten castle.50 In December 1702, Pictorius was paid for his final design. The exact nature of the modifications Vennekool proposed to the drafts has remained unknown, but the palace as realised between 1702 and 1710 bears many references to Dutch Classicist architecture (fig. 24). The central projection features colossal Ionic pilasters according to Scamozzi in brick with stone bases and capitals. In particular, the composition of the corps de logis flanked by two cubic pavilions at both sides and two long wings along the forecourt, resembles Het Loo with its arrangement of rectangular brick building volumes.

  Stewart 1995.   John Macky, A Journey through Scotland, 1723, 50. Quoted from Macaulay 1987, 40. 49   Rensing 1960; Mummenhof 1979. 47 48

348

  Vennekool and Pictorius knew each other already from 1696 when both had made designs for Sassenberg Castle for von Plettenberg (which remained unrealised after the prince bishop turned all his attention to Nordkirchen). Rensing 1960, 178–179. 50

Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

Protestant churches In the second half of the seventeenth century, the Dutch Republic also offered various models for Protestant churches.51 The many new Calvinist churches erected in the previous decades could be roughly separated into two groups. First, some churches maintained the traditional longitudinal, basilican structure of the previous period. Adapted to the new liturgy, the choir was usually eliminated in favour of the pulpit in the nave as the church’s new centrepiece. Hendrick de Keyser’s Zuiderkerk and Westerkerk in Amsterdam were the 24. Nordkirchen (Germany), 1702–1710, by Gottfried oldest examples of this type. Second, some Laurenz Pictorius and Steven Vennekool (photograph churches were designed on a centralised Leonieke Aalders). ground plan, preferably a square, octagonal, or Greek cross. A Protestant church was regarded as the ‘House of God’s Word’ with the pulpit as the epicentre. Therefore, the centralised ground plan was well suited for this liturgy, which made it even more attractive. The octagonal church built 1595 in the fortress city of Willemstad was the first example of this church type. Naturally, the centralised church was not unique to the Low Countries. Rather, it was a further development of the centrally planned churches of the previous period, which were mainly in Italy and entirely for the Catholic religion. In the late sixteenth century, important incentives to transform the central plan for Protestant use came from both French Huguenots who experimented with new church types and the first temporary Calvinist churches in the Southern Low Countries.52 This influence could be traced elsewhere as well. Between c. 1592 and 1595 in Burntisland, Scotland, John Roch, who was probably a Huguenot from La Rochelle, constructed a sixtysquare-foot church building with four massive pillars inside ­supporting the central tower.53 Nevertheless, outside Britain and the Low Countries, these new Protestant church types remained absent for a long time. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the first Protestant churches in the German and Scandinavian countries exhibited a longitudinal ground plan. The German Lutheran court chapels and the new choir of St John’s church in Riga (1586, see page 294, figs. 3 and 4) were all longitudinal with refined all’antica architectural details. Willem Boy built new Lutheran churches in Stockholm in the 1580s, St Klara’s (1575–1590) and St Jacob’s (1580–1593), that consciously continued the medieval tradition of church architecture in many aspects, except for the classical detailing of the columns and ornaments. The ‘medieval’ church character was reinforced in the 1640s when these churches finally received their modern star vaults.54 The paradigm continued to change in the 1650s and the following decades. Along with the other modern building types designed according to the rules of Classicist architecture, the impressive but subdued geometric clarity and

  Ozinga 1929; Snaet 2007.   Spicer 2007, 166–200; Snaet 2007. 53  Spicer 2007, 57–60. Originally the crossing was crowned by a wooden spire, which was rebuilt in 1749 and replaced in 1820 by a stone tower when also the heavy buttresses at the corners were added. 51 52

 St Klara’s Church, Stockholm, 1577–1590; St Jakob’s, Stockholm, 1580–1592, by Boy and Van Huwen, finished and vaulted in 1635–1643 by Hans Ferster. Hamberg 2002, 182–195; Flodin 1974, 16–23. 54

349

Konrad Ottenheym sobriety of the new churches in Holland became a beacon for ecclesiastical architecture in other Protestant countries, especially in Sweden and Brandenburg. Comparable to the country houses, Dutch churches were regarded as suitable models when a dignified but modest sense of decorum was demanded. The Reformed Church in Copenhagen of 1688, a rectangular building enhanced by colossal Ionic pilasters, even would seem to resemble a Dutch country house along the Vecht river – only in the tall windows the building’s ecclesiastical function becomes manifest (fig. 25). On the other hand, in cases requiring churches or chapels to express the ultimate magnificence, contemporary French and Italian architecture offered the best models, such as the new royal mausoleum at the Riddarholmen Church in Stockholm, designed in 1671 by Tessin the Elder. After around 1650, various types of 25. Copenhagen, the Reformed Church, 1688. centralised buildings came into use in the Protestant countries around the Baltic Sea. The first example in Brandenburg was the little hexagonal brick church in the village of Bärenklau, close to Oranienburg, dating from 1666.55 Although this geometric form had so far not used in the Dutch Republic, the relation to Dutch Protestant church architecture seems evident because its founder was Louise Henrietta, daughter of the prince of Orange and spouse to the Great Elector. As such, the hexagon suggested a reduced edition of the octagonal churches that were rather popular at that time in Holland. The most splendid examples were the Marekerk in Leiden built by Arent van ’s-Gravesande between 1639 and 1649, and the Oostkerk in Middelburg built by Pieter Post and others between 1648 and 1667. The second edition of the Architectura Moderna (1641) included a printed proposal for an octagonal church by Hendrick Danckerts. Nevertheless, the octagonal model was seldom followed in the North. The best example of an octagonal church remained incomplete. In 1669, the foundation stone was laid for the octagonal church of the Admiralty, also called Hedvig Eleonora Church, designed in 1664 by Jean de la Vallée (fig. 26).56 Due to a lack of financial support, building activities ceased in 1674 when only the foundation zone was finished.57 De la Vallée’s ground plan drawing showed an octagonal interior space surrounded by eight rectangular niches and a central pulpit. An impression of the architect’s final intention for the elevation was depicted in Suecia antiqua et hodierna (1672). Another specific Dutch type is the double cross plan that combined two Greek crosses. Hendrick de Keyser’s Westerkerk (1620–1638) was the first example of this type, which was further improved in Pieter Noorwits’ Nieuwe Kerk (1649–1656) at The Hague. The ground   Schönfeld 1999a, 106–112; Schönfeld 1999b.   Hamberg 2002, 203–206; Ellehag 2003, 87–90. 57  The actual church above these foundations was built in 1725–1737 after a modified plan by Carl 55 56

350

Frederik Adlercrantz creating a circular interior with eight niches instead of an octagon with ambulatory. The drum and dome were added in 1866–1868 (architect Frederik Wilhelm Scholander).

Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

plan is based on a double square rectangle enlarged by six semi-octagonal apses, two at both long sides and one at both short ends. In 1671, this model was imitated in the church at Weichselmunde, close to Gdan´sk, and in 1690, by Arnold Nering in the Burgkirche at Königsberg.58 Greek cross plans The Greek cross became the most favoured type of ground plan for Dutch centralised churches. In 1620, Hendrick de Keyser introduced the Greek cross in his Noorderkerk in Amsterdam. In Renswoude Church (1639), Jacob van Campen combined the Greek cross with the square and octagon – the square centre of the cross plan rises above the four arms and is surmounted by an octagonal drum and dome. In 1645, Van Campen introduced a strictly square ground plan in the Nieuwe Kerk of Haarlem. The interior space is divided into nine minor squares by pillars. These support two crossing barrel vaults that create the form of a Greek cross within the square 26. Stockholm, Hedvig Eleonora Church (‘Church outline that is invisible from the exteof the Admiralty’), designed in 1664 by Jean de rior. Later, Adriaan Dortsman and Daniel la Vallée (engraving from: Suecia antiqua et Stalpaert, both followers of Van Campen in hodierna, 1672). Amsterdam, modified these inventions. At their Oosterkerk in Amsterdam (1669–1671), the Greek cross is also situated within a square outline but the cross form dominates the exterior appearance because the four arms of the cross (and their crossing) are nearly twice as high as the four square volumes at the corners (fig. 27). Both the Renswoude type, a central square with four arms, and the Oosterkerk, a Greek cross inscribed in a square outline, served as models abroad. St Katarina’s Church in Stockholm, designed in 1654 by Jean de la Vallée, was the first example of a Greek cross church in Scandinavia. Whether De la Vallée travelled to Holland during his journey to France some years before has remained unclear. However, enough Swedish courtiers travelled to the Dutch Republic for the Dutch models to have been made known to him, or he could have obtained information from Justus Vingboons who was working at the Riddarhus at that time. The main body of the church – the four arms and the central square – were erected between 1656 and 1664, while the tower on the central dome and the four corner turrets were erected between 1669 and 1682, as depicted in Suecia antiqua et hodierna from 1672 (fig. 28).59 Although the first incentive to create such a ground plan probably  Ozinga 1929, 93, note 1; Fritsch 1930; Heckmann 1998, 121; Landheer-Roelants 2011, 56–59. 59   Hamberg 2002, 197–201; Ellehag 2003, 81–85. The current exterior was created in 1760. The church has 58

been restored several times after fires in 1724, in 1784 and recently in 1990.

351

Konrad Ottenheym originated in Holland, the final result was highly original. The exterior view suggests a square church space enlarged by four arms of the cross. However, the four arms of the Greek cross plan completely dominate the interior layout. The little squares in the four inner corners of the cross are not part of the internal space but are used as service rooms. Originally, De la Vallée situated the pulpit in the very centre to unify the architectonic and liturgical centre of the church, as depicted in his initial drawings. This plan was not realised, and when the inte27. Amsterdam, Oostkerk, 1669–1671, by Daniel rior was finished in 1695, one of the arms Stalpaert and Adriaan Dortsman. became the choir with the Lutheran altar at its far end. The pulpit remained a central feature against one of the pillars at the crossing. The colourful plaster of the exterior did not evoke a typical Dutch church but the architectural design of the ground floor level with its sober Doric pilasters and tall, round-headed windows was comparable to the Dutch models mentioned previously. The original octagonal lantern on the dome and the surrounding four turrets on the corners of the rising central square were comparable to the spires and lanterns 28. Stockholm, St Katarina’s Church, designed in found on Dutch examples, but such com1654 by Jean de la Vallée, built 1656–1664, towers position featuring five turrets did not occur 1669–1682 (engraving from: Suecia antiqua et in Holland and must be regarded as a new hodierna, 1672). invention by De la Vallée. During restorations and reconstructions after fire damage in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the exterior architecture of St Katarina’s Church was embellished while the dome was enlarged by a high drum. St Katarina’s Church became an important model for other Lutheran churches in Swedish territories. The Greek cross ground plan was reused with a somewhat reduced architectural décor in the 1673 Kungsholmen Church, also in Stockholm, built by Mathias Spihler, a former assistant and son-in-law of Jean de la Vallée.60 Instead of Doric pilasters, pilaster strips articulated the exterior walls and only a single, central dome with a lantern, and without corner turrets, crowned the square crossing. Notwithstanding its Dutch origin, in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, this type of Protestant church became regarded in the Baltic territories as specifically ‘Swedish’. A comparable church was built, presumably also by Spihler, for the Finnish parish in Narva, Estonia (then under Swedish rule).61 Even in the neighbouring countries, the Swedish connotation appeared. In 1706, the Habsburg authorities in Silesia tolerated the building of six new Lutheran churches in their territory under pressure of the Swedish army. Beginning in 1709, the architect Martin Frantz built

  Ellehag 2006, 244-268.

60

352

61

 Ibidem.

Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

two of these so-called ‘Gnadenkirchen’ – those in Hirschberg/Jelenia Gora (fig. 29) and in Landeshut/Kamienna Gora. Frantz came from Reval/Tallinn, which was also a Swedish province at that time; therefore, he was regarded in Silesia as a Swedish architect.62 Presumably to underscore the Swedish protection of these churches for the Silesian Lutheran community, Frantz reused once more the Greek cross plan of St Katarina’s Church in Stockholm with a central square volume, four cross arms, a central dome, and four minor turrets in the corners between the four arms. As in Stockholm, Doric pilasters and round-headed windows articulated the walls. Nevertheless, one of 29. Jelenia Gora/Hirschberg (Poland), Gnadenkirche, 1709, the arms of the Greek cross was elongated by Martin Frantz. with an additional space for the main altar, diminishing the centralised effect of the interior space. Two storeys of galleries lined the internal walls, offering as many seats as possible. Accordingly, the interior space differed entirely from both the Swedish example and the distant Dutch archetype. Meanwhile, elsewhere in Northern Europe outside of the Swedish influence, the Greek cross plan gained great favour as a model for Protestant churches for commoners in urban quarters and soldiers. The first example in Brandenburg was built between 1678 and 1687 in Dorotheenstadt, a new urban quarter of Berlin, to be used by both Lutherans and Calvinists (see page 330, fig. 20).63 In 1688, the French Huguenots in Berlin won the right to use this church for their own worship. Matthijs Smids built the church after designs by Rutger van Langevelt (1635–1695) from Nijmegen. In 1678, he was appointed painter to the court of the Great Elector as well as teacher in drawing, painting, fortification and mathematics (see chapter 3.7). With this design, Van Langevelt carefully introduced to Berlin the model of the Amsterdam Oosterkerk, with the Greek cross within a square outline. This church became a beacon for comparable commissions in the following decades. The Berlin building master Martin Grünberg (1655–1706) used the model at least twice, in Luisenstadt Church (1694), in a new suburb of Berlin, and in 1701 in the garrison’s church at Spandau.64 The model was simplified in both cases. The first was a humble timber framed construction (replaced in 1753) and the latter was built on a simple Greek cross plan, with neither squares at the corners nor an elevated central crossing. Meanwhile, between 1682 and 1695, Lambert van Haven, Denmark’s General Building Master since 1671, worked with comparable solutions while building Our Saviour’s Church (Vor Frelsers Kirke) in Copenhagen. Van Haven was of Norwegian-Dutch origin and visited Holland during his long period of travelling and studying architecture. In 1682, he and his supervisors chose the Greek cross plan for the royal church of Our Saviour in Christianshavn, the new urban quarter opposite the old city of Copenhagen.65 This is the grandest of all

  Grundmann, 1937, 29–36.   Dorotheenstädtische Kirche (reconstructed 1861–1863 and destroyed in 1943). Lorenz 1998, 169; Schönfeld 1999a, 76–84. 62 63

  Already in 1722 the church was reconstructed with another ground plan. Lorenz 1998, 166–168. 65   Smed 1990. The spiral spire is by Lauritz de Thurah, built 1749–1752. 64

353

Konrad Ottenheym

30a. Copenhagen, Our Saviour’s Church (Vor Frelsers Kirke) in 1682 and 1695, by Lambert van Haven.

churches of this type. All exterior walls are executed in brick and reinforced by Doric pilasters with details according to Vignola (fig. 30 a-b). The building consists of a huge central square volume with lower short arms at all four sides. The interior of the central square is divided by four pillars and two crossing barrel vaults that continue in the arms of the cross. The final result is not a copy of one of the existing models in Holland, but a new invention based on a combination of two centralised types: the square ground plan, like Van Campen’s Nieuwe Kerk in Haarlem, and the Greek cross with four equal arms to a central square volume, like Van Campens’s church at Renswoude. Just one year after Van Haven began this work in Copenhagen, Cornelis Ryckwaert used the same ground plan on a reduced scale in Anhalt. He built Trinity Church (1683–1696) in the city of Zerbst, not far from Dessau (see page 324, fig. 15).66 This church also featured a central square volume covered by one pitched pyramid roof with pillars inside and lower arms at all four sides. Whether Ryckwaert had any contact with Van Langeveld in Copenhagen was unknown, but he may have unconsciously achieved the same result by using the same ingredients derived from the various models of Dutch Protestant churches. Conclusion

In the second half of the seventeenth century, the Dutch interpretation of Classicist architecture according to Palladio and Scamozzi became an important source for architecture around the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. At this time, most rulers of these countries strove for absolutist rule, or at least for more centralised power. Generally, buildings in Holland did not match these ambitions. Instead, French and Roman palace architecture set new standards for residences of the leading elite in Northern Europe. The only exceptions were the Amsterdam town hall and William III’s Het Loo. In the eyes of foreign beholders, these buildings conveyed real magnificence, yet few residences abroad were inspired by these examples. Meanwhile, Dutch country houses, town halls and churches became favourite models, not for monarchs or their satellite courts, but for the lower nobility, for the civic elite, and for public buildings. These building 30b. Ground plan of Our Saviour’s Church, approved by the king in 1682 (Nationalmuseum Copenhagen; Smed 1990, 207).

  Schönfeld 1999a, 85–90.

66

354

Models

of

Modesty

and

Dignity

in the

Age

of

Absolutism

types all had to express dignity and prosperity while not being overwhelming nor claiming superiority. As such, Dutch models were regarded as excellent examples of modesty – the veritable golden mean between the magnificence of the rulers and the humility of the common men. This category of buildings was precisely that which did not exist in Rome, as noted by Tessin the Elder when expressing disappointment regarding the lack of useful models in the Eternal City (see chapter 3.1). On the other hand, in the Dutch Republic, cities offered numerous examples of refined, middle-scale Classicist dwellings. They showed how the eternal Vitruvian rules could be convincingly adapted to northern circumstances and demands. Mutatis mutandis, Dutch examples were again adapted, combined and reused to suit anew changing situations and design tasks.

355

Part Four Military Engineers

and

Urban Design

1. Allegory of BELGIA with a poem extolling the beauty of Netherlandish towns, the artistry of their inhabitants and their handiness at war; Antwerp shows on the horizon. Frontispiece and title page of Lodovico Guicciardini’s Description de touts les Pais-Bas, Antwerp 1582 (photograph Royal Library of Belgium, Brussels).

Introduction The previous chapters on the diffusion of architectural ideas from the Low Countries into other parts of Europe focused on architects, stonemasons and sculptors. Besides these groups, engineers also played an important role in the process. For ages building on wet or marshy soil was an indispensable skill of building masters in the Low Countries, and from the late sixteenth century they also adapted the modern fortification system to the specific physical circumstances of this terrain. This expertise in hydraulic and military construction was another reason, in addition to the ones examined in previous chapters, for foreign rulers and cities, and especially in Northern Europe, to invite Netherlandish building masters or to send foreign trainees to the Low Countries. From the 1570s onwards, and above all in the seventeenth century, numerous Netherlandish engineers went to work in other countries, from Denmark to Portugal and from England to Sicily. Before considering the activities of these Netherlandish engineers abroad, however, it must be stressed that the actual influence of the Low Countries in the field of military engineering started much earlier. Several decades before the first Netherlandish engineers started to emigrate, the Low Countries already functioned as a leading ‘centre of experience’ within Europe, and this status persisted during the following two centuries. Throughout this period engineering knowledge from the Low Countries was dispersed to other parts of Europe via all kinds of media, not just via travelling Netherlandish engineers. Although it began earlier, this ‘indirect’ dispersal is evidently less tangible than the much more straightforward mechanism of export via engineers going abroad – it can perhaps be seen as a sort of continuous background radiation against which the emigrating engineers light up as shooting stars.

359

1. Copenhagen, entrance gate to the citadel, by Hendrick Ruse, 1663.

Chapter 4.1 Fortifications

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym (KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Utrecht University)

The Low Countries as a centre of experience within Europe During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Low Countries were perceived as one of Europe’s most advanced ‘schools of war’. They acquired this status already in the second quarter of the sixteenth century – considerably earlier then many historians assume – owing to the unrelenting wars between the Habsburg Low Countries and France at that time (c. 1520–1559). This status was subsequently further reinforced, as is well known, during the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648). One effect of this prominent position was that the latest developments in engineering and military architecture in the Low Countries had an immediate international resonance. There was a continuous diffusion of experiences from the Low Countries to other parts of Europe – exemplified by an international traffic of men and media. The traffic of men chiefly consisted of foreign engineers and other technicians who came to the Low Countries for a short period – either on a study tour on their own initiative, or as professionals in military service or employed by local authorities – and who then took the expertise they had gained there back home. An early example of such a study tour is the famous journey to the Netherlands of Albrecht Dürer in 1520–1521. As his diary shows, Dürer made this journey primarily to secure his imperial patronage and mostly devoted himself during his stay in the Low Countries to purely artistic matters. Less well known is that Dürer at the time also took an active interest in building techniques. Shortly after his return to Nuremburg, he started working on his treatise on military architecture, Etliche underricht zu befestigung der Stett, Schloss und flecken, published in Nuremberg in 1527, and certain parts of this treatise were directly inspired by his recent experience in the Low Countries. This is not immediately clear from the treatise’s printed edition, but is demonstrated by Dürer’s preparatory manuscript. In a technical passage on the roof construction of his circular fortress, Dürer first explains the positioning of the tiles and then recommends masoning everything together with hard mortar, “as I have seen so well in Antwerp”.�1 This casual remark was omitted in the treatise’s printed version but reveals that during his sojourn in the Low Countries Dürer attentively observed ongoing construction works, consulted with local master builders, and then took architectural know-how that was specific to the Low Countries back with him to Nuremberg, from where it was further disseminated. A comparable example offers the study trip to the Low Countries of the renowned engineer Daniel Specklin in 1577–1578. Specklin’s journey was commissioned and paid for by the municipality of his native Strasbourg; its objective was the study of Netherlandish fortification methods. He visited several fortresses, including Antwerp, Utrecht, Coevorden and Philippeville, and accumulated a rich collection of fortification drawings (now in Karlsruhe). Specklin’s experience in the Low Countries undoubtedly influenced his subsequent engineering works in Strasbourg, Colmar, Ensisheim and Basel, though it is admittedly difficult to pin  “... den jch das zu Antorf so gut gesehen hab” (London, British Library, Sloane Add. Mss 5229, fol. 28v). Rupprich 1969, vol. 3, 414–415. This reference to Antwerp is absent in the printed version of the

1

treatise (compare with Dürer, Etliche underricht, 1527, fol. Eiiijv) and has hitherto escaped the notice of architectural historians. See Martens (forthcoming).

361

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym down the exact nature of this influence. The significance of Specklin’s Netherlandish experience transpires more clearly in his famous treatise, Architectura von Vestungen (Strasbourg 1589), which devotes a lot of attention to the Antwerp fortifications and even recites the opinions on the subject of the aged Antwerp city master mason Peter Frans.2 It is certainly significant that foreign experts came to the Low Countries to study, but their number was probably small in comparison with those who came to work. Most noteworthy amongst these foreign employees were the military engineers. It is worthwhile to look at some basic figures. The numbers quoted hereafter are indicative, not exact, but even so they unambiguously demonstrate the large quantities of foreign engineers that were present in the Low Countries, as well as some marked differences in this respect between the Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. No less than about 170 foreign engineers are known to have worked in the Southern Low Countries between c. 1530 and 1714. This substantial number is even more remarkable when compared with that of local engineers: in total some 230 Netherlanders (from either North or South) are known to have worked as engineers in the Southern Low Countries in the same period. This means that in these provinces around 43% of the profession were foreigners. Of these 170 foreigners the majority, some 110 individuals, were Italians (mostly from Northern Italy); Spain provided the second largest group, with about thirty engineers; the remaining thirty or so foreign engineers came mainly from France, the Franche-Comté and the German countries. It must be added that these geographical ratios shifted over time: Nearly all of the Italians came before 1620, while a large share of the Spaniards came after 1675; the intermediate seventeenth century was largely dominated by native Netherlanders.3 For the Northern Low Countries analogous statistics are lacking, but it is clear nonetheless that from about 1570 onwards the situation there was completely different. During the Revolt there were only a few Italians and other foreign engineers working for the rebellious Northern provinces, which were now forced to employ self-trained native Netherlanders for their fortification works. As is well known, they did so with tremendous success, and this was one of the reasons why from around 1600 onwards engineers from the (Northern) Low Countries were highly demanded in other parts of Europe. At the same time, after 1600 the number of foreign engineers in the Northern Low Countries slightly increased. These immigrants came mainly from France and England. In total, between 1572 and 1648, around 130 Dutch and some 30 foreign engineers are known to have worked in the Northern provinces.4 This quantitative comparison between the Southern and the Northern Low Countries confirms that, to a great extent, engineers and their know-how travelled along geopolitical lines: the Spanish (Southern) Low Countries were mainly connected with Southern Europe (Italy and Spain), the Dutch Republic mainly with Northern Europe. While the number of foreign engineers who came to the Low Countries was large, the duration of their stay was generally quite short, usually not more than one or two years. Some were killed in action, but most just returned home at the end of their ‘tour of duty’, or went to work elsewhere. Thus there was quite an intensive coming and going of foreign engineers. It should be emphasized that these engineers not only imported new ideas, but also took   Kabza 1911a; Kabza 1911b; Muller 1911; Neumann & Schütte 1984, 353–358; Fischer 1996, 36 and 138; van den Heuvel 1991, 133–139; Bragard 2011, 192–193. 3   These figures are based on Bragard 1998, 323–330, and Bragard 2011. See also van Maanen & Vanpaemel 2006. 4  Westra 1992 documents a total of fifty Netherlandish engineers (and only a handful of foreigners) in the 2

362

Northern provinces in the period 1572–1604. Westra 2010 describes some eighty Netherlandish engineers, plus about twenty foreigners (mostly French and English), in the Northern Low Countries in the period 1605–1648. Compare with Scholten 1989, who lists 105 engineers in the Northern Low Countries before 1648, and another 337 for the period 1648–1714. An additional list with still more engineers is given by Schäfer 2001.

Fortifications

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

the practical expertise they acquired in the Low Countries back home when they left. This international to and fro circulation of engineering know-how is probably best illustrated by the famous model of the pentagonal citadel, which was first applied in Turin (1564), further perfected in Antwerp, Groningen and Vlissingen (1567–1572), and then re-imported back across the Alps to Parma (1589) and Ferrara (1608) – and to many other cities across Europe.5 It would be wrong to regard the engineering know-how that was thus exported from the Low Countries as purely ‘Netherlandish’, for at this stage – until about 1600 – military architecture was very much an international product. Though initially dominated by Italians working all over Europe, fortification practices were progressively adapted to local conditions, and the Low Countries were certainly one of the foremost areas in Europe were cutting-edge engineering ideas were first applied, tested, and improved; and then in turn reexported, in their adapted form, back to Italy and to other parts of Europe. This role of the Low Countries as one of Europe’s main testing grounds for innovations in military engineering predated the emigration wave of Netherlandish engineers, and can be illustrated by the following examples. In 1589 Alexander Farnese, governor-general of the Spanish Low Countries, had a decisive influence on the design of the citadel of Parma. This new fortress was modelled after the Antwerp citadel, which Farnese was reconstructing at that time (it had been partially dismantled by the rebels). Farnese dispatched two of his Italian engineers from Flanders to Parma with specific instructions for the building of the new citadel. At the same time, he also gave his advice on the fortifications of Lucca. In 1589 the Lucca city council sent a series of designs to Farnese in Flanders for his opinion, but he disapproved of all of them, and recommended instead a fortification method typical for the Low Countries, namely to build the ramparts simply of earth, without an outer skin in brickwork. According to Farnese this costly camiciatura (revetment) was entirely unnecessary, as he had himself learned in the Low Countries. More, Farnese sent a fortification design of his own to Lucca, as well as one of the engineers who had previously served him in the Low Countries. In Lucca the ‘design from Flanders’ was effectively executed, albeit with further slight modifications.6 Expertise in military architecture was not only exported from the Low Countries by foreign engineers but also by military officers, as the following case shows. The two wellknown fortress-cities Hesdinfert and Philippeville were designed in 1554–1555 by Sebastiaan van Noyen from Utrecht, who adapted the principles of his mentor, the Milanese engineer Gianmaria Olgiati, to local circumstances.7 Both fortresses had a slightly irregular pentagonal plan and were hastily erected in earth with wooden palisades. Their construction was supervised by the German army commander Lazarus von Schwendi. When ten years later Schwendi was campaigning against the Turks in Hungary, he exploited his earlier experience from the Low Countries. He directed the construction of two fortresses, at Szatmár (now Satu Mare, Romania) in 1565 and at Kanizsa (now Nagykanizsa, Hungary) in 1568, and based their overall design as well as their construction method on the examples of Hesdinfert and Philippeville. Already in 1565 one commentator noted that these Hungarian fortifications were indeed modelled on a “Belgian” prototype.8

 van den Heuvel 1991, 105–129; van den Heuvel 1994a; Pollak 2010, 9–49. 6  Martinelli & Puccinelli 1983, 24–29, 172–174; van den Heuvel 1991, 128; Pepper 2003, 121–122; Martens 2013. 7   Martens 2009, 175–203. 5

 Letter from Ulrich Zasius to August von Sachsen, from Vienna, 6 April 1565: “Svendi ero˝síti Szatmárt egy belga ero˝sség (Neuhedin) mintája szerint [Svendi is fortifying Szatmár on the model of a Belgian fortress (Neuhedin)]”. Neuhedin was another name for Hesdinfert. Marczali 1878, 480. Kovács 2011, 373–375. With thanks to Klara Kovács.

8

363

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym The traffic of men which we have considered so far was accompanied by an equally extensive traffic of media. Countless drawings, models, prints and books on military architecture and related subjects were exported from the Low Countries. Several foreign engineers expressed their Netherlandish experience in later publications. Carlo Theti, for instance, extensively discussed the Antwerp fortifications, as well as the siege of Haarlem, in his Discorsi delle fortificationi, published in Venice in 1589.9 But also within the Low Countries itself, from the late sixteenth century onwards, a large number of treatises were produced for an international market. In Antwerp and Brussels numerous books on fortification, artillery and warfare were published in Spanish for distribution across the Iberian world. Likewise, in Amsterdam, Leiden and The Hague a lot of fortification treatises were printed in French or German for a Northern European public.10 In the same vein, printmakers such as Frans Hogenberg turned the Low Countries into a leading centre of production of news prints which graphically reported the ongoing battles and sieges as well as the latest fortifications to an international audience.11 Indeed there was a considerable international interest in the latest developments in military architecture in ‘Flanders’; that this interest already manifested itself early on is illustrated by a rare coloured woodcut which shows the design of the newly planned imperial fortress of Hesdinfert (1554) in Artois, and which was already printed in Milan when the fortress itself was still under construction.12 The production of books and prints for a wide audience was complemented by a more ‘secret’ but not less significant export of unpublished material for private patrons. Foreign engineers and other participants in the Low Countries’ wars frequently sent drawings (and even models) of fortresses and siege operations back to their princely patrons at home, who avidly collected such material. A rare testimony of this practice is the relief model of the siege of Ostend that was made by the engineer Gabriele Ughi for his patron Don Giovanni de’ Medici (they both participated in the siege from 1602 to 1604), and which in 1604 was shipped to Florence, where it still survives. The model, made of various materials including wood, plaster and papier-mâché, and carefully coloured, shows not only the siege works and fortifications, but also the lay-out and buildings of the inner city.13 Drawings were produced in large numbers, and they reached a large number of princely courts, as is indicated by their present-day distribution across various collections. Ughi, for example, sent his drawings of Ostend to at least five (and probably more) different courts in Italy.14   Theti was probably in the Low Countries in the early 1570s (Manzi 1960, 360). His treatments of Antwerp and Haarlem are absent from the earlier editions of his treatise (Rome 1569; Venice 1575), but are included in his manuscript now in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Codice D 183 inf, fols. 39–44 (Haarlem) and fols. 50–59 (Antwerp). 10  Neumann & Schütte 1984, 349–392; Lombaerde 2009; Pollak 2010, 61–107; Lombaerde 2011. 11  Kinds 1999; Klinkert 2005; Martens, cat. no. 41, in: Mousset & De Jonge 2007, 393–404; Pollak 2010, 109–153. 12  Milan, Archivio di Stato, Miscellanea Mappe e Disegni, piane 2 (D). van den Heuvel 1991, 94–98; van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000, 600–602. 13   The model is now in Florence, Museo di San Marco (inv. no. 713). Illustrated in van den Heuvel 1991, 68; Exh. cat. Brussels 1998, cat. no. 112; Lombaerde 1999, 112; Thomas 2004, cat. no. 100; Dooley 2006, 91. 9

364

The commissioning and shipment to Florence of this model and of related drawings of the siege of Ostend are documented by several letters from Giovanni de’ Medici and Cosimo Baroncelli, sent from Flanders to Florence between April and August 1604, now in Florence, Archivio di Stato, Archivio Mediceo del Principato, filza 5157, fols. 78, 95, 201, 205 (accessible online via the Medici Archive Project). 14  Four similar drawings by Gabriele Ughi of the siege of Ostend are now in Milan (Civica Raccolta delle Stampe Achille Bertarelli, Avenimenti Storici, grande, 16–4; yet unpublished); in Turin (Archivio di Stato, Architettura Militare, Vol. IV, fol. 46v-47); in Florence (Archivio di Stato, Miscellanea Medicea 93/ III.29); and in Rome (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Codex Ottoboniano 2985, fol. 35r); and moreover it is known that Ughi sent comparable drawings also to the duke of Mantua. Zangheri 1984, 149; van den Heuvel 1991, 66–68.

Fortifications

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

2. Plan of an unidentified noble residence in the Low Countries, anonymous, mid-sixteenth century (Turin, Archivio di Stato, Biblioteca antica, ms. Z.III.14, fol. 29), ­(photograph Pieter Martens).

One might assume that this divulgation of textual and visual material from the Low Countries also exerted certain ‘Netherlandish’ influences abroad, though such indirect effects are typically difficult to demonstrate. In any case this extensive traffic of media affirmed the image of the Low Countries as a major centre in Europe of state-of-the-art military engineering, and was surely another reason, in addition to the military successes of the Dutch rebels mentioned above, why subsequently Netherlandish engineers tended to be perceived as qualified experts, and carried with them a ‘good reputation’ attached to their geographic origins – much like their Italian colleagues half a century earlier. In 1599, for instance, the Elector Palatine in Heidelberg asserted that “nowhere one could find better qualified engineers than in the Netherlands”.15 To sum up, already before the middle of the sixteenth century the Low Countries constituted one of the foremost testing grounds for engineering ideas in Europe, but one that did not yet have its own distinctive character. Later, in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, the new fortification system became sufficiently adapted to local circumstances to be regarded as specifically ‘Netherlandish’,16 and from then onwards this specific ‘Netherlandish’   Letter from Frederick IV, Elector Palatine to Maurice of Nassau, from Heidelberg, 9 July 1599. Westra 1992, 75. 15

16

  van den Heuvel 2007b, 43–44.

365

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym

3a. Two perspective views (front and back) of the castle of Chokier near Liège on the Meuse. Drawing attributed to Jacob van Weerden, 1635 (Turin, Archivio di Stato, Biblioteca antica, ms. J.b.III.1, fol. 14), ­(photograph Pieter Martens).

expertise was also in demand elsewhere. From the 1520s or so engineering expertise was mainly ‘extracted’ from the Low Countries by foreign visitors; from the 1570s it was also actively ‘exported’ by Netherlanders going abroad. Strictly speaking the examples of ‘export’ quoted so far solely concern building techniques and fortifications. But implicitly they suggest that architectural ideas of a more stylistic or conceptual nature were also diffused from the Low Countries via the same channels, for there was often a close connection between military engineering, architecture, and the visual arts. This is shown by the last example, that of Don Giovanni de’ Medici at the siege of Ostend. In fact Don Giovanni was not just a princely military commander but something of an engineer himself, as well as a dilettante architect and an art broker, and his shipments from Flanders to Florence in 1604 comprised not only Ughi’s model and related drawings of the siege of Ostend, but also Flemish artworks and (literally) pieces of architecture.17 Whilst campaigning in Flanders Don Giovanni ordered a set of seventeen battle paintings, including the siege of Ostend and the siege of Grave, for the decoration of the new Villa in Artiminio of his half-brother Grand Duke Ferdinando I de’ Medici. These paintings (now lost) had to be “similar (in style) to the canvasses ordinarily made there (in Flanders)” and were in all probability executed by an Antwerp painter.18 Don Giovanni also procured pieces of black marble from Dinant for the famous Cappella dei Principi in San Lorenzo in Florence, which he himself had designed. Some 730 pieces of various shapes and sizes of this typical ‘Flemish’ marble were shipped via Amsterdam to Florence in 1604. Don Giovanni cited several ‘Flemish’ funerary monuments in black marble as examples to his own project, in   Lippmann 2011.

17

366

18

  Dooley 2006, 89–92.

Fortifications

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

particular the family tombs of the duke of Aerschot and the sepulchre of Archduke Ernest of Habsburg in Brussels.19 Likewise, we may safely assume that amongst the ­countless plans of fortifications and sieges that were sent from the Low Countries to foreign princes there were also other sorts of architectural drawings. This can be illustrated by two little known military atlases now in Turin. The first atlas contains various sixteenth-century plans of fortifications by Francesco de Marchi and others. But it also includes a ground plan of a noble residence; the castle in question remains unidentified and the purpose of this drawing is unclear, but it is unmistakably from the mid-sixteenth century Low Countries (fig. 2). Probably this plan ended up in Turin via Emmanuel Philibert, duke of Savoy, who was governor-general of the Low Countries in the 1550s.20 The second atlas is of later date and belonged to Thomas Francis of Savoy, prince of Carignano. From 1635 to 1638 Thomas served in the Spanish Low Countries as army commander – he had his equestrian portrait painted 3b. Ground plan of the castle of Chokier by Anthony Van Dyck on the occasion. He led various near Liège on the Meuse. Drawing military campaigns against the French, mainly in the area attributed to Jacob van Weerden, 1635 around Liège and in Artois. The atlas in Turin contains (Turin, Archivio di Stato, Biblioteca a heterogeneous assortment of plans of fortifications and antica, ms. J.b.III.1, fol. 25), (photograph sieges which Prince Thomas accumulated during his camPieter Martens). paigns in ‘Flanders’. It includes, for instance, a bird’s-eye view, hastily sketched in pencil, of Liège and its fortifications; a splendid presentation drawing of the siege of Gennep in 1635; and a rare engraved map of Thomas’s relief of Saint-Omer in 1638. But the atlas also includes three carefully executed drawings of the scenic castle of Chokier, perched on a cliff overlooking the River Meuse near Liège: two meticulous ­perspective views (front and back) as well as an accurate plan of the castle’s ground floor and forecourt (bassa corte). These drawings, which can be attributed to the Flemish draughtsman-engineer Jacob van Weerden in 1635, were not entirely without strategic purpose, but it is clear that they also aimed at capturing the castle’s architectural qualities (figs. 3a-b). Perhaps they were made to assess the castle’s potential, in terms of both safety and dignity, as a temporary residence for the prince whilst on campaign in the area. Yet one is tempted to imagine that Prince Thomas also commissioned these painstaking drawings to record this picturesque example of typically ‘Flemish’ architecture.21 In any case, whatever the original purpose of these two examples, they show that the roads of military engineering also carried architectural information. Thus one of the central questions of this chapter is to what extent engineers, or indeed military officers, who travelled abroad because of their technical expertise also functioned as vehicles of more general (non-technical and non-military) architectural ideas. It is known that some hydraulic or military engineers were also involved in civil architecture, but were these exceptions or rather symptomatic of a general trend?   Dooley 2006, 87–89.  Turin, Archivio di Stato, Biblioteca antica, ms. Z.III.14, fol. 29. 21  Turin, Archivio di Stato, Biblioteca antica, ms. J.b.III.1, fol. 14 (two views) and fol. 25 (ground plan). Our attribution of these drawings of the castle of 19 20

Chokier to Jacob van Weerden is based on the obvious similarity in drawing style with the plan of Gennep (fol. 27) which he signed and dated. These drawings have remained unknown so far. On Jacob van Weerden (or Jacques de Werden), see Bragard 2011, 221–222.

367

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym Netherlandish engineers abroad Hydraulic and military engineers As mentioned before, many of these travelling artists were commissioned for both civic buildings and engineering work: building masters for both war and peace.22 The examples are manifold, to mention a few from the sixteenth century: Joris Robijn, who had become architect to the court in Mainz, was also in charge of the problems with laying foundations in the wet soil along the borders of the River Rhine.23 Vredeman de Vries made designs for a new canal close to Wolfenbüttel connecting the Elbe and the Weser rivers and made proposals for the new fortification of Gdan´  sk.24 These projects failed, but as we have seen Anthonis van Opbergen had been more successful in combining his skills in civil and military architecture in Denmark as well as in Gdan´  sk.25 Some travelling masters from the Low Countries were mainly specialised in fortification and water engineering and only occasionally became involved in civic buildings, if at all. The career of Willem de Raet (c. 1537–1583) offers perhaps a rather exceptional example.26 He came from ’s-Hertogenbosch and in 1558 he had become officially a citizen of Antwerp which indicates that he had already lived there for some years. According to his own testimony he was a specialist in artillery and fireworks and inventor of deadly war machines. Among other things he invented a light wooden ­cannon, special fire balls to be used as artillery ammunition, burning iron cannon balls with pins that would stick to ships and city gates in order to burn them down, water mines and various pyrotechnics. He also claimed to be a specialised founder of guns and metal sculptures. He must have had a kind of alchemist workshop since he mentioned his expertise in the distillery of herbs and flowers. Like Hendrick de Keyser and Kaspar Panten some decades later, De Raet apparently experimented with some kind of stucco to imitate alabaster. In ­addition to his pyrotechnic and chemical engineering, he had also qualified experience in laying foundations in swamps or wet soil. As many of his compatriots he emigrated during the first years of the war against Spain. In 1573–1577 he worked as an architect and engineer for Duke Julius of BraunschweigLüneburg at his residence in Wolfenbüttel. In Wolfenbüttel he started the plans for the canal between the two most important rivers in Northern Germany, the Elbe and the Weser (a project that his successor Vredeman de Vries would continue) and he also sketched the ­organisation of a new commercial company to exploit this new trade route (which never became reality). De Raet also made plans for new fortifications of Wolfenbüttel that were completed in 1580, three years after he had left the city, and possibly he was also involved in the design of the city expansion within this new fortification ring.27 In 1577 De Raet was invited by the Grand Duke of Tuscany to canalise the river Arno between Florence and the sea. Ferdinand I de’ Medici wanted to create a seaport in Florence and therefore the Arno had to be at least eight feet deep and should allow two ships to pass each other. De Raet went to Italy and seems to have made various proposals for this task, but none was ever realised.   Neumann & Schütte 1984.   De Ren 1982a, 53–54. 24   Lombaerde 2005. 25  Opbergen was involved in Alva’s citadel of Antwerp, designed by Francesco Pacciotto 1567–1571 (van den Heuvel 1991, 107–119). In 1577–1585 he was head of the building project of Kronborg, including its surrounding fortifications (although it is still uncertain whether the design of the castle was his 22 23

368

as well). Then he went to Gdan´  sk to design and build the fortress of Weichselmünde (Wisłoujs´cie fortress) in 1587–1608 and the new fortifications of Torun, 1591. In 1592 he was appointed Master of Fortifications (Baumeister am Wallgebäude) of Gdan´  sk. Bartetzky 2000, 150–152; Lombaerde 2006. 26   De Smedt 1964. 27   Ibidem, 49.

Fortifications

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

For the city of Lucca he made plans for the draining of the area north of the city. He invented new hydraulic drainage machinery, described by Michel de Montaigne in 1581.28 Unfortunately this project failed as well, apparently due to sabotage by Pisa. Water draining engineers Draining wetlands or even lakes was another speciality of Netherlandish engineers from the twelfth century onwards. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the great drainage projects in Holland, where several big lakes were transformed into polders by private commercial investors, must have attracted wide attention. Dutch water engineers were invited for comparable projects 4. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century drainage abroad, transforming wetlands into regularprojects in Europe by Netherlandish engineers ised agricultural landscape on a grand scale (map by J. Deckwitz, from: Reh, Steenbergen & Aten 2005, 19). (fig. 4).29 Sometimes the finances for these projects came also partly from Dutch syndicates, as was the case for the drainage works in Cambridgeshire by Cornelis Vermuyden in the first half of the seventeenth century.30 The most famous of these water engineers is Jan Leeghwater (1575–1650), due to the publication of his autobiography Kleyne Cronycke and of his Haerlemmermeerboeck of 1641, which describes how to drain the great lake south of Haarlem (Haarlemmer Meer).31 He was an engineer, wind mill constructor and an expert in drainage systems, working for private enterprises in Holland, as well as water engineer in the army of Frederik Hendrik at the siege of ’s-Hertogenbosch in 1629.32 In the 1620s and 1630s he too got commissions from foreign patrons and consequently worked in the marshes of Cadillac, close to Bordeaux, as well as in Schleswig.33 In Holland Leeghwater also acted as an architect, for example of the town hall of his native village De Rijp,34 but this kind of work is not known of him abroad. Joris Jorisz (Jorissen) Frese, probably of Netherlandish origin (see chapter 3.5 by Oja¯rs Spa¯rı¯tis) was city architect in Riga from the 1570s onwards. In 1582 he introduced a pipeline system ­serving fresh water from the Jugla River to public fountains, the so called Wasserkunst of Riga.35 In the following period the city of Riga established a specific office for taking care of the urban water system; this was almost continuously held by an engineer from the Low Countries. In 1635 Cornelis Adriaens was appointed, later followed by Heinrich/Hendrik Sebastiaansen and Jacob Piele, all said to have come from Holland and styled as

  Ibidem, 57.   Reh et al. 2005, 19; Ciriacono 2006. 30   Korthals Altes 1925; Harris 1953; Noordhoek 1954; Louw 2009, 89. 31  Jan Adriaenszoon Leeghwater, Kleyne Chronycke ende Voorbereydinge van de Afkomste ende ‘t Vergrooten van de Dorpen van Graft en de Ryp, 1649; Idem, Haerlemmermeerboeck, 1641.

  de Roever 1944.  Cadillac, close to Bordeaux, belonging to the duc d’Épernon. According to his autobiography (Kleyne Chronycke). 34   Ottenheym & De Jonge 2007, 108–110. 35   Brand et al. 2006, 177.

28

32

29

33

369

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym water engineers (Strom- und Wasserbaumeister).36 In 1662 Jacob Josten, a Dutch carpenter coming from Gdan´  sk, became Riga’s Stadt Kunst-, Strom- und Werkmeister, the city engineer responsible for the water supply system and building master, indicating that he was also working in the field of construction.37 He improved the water system of the city with a treadmill powered by four horses, pumping water from the river to a water tower located on the enceinte. This construction functioned for two hundred years. From this tower water was distributed in pipelines through the city under street level to the town hall, to rich private houses and public wells. Josten was also working as a building engineer, in particular on the tower of St Peter’s church and on one of the city gates.38 Several Dutch water engineers went to work in Italy in the seventeenth century. Probably the most interesting, though still little-known, case is that of Cornelis Jansz Meijer (1629–1701).39 He was born in Amsterdam as the son of a wheel maker and had a lucrative career as a craftsman, but in 1674 he moved to Italy to make a profit out of his technical expertise. He first went to Venice, where he presented several designs for hydraulic machines to the Venetian Senate. The Senate approved Meijer’s proposals, granted him the prestigious title of engineer, and put him in charge of works in the harbour.40 After a few months, however, Meijer left Venice for Rome, where he stayed for the rest of his life. The start of his Roman career was promising: In 1676 he constructed a dam (known as the passonata) in the bend of the Tiber along Via Flaminia to stop the river from overflowing its banks (fig. 5). Meijer’s solution was a success, but it also led to a lifelong rivalry with his competitor the architect Carlo Fontana, Bernini’s pupil, and this feud dominated his further career in Rome. To enhance his reputation and attract new commissions, Meijer published two handsomely illustrated treatises, for which he collaborated with the famous Dutch landscape painter Gaspar van Wittel. The first exposed his ideas to improve the navigability of the Tiber.41 In his second book, Meijer presented a remarkable assortment of technical inventions, including ­various water machines but also non-hydraulic devices such as eyeglasses, cabriolets, astronomical maps, and methods for silk production.42 Although Meijer was chiefly involved in hydraulics, infrastructure, and scientific pursuits (as a member of the Accademia Fisicomatematica), he also devoted his skills to architecture and urban design. One of his inventions, for example, concerns the interior design of an unusual drawing room. His idea was to condense all the commodities of a large palazzo (library, study, bedroom, kitchen, and so on) into a single room – a veritable machine à habiter avant la lettre – by the ingenious use of wall-cabinets and other contraptions all’olandese. The arrangements of the room’s interior walls are explained in a set of four engravings (fig. 6). Even more remarkable was Meijer’s proposal to redesign all the main squares of Rome – another episode in his rivalry with Fontana. Meijer’s bold idea was to reconstruct and redecorate each piazza so as to use its obelisk as the gnomon of a giant sundial. He illustrated his scheme in a striking sequence of engraved cityscapes (of which some were drawn by Van Wittel) (fig. 7). In addition he pictured machines to displace obelisks, as well as an instrument – inspired by Dutch foundation techniques – to lift Trajan’s Column. Meijer even proposed an entirely new pavement for the Piazza San Pietro. His design comprised a huge cosmography in stone, centred around the obelisk; it represented the hemispheres of the earth and the heavens, as well as the four systems of the world, that is: not only the earth-centred systems of Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe, but also – and this was certainly risqué for the pope’s own square – the

  Campe 1951–1957, Part 1, 218.   Campe 1951–1957, Part 1, 418; Part 2, 95, 102. 38   Brand et al. 2006, 179. 39   Hoogewerff 1920; van Berkel 2002. 40   Berveglieri 1985. 36 37

370

  L’arte di restituire a Roma la tralasciata navigatione del suo Tevere ... dell’ingegniero Cornelio Meyer olandese (Rome, 1683 and 1685). 42   Nuovi ritrovamenti ... dall’ingegniero Cornelio Meyer olandese (Rome, 1689 and 1696). 41

Fortifications

5. Cornelis Meijer’s dam in the Tiber near Via Flaminia, Rome, 1676 (from his L’arte di ­restituire a Roma, Rome 1685). Vincent J. Buonanno Collection (photograph Brown University Library).

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

6. Cornelis Meijer, diagram of cupboards and closets in a “conveniently made room” (from his Nuovi ritrovamenti, Rome 1696). Vincent J. Buonanno Collection (photograph Brown University Library).

7. Cornelis Meijer, design for a giant sundial in Piazza del Popolo, Rome, engraved by Caspar van Wittel (from Meijer’s L’arte di restituire a Roma, Rome 1685). Vincent J. Buonanno Collection (photograph Brown University Library).

sun-centred solar system of Copernicus and Descartes (fig. 8).43 Needless to say, none of these projects was ever executed. Even so, the case of Meijer shows that even an engineer with a firm specialization in hydraulic techniques could on occasion also direct his skills towards other areas of design, including architecture and urbanism. The influence of these water engineers on the quality of life as well as on the creation of new agricultural areas was ­ considerable, but all in all their ­ contribution to the diffusion of ­ architectural motifs and ideas from the Low Countries was fairly

8. Cornelis Meijer, cosmological design for Piazza San Pietro, Rome (from his L’arte di restituire a Roma, Rome 1685). Vincent J. Buonanno Collection (photograph Brown University Library).

  Curran et al. 2009, 182–183 and 197.

43

371

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym negligible. Military engineering and ­architecture was a more common ­combination. Besides the various ­persons who really combined both genres of c­ onstruction, even more specialised ­fortification masters were commonly engaged in the design and construction of buildings such as gates, barracks, houses, officers’ residences, and sometimes even churches. Seventeenth-century engineers from the Dutch Republic During the seventeenth century the epicentre of the training of these military engineers was the Duytsche Mathematique in Leiden. In 1600 Maurits van Nassau had founded a mathematical college in Leiden next to the university programme proper, devised by the famous mathematician Simon Stevin; it became famous for training surveyors and military engineers. At this college lectures were given in Dutch and not in Latin, as shown by its name of Duytsche Mathematique (“mathematics taught in Dutch”).44 Here town planning as well as the design of ­fortifications were regarded as applied mathematics. In the middle of the seventeenth century the Duytsche Mathematique was dominated by the gifted professor Frans van Schooten Jr. The teaching programme comprised theoretical courses as well as practical exercises and internships at the frontline.45 As set up in 1600, classes were held twice a week, with a coherent series of lectures starting with the basics of mathematics, arithmetic and geometry as far as necessary to the profession, followed by the calculation of massive volumes such as dikes and fortification walls. The second part of the programme consisted of outdoor exercises to learn how to use geometrical instruments in practice, measuring the site and putting the results into drawings as well as the other way round, bringing paper designs of simple fortification lines into reality on the field. Also the actual construction of such minor fortifications was part of the training. Those who passed this phase of the programme were allowed to assist at real fortification works in various cities. In summer time the students fulfilled their internships in the army, witnessing real sieges and military operations. Unfortunately there are no official student registers of this college, because it was not necessary to be officially enrolled as a university student to follow the courses in the common language only. Nevertheless many foreign students were inscribed at the university as well, combining the Duytsche Mathematique courses with academic mathematics or law. From all over Northern Europe, especially from other Protestant countries in Germany, the Baltic and Scandinavia, students came to Leiden to study applied mathematics at the Duytsche Mathematique. Conversely, many Dutch surveyors and military engineers who were educated in Leiden found their way to Northern Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, and even up to Russia.46 In the early seventeenth century the Swedish kings Karl IX and Gustav Adolf were the first to invite Dutch engineers on a large scale. They were employed at new fortifications of the cities along the Swedish-Danish border and at the creation of new cities like Göteborg, which was founded by Karl IX in 1604 as the western harbour of Sweden with free approach from the North Sea without passing the Sound and its Danish tolls. The layout of the city and its fortifications were designed by Dutch engineers and a substantial part of the first inhabitants were Dutch immigrants attracted by all kinds of privileges granted by the king (see chapter 4.3 by Nils Ahlberg). The king of Denmark, Christian IV followed the Swedish example to match the threat from his northern neighbour.47 In 1607 he sent his secretary Jonas Charisius to Holland to  Taverne 1978, 49–111; Muller & Zandvliet 1987, 19–37; Scholten 1989, 15–16; Westra 1992, 82–89; van Winter 1998; van den Heuvel 2007b, 44–46. 45   van den Heuvel 2004; van den Heuvel 2006. 44

372

  For the ‘export’ of Dutch military engineering, see: Roding 1982; Westra 1992, 75–81; Westra 2010, 69–79; Schäfer 2001, 583–633. 47   Taverne 1978, 82–109. 46

Fortifications

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

invite craftsmen and merchants who might be interested to emigrate to Denmark, offering various privileges, financial as well as religious ones.48 Like his predecessors in the sixteenth century he was rather eager to search for capable fortification engineers. In 1615–1620 Johan Sems worked in Demark. He was the most important military engineer in the provinces of Friesland and Groningen in his time and because of the peaceful situation of the Twelve Years’ Truce at home (1609–1621), the prince of Orange allowed him to serve the Danish king (see chapter 4.2 by Piet Lombaerde). The city of Gdan´  sk, always keen to defend its independence from any of the rivalling states around the Baltic Sea, had called for Netherlandish fortification expertise since the second half of the sixteenth century. In the seventeenth century they subsidised study trips of their own engineers. In the 1610s Hans Strakowski was sent to Germany to study the latest developments in fortification engineering. Although we do not know whether he actually had been in Leiden, he later claimed Holland to be the source of all his knowledge.49 Nevertheless in 1619 the city council invited Dutch engineers to supervise the modernisation of its fortifications.50 Also Heinrich Tomé, native from Gdan´  sk, had studied military architecture in Leiden, again partly paid by the city.51 Nevertheless in 1624 he entered in Swedish service, working both in Stockholm and in the new Swedish territories on mainland Europe. In 1632–1633 he designed new fortifications of the cities of Elbla˛g and Riga according to the Dutch school of fortification as taught in Leiden.52 One of his successors, Fredrik Statius von Dahlen, an engineer from Kurland in Swedish service and from 1679 city engineer of Riga, had also studied in Leiden.53 He is known to have made several study trips to keep informed about the latest developments. In 1682–1683 he was in Strasbourg to study the new fortifications, perhaps at the instigation of Riga’s city architect Rupert Bindenschuh who was a native from Strasbourg. In 1688 Von Dahlen was in Holland once again and on his way back he fell ill and stayed in Lübeck. The next year he was finally dismissed from his position. Like many of his fellow military engineers, Von Dahlen is also known to have designed military buildings occasionally, like the corps de garde of 1686 on the Riga market square. Dutch military officers The most famous Dutch fortification expert in the mid-seventeenth century was Hendrick Ruse (1624–1679).54 He was born in Drenthe and probably studied at Franeker University. During the 1640s he had an international military career as an officer in the French and Venetian armies. He came back to Holland in 1650 and settled in Amsterdam where in 1652 he became appointed as captain engineer of the city. In these years without sieges and field battles, Ruse wrote his treatise Versterckte Vesting, published in 1654, followed in 1666 by a German edition and in 1668 by an English edition.55 In this treatise he tried to modernise the ­traditional Dutch school of fortification. In Amsterdam he also participated in the debate on the new   Heiberg 1988, 176; Roding 2007, 132.  “Holland ist die Quelle aller Erkenntnis”, Cuny 1910b, 53. 50  Cornelis van den Bosch and Daniel van Buren. In 1624 Peter Jansen de Weert was appointed to reinforce the military fort at the mouth of the river Wistula. Cuny 1910b, 51–52. 51   Cuny 1910b, 57. 52  M. Barzdevicˇa, ‘The plans of Riga by Heinrich Thomé’, in: Brand et al. 2006, 183–185. 48 49

  Campe 1951–1957, Part 1, 703. He is mentioned in the Album Studiosorum of Leiden University in 1677. 54   Monna 1975; Heckmann 1998, 76–69. 55  Hendrick Ruse, Versterckte Vesting, uitgevonden in velerley voorvallen, en geobserveert in dese laeste oorloogen, soo in de Vereenigde Nederlanden als in Vranckryck, Duyts-land, Italiën, Dalmatiën, Albaniën en die daar aengelegen landen, Amsterdam 1654. 53

373

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym enlargement of the city and its fortifications.56 In 1654 he also acted as an architect, designing the new city gate, the Regulierspoort (fig. 9). Only ten years later, when it had become part of the new city extension (today’s Rembrandtplein), the former city gate was transformed into the weigh house for butter (Boterwaag). In 1658 Ruse moved to the Great Elector of Brandenburg for three years, modernising the fortifications of the city of Kalkar and finally in 1661 he 9. Amsterdam, Regulierspoort, city gate came to Denmark to serve King Frederick III designed by Hendrick Ruse, 1654 (engraving (r. 1648–1670). In 1673 he was appointed Jacob Meurs 1663). general major and general in Norway and Skånen. His most important commission was the modernisation of the fortification of Copenhagen, especially to defend Nyborg, the north side of the city, against possible Swedish attacks from the sea. In 1663–1666 he built the new citadel at this side of the city (Kastellet) as a five pointed star. He not only designed the fortification structure as such (ditches, bastions, ramparts etc.), but also the adjoining buildings, including the entrance gates with the Doric orders using his knowledge of Scamozzi, as had been regular building practice in Amsterdam (see fig. 1). He even delivered the designs for the royal palace that was intended to be built inside the fortress (but never realised), a real palazzo in fortezza. His drawing for this residence shows a four-wing complex around a square courtyard, with four corner pavilions containing the apartments and a tall corps de logis with the main hall. It had to be a complete a­ stylar building complex, similar to Vingboons’s imaginary project for a very large country house published in 1648. In 1664 he became a Danish nobleman and in 1671 he was even appointed baron, with the title Rysensteen or Rusenstein. After his retirement in 1677 he went to his estate in Sauwerd, Groningen where he died two years later. Also in England and Brandenburg Dutch military officers were highly regarded as specialists in fortification and its architectural details. Bernard de Gomme (­1620–1685), for instance, came from Terneuzen, a city under Dutch control on the southern shore of the river Scheldt. His father was a military engineer at the Dutch fortifications along the Scheldt controlling the entrance to the harbour of Antwerp. De Gomme followed in his father’s footsteps and became a military engineer himself, serving Stadholder Frederik Hendrik on his campaigns in the late 1630s and early 1640s. In 1642 he went to England to join the Royalist Army in the rising civil war but after the king’s defeat in 1646 he returned to Holland and started to work as a civil engineer. After the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 he once again moved to England to become Surveyor General of fortification and Engineer-in-chief to the Crown. Twenty years later, in 1682, after a successful and loyal career he was even promoted to the rank of Surveyor-General of Ordinance. He reworked various important English military fortifications along the coast according to the modern Dutch standards, including the citadel of Portsmouth. After the fearsome Dutch attack on the English fleet by Michiel de Ruyter in 1667, de Gomme started to reinforce the fortress of Tilbury on the left bank of the Thames, opposite Gravesend, to protect the entrance to London. He replaced the older structure, a blockhouse from the time of Henry VIII, by a pentagonal citadel with four bastions and a tower on the bank of the river Thames. Its main entrance is from the water side and   Abrahamse 2010.

56

374

Fortifications

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

therefore the Watergate is the most splendid portal, completed in 1682. It is designed like a Dutch city gate, with a triumphal arch surmounted by an aedicula, and a superposition of Ionic and Corinthian half-columns detailed according to Scamozzi (fig. 10).57 The career of Jean de Bodt (1670– 1745) illustrates even more clearly the international level of exchange of knowledge and architectural inventions in the late seventeenth century. De Bodt was born in Paris as son of a German nobleman and a French mother. He was a successful pupil of Francois Blondel and an award winner at the Académie d’Architecture at the age of fourteen. Nevertheless, as a Protestant he had to leave France in 1685 when the Edict of Nantes was repealed by Louis XIV. He went to Holland to become an artillery officer in the army of William III and as such he took part in the invasion in England in 10. The gate of Tilbury fort (UK), by de Gomme, 1682 (photograph collection Utrecht University). 1689. A decade later, in 1699, he moved to Brandenburg entering the service of Elector Friedrich III as a military officer, courtier and architect. Along with his royal commissions he designed various country houses for the nobility of East Prussia, like Schloss Schlodien of general Christoph zu Dohna.58 Here he could put his knowledge of recent Dutch and English country houses into practice, creating elongated volumes with corner pavilions and a central projection with colossal pilasters according to Scamozzi. Seventeenth-century Netherlandish engineers in Southern Europe In the seventeenth century Netherlandish military architecture also had a considerable effect on Southern Europe.59 Since they had served in the Spanish army in the Southern Low Countries during the Eighty Years’ War, Portuguese officers were well aware of modern developments in fortification engineering in the Low Countries. After the restoration of Portugal’s independence in 1640 and during the following war with Spain (1640–1667), new strongholds at the borders were essential and it seemed obvious to consult foreign expertise, from France and the Low Countries.60 Two Netherlandish military engineers, Jan Ciermans (1602–1648, known in Portugal as Padre João Cosmander) and Jean Gillot (1613–1657), fortified several Portuguese cities along the country’s eastern border, with the fortifications of Elvas in 1643–1648 as their major result. Gillot came from Leiden, where he had studied mathematics with Descartes, and probably he had also taken lessons at the Duytsche Mathematique.61 Ciermans was born in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, entered the Jesuit order in 1619, and was for some time professor of mathematics in Leuven. In 1641 he went to Lisbon with the intention of

 On de Gomme, see Saunders 1989, 83–101; Saunders 1996; Saunders 2004; Westra 2010. 58   Heckman 203–226; Hinterkeuser 2007. 57

  Lombaerde 2009; Lombaerde 2011.   Paar 1996. 61   Witkam 1967–1969. 59 60

375

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym s­ailing to China, but once in Portugal he became the mathematics teacher at the Bragança court and the king’s advisor in fortification theory.62 In addition to these engineers, printed manuals and theories on fortification as practised in the Low Countries were also used in Portugal. The Portuguese expert on military architecture in those days, Luís Serrão Pimentel, was professor at the newly founded school of fortification in Lisbon, the Aula de Fortificaçao e Arquitectura Militar. In his lectures and writings he brought a synthesis of the Dutch school of fortification as taught at the Duytsche Mathematique in Leiden, adapted to the situation in Portugal. In Paris another Flemish monk was working as an engineer and architect: The case of the French career of the engineer ‘frère Romain’ remains quite unique. Franciscus Roman (1647–1735),63 was born in Ghent as member of an architectural dynasty. He became member of the Dominican order, went to France, and became inspector general at the French Corps des Ponts et Chaussées and architect of the royal domains after his successful intervention in the technical problems in the construction of the Pont Royal in Paris in 1685–1687.64 Most exceptional is his architectural design for the church of Saint-Didier in Asfeld, built in 1680–1686 with its violin-shaped ground plan.65 Not surprisingly, a significant number of engineers from the Spanish Netherlands went to work in Spain and other parts of the Spanish Empire.66 In 1624, for instance, several Flemish engineers and hydraulic technicians were called to Spain to improve the navigability of the rivers of the Iberian Peninsula. Among them were Abraham Melin, Pierre Baes, Adriaan Zele, Pierre Goins and Jacques De Beste. We known that the latter was possibly the son of Charles De Beste from Bruges, the author of the Architectura manuscript (1595–1600), and that he and some of the others worked on the course of the river Guadalquivir in 1628, but little else is known about these engineers’ backgrounds or their further activities in Spain.67 It was apparently for similar reasons – hydraulic expertise – that Charles (Carlos) Grunenberg and his brother Ferdinand (Fernando) went to Spain somewhere around 1660. Nothing is known about their prior life in the Low Countries. In fact all we know about their origins is that they were flamencos. One of the first tasks of the Grunenberg brothers in Spain was the development of a plan to make the river Manzanares navigable between El Pardo and Toledo. It was published in Madrid in 1668.68 In the same period they also worked on several fortifications along the border with Portugal (La Guardia, Monterrey, Goyán),69 and it was indeed the domain of military architecture which became Carlos’s main profession for the following three decades (little more is known about Fernando). In 1670 the Spanish Crown sent Carlos Grunenberg to Sicily, where he quickly became the leading military engineer. Grunenberg’s transfer to Sicily was probably a direct consequence of the fall of Candia in 1669. The Ottoman conquest of Crete compelled the Spanish authorities to modernize Sicily’s defences against a further Turkish offensive in the Mediterranean. It is surely no coincidence either that precisely at the same time the new viceroy of Sicily was, exceptionally, also a ‘Fleming’, namely Claude Lamoral, prince de Ligne (r. 1670–1674). One architectural legacy of the entente between these two flamencos in Spanish-ruled Sicily is the so-called Ligne Tower (Torre di Ligny), an imposing quadrangular   Van de Vyver 1975; Van de Vyver 1977; Paar 1996; Paar 2000; Leitão 2003, 237. 63  For frère Romain see: Laleman 1981 (with bibliography); Laleman 1987, 17; Picon 1992, 31 and 65. 64   Gallet 1982, 23–25 (Pont Royal). 65   Minguet 1988, 212, 218–219 (ill.). 66   Byloos 1986; Lombaerde 2011, 150–160. 62

376

 Duffy 1979, 105; Bragard 1998, 272; De Jonge & De Vos 2000, 13; Bragard 2011, 17, 23–24, 55–56, 103 and 147. 68   Memorial que los coroneles don Carlos y don Fernando de Grunenbergh han dado à Su Magestad tocante à la proposicion que tenian hecha de rendir nauegable à Mançanares (Madrid 1668). 69   Cámara 2005, 24, 71, 86–87. 67

Fortifications

and

Waterworks: Engineers

on the

Road

watchtower in the harbour of Trapani, built by Grunenberg in 1671 as one of his earliest works in Sicily, and suitably named after his compatriotic commissioner (fig. 11). Indeed De Ligne was the first of several viceroys who always supported Grunenberg, stressed his capabilities to the authorities in Madrid, and granted him prestigious and well-paid projects. This favourable position enabled Grunenberg to adopt a lordly lifestyle and earned him a high reputation as one of Europe’s leading engineers.70 His most important work was the pentagonal citadel of Messina in 1680.71 Most likely Grunenberg himself also designed the citadel’s monu11. Trapani, the Torre di Ligny, by Carlos Grunenberg, 1671 mental entrance gate, the Porta Grazia, which (photograph Pieter Martens). according to some authors shows Flemish Baroque influences (fig. 12).72 Grunenberg also built major fortifications in Augusta and Syracuse. In Augusta his scheme included a new city gate, the Porta Spagnola (1681), which he probably also designed himself (fig. 13). Its style, a more severe variant of the Messina gate, has likewise been described as reminiscent of Baroque architecture from the Spanish Low Countries.73 Grunenberg stayed in Sicily until his death in 1696, with the exception of a few brief excursions to Malta, where he was sent several times in the 1680s. In 1687 he proposed a scheme for the protection of Malta’s Grand Harbour, and some of the stone scale-models he made for these fortifications still survive. He designed a new enceinte around the famous Fort St Elmo and also strengthened the defences of Fort St Angelo with new batteries. These latter works were actually financed by Grunenberg from his own pocket; in return Grunenberg’s coat of arms was put above the fort’s entrance gate, where it can still be seen.74 In the last few years of his life Grunenberg was occupied with the rebuilding of the towns in eastern Sicily that were destroyed in the 1693 earthquake. Together with the duke of Camastra he was in charge of reconstruction works in Catania, Syracuse and Augusta, and he also had a hand in the planning of the new town of Noto.75 Grunenberg was not only responsible for rebuilding the fortifications of these towns, but also for their urban redevelopment. All in all, however, Grunenberg seems to have been involved almost exclusively in fortification and city planning, not in civil or religious architecture. With the possible exception of a few monumental gates, his role in the dispersal of architectural motifs from the Low Countries was small. What seems typically Netherlandish was his combined expertise of both hydraulics and fortifications – indeed nearly all of his works in Spain, Sicily and Malta were waterside fortifications. Finally, quite a large number of Flemish military engineers were working in Spain in the decades around 1700.76 The culmination of this trend was the well-known engineer George Prosper Verboom (1665–1744), who after a brilliant career in the Southern Low Countries moved to Spain and was appointed King Philip V’s ingeniero general in 1710. Verboom  One document described him as “coronel Don Carlos de Grunembergh, flamenco y de los primeros ingenieros de Europa”. Dufour 2002, 298. 71   Dufour 2002, 296–298. 72  The Porta Grazia survived the destruction of the citadel and has been relocated in Piazza Casa Pia. 70

  Lombaerde 2011, 156–157.   Hoppen 1979, 59–61; Hoppen 1981; Hughes 1993, 185, 191, 221; Spiteri 2001, 227, 278. 75   Marino 1977; Boscarino 1981. 76  Muñoz Corbalán 1993; Cámara 2005; Lombaerde 2011, 153–156. 73 74

377

Pieter Martens, Konrad Ottenheym

12. Messina, Porta Grazia, attributed to Carlos Grunenberg, 1680 (photograph Pieter Martens).

13. Augusta, Porta Spagnola, attributed to Carlos Grunenberg, 1681 (photograph Pieter Martens).

became responsible for all fortifications in the Spanish empire, as well as for reorganizing the royal engineering corps. His major work was the citadel of Barcelona (1714–1718). But like most of their predecessors, Verboom and his Flemish colleagues were first and foremost engaged in military engineering and seem to have had little influence on architectural developments outside the realm of fortification.

378

Chapter 4.2 Exporting

Urban Models from the Low Countries Schleswig-Holstein, and Northern Germany

to

Denmark,

Piet Lombaerde (University of Antwerp)

This chapter will address the following questions: Who were the military engineers, fortification builders, and hydraulic engineers from both the Northern and Southern Low Countries working in the Western and Southern Baltic regions during the seventeenth century? Why were master builders and engineers from the Low Countries in such great demand in these areas? What kind of specific knowledge did they possess that was so useful in these regions? Which cities were included in their work area, and what did they realise there? How were models relevant? These engineers and builders undoubtedly worked most intensively during the seventeenth century, both because of the spreading diaspora of engineers, architects, and master builders after the fall of Antwerp in 1585, and the good trade and political relations between Protestant countries, such as the Netherlands, Denmark and various regions in Northern Germany from Schleswig-Holstein to Eastern Prussia.1 In the Danish empire, this spread of urban developers coincided with the expansion policy of Christian IV and Frederick III. The Danish empire under Christian IV included the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein (until 1658), and the regions of Skonen, Halland, and Blekinge (all belonging to Sweden since 1658). In Northern Germany, the distinction should be made between Vorpommeren (or West Pommeren) and various parts of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Models and model books These regions reflected the presence of a generation of engineers and architects who were either trained in the Dutch Republic or originally came from these northern regions but referenced models and model books from the Low Countries. Numerous cities in the Low Countries could be regarded as models, including Antwerp, especially the Spanish ramparts, the northern expansion (Nieuwstad), and the citadel;2 Amsterdam and its canals;3 and Coevorden4 and Willemstad. Urban expansions in cities such as Haarlem, Leiden, and Utrecht served as models too.5 Additionally, the reclamation of polders in preparation for urban expansion and agricultural use should be considered. These realisations were used as models elsewhere. For example, De Beemster, a polder with a surface area of 7,000 hectares, was reclaimed between 1607 and 1613 and geometrically divided into lots.6 Indeed, large numbers of Dutch engineers and land surveyors were recruited to Scandinavia and Northern Germany. The duke

  Lorenzen 1930; Eimer 1961; Skovgaard 1973, 101–113; Taverne 1978; Roding 1991; Ahlberg 2005 and 2011. 2  Concerning the so-called Spanish ramparts in Antwerp, see Soly 1977; Lombaerde 2001; Geerts 2009; Lombaerde 2009; Minsaer 2009. 3   Taverne 1978, 112–176; Abrahamse 2010. 1

 Lorenzen introduced Coevorden as a model for Scandinavian cities: Lorenzen 1937, 389 (mentioned in Eimer 1961, 157). 5   Taverne 1978, 177–402. 6  de Zeeuw et al. 1995, 157–161; de Jong 1998; van den Heuvel 2007a, 294–295; van den Heuvel 2011. 4

379

Piet Lombaerde of Schleswig-Holstein commissioned one of those engineers, namely Jan Claesz Rolwagen, to reclaim and subdivide approximately 2,000 hectares of polders between 1610 and 1613.7 The training at the School voor Duytsche Mathematique (Dutch Engineering School for Mathematics) at the University of Leiden was particularly important for engineers and surveyors (see chapter 4.1).8 The fortification builders and land surveying engineers who were in such demand in the new expansion areas in Denmark and Northern Germany received their training here. They used the knowledge acquired at this school as well as the published work of their professors, who included Simon Stevin, Samuel Marolois, Ludolph van Ceulen, Frans van Schooten the Elder, Frans van Schooten the Younger, Petrus van Schooten and Symon Franszoon van Merwen.9 The most widespread model books on fortress construction and water works cited in this chapter are Samuel Marolois’s Fortification ou architecture militaire (The Hague, 1615); Simon Stevin’s De Stercktenbouwing (Leiden, 1594); Castrametatio, dat is Legermeting (Rotterdam, 1617); Nieuwe Maniere van Stercktebau door Spilsluizen (Rotterdam, 1617);10 and Nicolaus Goldmann’s Nouvelle fortification (Leiden, 1645).11 The model book by Georg Gunther Kröll from Bemberg, Germany deserves special attention.12 This engineer was reputedly involved in construction work in Holland and was familiar with fortress building in the Dutch Republic. In his book, Tractatus Geometricus et Fortificationis, published in 1618 in Arnhem, he referred to Specklin and Marolois. The aforementioned cities, urban expansions with their new bastioned ramparts and hydraulic works, and the many examples in treatises and books on fortification and urban planning were referenced as models for town planning in numerous cities and places situated in the western and southern regions around the Baltic Sea and those bordering the North Sea near Northern Germany and Denmark. These regions included areas that belonged to Denmark during the reigns of Frederick II and Christian IV, and, for Northern Germany, the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein, Lower-Saxony, Vorpommeren, and Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Denmark Several important building masters from the Low Countries were active in the Danish empire under the successive rules of Frederick II, Christian IV, and Frederick III. These masters were especially active in the fields of architecture, urban development, and fortification as well as polder reclamation, land division, water management, and the construction of dikes.13 Copenhagen (fig. 1) From his coronation in 1596 to his death in 1648, Christian IV ordered many projects that transformed and expanded Copenhagen into the modern capital of his kingdom.14 He used mainly Dutch engineers to reach his goals. Therefore, many of these projects and ­partial realisations unsurprisingly featured models from the Dutch Republic and from the treatises and books by Samuel Marolois, Simon Stevin, and Nicolaus Goldmann. Although   This engineer was also involved in the reclamation of parts of Dollard (East Friesland) c.1600. Voogd s.a. 8   Westra 1992, 82–89; van den Heuvel 2004, 109–113. 9   van den Heuvel 2004, 111–113. 10   van den Heuvel 2004; Boffa 2004. 7

380

  Goudeau 2005.   Ahlberg 2011, 119. 13   Eimer 1961, 161–187. 14  Lorenzen 1937; Geurtsen & Bos 1981, 14–51; Roding 1991, 113–132. 11 12

Exporting Urban Models

1. Map of Copenhagen, 1659 (Copenhagen, Royal Library).

from the

Low Countries

2. Project for Christianshavn, 1 September 1617, by Johan Sems (Copenhagen, Royal Library).

these models were not necessarily imitated (which chronology even prevented in some cases), similar approaches towards typical problems associated with urban expansion and urban development, fortress building, and water works were evident, thus demonstrating the direct use of models. Here, attention will be focused on the areas developed by Christian IV – namely Christianshavn and Ny-København – in his attempt to expand Copenhagen. Royal Engineer Johan Sems (or Semp) presented the first design for a new city, dated 1 September 1617 (fig. 2).15 This remarkable design conceived of the city as an independent fortified metropolis with a centrally located canal that concurred with an eighth radian. The basic model was a regular decagon, but two bastions with abutting curtain walls were omitted to create a harbour frontage. Within the bastioned ramparts, the city was a rectangular structure comprising successive building blocks with a central square that served both as a ­marketplace and a parade ground. Eight radians transected the basic rectangular plan. Four bastions were directly linked to the central square. The second project, which was drafted at the end of 1617, differed from the first in that the ramparts had only six bastions and the canal ran parallel to the harbour channel. The market square was situated along the canal and the building blocks were now arranged in a checkerboard pattern that was more regular and compact. A main axis ran straight across the canal and flowed into the interior of the city, where an open harbour frontage (Strandgade) was located. This area featured merchant houses overlooking the quayside and the centre of the old city of Copenhagen. In this plan, lots were drawn in the building blocks. Each was fairly large (approximately 30 by 60 metres) so that houses could be erected along with industrial buildings, or the lot could be divided into sections by erecting two or three houses over its width. This latter possibility provided for land and building speculation. Numerous similarities existed between these plans and a drawing for a fortified city by Jean Errard de Bar-le-Duc, where a canal also ran through the city but over its entire length.16

 Johan Sems was born in 1572 in Franeker and died in 1635 in Groningen: Taverne 1978, 82–90. His drawing of Christianshavn is kept in Copenhagen, Royal Library, map collection. Skovgaard 1973, 107. 15

16

  Geurtsen & Bos 1981, 25.

381

Piet Lombaerde To a certain extent, several analogous structures in Simon Stevin’s urban development plan could also be traced. The second plan was executed from 1630 onwards. Several passages referenced Amsterdam in the realisation of this city. Copenhagen was even described as the Amsterdam of the Baltic Sea. A new exchange was built in 1622 opposite the Christianshavn on the quay of the old city. This project was based on the plan by Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger (1587–1639).17 While Johan Sems was entrusted with the diking of Bredstedt from 1630 onwards, his son Sem Johansz was called in to help and even replaced his father during absences. The Dutch engineer Abraham de la Haye was also involved in the building of the fortifications.18 Halfway through 1620, Paulus Buysser from the Dutch Republic joined in the building of the city.19 The realisation of his projects contributed to a revision of the fortification system around the city of Copenhagen. In 1600, Christian IV informed the city council that he wished to extend the fortifications of the city of Copenhagen “far beyond its boundaries”. This project involved more than twenty years of work, mainly executed by Dutch engineers. An espionage drawing by Heinrich Tomé, who was commissioned by the Swedish king to draw a plan of Copenhagen with a circular fortification, was of particular interest here.20 Tomé probably knew about the plan to expand the city. The expansion of the city was combined with the building of a new city, namely Ny-København. Abraham de la Haye was likely the author of this new expansion project. A plan of this city, which Lavedan attributed to Richard Douchette, could be found in the Royal Library in Copenhagen and dates from 1627.21 A radial-concentric construction based on an octagonal square was squeezed between the new ramparts, the citadel, the harbour frontage, and the fortifications of the old city. The building blocks were defined by sixteen streets running from the central square to the end of the city and the new mooring quays. However, only a part of this project was realised, namely the Nyboder area which comprised elongated building blocks divided into extended lots. During the reign of Frederick III, the option, made in 1640, was for a simpler urban development based on rectangular building blocks. Some twenty years later, in the north, the citadel of Frederikshavn was completed according to the plans of Hendrick Ruse from the Netherlands (fig. 3).22 This innovator in fortress building was appointed city architect of Amsterdam in 1652 and was very successful in Denmark with his new plan for the citadel in Frederikshavn. Plans were also drafted for expanding these fortifications to Christianshavn and thus expanding this new commercial centre. Therefore, these various phases of urban expansion always related to extending the fortifications of the city. This approach, in which urban development operations were linked to modernising the fortress construct­ ion system, was typical of the Low Countries, beginning with Antwerp in the middle of the sixteenth century and followed by numerous cities in the Republic, especially Amsterdam.

 Allgulin 1932; Werner 1915; Roding 2010, 241– 248. See also chapter 2.4 by Hugo Johannsen in this volume. 18   Taverne 1978, 88. 19   Roding 1991, 119. 17

382

  This map can be found in: Stockholm, Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner, Köpenhavn, no. 1. Roding 1991, 124. 21   Forchhammer 1949; Lavedan 1959, 402. 22   Ibidem, 403. 20

Exporting Urban Models

3. Project of the citadel of Copenhagen, c. 1663, by Hendrick Ruse (?), (Stockholm, Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner).

from the

Low Countries

4. Map of Christianopel (Blekinge), founded 1599. Plan drawn c. 1660 (Stockholm, Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner).

Halmstad Hans van Steenwinckel the Elder (c. 1550–1601) erected new fortifications in Halmstad (Halland).23 After 1601, they were completed by his sons Hans the Younger and Laurens (Lourens), and by Willem (Willum) Cornelissen. A fortification structure of regular bastions, preceded by a fausse-braye was shown on a map from a later date.24 Christianopel The building of the new city of Christianopel in Blekinge (in today’s Sweden) was begun in 1599 and 1600 (fig. 4).25 This fortified city was designed by Hans Van Steenwinckel the Elder and Willem Cornelissen.26 In July 1599, Willem De Graaf was appointed master builder to supervise the local building activities.27 The plan of this city was a typical example of a fortress erected on uneven terrain, namely on a narrow peninsula. The bastions were not all the same – some were wide, others pointed, and the curtain walls were of varying lengths. The plan of the town was rectangular with building blocks of various lengths. However, a square plaza was situated in the centre. The three main streets that ran parallel to one another were an interesting feature. These streets all had the same width and some side streets were even wider than the main streets. Moreover, none of them ran straight, thus one could never walk directly from the quay to the town wall opposite. Only the southern part of the city featured a large square, a market square with a church, and the king’s residence. The houses in the city were small and the plots narrow with their short side facing the street. This type of subdivision was typical in Flemish, Brabantine, Dutch, and German cities. The practice of considering an urban development plan together with the fortifications and regular placing of building blocks, lots, and houses was typical of engineers from the Low Countries and characteristic of the end of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.28

  Roding 1991, 31.  Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner Halstad nr.42. See Ahlberg 2005, 423–425. 25   Roding 1991, 33–36.

  Ahlberg 2005, 423.   Roding 1991, 33–36. 28  Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2011; van den Heuvel 2011, 27–44.

23

26

24

27

383

Piet Lombaerde Christianstad In 1614 King Christian IV of Denmark founded Christianstad (Kristianstad), another new city on the Scandinavian peninsula, in what after 1658 became Swedish territory (fig. 5). The project was probably set up by Paulus Buysser, Jacob Borbeck, and Christian van der Sluys, all of whom came from the Netherlands.29 The final plan is attributed to Johan Sems, who assisted in the building of Christianshavn. Once again, the models 5. Ground plan of Christianstadt (Skaane), 1616, by Johan Sems (Copenhagen, Royal Library). by Simon Stevin and Samuel Marolois likely influenced the project.30 Christianstad featured a rectangular plan. Four parallel streets ran lengthwise and four side streets intersected the long building blocks. A newly designed canal bisected the city. Two open squares were located on the longitudinal axis, as in Simon Stevin’s drawing, and were created by not filling up building blocks.31 The featured fortifications included bastions with straight retired flanks as well as a redan. These models could be recognized in Samuel Marolois’s treatise on military architecture.32 Schleswig-Holstein In Schleswig-Holstein, the most important advance in urban development occurred with the creation of the new city of Glückstadt, which was located near the estuary of the Elbe river, while the duchy was still subject to Danish rule. Founded by Christian IV in 1616,33 Glückstadt was not only a commercial centre but also clearly a boundary fortification of the Danish realm. Dutch engineers were particularly in demand here for the reclamation of marshlands, fortress building, the building of dikes, and harbour construction. Adriaan de Perc(h)eval built the fortifications in 1620 assisted by the ‘fortification master’ Abraham de la Haye. De Perceval had acquired experience while serving in the State Army. In 1610 he was quartermaster and in 1616 quartermaster-general.34 In 1625, he worked in the State Army as an engineer. He was clearly familiar with the theories on fortification and urban development taught at the Engineering School in Leiden. Abraham de la Haye originally came from Cleves and was responsible for the design of a new octagonal city to be built north of Copenhagen. In Glückstadt, he assisted De Perceval, but afterwards became engineer at the royal court of Christiaan IV.35 The basic design was a regular hexagon, partly adapted to the site, so that a canal bisected the town and the section towards the Elbe river was expanded. This design referenced several model solutions for the construction of a new city according to Simon Stevin. First, the contour of the fortifications revealed direct references to the model of a hexagonal sterckte (fortress) as defined in Simon Stevin’s Sterctenbouwing (1594).36 Second, Stevin’s   Roding 1991, 85.   Roding 1991, 89. 31   Concerning Simon Stevin’s drawing, see Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2011, XII. 32   Marolois 1615, plates 20, 21, 33 and 30. 33   Foundation charter dated 22 March 1616. Lorenzen, 1937, 329–354; Lavedan 1959, 253–254; Eimer 1961, 29 30

384

154–158; Skovgaard 1973, 105; Taverne 1978, 88; Roding 1991, 133–139. 34   Taverne 1978, 88. 35   Ibidem, 88; Lorenzen 1937, 32l; Thomassen 1965, 37. 36   Stevin 1594, 18.

Exporting Urban Models

from the

Low Countries

designs for a fortified city located on a creek or river might have inspired, at least where some elements were concerned, the connection between the fortifications, the city and the river; specifically, in the Nieuwe Maniere van Sterctebou, door Spilsluysen, it is suggested that the fortification should be placed as close to the shore as possible. The rampart canals are then drained by way of sluices. However, the layout of the street plan radically opposed what Stevin considered to be ideal. His city featured a checkerboard pattern, whereas the Glückstadt plan shows a radial-concentric pattern. This might actually relate to Samuel Marolois’s proposal for an hexagonal fortification.37 However, the canal that ran through the city centre, which was also found in Stevin’s ideal city, proves to be of greater importance for identifying De Perceval’s actual source. It suggests that the plan of Glückstadt was probably based on a concrete model published in the Tractatus Geometricus et Fortificationis (Arnhem, 1618) by Georg Gunther Kröll von Bemberg. This plan, which is indeed based on Simon Stevin’s typical hexagonal fortress, was elongated in one half of the polygon to create room for a plaza and for a possible later urban expansion. The author of this publication, which focused on the architecture of fortifications in volume three, dedicated the book to Christian IV.38 As Juliette Roding has mentioned, this treatise could be regarded as a compilation of the theorems of geometry and fortification as propounded at the time by the school in Leiden.39 Moreover, Johan Sems presumably used this treatise for the Christianshavn project and the radial plan for Copenhagen.40 The radial-concentric plan of Glückstadt also exhibited several similarities to the plan of Coevorden. Later expansions of the city executed between 1630 and 1648 were linked to an optimal fortification of both banks of the Elbe river, so that the interior of the city remained protected. These fortifications belonged to a Neustadt designed in 1630 by Willem van Steenwinckel. This expansion featured a grid structure and was fortified only in 1649 by Pieter de Perceval, son of Adriaen de Perceval.41 This Dutch quartermaster modernised the medieval city of Krempe, located south of Glückstad and up the Elbe river, on order, once again from the new Danish king Frederick III.42 The plan of Glückstadt could be compared, finally, with the plan of Gothenburg (Sweden), designed in 1608 and 1609 by Peter Nicolaes de Kemp (Petter Nicolaus de Kemp), an engineer from Utrecht.43 This engineer was appointed by the States General in 1592. Elector Friedrich von Brandenburg commissioned him to design the fortress of Pillau, together with Hans Fleming, who already in 1588 was involved in the building of Vadstena castle.44 Bredtstedt Johan Sems likely designed the plan for Bredstedt, founded in 1616 by Christian IV near the coast of the Boterga (fig. 6). In any case, he was responsible for the dike construction that was completed between 1618 and 1621.45 The single preserved plan shows a rectangular street map, 1200 ‘ulnae’ long and 800 wide, based on a grid of about twenty building blocks divided into regular rectangular lots.46 The main streets and side streets were equally wide. One building block remained undivided and, instead, served as an open plaza. A church was located in the middle section of the adjacent building block. Similarities to   Marolois 1615, plate 72.   This publication was also found in Jesuit libraries, e.g. in the library of the Domus Professa in Antwerp. See Fabri & Lombaerde 2008, 197. 39   Roding 1991, 138. 40   Ibidem, 139. 41   Taverne 1978, 89.

  Roding 1991, 28.  About Peter Nicolaes de Kemp, see: Westra 1992, 45–49; Ahlberg 2011, 113. 44   Eimer 1961, 251–308. 45   Roding 1991, 135–136. 46   Stockholm, Krigsarkivet: Stads- och Fästningsplaner, Tyskland, Bredsted, no. 1.

37

42

38

43

385

Piet Lombaerde

6. Bredstedt (Stockholm, Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner).

Simon Stevin’s urban development plan abound, namely the equal width of all the streets, the regular, symmetrical division into building blocks, and the reservation of some building blocks for public functions. A natural watercourse rather than a canal existed in the town.

7. Friedrichstadt (Stockholm, Krigsarkivet; Stadsoch Fästningsplaner).

Friedrichstadt Friedrichstadt (Holstein) was exemplary of the newly-founded cities discussed in this chapter (fig. 7). It was built to house a colony of Dutch Remonstrants. In 1624, they were given special privileges by Friedrich III von Gottorf and allowed to settle there.47 Johannes de Haen, a former pensionary from Haarlem, and especially Willem van den Hove were behind the founding. The latter even invested his entire fortune, primarily because of the commercial benefits he believed would result from establishing this new commercial centre on the North Sea. The city was situated on higher territory located between the Eider and the Treene rivers, probably by the Dutch engineer and surveyor, Reimer Reimers. Construction began in 1621. The street plan was a simple grid structure with a market square in the centre. As in Stevin’s plan, this square was an left-open building block. A connecting canal ran along this square between Wester and Ooster Sielzug, the so-called Mittelburggraben. A diked-in harbour was located near the city canal, the Fürstenburggraben. The most important buildings, such as the town hall and the church, were located along the canal. Another diagonal canal was located behind the central one, with ordinary houses placed along it. This city is an important case study because the original building regulations are preserved. These regulations reveal that a great deal of attention was focused on the division of the building blocks. A distinction was made between six categories relating to location in the city and the width of the lots, which varied from six meters to 9.6 meters. The sovereign initiated the building of 100 houses for ‘manual workers’. Originally, the town had only a sconce for defense, which was later replaced by bastioned ramparts all the way around.

  Eimer 1961, 531–532.

47

386

Exporting Urban Models

8. Map of Emden (from: G. Braun and F. Hogenberg, Civitates Orbis Terrarum, II, Cologne 1575, 32).

from the

Low Countries

9. Ground plan of Bremen, with a proposal for a city enlargement on the opposite side of the river Weser (Stockholm, Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner).

Lower Saxony Emden For the expansion of its port, new bastioned ramparts were built around Emden, a trading centre on the Ems river, in 1568 (fig. 8). The fortifications included a grid pattern of new streets and were inspired by the example of the Nieuwstad in Antwerp. A new town hall was established, also following the Antwerp example. Hans van Steenwinckel the Elder and his father Laurens worked on this town hall from 1567 onwards, using the Antwerp town hall as a model.48 From 1585, Hans van Steenwinckel worked in Copenhagen and on the Halmstadt defences, and by 1599, he was involved with the construction of the new city of Christianopel (see also chapter 2.4). Bremen (fig. 9) The Dutch engineer Johan van Rijswijk executed several new fortifications around the medieval Hanseatic city of Bremen.49 At regular intervals, this engineer, who was employed by the representative councils of Zeeland, was commissioned to build fortifications in the German region for the counts of Lippe. In 1601, he worked in Bremen for 27 days and was paid 100 rixdollars.50 Again in 1603 and in 1607, he continued work on the new Bremen fortifications. He even wrote a small work on the Bremen fortifications with the title Bedenken wegen Bremen. In 1608, he also worked in Hamburg. Whether Van Rijswijck was also responsible for the construction of the Neue Stadt on the right bank of the river Weser remains unknown. Numerous developments in the construction of this city are comparable to those in the Nieuwstad in Antwerp, including the way the new building sites were arranged and situated between parallel canals that ended perpendicular to the banks of the river, andthe so-called ‘enclosed square’ which resembles the Antwerp Stadswaag. A drawing of Bremen by the Swedish engineer Frans de Traytorrens has survived (fig. 10).51 Although this engineer was of Scottish extraction, he was quite familiar with Dutch fortifications, as is evident in two of his remaining sketchbooks. The oldest sketchbook   Allgulin 1932; Roding 1991, 27; Roding 1996, 98–101.   On Johan Van Rijswijck, see Westra 1992, 49–53.

  Westra 1992, 78.   On Frans de Traytorrens, see Ahlberg 2011, 102–103, 120.

48

50

49

51

387

Piet Lombaerde

10. Ground plan of Bremen, 1627, by Frans de Traytorrens (Stockholm, Krigsarkivet, Handritade kartverk, no. 22).

11. Ground plan of Rostock (Stockholm, Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner).

f­eatures thirty-seven maps of cities including Antwerp, Coevorden, and Willemstad. The second sketchbook includes his aforementioned design sketch for Bremen from 1627. Mecklenburg Wismar Philip Brandin, the master builder from Utrecht working in the service of Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg (see chapters 2.2 and 2.3) was also active as a hydraulic engineer.52 From 1579 he lived in Wismar. Here he drafted his plans for the supply of drinking water, which were realised between 1579 and 1602. His task was to rebuild in stone and expand the existing supply system that channelled spring water from Metelsdorf to the marketplace by way of wooden pipes.53 Accordingly, large quantities of stone from Gotland were imported. However, conflicts over payment between the city council and the population slowed down the work. Unfortunately, Brandin did not live to see his work completed in 1602 as he died in 1594. Approximately two hundred and twenty houses and sixteen public fountains were supplied with water thanks to this project. Lübeck and Rostock From the point of view of fortification, the cities of Lübeck and Rostock provided examples of two typical adaptations of the older, late-medieval ramparts to the new bastioned system. These modifications were also typical of the Low Countries. In Lübeck as much of the medieval ramparts as possible was included in the new bastioned system. The Dutch engineer Johan van Rijswijck was probably responsible for the work, because he stayed in this city for the construction of the fortifications between 1604 and 1605.54 This visit coincided almost exactly with his activities in the building of fortifications in Bremen. In Rostock, the new bastioned system was drastically placed right in front of the existing medieval ramparts (fig. 11). This arrangement resulted in a double wall around   Gehring 1921.   Techen 1919, 60–67; Berndt 1992, 8.

52 53

388

54

  Westra 1992, 78–79.

Exporting Urban Models

from the

Low Countries

the city, which was highly advantageous in case of artillery attacks and shooting from the breach. Models of this design could be found in Adam Freitag’s Architectura Militaris (1642) published by Elzevier in Leiden.55 Pommern Stettin / Szczecin After 1628, Stettin came under the special attention of the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf. Stettin has received ample a­ ttention in the history of urban d ­evelopment and 12. Ground plan of Stettin, 1631, by David Portius ­fortification building because it was here that (Stockholm, Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner, the national Swedish engineers replaced the Tyskland, Stettin). imported Dutch engineers and ­fortification builders or those who originally came development from the Netherlands.56 This ­ resulted in the founding of the first engineering school in Sweden. The Dutch contractors Noe Janssen and Harm Klaassen realised Stettin’s first fortification and expansion plans,57 under the supervision of the engineers David Portius and Frans de Traytorrens. Portius, who originally hailed from Germany but had been in the service of Prince Maurits of Orange since 1624, was responsible for the initial urban development and fortification plans. He was also an excellent draughtsman and cartographer. He created a beautiful bird’s-eye-view map of Breda for Prince Maurits.58 His typical drawing style was evident in numerous designs for Stettin (which included the same b ­ eautiful scale bar as in the map of Breda).59 He began working for Sweden following the siege of ’s-­Hertogenbosch in 1629. Portius began by building a new rampart around the city and adding a new city to the south (fig. 12). The typical straight bastions and the use of brattice work referred to Samuel Marolois’s Dutch examples. However, this new city was not successful. On the other side of the river Oder, the original suburb of Lastadie was preserved and surrounded by straight walls preceded by small, straight bastions. This type of fortification was also found in the work of Simon Stevin, Samuel Marolois, and Adam Freitag.60 In the north, the Feldlager was placed within a simple straight wall with so-called clapmutsen (lozenge-shaped redoubts), as seen in Simon Stevin’s work on the siege of cities.61 For the extension of the old city on the other side of the river Oder, the Swedish engineer Frans de Traytorrens drew his own design, which could be viewed as utopian, in 1630.62 The design combined a radial-concentric and a checkerboard pattern. Eimer believed that the model of Jean Errard de Bar-le-Duc   Freitag 1640, fig. 95. Similar solutions can also be found in several drawings in the teaching notes of Frans Van Schooten the Elder and his successors. 56   Eimer 1961, 196–209; Ahlberg 2005, 50–54. 57   Eimer 1961, 198. 58   Zandvliet 2000, 420. 55

  Stockholm, Krigsarkivet: Stads- och Fästningsplaner, Tyskland, Stettin, nos. 3, 17, 19 and 55. 60   Marolois 1615, plate 23; Freitag 1640, fig. 75; Stevin 1649, 16–17 . 61   van den Heuvel 2004, 45. 62   Stockholm, Krigsarkivet: Stads - och Fästningsplaner, Tyskland, Stettin, no. 47. 59

389

Piet Lombaerde was ­probably used for the radial-concentric part of the extension. This model appeared in his treatise La fortification démontrée et réduite en art, first published in 1594.63 The similarities lay mainly in the placing of the secondary rectangular plazas on one of the concentrically situated streets around the main plaza. Stralsund A beautiful perspective view of Stralsund was drawn in 1647.64 A great deal of attention was focused on the regular design of the city’s houses. As such, a further study should be made of the regu13. Ground plan of Kolberg (Stockholm, lations which resulted in these regular Krigsarkivet; Stads- och Fästningsplaner, Tyskland, blocks of buildings and to what extent they Kolberg). were associated with Dutch customs. The fortification building system featured local ­ adaptations of medieval ramparts to the bastion systems, including the addition of redans, bastions with straight line and retired flanks, and even brattice work was drawn. Models of such arrangements could be found particularly in the work of Marolois.65 Kolberg (Colberg) (fig.13) Kolberg was fortified by the imperial troops in 1627. Little has been found out about the engineers who were involved. Both the city map and the associated method of fortification require further study regarding the possible involvement of the Low Countries. The city came into Swedish hands in 1631, but after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the city was included in Brandenburg. The involvement of Flemish and Dutch engineers such as Anthonis van Opbergen, Simon Stevin, Hans Vredeman de Vries, and Nicolaes de Kemp in several cities in Eastern Prussia, such as Gdan´  sk, Torun, Elbing, Johannisburg, Neidenburg, and Pillau could be discussed here as well because, once again, in these former German and Hanseatic cities problems of fortification, hydraulic engineering, and urban development were considered as a whole.66 Several models from the Netherlands – such as the design by Georg Gunther Kröll and the plan of an ideal city according to Steven – certainly seem relevant , but their interpretation must always be carefully considered. The cities of Danziger Haupt and Montauer Spitz could serve as examples.67

  Errard de Bar-le-Duc 1617, Book III, 136.   Stockholm, Krigsarkivet: Stads- och Fästningsplaner, Tyskland, Stralsund, no. 249. 65   Marolois 1615, plates 96, 103. 63 64

390

 A number of those cities are described by Eimer 1961; Lombaerde 2006, 44; Ahlberg 2005 and 2011. 67  Stockholm, Krigsarkivet: Sveriges krig 6:3 st f and 6:7. Ahlberg 2005, 68–69, 161–62. 66

Exporting Urban Models

from the

Low Countries

Conclusion Apart from the specialisation in various branches of architecture, both military and civil, the global approach of Dutch engineers to the problems of urban development was highly valued. Defence, the building of streets, the creation of building blocks, water works, dikes, and architecture were all fundamental components of a city – and certainly of a new city. However, the Netherlandish engineers and architects who worked in Denmark and Northern Germany did not simply apply extant knowledge and experience; they experimented as well. Two phases may be distinguished. First, an initial phase from 1565 to 1585 witnessed the invitation of engineers and fortification builders mostly from the Southern Low Countries to initiate a limited number of urban expansions coupled with the construction of a new bastioned rampart or new fortresses adapted to the bastion system. Examples include Laurens and Hans van Steenwinckel the Elder, and slightly later on, Hans van Steenwinckel the Younger and Anthonis van Opbergen. During a second phase, after 1590, Christian IV and various North German princes commissioned Dutch engineers and architects in particular to construct fortifications and hydraulic works as well as urban expansions, and even new cities. Between 1617 and 1630, a profusion of Dutch engineers was involved in many typical engineering works such as urban extension, fortification, hydraulic works, and the reclamation of lands. Johan Sems, Abraham de la Haye, Hendrick Ruse, Adriaan de Perceval, Johan van Rijswijck, Philip Brandin and David Portius stand as examples of this phenomenon.

391

1. Map of Eksjö, in the inland of the southern part of Sweden, by the landsurveyor Petter Johan Duker in 1699. The central part, north of the square, was probably the oldest, dating from the relocation of the town around 1569 for which Arendt de Roy was responsible (Stockholm, National Archives, RA: LSA E29-1:5).

Chapter 4.3 Sweden 1521–1721: Town Planning

and the

Low Countries

Nils Ahlberg (Freelancing researcher, writer and lecturer)

The extent of Swedish town planning was unparalleled in Europe in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Nevertheless, town planning was based on common European ideals with strong influences from the Low Countries.1 From the early sixteenth century, Sweden underwent a process of radical change and emerged as a great power in Northern Europe at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The revolt against Danish rule in 1521 signified the formation of Sweden as a nation-state and the definite end of the late medieval Nordic Union. The reformation of the church to a Lutheran state church began in the mid1520s. Strong efforts were undertaken to develop the economy and modernise the administration as society underwent great changes. Foreign expertise was brought in while significant cultural influences came from continental Europe – in particular from Germany and the Low Countries, but also from Italy and, later, France. Finland had been part of the country since the thirteenth century. Sweden aimed to gain control over the Russian trade in the Baltic region, and in 1561, a first part of Estonia became Swedish. This acquisition began a period of wars with Denmark-Norway, Poland, Russia and others, and an era of Swedish conquests around the Baltic. For varying periods, Estonia and parts of today’s Russia, Latvia, Poland, and Northern Germany were under Swedish rule. During the Thirty Years’ War, the Swedish armies controlled areas far south in Germany. Swedish interests even reached as far as North America and the coasts of Africa. In the 1640s and 1650s, the south and west coasts of present-day Sweden were conquered from Denmark. The Great Nordic War (1700–1721) ended this period of conquest when Sweden lost the southeast corner of Finland and the holdings on the east side of the Baltic, and Russia regained access to the Baltic Sea. The influences from the Low Countries came in many different ways: in trade and industry, especially mining and metal manufacturing; in the arts of town planning, fortification, and warfare; and later, in architecture, garden design, painting, and the arts generally. This influence came through writings, experts in Swedish service, immigrants, and imported goods. The knowledge brought in also concerned canal and sluice b ­ uilding, Frequently cited archival sources: Stockholm, The Military Archives (Krigsarkivet, KrA) KrA: Handritade kartverk 22 [by Frans (Franciscus) de Traytorrens] KrA: Handritade kartverk 27 [by Frans (Franciscus) de Traytorrens] KrA: Stads- och fästningsplaner (SFP) KrA: Sveriges krig Stockholm, National Archives (Riksarkivet, RA) RA: Lantmäteristyrelsen Renovationsarkivet (LSA) [Before 2008 Lantmäteriverkets arkiv (LMV), situated in Gävle]  RA: Överintendensämbetets arkiv (ÖIÄ), Kartavdelningen

 This chapter is based on Ahlberg 2005. The basic discussion and a full set of sources can be found here. It covers all Swedish town planning in the areas under Swedish rule, but also places outside this, that were obviously of interest to the Swedish crown. 175 sites are studied and in total 338 projects and slightly more than 600 individual town plans. In a separate volume some 370 maps are reproduced in colour. For the present chapter the contacts with the Low Countries have been highlighted and further explored.

1

393

Nils Ahlberg shipbuilding, bookkeeping and public administration, international trading, colonial settlements, and many other things. New constructions, town plan changes, and fortifications Towns and town planning played a central role in the modernisation of the country. Sweden-Finland had few medieval towns, none of which were in the northernmost two thirds of the country. The foundations of new towns and changes to the old ones were perceived as vital tools for economic development, political control, and increased income for the crown – or what today would be called regional development policy. Necessary centres for trade and administration in remote areas prompted a clear policy from an early stage – that is, to fill in with new towns along the northern coast of Sweden and a line diagonally through Central Sweden, connecting the important mining districts and the waterways to the west coast. Later, new towns were founded along the northern coast of Finland and in the areas conquered from Denmark on the south and west coasts. Apart from a few early examples, intensive town planning activity began in the mid1500s and continued with a slow, if irregular, increase for the rest of the century. However, the major rise in activity began in the early seventeenth century and reached a marked peak in the 1640s and early 1650s. A fall in activity followed, resulting in a continuous decrease for the rest of the century, with the interruption of a small rise in the beginning of the 1680s.2 Town planning included all types of towns, from the smallest to the capital city. Planning occurred throughout the country, including areas that were only periodically under Swedish control. Still today most older towns in Sweden and Finland developed their basic character during this period. Three main categories of town planning measures existed during this period: new constructions, town plan changes to existing towns, and measures relating to fortification. New constructions involved building the town from nothing and included both new foundations and the relocation of older towns. All together, new constructions accounted for one hundred projects, of which three quarters were new foundations. The new constructions continued from the period of medieval urban expansion and ceased towards the end of the seventeenth century. More than 80 percent of the new town constructions were found in Sweden-Finland proper.3 Town plan changes began later, in approximately 1610, but persisted into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Nearly one hundred and seventy town plan changes were produced during this period, and they consisted of three types of measures: redevelopment of plans in living towns, where new streets were laid out, plots were shifted, houses were moved; extensions; and, in some cases, the creation of separate suburbs. Almost two thirds of the redevelopments concerned the whole or the main part of the town. Often these types of changes, especially redevelopment and extension, were combined in a single plan. The town plan changes, like the new constructions, were concentrated in Sweden-Finland, but to a lesser extent (just above 65 percent).4 Town planning included not only the layout of streets, open spaces, and plots, but also the arrangement and use of land. A third town planning category consists of measures relating to fortifications. The arts of town planning and fortification were closely connected, 2  In Ahlberg 2005 there is a list of all the t­ownplanning projects in appendix 2, vol. 1, 812–840, and a bar graph showing the new projects and different types of town-planning measures per decade in vol. 2, 195.

394

3 4

  Ahlberg 2005, 57–76, 374.   Ahlberg 2005, 77–110, 374.

Sweden 1521–1721: Town Planning

and the

Low Countries

which is evident from the many ideal city plans and treatises on ideal cities published during this period. Additionally, the Netherlandish contributions to Swedish urban planning largely included fortifications. The overwhelming majority of these measures consisted of fortifications around the towns, including sixty-five projects for fortifications only, in addition to the ninety fortifications included as part of new constructions and town plan changes. A few plans also required the demolition of blocks to create open land next to fortifications. With a few exceptions, these fortification plans were developed between 1610 and 1700 and mainly belonged to the overseas territories (about 75 percent).5 European town planning worldwide Common ideas on town planning circulated throughout Europe, beginning with Italian Renaissance writings on ideal city planning, and later developed in other countries. By the end of the sixteenth century, the Low Countries achieved a leading position in town planning. In fact, town planning was, to a large extent, executed in three areas of the world: in Northern Europe, with numerous plans in the Swedish empire and a smaller number in Denmark-Norway, in the colonial towns of the Americas, and in the Far East. New foundations were rare in continental Europe. The few examples are mainly fortified border towns resulting from wars, and some distinguished cities for monarchs or political leaders. Few, if any, complete redevelopments of entire towns were carried out. Instead, smaller redevelopments, consisting of single streets or squares, were the norm. The main type of town plan change was the extension. Numerous plans for fortifications existed as well. However, many new towns were founded in the colonies, and later on extensions occurred. Fortifications were not common in the Americas, but were more frequent in the Far East. The situation in the colonies was in fact similar to Sweden-Finland in that urban centres were needed to develop the economy and to control remote areas. The strong, centralised powers of the crown in Sweden and Spain, and the East Indian and West Indian Companies (VOC and WIC) in the Dutch Republic were important factors as well. The sixteenth century: royal castles and a few towns Already at the start of this era, a number of foreigners were recruited to work on a series of royal castles.6 These foreigners were master builders who were also fortification builders and, in several cases, sculptors, interior decorators, and versatile artists. The castles were built primarily for defence reasons but from now on also as grand royal palaces that served as the setting for a court life based on new, continental Renaissance models. Old castles were enlarged and modernised with new state apartments and outer fortifications, such as at Stockholm and Kalmar, and new castles were built at Gripsholm, Uppsala, and Vadstena. The German Friedrich Mussdorfer was the first foreign master builder, having arrived in 1531. A few years later, Heinrich van Cöllen (or von Köllen), from either Germany or the Low Countries, worked at the castle in Kalmar, a border town on the southeast coast, and later at Gripsholm and in Uppsala. He introduced a system of outer defensive walls and roundels at the corners, but his architecture remained old-fashioned, which was obvious at Gripsholm.   Ahlberg 2005, 111–124, 375.

5

 If nothing else is stated, the basic facts on the master builders and other individuals in this section are based on Ahlberg 2005 and Munthe 1916.

6

395

Nils Ahlberg Willem Boy (or Guillaume Boyen or Boyens), who probably came from Mechelen and was trained in Antwerp, appeared in the accounts in 1558 as a painter, but later worked as a sculptor and, from the late 1570s, as a master builder. He remained in Swedish service for thirty-four years, until his death in Stockholm in 1592. He worked on the renewal of the Stockholm royal castle. However, his most well-known work was the monument of King Gustav I in Uppsala Cathedral built between 1570 and 1572 (see page 60, fig. 3). A German master builder began the Vadstena castle in 1545 as a four-sided fortification with roundels at the corners. However, the castle acquired a more palatial character in the 1550s, with a main building along the north side, which resulted in a character more unified than the other castles. In 1559, Arendt de Roy (or Roij), probably from the Low Countries, became the first stationary master builder and added the upper floors to the main building (see page 61, fig. 5).7 De Roy was also the first to have been engaged in town planning. Around 1569, he was charged with the relocation of the medieval town of Eksjö in southeast inland Sweden and the rebuilding of one or possibly two more towns that were burnt in a war with Denmark. Eksjö featured parallel long streets with short cross-streets only through parts of the town area, not the entire width, which suggests an immature variant of the gridiron plan. Eksjö could hence be considered a ‘quadrangular’ plan because the streets formed four-sided blocks that varied in size, but not a complete grid of streets (fig. 1). Proper gridiron plans, where the streets pass through the whole town in both directions, first appeared in the 1580s (such as at Mariestad in 1583 and Karlstad in 1584), but remained somewhat irregular at this time.8 Upon De Roy’s death in 1590, Hans Fleming became master builder at Vadstena. He came probably from Namur and had worked in Lübeck since the late 1560s. In the 1580s, he travelled to Sweden where he stayed until his death in 1623 (see chapter 2.3). He worked on several castles and buildings, sculptural works, town plans, and fortifications. At Vadstena, he finished the upper part of the main building with two richly carved gables.9 The first Göteborg of 1608 – the beginning of a new era Until the middle of the seventeenth century, Sweden possessed only a narrow strip of land on the west coast, alongside the Göta älv River, squeezed in between the territories of Denmark and Norway. A strong, fortified town with a good harbour at the mouth of the river was thus of utmost importance to the Swedish crown for both military and commercial reasons. The location for a new town was i­nvestigated at several occasions in the s­ ixteenth century. In the early 1570s, the master builder Ludwig von Hoffwen (whose nationality is uncertain) was ordered to make a plan for a town ‘in square’, which ­probably meant straight streets at approximate right angles. In 1583, a Dutchman named Arent Hofslag offered to build a Dutch colony town in the area for the king. However, neither of these projects were executed.10 Göteborg was founded to develop trade and export, and to attract Dutch colonists. Hans Fleming worked on two castles along the river and seems to have produced a plan for the town in 1603. In 1605, an envoy was sent to Holland and two years after, a delegation of Dutch colonists settled in the new town. Later the same year, the responsibility for

  Unnerbäck 1996, 21, 221.   Ahlberg 2005, 128–129.

  Unnerbäck 1996, 226–230.   Lilienberg 1928, 74–79, 149.

7

9

8

10

396

Sweden 1521–1721: Town Planning

and the

Low Countries

2. Design for the first Göteborg, situated on the north side of the river, a bit further out than today’s Göteborg. The drawing probably shows the approved plan by Peter Nicholas de Kemp in 1608, in a copy from 1609 (Stockholm, The Military Archives, KrA: SFP Göteborg 74a).

the planning was handed over to the Dutchman Peter Nicolaus de Kemp.11 A town plan was approved the following year. A trading company was formed, the town charter finalised, and a brickyard established. The first governing body in 1607 consisted of ten Dutchmen, seven Swedes, and one Scotsman. After some years, De Kemp left, and the planning was returned to Fleming (fig. 2).12 Three maps from 1609 show this epoch-making plan.13 The plan of Göteborg was the first right-angle gridiron plan in Swedish town planning, which inaugurated ideal city planning ‘in reality’. The sophisticated, semi-circular plan features a symmetrical design with a central axis, a protected harbour by the river, and strong surrounding fortifications. The plots are marked on one of the blocks. For the first time, the plan featured a double row of plots and, in this case, with an extra plot at the short sides. The older, medieval system features a single row of narrow plots across the entire width of the block. The plan showed similarities with the small Dutch fortress town of Willemstad, which was begun in 1583.

 Taverne 1978, 98; Westra 1992, 45–49; Ahlberg 2011, 113. Kemp, from Utrecht, was in 1593 appointed engineer to the States General of the Dutch Republic. Later he moved to Brandenburg, working a.o. at the 11

fortification of Pillau. In 1605 he left the duke’s service and went to Sweden. 12   Lilienberg 1928, 127–128; Carlsson et al 1967, 144. 13   KrA: SFP Göteborg 74a, 74b and 74c.

397

Nils Ahlberg A round church appears to the side of the main town in the plan. Apparently the church was assumed to have a central space with a lantern at the top, separated from a circular aisle by a ring of eight columns, and with a portico to the west. The pulpit was probably placed in the centre. This configuration appeared only shortly after the octagonal church in Willemstad, which was the first Dutch church purpose-built for Protestant worship; it was constructed between 1597 and 1607. Here, Prince Maurits himself specifically requested a round or eight-sided church.14 A rougher copy of the maps shows an alternative design that instead featured a square building with towers at the corners.15 Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) Crown Prince Gustav Adolf was approximately fifteen years old at the time of the first Göteborg. As king, he would later bring Sweden into the Thirty Years’ War. He received an excellent royal education, which included modern warfare, fortification, and town planning. He maintained numerous international contacts, fluently spoke six languages including Dutch, and possessed knowledge of another five. In 1609, the young prince began governing the country after his father suffered a stroke. Two years later, Denmark attacked Sweden and the king died shortly thereafter. In the war, which ended in 1613, the three main border towns of Kalmar, Jönköping, and the not yet finished Göteborg were burnt.16 The reign of Gustav II Adolf (1611–1632) marked the most important phase for town planning and urban development, even though the peak years of activity followed a couple of decades later. Principles were laid down, the paths were staked out and the work was begun during this period. New ideas were brought in and attempted. New laws and ordinances were introduced and this continued after the king’s death. In 1628, the National Land Survey was created, and in 1635 the Fortifications Administration was reorganized. The first ‘national antiquarian’ was appointed in 1630, which was the origin of today’s Swedish National Heritage Board. The town plans show knowledge of the most modern town planning in continental Europe, especially the Dutch Republic, and familiarity with theories of ideal city planning. The actual plans produced demonstrate a wide range in size and design. While most plans were small or medium-sized, simple ones, large and magnificent ones existed as well. They spread throughout the Swedish empire and concerned all categories of towns. Gustav Adolf described Maurits of Orange as his master in the art of warfare. In 1618, Simon Stevin corresponded with the king, and Dutch contacts were maintained through people working for the Swedes. As early as 1611, the king had started to engage Dutch fortification experts systematically. Books and prints were bought from Amsterdam and other places.17 1610s: rebuilding after the ‘Kalmar War’ The king regarded Kalmar as the foremost border stronghold of the country and ordered a modern plan “like in well-built towns in Germany” for the rebuilding. Defence took first priority in the planning. He also asked for buildings “in stone” (that is, brick). At the time, Stockholm was the only Swedish town built in stone. Until the end of the nineteenth century, almost all Swedish towns consisted of low, wooden buildings. In November  Ozinga 1929, 12–19; Hamberg 1955, 81; van Tussenbroek 2006, 123–132; Snaet 2007, 255. 15   KrA: SFP Göteborg 74c. 14

398

16 17

  Lagerqvist 1982, 163-165; SBL.   Ehrensvärd 2006, 190–191.

Sweden 1521–1721: Town Planning 1613, the engineer Andries Sersander was sent to Kalmar to draw up the new plan. He belonged to a noble family from Flanders and came to Sweden in 1612. He then stayed in Swedish service until his death four years later (fig. 3). The new plan was a radial layout surrounded by fortifications, the first Swedish example of such and the only one within the present-day borders of Sweden. The radial plan was a favourite type of plan in the writings on ideal city planning since the Italian Renaissance, but few were built in reality. Radial plans were thought to be particularly good for defence reasons because they provided excellent internal communications to all fortification points. However, radial plans were impractical when it came to the buildings and for maintaining commerce. Some fifteen radial projects have been found in Swedish town planning, most of which were designed in the 1670s and 1680s, and mainly located in the overseas territories. Nothing remains of the Kalmar plan today. In the 1640s, the town was relocated to an island further north in order to create free space around the castle. Jönköping, the inland border town in Southern Sweden, possessed a strategic location at the south end of Lake Vättern, where several main roads met. However, the town was not fortified in the Middle Ages. Hans Fleming was in charge of the rebuilding. Initially, a redevelopment on the old spot was discussed but in 1613 it was resolved to move the town a short distance to the east, further away from the castle. The ground in the new location was low-lying and largely waterlogged, so a Netherlandish canal plan was deemed appropriate. This first plan was only partly built and not completely regular (fig. 4). A series of alternative plans for a large extension were developed from 1617 through the early 1620s. These plans ­featured a semi-circular town area surrounded by Netherlandishstyle fortifications. The plan was a strict grid and contained a r­ectangular canal and a rectangular harbour basin within the town. The

and the

Low Countries

3. Drawing of Kalmar, the border town in the southeast, in 1636, showing the design in 1613 by Andries Sersander for the redevelopment of the burnt medieval town (Stockholm, The Military Archives, KrA: Handritade kartverk 11, no. 10).

4. Design for the extension of Jönköping, the inland border town in south Sweden, probably from 1619. The blocks along the lake (that is, to the north, at the bottom near the signature of the king) belonged to the first stage of development after the town was relocated in 1613 (Stockholm, The Military Archives, KrA: SFP Jönköping 42).

399

Nils Ahlberg plan that was approved by the king featured a large, centralised church with a square main body and a small semi-circular projection on each side that gave it a cross shape.18 The church measured about 50 metres across according to the town plan. This plan has been associated with the Swedish officer Arvid Hand because in 1620 he was sent to Jönköping to be present when Hans Fleming staked out a plan that was sent to him. Hand travelled the continent extensively and served in the life guard of Prince Maurits of Orange. However, he did not belong to the fortification staff and is not known to have worked on any other town planning. He died in 1621 and Fleming died two years later.19 A map from 1625 shows 5. Göteborg after the relocation in 1619–1621. Map from that some changes were then made to the the second half of the 1620s. South at the head (Stockholm, design. Nearly half of the plan was completed, The Military Archives, KrA: SFP Göteborg 84). including the inner harbour and parts of the canal, but the fortifications remained unfinished. Today, only the basic structure remains. An extension of Norrköping built in 1613 was the first right-angle, gridiron plan in a non-fortified town and the oldest one still surviving. In that same year, Norrköping became the capital of a duchy; thus, the plan included a fortified palace for the duke. The Netherlandish connection is the contribution of Hans Fleming to the design of the town plan and the palace. Additionally, a few years later Norrköping began to develop as an industrial centre through Willem de Besche, who immigrated to Sweden in 1595. He hailed from a family of architects and merchants from Liège and Antwerp. Soon other members of the family moved to Sweden as well, and they became important industrialists and master builders/architects.20 De Besche was a business partner of Louis De Geer, and in 1627 he also moved to Sweden. Initially, he settled in Norrköping, where he built a large brick house, but later he moved to Stockholm (see chapter 2.1).21 The rebuilding of Göteborg stalled for a few years. The area was given back in 1619, only after a very large ransom was paid to the Danes. Loans were taken to fund this ransom and the export of above all copper was increased; in both cases, the Netherlands played a main role.22 Thus, Göteborg was transferred to its present location south of the river and further inland. Hans Fleming designed the initial plan but little is known about this. The following year, probably, a completely new plan was drawn, which was finalised in 1621. The designer has remained unknown. Perhaps the two Dutch building contractors Johan van Arendz (Jan Aertsen/Aertsz) and Jost van Wierdt (Joost van Werdt/van Weerdt) were involved somehow. Requests from the king’s envoy in Holland and possibly settlers also influenced the plan’s layout (fig. 5).23 The town was built on low-lying land behind three steep rocks by the river between which a wide main canal entered and two more canals formed at right angles to the main one. The streets formed a rectilinear grid and strong, Netherlandish-type fortifications encircled   KrA: SFP Jönköping 42.   SBL. 20   Munthe 1916, 145–147.

  Noldus 2004, 58.   Carlsson et al. 1967, 34, 144. 23   Ahlberg 2005, 413–418; Lilienberg 1923, 148–198.

18

21

19

22

400

Sweden 1521–1721: Town Planning the town. To the east, an alternative design suggested a pentagonal fortress that was never built. In 1622, trees were bought from Holland to be planted alongside the canals, which is the first known example of planted trees on the streets and in the open spaces of a Swedish town. The construction of the fortifications soon slowed and was not finished until the early 1640s. Today, the side canals have been filled in and most of the walls and bastions demolished but otherwise the plan has been well preserved. Batavia (Jakarta), founded in 1619, paralleled Göteborg (fig. 6).24 rom the mid-1620s: right-angle F gridiron plans

and the

Low Countries

6. Batavia (Indonesia), founded by the Dutch in 1619, the same year as the relocation of Göteborg (Gilles Venant 1629, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam: Brommer 1992, 4, cat. BAT M06; from: Temminck Groll 2002, 129).

After 1625, new plans became right-angle gridirons as a rule. Generally, rectangular shapes were desired, but only for non-fortified towns, and symmetry and uniformity were sought as far as possible, as well as streets of equal width throughout the town. From this point onwards, the blocks were, as a rule, divided in double rows of plots, and in many cases, a single row of plots turned perpendicular to the main double rows formed the end of the blocks. Simon Stevin’s influence could be seen here, at least generally. His famous ideal city plan (1605–1610) featured the grid layout, the rectangular town area, streets of equal width, and the double-row plot system (but without the perpendicular plots at the short sides). On the other hand, this arrangement occurred in many sources, and a quadrangular shape came naturally with a grid in a non-fortified town. In a few individual plans, special traits occur that resemble Stevin’s work – in particular, the rectangular canal in Jönköping. The project for the small fortress town Vättelanda in 1667 also resembled a Stevin drawing.25 Stevin also advocated for a quadratic form for the blocks, which was rare in Sweden, and a rectangular shape for fortified towns, which in Swedish planning only occurred in a few small fortress towns. Absolute symmetry – especially mirror symmetry built around a central transverse axis with public buildings and open spaces – was uncommon, even though marked central streets occurred in several cases, but normally as a longitudinal axis only. Additionally, the long rows of small bastions and, particularly, the elongated bastions at the corners of the town did not correspond. The majority of Swedish seventeenth-century town plans were simple and straight-forward. Frequently, they have been described as stereotypical, monotonous, stiff, and lacking aesthetic pretensions. However, this is inaccurate. These noted solutions were the only practical answers if the aim was to build numerous new towns in remote areas and modernise existing towns in a short period. Spanish towns in the Americas exhibit similar solutions. Even with common traits, a significant diversity with well thought out details persisted. No two towns were identical; rather, most of them demonstrated variations and modifications according to topography and existing conditions. Normally, sides facing a lake, river, or hill were   Temminck Groll 2002, 128–130.

24

 Published in van den Heuvel 2005, 373, ill. 49, letter B. 25

401

Nils Ahlberg not straight lines.26 However, this pragmatic adjusting to what was possible and realistic, could very well be seen as a Netherlandish trait. A direct connection with Simon Stevin came through Johan Carels (Carols/ Charle/Charl) whose sister married Stevin. In 1618, Carels entered Swedish service as an engineer and must have stayed on; in 1629, he was granted two farms in Sweden for his and his wife’s lifetime. He mainly worked for the mining authority, and in 1620 he was ordered to go to the Kopparberget, the main copper mine, to stake out the town 7. Design for the foundation of Falun in the central part of Falun. The plan, which was never exeof middle Sweden in 1624, probably by Johan Carels cuted, featured a quadratic block form but (Stockholm, The Military Archives, KrA: Handritade kartverk an oval town shape – both of which were 11, no. 22). unusual. Two other new foundations associated with mines and the metal industry – Sala in 1625 and Säter probably in 1626 – had rows of quadratic blocks in the middle and have been attributed to Carels. These two are well ­preserved (fig. 7). The mining and metal industries formed the backbone of the Swedish economy. Copper dominated initially but iron took over later. Together they comprised approximately 80 percent of the export value. The crown sought to develop these industries in all possible ways. At the end of the sixteenth century, Walloons began emigrating to Sweden and became particularly important to the iron industry. Willem de Besche was one of the first and through him Louis De Geer as well as many smiths and specialised workers came to Sweden from around 1620 onwards. All together some 900 immigrants settled in various parts of the country.27 The 1630s onwards: palaces, country houses, and the arts From the late 1620s, the interests of the king increasingly focused on expansion on the eastern and southern sides of the Baltic. Riga was taken in 1621, and a number of Polish harbours in Prussia were conquered in 1626 and 1627. The Polish coastland was then held until 1635. In 1630, Gustav II Adolf entered the Thirty Years’ War. He was killed at the end of 1632 but Sweden carried on the war until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that gave Sweden some important areas in Northern Germany, namely West Pomerania, the port of Wismar, the districts of Bremen (except the city of Bremen), and Verden. From the last years of the 1620s until the end of the 1630s, all Swedish town planning took place in the overseas areas. In Prussia, this included both extensions and new fortifications around the towns, which indicated a wish to stay permanently and develop the towns and their economies. The first years after entering the Thirty Years’ War, as many as some thirty large projects were drawn up in Germany, but they were almost exclusively fortifications, which points to a new strategy of securing a strong base in Northern Germany as some a starting point for further expansion. Many foreigners worked for the Swedes during the   Ahlberg 2005, 139–144.

26

402

27  Carlsson et al. 1967, 144–146, 156–160; Bedoire 2009, 119–120.

Sweden 1521–1721: Town Planning

8. Design for Stettin (Szczecin) in today’s northwest Poland, with a large new suburb, probably designed by Frans de Traytorrens in 1630 (Stockholm, The Military Archives, KrA: SFP Tyskland Stettin 47).

and the

Low Countries

9. Map of Stockholm c. 1650, showing the large redevelopment and extension begun in 1637, initially under the direction of Olof Hansson Örnehufvud and continued under Anders Torstensson, who likely designed the town plan. (Stockholm, National Archives, RA: LSA A99-1:11).

war, among them Adam Freitag in 1631 and 1632. He contributed significantly to the total dominance of the Netherlandish system of fortification in Sweden (fig. 8). However, several Swedes also acquired a high level of expertise and leading positions in town planning and fortification by this time. Thus, Swedes headed the largest of all town planning projects in the seventeenth century – the redevelopment and vast extension of Stockholm, starting in 1637. The aristocracy strengthened its position and economic power considerably in the regency period after the death of Gustav II Adolf. This coincided with the large redevelopment and extension of Stockholm. The administration was centralised in Stockholm and all higher posts were reserved for the nobles. Many officers and capable individuals were raised to the nobility and granted large estates and economic privileges. Plots were donated in Stockholm. During the war, these individuals learned the new aristocratic ways of life on the continent. They were now expected to build grand homes for themselves to show the wealth and glory of the Swedish empire. Among the immigrants from the Southern and Northern Netherlands, a group of rich merchants and entrepreneurs emerged, who also built costly houses (fig. 9).28   An account of this is given in Noldus 2004.

28

403

Nils Ahlberg Thus, the direct involvement of people from the Low Countries, on the whole, came to an end in town planning. However, ideas that were introduced earlier remained in common use and developed further according to Swedish conditions. In architecture, the arts, and culture the opposite development occurred, much depending on the shift from the crown to new patrons in the aristocracy and among rich merchants, several of whom were of Dutch origin. Accordingly, the period 10. Map of Kalmar in 1651 showing the design from about 1635 to 1680 has been characfrom 1647 by Johan Wärnschiöldh for the relocation of the town from the old location next terised as ‘blooming diversity’ in the relato the castle (Stockholm, The Military Archives, tions between the Dutch Republic and the KrA: SFP Kalmar 57a). Swedish empire, in contrast to mere ‘early contacts’ before.29 The number of town plan projects peaked in the late 1640s and early 1650s, most of which were town plan changes to existing towns. The modernisation of as many towns as possible – and eventually all towns – seems to have been the main concern. The plans were on the whole rather strict and restrained, and most were based on a simple, regular grid that reflected the Netherlandish influences sown at the beginning of the century. Late 1650s: Italian and French influences At the end of the 1650s, many plans showed a noticeable new monumentality, giving more weight to impressiveness and aesthetic aspects. This shift was evident in the shape of the squares, in a new coordination of whole series of public open spaces and monumental buildings, in the use of vistas and focal points, and in accentuated axes and extra wide main streets. This influence hailed from Baroque Rome and Paris and was principally introduced by two leading architects, Nicodemus Tessin the Elder and Jean de la Vallée (see chapter 3.1). Nicodemus Tessin originated from Stralsund. He began as a fortification officer producing several town plans. Later, he was appointed royal architect and between 1651 and 1653, he toured Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands.30 Canals and inner harbours featured significantly in some of his plans, including his first town plan in 1646, for Gävle, to the one he produced for Karlskrona just before his death in 1681. Jean de la Vallée was born in France, the son of the architect Simon de la Vallée, who worked for Prince Frederik Hendrik of Orange before coming to Sweden in 1637. Jean was first trained in his father’s office, as was Tessin, and toured France and Italy from 1646 until 1650. Back in Sweden, he was appointed royal architect.31 His town plans showed no obvious signs of Netherlandish influences. Canals were not used in any of them. Some of the grandest plans were produced by Erik Dahlbergh in the 1680s, several of them with canals (fig.11). Dahlbergh was head of the Fortifications Administration from 1674 until his death in 1703. He was also a skilled architect and draftsman, and the creator of the large volume of prints Suecia antiqua et hodierna depicting the foremost ancient and contemporary monuments of Sweden. This type of planning, where the town was perceived   Noldus 2004, 177.   Neville 2009.

29 30

404

31

  Ellehag 2003.

Sweden 1521–1721: Town Planning

and the

Low Countries

11. Final design for the redevelopment and enlargement of Landskrona, in southern Sweden, by Erik Dahlbergh in 1680 (Stockholm, The Military Archives, KrA: SFP Landskrona 112b ext st f.).

as an architectural whole, occurred in more sophisticated plans and reached a climax in 1713 in the plan for the surroundings of the new Royal Palace in Stockholm, which was built after the old castle burned in 1697. Nicodemus Tessin the Younger designed both the palace and the town plan. However, the main part of the Swedish town plans was still based on simple gridiron plans (fig. 12).

405

Nils Ahlberg

12. Design for the redevelopment of the surroundings of the Royal Palace in Stockholm, by Nicodemus Tessin the Younger in 1713 (Stockholm, National Archives, RA: ÖIÄ PS 189:1 (kartavd)).

406

Part Five Epilogue

and

Conclusions

1. St. Petersburg (Russia), St Peter and Paul’s Cathedral in the citadel, 1716–1717, by Domenico Trezzini, with the spire by Harmen van Bol’es.

Epilogue: Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

Dirk Van de Vijver (Utrecht University)

Introduction: paradigm change A gradual shift in taste became evident in the last decades of the seventeenth century. As explained in chapter 3.8, Dutch buildings continued to be used as models for contemporary design tasks even though, with a few exceptions, they were no longer regarded as suitable for the buildings of superior powers. Various plausible reasons may explain this development, both from inside and outside the Low Countries. After the disastrous wars of the 1670s, Holland lost much of its economic world leadership and glamour. In many Northern European courts, the paradigm change was further enforced by their striving for absolutist reign. In this context, the Dutch models became too common to fit the ambitions of these rulers who increasingly looked to the building programme of Louis XIV of France and the palaces in Rome as new beacons. For a short period, in the years around 1700 when William III of Orange’s prestige reached its zenith, his palace Het Loo was regarded as a suitable model for some high noblemen abroad. Meanwhile, Dutch country houses, town halls, and other public buildings remained appropriate models for buildings of a certain but not superior standing, such as country houses of the landed gentry or government buildings in provincial capitals. An example of the latter group was the new exchange of Narva, Estonia, built in 1691 opposite the town hall by the architect Johan Georg Heroldt. Whether Heroldt ever visited Holland is unknown, but he too used a Dutch model. He had to build “a beautiful house with an exchange, as well as shops and warehouses, for the promotion of trade and commerce, as can be seen in other prosperous towns”.1 Accordingly, Heroldt designed this exchange like a Dutch town hall, with a broad façade featuring colossal Ionic pilasters, like the façade of the Admiralty in Amsterdam, and a central tower with an open octagon and a cupola, like the examples in Amsterdam and Maastricht. Even in the mid-seventeenth century, when all of Northern Europe strove to emulate the architecture of Holland, the admiration was not unanimous. Some travellers who had also visited Italy preferred the Italian palaces over the houses of Amsterdam. For example, in 1658, William Hammond wrote about Amsterdam: “I suppose it is those who come from the northern parts, who chiefly admire this town; he that comes immediately from the stately town of Venice and other majestic cities of Italy, will rather take it for a well ranged gang of seamen’s and merchant’s booths than anyways comparable to Venice”.2 In 1671, John Walker made a comparable remark: “The Herengracht, a mile long is all built with noble palaces, in truth none are so fine as the Roman, but all being alike”.3 However, these gentlemen travellers sought the splendid and the magnificent typical of the grand tour. For architects who were eager to learn about models applicable at home, the Italian palaces were far too overwhelming. As mentioned previously, Nicodemus Tessin the Elder was somewhat disappointed when he visited Rome in the early 1650s because the grandeur of its architecture surpassed the scale he worked with at home: country houses and residences of the nobility. Thirty years later, his son, Nicodemus Tessin the Younger, made a comparable journey through Europe; for him, Italy and especially Rome offered the best lessons in architecture because he sought models for the new royal palace of Stockholm. With this in mind, Holland offered him little in 1687. Most buildings were   Karling 1936, 353; Noldus 2004, 156–157.   van Strien 1993, 225; Louw 2009, 98.

1

3

  van Strien 1993, 225; Louw 2009, 98.

2

409

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

too common for his purposes. Only the Mauritshuis in The Hague received moderate admiration: “The palace of Prince [Johan Maurits of] Nassau is certainly the best in The Hague but still not exceptional”.4 This remark expresses a sentiment that was broadly shared in the 1680s regarding the importance of Dutch architecture for contemporary tasks in Northern European courts. Even the Great Elector of Brandenburg, once an eager admirer of everything related to Holland, focused his attention elsewhere. In 1682, Martin Grünberg (1655–1706), a German land surveyor and building master, received a grant from the Great Elector to study architecture abroad. Unlike his predecessors, such as Memhardt, he went to Italy rather than Holland.5 Surprisingly (or not), a similar change in taste also affected the Low Countries at the time. In the last quarter of the seventeenth century, the new generation of the Dutch elite regarded the architectural style of the previous decades as too common and not compar­ able to French expressions of dignity. In 1661, Philips Doubleth, son-in-law of Constantijn Huygens, complained about the lack of refinement in the architecture of Pieter Post and his son Maurits Post. Instead, he preferred the new inventions by Jean Lepautre from Paris, “for the great variety of composition and because they are well conceived; Post will never attain that, nor will his son”.6 In 1676, Godard van Reede-Ginkel (1644–1703), Lord of Middachten, regretted that the façade of his parents’ new castle at Amerongen was too austere and lacking sufficient sculpted stone decorations.7 Later, he became a general in William III’s army defeating the forces of James II in Ireland. Back home, in 1695, he followed the new standards of decorum at the Orange court by modernising his own castle at Middachten with a rich stone front on the central projection and lavish interior stucco decorations designed by the court architects Jacob Roman and Steven Vennecool, who referenced the ornamental prints of Lepautre.8 The career of Pieter Jacobsz Roman (1676–after 1733), son of Jacob Roman, illustrated the change of paradigm even better. He received an excellent education, first in the workshop of his father. Expertise in French and Italian architecture was necessary to be well prepared for a job at court, even in Holland. In 1698 and 1699, he followed the Cours d’architecture of Philippe de la Hire in Paris, and in 1700 and 1701, he embarked on a study tour to France and Italy, paid for by Willem III. These countries offered the standard for royal and princely architecture to the court in The Hague.9 In the late seventeenth century and throughout the entire eighteenth century, architects, sculptor-architects, and military engineers originating from the Southern and Northern Low Countries continued to work all over Europe. The later career of the father and son Roman was a clear example of this. After the death of Willem III in 1702, Jacob Roman was appointed architect to William III’s cousin and heir, the king of Prussia, apparently to supervise the Dutch palaces the king inherited from William III. From 1711, Roman served Landgrave Karl of Hesse-Kassel (1670–1730), father-in-law of Johan Willem Friso of Nassau, another heir of William III. His son, Pieter Roman, followed in his footsteps by entering Prussian service in the 1710s, and in 1720, he moved to Hesse to become Intendant des Batiments of the court in Kassel. However prestigious sounding the title, his main duty was restricted to supervising the maintenance of the existing buildings. Designs for new prestigious commissions are unknown for Roman the Younger.   “Printz Nassaus Palais is sonsten wohl das Beste von Architectur im Haag aber doch auch nicht sonderlich”. Upmark 1900, 144–152. 5  Heckmann 1998, 136–147. Back in Berlin he became responsible for many ducal building sites. As a designer he only got minor commissions. Nevertheless, in his designs for modest Protestant city churches, he stays close to the Dutch examples. 4

410

  “...pour la grande varieté du dessein et parce qu’ils sont bien entendus; Post n’y atteindra jamais et son fils aussi peu”. Letter from 20 January 1661 to his brother in law Christiaan Huygens. Chr. Huygens, Oeuvres complètes III, The Hague 1890, no. 820. 7   Meischke & Ottenheym 2011. 8   Hoekstra 2002. 9   Hallo 1930; Kuyper 1984. 6

Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

Artists from the Southern Low Countries also enjoyed successful careers abroad. The fame of the Antwerp and Mechelen schools for sculpture during the eighteenth ­ century explained these artists’ positions at many German courts. As their chief Antwerp ­representatives, Hendrik Frans Verbrugghen (1654–1724)10 and Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Elder (1669–1728), court architect, sculptor, and engineer, demonstrated, most were equally strong in ­ architectural design and s­culpture. For instance, PieterAntoon Verschaffelt ­(1710–1793), the sculptor of the statue of Charles of Lorraine installed at the Brussels Place Royale, became artist to the court of Elector Palatine Charles Theodore in Mannheim.11 He also directed a newly founded drawing academy there. Nevertheless, in ­contrast to the days of Cornelis Floris or Jacob van Campen, no distinct ‘Netherlandish’ architectural idiom was cultivated. In fact, Verschaffelt designed Roman Counter-Reformation churches in Mannheim not unlike Jan de Witte, son of a Dutch emigrant, did in Lviv.12 This situation was typical for the position of many Netherlandish architects abroad during this period: Only those who were trained in the latest French and Italian manner 2. St. Petersburg (Russia), the Kunstkamera, 1718–1734, (French for residences and Italian for Catholic by Georg Mattarnovi, Nicolas Herbel and others; cupola churches) received such prestigious commis- constructed by Harmen van Bol’es, 1728. sions. At the same time, Dutch engineers and building contractors continued to be appreciated because of their technical skills concerning complex carpentry works, water engineering, and building on wet soil. In the early eighteenth century, in St. Petersburg, over a hundred and twenty Dutch craftsmen were engaged for such commissions. Most of them stayed only for a few years but some enjoyed long careers and even established new dynasties of building masters. Most renowned among them was Harmen van Bol’es (1683–1764).13 He was born in Schiedam and went to Russia when he was thirty years old to become a furniture maker as well as a specialist in constructing wooden spires, canals, and sluices. He was responsible for, among others, the spires on the St Peter and Paul’s Cathedral in the St. Petersburg citadel (fig. 1), the cupola on the Kunstkamera (fig. 2), the canals surrounding the Summer Palace, the windmills, and the drawbridges in the city. Ultimately, he created a large construction company, organised like a guild for Dutch and other foreign craftsmen. In this position, he supervised various important building sites at the same time, cooperating with architects such as Domenico Trezzini and Mikhail Zemtsov. However, he may have never acted as an architectural designer himself. Some of these emigrant building contractors had careers as architectural designers as well, but if they stuck to the kind of Netherlandish architecture they were accustomed to from   See for instance Van de Vijver 2005.   Roelandts 1939; De Ren 1982b; Hoc 1966. 12   Hornung 1995. 10 11

  Makarov 2004. See for the Bol’es family of building masters in Schiedam: Medema 2011. 13

411

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

home, the commissions remained restricted to utilitarian and public buildings. One example was Jan Bouman in Potsdam and Berlin, who will be further discussed below. Another architect-building constructor who shared a similar fate was Philip de Lange (c. 1704–1766). He was trained in The Hague in the early eighteenth century and went to Denmark in 1729 in response to an open call for foreign building masters following a disastrous city fire in Copenhagen the year before.14 De Lange made a great career in Copenhagen as building contractor and building master responsible for various public buildings and houses of the mercantile elite, including some Dutch patrons, but his most important works were created for the Danish navy in Christianshavn, the northern part of the city. His sober Classicism in the style of late seventeenth-century and early eighteenth-century Dutch architecture seemed appropriate for public and utilitarian buildings. He tried several times to win more ‘refined’ royal commissions by delivering designs in a more elaborate, French-inspired style, but always in vain. Also the role the Northern and Southern Netherlands once played as an international centre for the production of architectural books came to an end after 1700.15 In the eighteenth century, no parallel could be found to rival the paramount importance of prints and books produced in Antwerp during the sixteenth century by editors such as Hieronymus Cock and Gerard De Jode, or the series of architectural publications printed in Amsterdam in the seventeenth century by Dancker Danckerts and his sons. However, in the early eighteenth century, a small number of prestigious folio publications of the treatises of Scamozzi (1713)16 and Palladio (1726),17 and of the work of the Dutch architect Pieter Post (1715)18 aligned with famous seventeenth-century plate works related to Dutch Classicist architecture, such as Vennekool’s publication on the Amsterdam town hall and the published work of Vingboons. Many works in eighteenth-century international architectural libraries published in the Low Countries were in fact written by French authors. Numerous late seventeenth and early eighteenth-century French architectural books, especially those on fortification, mentioned Amsterdam or The Hague in the printer’s address, sometimes next to Paris.19 In eighteenthcentury Europe, encyclopaedic architectural libraries naturally possessed copies of architectural books related to Rubens, such as those on the Palazzi di Genova,20 the Joyous Entry of the Cardinal Infant Ferdinand into Antwerp in 1635,21 De Laet’s scholarly edition in Latin of Vitruvius De architectura libri decem,22 and the collected mathematical works of Simon Stevin in the authoritative 1634 edition published in Leiden.23 However, at that time these books had already become objects of scholarly attention rather than drawing table material. The novelty and persuasive architectural language of their designs were unlikely to provoke close   Elling 1931; Roding 2003.  For eighteenth-century architectural books in the Southern Netherlands, see Van de Vijver 2006b; for the Northern Netherlands no synthesis is available: on different aspects, see for instance von der Dunk 2007; Schmidt 2006; Hopkins & Witte 1996 (on Scamozzi editions). 16  Scamozzi 1713 (lib. cat. Gottfried Erich Rosenthal 1795, 39; lib. cat. Thibault 1826, 28 n. 268). 17  Palladio 1726 (lib. cat. Robert Adam 1773 (1818), no. 23; lib. cat. Jean Michel Billon, D.2). 18   Post 1715 (lib. cat. Gottfried Erich Rosenthal 1795, 39). 19  Perrault 1681 (Amsterdam); Laugier 1765 (The Hague/Paris). Some titles on fortification: Blondel 1688 (The Hague); Manessot Mallet 1691 (The Hague); Deidier 1734 (Amsterdam). 20   Rubens 1622 (lib. cat. Jacques Lemercier 1654, fol. 22v; lib. cat. Louis Le Vau 1670, no. [79] 78; lib. cat. 14 15

412

Tilman van Gameren, no. 40 (Mossakowski 1994, annex II); lib. cat. Nicolaus Goldmann 1665, F2). 21  Rubens 1635 (lib. cat. Louis Le Vau 1670, no. [74] 73; lib. cat. Tilman van Gameren, no. 104; lib. cat. Robert Adam 1773 (1818), no. 91). 22   Vitruvius (De Laet) 1649 (Ottenheym 1998). Present in the libraries of Nicolaus Goldmann 1665, no. F30, lib. cat. François Blondel 1686, no. 52 (54); lib. cat. François Mansart 1722, 346; lib. cat. Robert Adam 1773 (1818), no. 21; lib. cat. Gottfried Erich Rosenthal 1795, 40–41; lib. cat. George Dance 1825 (1837), no. 231; Schimmelman 1999, 157 no. 140; Park 1973, 73 cat. no. 83. 23  Stevin 1634 (lib. cat. Mathurin Jousse 1652, no. 67; lib. cat. Louis Le Vau 1670, no. [117] 111: lib. cat. François Blondel 1686, no. 379 (812); lib. cat. Jacques Lemercier 1654, fol. 29r; lib. cat. Christopher Wren 1748, 10 f 258).

Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

imitation anymore on a par with examples from the previous era, such as the reuse of Rubens’s designs for the 1635 Joyous Entry in the festive decorations created in Gdan´  sk in 1646 by Adolph Boy (1612–after 1680), the city’s painter and court painter to the Polish king Władysław IV, to honour the king’s spouse, Queen Maria Ludovico Gonzaga, duchess of Mantua and Nevers.24 An exception regarding international success must be made for some technical books related to building construction, such as the Dutch eighteenth-century folio editions on mills, sluices, and stairs by Schenk and Van der Horst.25 Their status was confirmed by a German translation of the books on stairs and on mills.26 In seventeenth- and eighteenth-century architectural books, the use of the adjective ‘Flemish’ or ‘Hollandish’ in architectural terminology occurred in a few specific cases. In his highly popular Cours d’architecture, first edited in 1691, Augustin-Charles Daviler used the term porte flamande for a garden entrance with stone pillars and ironwork gates.27 Daviler’s engraving confirmed indeed that designs of gateways, as the ones by architect Jan-Peter van Baurscheit for country seats around Antwerp, could be seen as examples of those portes flamandes. In the sphere of eighteenth-century caminologie, the science of the working mechanisms of chimneys, a well-working device with reduced opening of the fireplace – a kind still known from surviving material examples in the former prince-bishopric of Liège – was also called ‘Flemish’.28 On the contrary, the expression cheminée à la hollandaise, introduced through the prints published between 1703 and 1712 by the French architect and designer Daniel Marot (1663–1752), court architect of William III, evoked chimneypieces that were Hollandish by name, but French in design.29 Later in the eighteenth century, two series of four prints Neu inventirte Hollaendische Camine (c. 1745–1755) were published by Engelbrecht, Merz, and Crophius in Augsburg after designs by the sculptor Gerard de Grendel from Middelburg (1696–1776).30 The terminology obviously goes back to Marot but the designs adhered to the latest fashion of the rococo. The fame of the new fortification system defined by Menno van Coehoorn (1641–1704) in his writings, guaranteed its presence in almost all subsequent manuals on fortification; it was explicitly labelled ‘Dutch’ by the author. Concerning water engineering, that other speciality of the Low Countries, some recent waterworks of the Southern Netherlands were published by the French engineer Bernard Forest de Bélidor (1698–1761) in his engineering manual Architecture hydraulique (1737–1739).31 Also, in another category of architectural books, related to the art of gardening, Dutch expertise remained fashionable well into the beginning of the eighteenth century, from William and Mary’s Britain to Peter the Great’s Russia.32 In the course of time, in the first half of the eighteenth century only engineering and building techniques, especially of foundations in wet soil, and the high quality of brick  Compare the copper plates and engravings by Jeremias Falck and Willem Hondius published in Aurea porta catalogue 1997, 301–303 cat. no. N. VIII.13–16 with Rubens 1635. 25   Polly 1734 (lib. cat. Gottfried Erich Rosenthal 1795, 282), respectively van der Horst 1736. 26  On stairs, see van der Horst 1736; van der Horst 1790 (lib. cat. Gottfried Erich Rosenthal 1795, 38). On mills, see van Zyl 1761 (German edition by Fäsch, lib. cat. Gottfried Erich Rosenthal 1795, 282–283). 27   Pérouse de Montclos 1982, 55. 28   Hébrard 1756 (1980), 130–133 (‘Chapitre huitiéme. Description d’une Cheminée qui ne fume point; pratiquée en Flandres chez les gens de cabinet’, and fig. 22). 24

  Nouveaux Lieure de Cheminées a la Hollandaise. Fuhring 2004, 9172–9177. On Marot, see for instance Ozinga 1938; Ottenheym et al. 1988. 30   Baarsen 2001, 134–137, cat. no. 58. 31   Forest de Bélidor II 1737–1739, pl. XLVII (“l’Aqueduc sous le radier du sas de l’écluse de Boezinge sur le canal de Furnes à Ypres permettant une économie d’eau”) and XLVIII (“la célèbre écluse double d’Ostende, passage du port d’Ostende dans le canal de Bruges”). Illustrations published in: Pinon 1986, 135 (pl. XLVIII) and 136 (pl. XLVII). For Architecture hydraulique: Dubois 1931; Picon 1992, 53–57. For Forest de Bélidor, see Gillispie 1970; Biral & Morachiello 1985, 188–191. 32   Hunt & de Jong 1988. 29

413

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

masonry were regarded worthy of study in Holland. For example, Edward Southwell praised Dutch skills in brick masonry during his visit in Holland in 1696: “The brick work is admirable in all these Countrys, & they have a particular science in Archwork, which they make very justly & according to Art”.33 Nevertheless, as an architectural model, its vernacular architecture came to be used as an example for humble but decent dwellings for the working middle class or as rather exotic showpiece in stately gardens only. Three cases will shed a different light on the changing position of the Netherlands in the international architectural context: the place of the Low Countries in the architectural culture of the Russian tsar Peter the Great (1672–1725), the special role of Netherlandish architecture in King Friedrich Wilhelm’s Prussia, and finally the journey to the Low Countries in 1766 of the art and architectural critic abbé Marc-Antoine Laugier.  eter the Great and the architectural crafts and sciences in the Low Countries P in the early eighteenth century34 In keeping with his main objective to modernise Russia, demonstrated eloquently in the foundation and building of the new capital St. Petersburg, Peter the Great collected the architectural knowledge necessary for this project on a worldwide scale.35 On this imperial level ‘collecting architecture’ must indeed be understood in its broadest sense. The tsar mobilised his international agents to buy architectural books, prints, and drawings, but also to engage skilled labour, including foreign architects – such as the Trezzini, Gaitano Ciaveri, van Bol’es, Stefan van Swieten, and Pierre Sualem, the nephew of the artisan of the hydraulic engine of Marly – to direct the planning and construction of St. Petersburg and its main buildings, as well as to train Russians abroad in a variety of related crafts. With this threefold approach, he aimed to acquire both the practical skills and the theoretical knowledge – in other words, both the crafts of building construction and the science of architecture. This encyclopaedic mindset, desiring to include all aspects of architecture and construction, was also reflected in the geographical spread of the countries he considered centres of this knowledge. In Peter the Great’s perspective, the Low Countries were such a centre, next to Italy and France. Accordingly, the tsar’s evaluation of the architectural position of the Low Countries in Europe around 1700 occurred precisely at the time when Italian authority was firmly established in architecture and the French star was rising. Peter the Great knew the Dutch Republic and the Southern Low Countries, from 1712 under Austrian rule, first hand. He visited them in 1697, 1698, and 1717. In Holland, he learned the shipwright’s craft. Sending young Russians to the Republic to learn different crafts was therefore not astonishing, considering the tsar’s technical interests. In August 1717, thirtyseven Russian pupils left St. Petersburg for Holland.36 Most crafts were related to shipbuilding and the making of the tools necessary for those craftsmen, but three distlers in huijsen (house   Remark on the bridge at Middachten with a single arch of 45 feet. Fremantle 1970, 58. 34  Van de Vijver 2006a, based on archival research in Moscow (Rossijskij Gosudarstvennyj Arhiv Drevnih Aktov, further abbreviated as RGADA) and St. Petersburg. The quotations are our English translations based on the French translations by Dr Olga Medvedkova of the Russian original. See also Waegemans 1998. 35   Medvedkova 2006. 33

414

  “4 boeijemaakers, 2 scheepsschilder, 3 touwmakers, 3 mastenmaakers, 3 distlers in scheepen, 2 cooperslager, 2 geelgieters, 3 distlers in huijzen), 3 scheepstimmermannen, 2 timmermansgereetschap, 1 booremaaker, 1 zaagemaker, 1 moolemaker, 2 slootemaaker, 2 kuypers, 2 slangemaakers, 1 canongieter” (the cannon founder was sent to England afterwards). Boonstra 1997, 57. See also: RGADA 9 II 57, fols. 798–830v, 1720; RGADA 9 II 61, fols. 666–669, 27 November 1722; RGADA 9 II 68 fols. 930–975, 1723–1724; RGADA 9 II 74, fol. 405, 25 August 1725. 36

Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

builders) were included in the brigade. In 1720, six other young men followed: two sailmakers, two ropemakers, and two carpenters; in 1723, four more were sent: two to learn the craft of gardening and two for masonry.37 All matters related to the training of these craftsmen were entrusted to the Dutch agent Johannes van der Burgh (c. 1664–1731).38 He searched cities in Holland for the best masters in their crafts, negotiated their payment, and provided the pupils with bursaries.39 He followed the progress of the young Russians, encouraged them, made sure that they learned Dutch, arithmetic, and drawing well, if required for certain crafts, and maintained discipline.40 In short, he supervised the entire operation logistically and financially until the pupils acquired the level of master in their craft. At that moment, they were sent back to St. Petersburg. The chosen crafts illustrated quite well the tsar’s pragmatic policy of technology transfer in the field of shipbuilding and building construction. In 1718, Peter the Great also sent young aristocrats to the Netherlands to learn architecture. He asked A. Matveev, director of the recently founded naval academy of St. Petersburg, to select two engineering students who “already studied geometry and had an inclination towards this science”.41 They would be sent to Italy to learn architecture. Ivan Korobov (b. 1701/2) and Ivan Mordvinov (1700–1734) were chosen and left the Academy in autumn 1718. However, the two were in actual fact sent to the Low Countries, systematically called ‘Holland’ in the tsar’s correspondence, and not to Italy. Korobov was sent to Antwerp in the Southern Low Countries and Mordvinov to Holland in the North. Because the latter had “bad masters” in Holland, where he did not learn architecture, only carpentry, he joined Korobov in Antwerp.42 A third Russian pupil, Ivan Mitchurin, arrived later. The fourth, Afanasij Grek, was sent to study architecture in Leiden. In Antwerp the Russian aristocrats were sent to “the famous master Baurscheit who teaches the noble art of architecture”.43 Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Elder (1669–1728) was a sculptor, architect, and engineer – which was how he signed the report on the Russian students.44 In those days, he was the only court architect in the Low Countries because between 1702 and 1747 the Dutch Republic was without a stadholder. Presumably, the choice of the Antwerp master was related to his newly acquired status because the Russian pensionnaires arrived in Antwerp just after the official nomination of Van Baurscheit as imperial architect.

 RGADA 9 II 64, fols. 691v-987, 5 October 1723; RGADA 9 II 68, fol. 734v, 18 January 1724; RGADA 9 II 74, fols. 405v-412v, 25 August 1725; Boonstra 1997, 57. 38   On 30 June 1707, Van den Burgh became officially Peter’s agent. Until his death, he worked for Russia, respectively for Catherine I, Peter II and Ann. On Van den Burgh, see Boonstra 1997. 39   Pupils were sent to Amsterdam, Den Haag, Hoorn, Kampen, Nieuwkoop, Zaandam, Zaandijk. Only a few names of the masters of the Russian pupils are known: Jacob and Jan Swaan, master shipwright of Jacob Šcˇerbakov (RGADA 9 II 68 fol. 933, 1724); Jan Janspoort in Zaandam and Hessel Pietersse in Sneek, masters mast and buoy makers of Aleks Kobulatov (RGADA 9 II 64 fol. 684, 14 September 1723); Teunis Otter, master mast maker of Dmitrij Segisov (RGADA 9 II 64 fol. 683, 14 September 1723); Jan van Eck in Nieuwkoop, master tool maker of carpentry and mill carpenter of Artemij Verefkin (RGADA 9 II 64, fol. 685, 14 September 1723); Jan van der Woude, master mill carpenter of Nikita Kopman and Ivan Luov (RGADA 9 37

II 74, fol. 385, 31 September 1725) and Jan Goslar, master building carpenter of Nikita Kopman and Ivan Luov (RGADA 9 II 74, fol. 386, 31 September 1725). 40   In fact, a minority of students conducted themselves badly and occupied him for the most of his time. In 1718, he sent the net maker Jacob Timof’ev and the shipwright Stefan Borkov back to St. Petersburg, RGADA 9 II 37 fol. 554v, 19 August 1718. 41  Iogansen 1997, 193, quotation without source indication; RGADA, fol. 9, kn. 37, fol. 20. 42  Iogansen 1997, 195, quotation without source indication. 43  “sljahetskoe hudozestvo arhitektury”. Iogansen 1997, 195, quotation without source indication. On Van Baurscheit, see Jansen & Van Herck 1942, 7–50; Baudouin 1964a (with bibliography); Exh. cat. Düsseldorf 1971, 295–297, cat. nos. 191–193; Exh. cat. Brussels 1977, 187–194, cat. nos. 148–157; Baudouin 1994, 19–48; Philippot et al. 2003, 1007–1013. 44  Iogansen 1997, 195, quotation without source indication.

415

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

Hercule Joseph Louis Turinetti, marquis de Prié (1658–1726) provided the name of this Antwerp studio as an appropriate place to study architecture. Between probably 1716 and probably 1725, he was plenipotentiary minister of the Southern Low Countries, and in this function he hosted Peter during the latter’s second trip to this region in 1717.45 After the return of Peter (who left Spa in July probably 1717), the marquis de Prié addressed Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Elder for the design and execution of various ephemeral constructions to be erected in Brussels at the occasion of the Joyous Entry of Charles VI of Austria as duke of Brabant on 11 October 1717.46 Due to this project, Van Baurscheit acquired the highest title an architect could obtain in the Austrian Netherlands: ‘sculptor, architect and director of works of His Imperial and Catholic Majesty’ (Beldhouwer, Bouwmeester en Directeur der Werken van syn keijserlijke en Catholike Majesteijt).47 Also Jean (Giovanni) Steffano, the agent of Peter the Great in Antwerp and a banker of Swiss origin, could have provided the tsar with the name of the most renowned architect of the Austrian Netherlands.48 Van Baurscheit the Elder cooperated with his namesake and son, Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Younger (1699–1768) on the triumphant entry of Charles VI into Brussels. The latter joined his father’s workshop in 1713 where he gradually took a more prominent position.49 Therefore, the Russian students may also have been regarded as pupils of Van Baurscheit the Younger. The study drawings that Korobov sent to the tsar on 1 July 1724 documented his progress during the five and a half years of training in the Antwerp workshop:50 two series of drawings, one of sculpture and one of architecture, related to the tsar’s two fields of interest and to the two disciplines of the Van Baurscheit workshop (figs. 3, 4).51 Both the subject and drawing style of the sculpture drawings were clearly related to Van Baurscheit’s sculpture workshop.52 Several drawings of angels and personifications of Time could be related to existing sculptures by Van Baurscheit the Elder on funeral monuments, rood lofts, and confessionals. Other designs for mythological gods and personifications could not be linked to existing works, but likely these reflected the production of garden statues with subjects related to fables et histoires poétiques for which the Van Baurscheit workshop was

 Waegemans 1998, 135ff. It is not known whether Peter the Great had already made contact with Van Baurscheit in 1717 during his travels through the Austrian Netherlands. 46   Jansen & Van Herck 1942, 21–24, cat. nos. 14–15. 47   Van der Sanden, II, fol. 283, addendum. Quoted in Baudouin 1964a, col. 89 and Baudouin 1994, 23. 48   Steffano became a Russian commercial agent of Peter with the patent letter of 6 July 1717, signed in Spa. He recruited craftsmen for Russia and took care of the Antwerp stay of painter Matvejev (RGADA, fol. 9, kn. 34, fols. 212–213; Waegemans 1998, 163, 170–177, 179, 277). 49   Baudouin 1964b; Jansen & Van Herck 1942, 51–71; Baudouin 1994. 50  Actually in the collections of the Library of the Academy of Science or Biblioteki Akademii Nauk (further abbreviated as: St. Petersburg, NAK) – ariybd 1740–1750, these drawings were bound together in the volume F° 266, t. 5 (St. Petersburg, NAK, 266.5 t. II, fols. (32) 30–43 (51). Istoriceskij ocerk…1961, 49–51. For the first inventory see: Istoriceskij ocerk… 1961, 86–88 cat. nos. 66, 238–239, 45

416

with the exception of one drawing of a catafalque, titled Dit is een Maszolée gemaeckt geweest int hof tot Brusselen, which belongs to the collections of the Hermitage (St. Petersburg), Drawing Department, no. 4297; Istoriceskij ocerk… 1961, 238–239; published in: Piljavskij 1953, 45 and in Gorbatenko 2003, 142; and one drawing of a garden vase on a pedestal kept at the RGADA in Moscow. Istsoriceskij ocerk… 1961, 238–239; published in Piljavskij 1953, 45). 51  The inventory of drawings and prints deposited at the Academy of Science in 1728–1729, titled Consignation der Charten, welche in denen Cajseri. Cabinets sind, makes a clear distinction of two series: “12 Planchen. Statuen von Koroboff”, no. 25 of the section Handzeichnungen und Kupferstiche, and “Grund- und Aufriss eines Palais. Von J. Koroboff. 1724”, no. 57 of the section Architectura Civilis. Istoriceskij ocerk…1961, 49–51. 52  For the style of the sculpture drawings by Van Baurscheit Sr see: Baudouin & Allard 2000, 195–197, 199–200 cat. nos. 70–72, 74–77.

Paradigm Change

3. Design of a house (“opteekening van een huijs”), drawn by Ivan Korobov in Antwerp, 1722 (St. Petersburg, Library of the Academy of Sciences 266.5, II, fol. 38 (46)).

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

4. Design of a palace, by Ivan Korobov, 1724 (St. Petersburg, Library of the Academy of Sciences 266.5, II, fol. 43 (51)).

renowned.53 The same could be said of a drawing of a garden vase that evoked a work by the elder Van Baurscheit.54 The architectural drawings presented by Korobov to Peter the Great represented two projects in plan and elevation. The important size and decoration of these building projects, or palaces, were worthy of a tsar. The size of the buildings, the manifest use of orders, the rich and sophisticated elaboration, and the abundance of crowns, war trophies, and statues related perfectly to the message Korobov wanted to communicate: He had perfected himself in the art of ‘high’ architecture at the Brussels court as preparation for a position of architect to the Russian court. The first architectural project, dated 1722, was known by plans of the cellars, the ground, and first floor, as well as by a façade elevation.55 The building with double corps de logis was eleven bays wide and six bays deep. The interior distribution of the building demonstrated the French design rules for the disposition of private houses, including several antichambres, chambres, cabinets, and garde-robes. The façade consisted of a superposition of two orders of pilasters, each one spanning a principal floor and its corresponding entresol. Even if the whole was topped by a mansard roof in the French manner, the façade seemed closely inspired by Jacob van Campen’s famous Amsterdam town hall. The orders featured prodigiously rich details; as in the façade of the Antwerp Jesuit church, the Doric frieze had emblems where the metopes should have been placed. The second building project, inscribed anno 1724, was even larger.56 Stables and a service building at the street side preceded the corps de logis entre cour et jardin in the French   “Van Baurscheit heeft ook veel dirgelijke (Zeeusche Tuynen, Lusthuijzen en Konstzalen) en andere werken uyt de Fabels en Historiën poetik gemaekt voor Holland : gelyk blyekt uyt zyn Onderhandeling met den vermaerden schilder Carolus de Moor van wie twee brieven heb gelezen, geschreven aen onzen beldhouwer uyt Leijden in de jaeren 1708 en 1709, en geteekend : Carelo de Moor” (Vander Sanden, III, 288, quoted in: Jansen & Van Herck 1942, 17). 54  Staring 1944, 41; Exh. cat. Düsseldorf 1971, 260– 261 cat. no. 193; Leeuwenberg 1968, 157 (ill.), 159– 162 (ill.), 163 (ill.). 53

  St. Petersburg, NAK, 266.5 t. II, fols. 35–38 (43–46).  St. Petersburg, NAK, 266.5 t. II, fols. 39–43 (47–51). fol. 39 (47) plan of ground floor with stables; fol. 40 (48) plan of the cellars; fol. 41 (49) plan of the floor of services; fol. 42 (50) section with galleries; fol. 43 (51) street and courtyard façade. Fols. 42 and 43 were published in: Istoriceskij ocerk… 1961, 89 n. 7 and 91 n. 8, as well as in Gorbatenko 2003, 141 figs. 187 and 188. 55 56

417

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

manner; galleries formed wings at both sides of the courtyard. This time, the volume of the corps de logis was further accentuated. The tympanum on the central three bays contained a large window. This project measured in the French foot (voeten fransche maete) could be read as a translation, albeit on an imperial scale, of a large town house model proposed by Daviler in his Cours d’architecture (1691), which even included an imperial staircase with two majestic parallel ramps. In Korobov’s project, all elements of Daviler’s model were systematically enriched. He added a half floor at the base, doubled the extent of the lateral projection, translated the colossal Ionic order at the piano nobile into Corinthian, and replaced the singular pilasters with double ones that shared the same pedestal and architrave. In addition to the general typology, numerous details, such as war trophies, the corner solution for the pilasters, and the details in the design of the mansard roof, were also directly taken from the aforementioned treatise.57 For an architect educated in Antwerp, the detailing of the orders, especially the architrave and frieze cut by windows, evoked the garden façade of the so-called Mercator Ortelius House, transformed and enlarged in 1698 by the Antwerp merchant Norbert Schut and attributed to Hendrik-Frans Verbrugghen.58 In the representation of the windows in plan, the central pillars with vaults in the cellar, the combined view of the courtyard and street elevation shown each on one side,59 and the standard shadow representation at 45 degrees Korobov closely followed the Daviler plates as to the drawing conventions. Korobov strove to become “an artist in the building of houses for the tsar and not for peasants”.60 He feared that, with his Antwerp training alone, he would not be able to realise this ambition. In 1723, he asked Alexander Menchikov, the governor of St. Petersburg, to intervene on his behalf by requesting the tsar’s permission to travel to Italy and France.61 When Korobov did not receive an answer, he addressed Peter directly in a letter in 1724, repeating his request and adding the already discussed drawings as proof of his capacities and progress: I dare send for demonstration to Your Majesty some pieces regarding the art of architecture. As it will seem, I am not ready fully trained in the rules of this art, but with courage, I traced these to demonstrate my level of knowledge and I hope that Your Majesty will condescend to be satisfied of my application to my studies. However, I feel myself still unworthy compared to the others who studied in other countries, where the roots of this art are, that is, Italy and France.62 Moreover, he complained that “during my stay in Brabant, I saw no learned architect and my master did in my presence no building sites of houses, therefore I have no solid experience to my science”.63 Peter’s reply to Korobov, dated 7 November 1724, deprived the latter of the architectural education he had dreamt of, and instead sent him even further north to Holland: You write me that I let you go to France and Italy for the practice of civil architecture; I went myself to France, where there is none and where one does not like the architectural decoration, but where one only builds plain  Compare Daviler 1691, pl. 64a (upper right) with St. Petersburg, NAK, 266.5 t. II, fol. 42 (as well as fol. 38). 58  Kloosterstraat 11–17, Antwerp. De Lattin 1955, 496–498, 499 ill. 320. 59  Compare St. Petersburg, NAK, 266.5 t. II, fol. 40 (Korobov) with Daviler 1691, pl. 60. In his drawing Korobov inversed the street and court elevation (St. Petersburg, NAK, 266.5 t. II, fol. 43 (51)) with respect to the engravings by D’Aviler, see Daviler 1691, pl. 63a. 57

418

 Iogansen 1997, 195, quotation without source. Gorbatenko 2003, 142; Piljavskii 1953, 60. 61   Letter of January 23, 1723. Iogansen 1997, 195. 62   Istoriceskij ocerk… 1961, 238–239, quoted after Piljavskij 1953, 60; also partly quoted in Gorbatenko 2003, 142 (same source). Peter the Great sent Ivan and Roman Nikitin, Fedor Cherkassov, Mihaïl Zaharov, Petr Eropkin, Petr Kolytchev, Fedor Issakov and Timofej Oussov to Italy, and Vassilij Touvolkov and Ivan Souvorov to France to study architecture. 63   Iogansen 1997, 195, quotation without source. 60

Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

and simple, and always in stone and never in brick; I have heard sufficient talk about Italy, above that we have three Russians who studied there, and who know it very well: but in those two countries the situation of building is contrary to ours, while the one in Holland is much more similar. Therefore you have to live in Holland (...) and not in Brabant, and to learn the Dutch manner of architecture, but especially foundations, which are necessary here, since they are in an identical situation with the lowness of the land and the thinness of walls. Moreover, in Holland they understand better than anywhere else in the world the proportions of gardens, how to measure them out and how to decorate them, both with forest and all sort of figures – things that I demand above all else. Also, you ought to learn about the work of sluices, which we very much need here. For this sake, forget all else and learn what I have outlined above.64 That same day, Peter the Great took the direction of the Russian architectural students from Boris Kourakin, the Russian ambassador in The Hague since 1712 who was too often absent from his post, and gave it to his agent in Holland, Johannes van der Burgh.65 He repeated his instructions, which included moving Korobov to Amsterdam:66 Our people who are in Holland and Brabant to study the science of architecture are Ivan Mordvinov, Afanasij Grek and Ivan Mitchurin in Holland and Ivan Korobov in Brabant.67 Of these, only Korobov writes us that there are there no building sites. And that one can not learn there the practice of construction. While they are recommended from our side to Prince Kourakin, he can not follow them up because of his frequent absences. Therefore we order you to keep an eye upon them. Unite them all in Holland and have them learn the Hollandish manner of construction [manir gollanskoj arhitektury] and especially how to make foundations, because we have the same situation because of the water level and reduced thickness of the walls. Add to this, that they learn also how to make gardens, how to plant and decorate them. That they also learn how to build sluices, what is very necessary here, and that they learn this before everything else and therefore, from the moment on that a building site in Holland presents itself, sent them there for practice.68 A month earlier, in October 1724, Peter’s secretary informed Van den Burgh that the three students Ivan Mitchurin, Ivan Korobov, and Ivan Mordvinov were sent to Holland.69  Golikov, Dopolnenija, Dejanijam Petra Velikogo, t. 14, Moscow, St. Petersburg 1792, 380–381, quoted (and translated in English) in: Gorbatenko 2003, 142; Piljavskii 1953, 42. Naucno-istoriceskij arhiv SanktPeterburgskogo instituta istorii (Archives of the Historical Institute of St. Petersburg), Fonds 270, opis 1, no. 107, fols. 404, 406 (7 November 1724). Iogansen 1997, 191–216, 197, quotation without mentioned source; Gorbatenko 2003, 142, source: Piljavskii 1953, 42. For the correspondence between Korobov and Peter the Great see also Carcraft 1988, 148–150. 65   On 3 June 1723 money was transferred to Kourakin for the Russian architectural students Korobov, Mordvinov and Grek (RGADA, fol. 9, kn. 53). 64

 Gorbatenko 2003, 142; source: Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, v. 7 (Sankt Peterburg, 1850), 358, no. 4585, 7 November 1724. 67  Some authors add to the list of Russians sent by Peter the Great to Holland to study architecture also the names of Ivan Ustinov/Oustinov, of Michaïl Bashmakov (Pérouse de Montclos 1995, 21; Gorbatenko 2003, 140) and of Pyotr Smit (Gorbatenko 2003, 140). 68  RGADA, fol. 9, kn. 53, fol. 637: letter to Van der Burgh; Naucno-istoriceskij arhiv Sankt-Peterburgskogo instituta istorii (Archives of the Historical Institute of Sint-Petersburg), Fonds 270, opis 1, no. 107, fols. 405, 407 (7 November 1724); Boonstra 1997, 37. 69   Boonstra 1997, 36. 66

419

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

The agent was to set them at work quickly after their arrival in the construction of gardens, ditches, and canals.70 When Van den Burgh received the order from the tsar, he promised to search for good masters.71 Unfortunately, the names of these masters were not mentioned but Simon Schijnvoet, who was paid 100 guilders, assisted him in this task.72 Schijnvoet (1652–1727) owned a famous collection of medallions and antiquities.73 In 1698, Peter the Great visited this cabinet of curiosities, art, and engravings and spoke with him on architecture, sculpture, and topiary during his trip to the Northern Low Countries.74 Schijnvoet presumably played the role of advisor to the architecture and engineering study program of the Russian pensionnaires in Holland. Occupying different public functions, Schijnvoet was an amateur architect, independent of the world of construction. From 1705 until 1709, he was involved in the finishing of the Burgerzaal in the Amsterdam town hall, and he designed gardens in the neighbourhood of Amsterdam. Closely linked to the Dutch advisors of the tsar, Schijnvoet designed a country house on the Vecht for Christoffel Brants, a merchant in the Russian trade who acquired the house in 1705, and for whom he set out the gardens. This property received the name ‘Petersburg’ in honour of Peter and the Russian capital.75 On 26 December 1717, the tsar visited his property at the Vecht, where he took a bath in the specially built Russian bath house or banya.76 Peter possessed the plans and views of this house and his garden.77 The architectural students did not rush to move from Antwerp to Amsterdam, especially Mordvinov, who remembered bad experiences in Holland and thus protested his departure from Antwerp. Van den Burgh insisted on the imperial command to leave Antwerp and threatened to cease all financial support.78 At the end of 1724, they moved to Amsterdam. The two-and-ahalf years’ stay in Holland, from January 1725 until the summer of 1727, studying foundations, sluices, and gardens, proved difficult for the students. Van den Burgh suggested to Peter that the engineers would learn best the art of sluice making working in the field whereas learning these matters by theory alone would take several years. The tsar embraced this suggestion. However, the Russian noblemen disagreed vigorously. The idea that they must work with their hands in a canal seemed inconceivable to them. Until that moment, they had acquired all their knowledge as noblemen should – through the study of texts and theory and through the process of drawing and designing (for example, Korobov documented his acquaintance with sculpture by drawing, not by making bozzetti). The ‘revolutionary’ tsar, having learned the craft of naval carpentry himself, overruled their objections. In January 1725, at the moment that the students became aware of the death of Peter, they tried to escape from the apprenticeship of sluices. Tsarina Catharine I was furious. In their letter dated 20 April 1725, they apologised to Catharine and assured her that they learned well the art of building sluices.79 In 1726 again, the students tried to escape

 Boonstra 1997, 37; source: RGADA, fond 9, otdelenie 1, 1724, inv. no. 63, Makarov to Van den Burgh, 20 August 1724. 71  Boonstra 1997, 37; source: RGADA, fond 9, otdelenie 2, 1724, inv. no. 68, Van den Burgh to Peter, 8 December 1724. 72   Gorbatenko 2003, 144; At the occasion of the return of Korobov and Mordinov to Russia, the Russian agent in Holland Van den Burgh wrote a report in which he boasts that he searched masters and work for the students. 73  On Schijnvoet, see for instance: Scheltema 1814, vol. 2, 220; van Zuiden 1916, 295; Carcraft 1988, 131, 148; de Jong 1993, 56; de Jong 1996a. 70

420

  Meischke et al. 1995, 144; Gorbatenko 2003, 78.   Meijer 1996. 76   Gorbatenko 2003, 42 n. 75; Hunt & de Jong 1988, 124–126, cat. no. 12. On Brants see for instance: Walstra & De Wilde 1989, 259–262; Driessen 1989, 104 cat. no. 191. 77   RAN, F.266/5 l.4. Gorbatenko 2003, 41 fig. 39. See: de Jong 1981, 338–339 fig. 31; Kistemaker et al. 1996, 234 cat. no. 198; Oldenburger-Ebbers & Reiman 2001. 78  Boonstra 1997, 37; source: RGADA, fonds 9, otdelenie 2, 1725, inv. no. 74, Van den Burgh to Tsar Peter, 9 January 1725. 79   Iogansen 1997, 196–197. 74 75

Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

from their work on sluices, which they found contradictory to the principles of architecture and which occupied all their time.80 That same year, Korobov also complained that they lacked a real architectural education; they made their project without supervision. He wrote to Russia: “There is no one here to whom one can show one’s drafts or ask questions about architecture, because all the houses in the city are built by carpenters and not by architects”.81 The students mentioned a comparable problem related to the art of gardening. The experience of the Dutch gardener, chosen to train the Russians, would have been limited to the rearrangement of existing gardens; he had never created a garden from scratch. Korobov and Mordvinov insisted that the gardener did not know the rules of garden design and that only a few people in Holland did. At the end of the summer of 1727, Korobov and Mordinov left for St. Petersburg.82 Van den Burgh insisted in a letter that “they have in Antwerp and other places here in Holland learnt civil architecture, as well as how to make sluices and gardens and how here they drive piles under foundations and they know their business well and are fit to serve in Russia”.83 Upon their arrival, these professional abilities were confirmed because they succeeded in an entrance examination for the Chamber of Building: The pensionnaires responded correctly to all our questions concerning the rules and proportions of civil architecture; and we have seen that their drawings and wooden models follow true architectural rules; we gave them also a plan of an ecclesiastical building in stone without measures or scale indication for which they had to design a façade with corresponding measures and scales and with corresponding ornaments.84 The examination report was signed by the Italians Trezzinni and Gaitano Ciaveri, the Russians Mikhaïl Zemtsov and Piotre Eropkin, the Dutchman Harmen van Bol’es and Pierre Sualem from Flanders. On 15 December 1727, Korobov was nominated architect of the Admiralty.85 He became the first Russian architect on this building site, replacing the Dutchman Stefan van Swieten (1720–1726) and the Italian Ciaveri (1726–1727).86 As architect of the Admiralty, he was responsible for the silhouette of its tower (1734–1735/8), which has continued to dominate the skyline of the city.87 In 1737, he became a member of the Commission of Buildings of St. Petersburg, an institution created after the fires of 1736 and 1737.88 The words and actions of Peter the Great make it possible to define the position of the Low Countries around 1700 in the field of architecture and construction in a broad international perspective. Moreover, the professional track of Korobov in Russia after his study in Brabant and Holland did not contradict the tsar’s convictions. This case should invite architectural historians to rethink the European architectural world as a polycentric field in which the Low Countries functioned within an international network. Notwithstanding the confusion created by the almost general use of the term ‘Holland’ in the tsar’s correspondence to refer to both the Northern and Southern Low Countries, which 80  Gorbatenko 2003, 142; source: Piljavskii 1953, 60–62. 81   Gorbatenko 2003, 144; source: Piljavskii 1953, 60. 82   Iogansen 1997, 198; Boonstra 1997, 37; Kistenmaker et al. 1997, 126. 83  Reiman 1996, 126. Quoted source: Grabar 1954, 177; Boonstra 1997, 37; Gorbatenko 2003, 142 and 146. 84  Iogansen 1997, 198 quotation without mentioned source. 85  Although competent in the field of theory, and therefore worthy to be nominated as architect, they still

had to prove that they mastered the practice of this art. On 20 September, they were first engaged as journeymen with the salary of 250 roubles. Iogansen 1997. 86   Iogansen 1997. 87   Reworked by Zakarov from 1806 onwards. Berelovitch & Medvedkova 1996, 143, 231–232; Pérouse de Montclos 1995, 21; Gorbatenko 2003, 146. 88  Pérouse de Montclos 1995, 21; Berelovitch & Medvedkova 1996, 143–144.

421

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

at that moment had been politically separated for more than a century, of interest here was the association of particular building techniques with a specific region. To learn the foundation of thin masonry structures in wet soil, or sluices, the students were sent to Holland; such techniques were not considered to be found in Brabant. The explicit interest in the technical component of the ‘Netherlandish’ building expertise, also well-known in earlier periods, was extended to gardens as well. Additionally, for Peter the Great, the Netherlands were a centre of knowledge on fortification. He acquired numerous drawings and treatises on this subject, but his architectural students were not involved in this matter. Flanders had no place in Peter’s analysis. However, other nations, such as France, relied on Flemish examples for expertise in waterworks. For instance, the previously mentioned Bélidor discussed and illustrated key monuments of waterworks realised by the State of Flanders in his engineering manuals. Initially one architectural student was sent to the North and one to the South to learn the ‘noble art of architecture’. When learning that the teaching in the North was more oriented towards carpentry – Korobov would later state that Holland was a land of carpenters and not of architects – both students ended up in the Antwerp workshop of the court sculptor and architect of the Southern Low Countries. No indication was made of a distinct, clearly identifiable (Northern or Southern) formal ‘Netherlandish’ architectural model, however. No clear evidence existed at that moment in time and in that context proving that the reputation of Van Campen, or of Dutch seventeenth-century Classicist architecture in general, was relevant to the status of the Dutch Republic as an architectural centre. Conversely, Korobov’s Antwerp drawings showed that he mastered the system of learned architecture with its orders and typologies there, incorporating recent French innovations. However, the reason for his stay with Van Baurscheit seemed less related to studying ‘characteristic’ Netherlandish architecture, than to using the opportunity to be trained in a Western European workshop, belonging to a proper court sculptor and architect. The Russian pensionnaires found in Van Baurscheit a teacher of the art of architecture worthy to be learned by an aristocrat. Korobov was fully confident that the drawings he realised during his training with Van Baurscheit would support his petition to the tsar to continue his studies nearer to the ‘roots of this art’. Apparently, for Peter the Great, the Antwerp environment of sculptor-architects constituted a valuable alternative and worthy equal to France and Italy, fully capable of forming the new Russian architectural elite. Potsdam, Holländisches Viertel King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia (reign 1713–1740), grandson of the Great Elector, ruled his kingdom with strict d ­ iscipline, exacting military-style ­ obedience in all matters. Concerning culture and the arts, he promoted sobriety and ­puritanism using Dutch culture as an example, unlike his father Friedrich I who transformed the duchy of Brandenburg into the kingdom of Prussia, focussing on Louis XIV’s Versailles for the styling of his court. Friedrich Wilhelm reduced the expensive royal household that his father had established. An exodus of artists was the result; the architect Johann Friedrich Eosander moved to Sweden and the sculptor Andreas Schlüter to St. Petersburg. The royal building program was now based on principles of economy and dictated by military needs: bridges, roads, dikes, fire security of the ­cities, building new cities, and urban quarters. Modest Dutch architecture was regarded as an excellent model, as were Dutch architects.89 The architecture of the royal hunting lodge Stern  “...der König hielt die Holländischen Baumeister für die Besten”. H.L. Manger, Baugeschichte von 89

422

Potsdam, Berlin/Stettin 1789, 19 (quoted from Mielke 1960, 11).

Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

(the Star) of 1731 reflects King Friedrich Wilhelm’s taste (fig. 5). It is located at the centre of a star-shaped hunting forest and built in brick with a neck gable like an ordinary Dutch urban house but now isolated from its urban surroundings and put into a feudal context. The hunting lodge was a statement of the king’s contempt of prodigality and, in this case, the Dutch house was seen as a model of homeliness. In the following years, the same type of houses was built in Potsdam for middle-class craftsmen. The king chose Potsdam as his second residence; it served at the same time as garrison city of his elite troops. From 1720 onwards, he enlarged the small city twice, multiplying the number of houses from 220 in 1713 to 553 in 1730, and up to 1154 in 1740. Most new houses were traditional wooden-framed buildings, but in 1732 the king also wanted some blocks to be built in brick. After the king visited Amsterdam in the spring of 1732, he wished to attract Dutch craftsmen to reinforce the economic 5. Potsdam, ‘Jagdschloss Stern’ (hunting lodge and industrial life of the enlarged Potsdam, ‘The Star’), 1731–1732 (photograph Gabri van as his grandfather had done eighty years Tussenbroek). before in Berlin. In order to persuade Dutch colonists to move to Potsdam, the king promised a house for each of them, furnished and free from billeting of soldiers. To make this offer even more attractive, the new houses were to be built to Dutch standards, which meant in brick, with rows of neck gables alternating with longitudinal houses with straight cornices. Between 1732 and 1742, over one hundred and thirty houses were erected in four building blocks, together called the Holländisches Viertel (Dutch Quarter).90 In 1732, two military officers, Pierre de Gayette (1683–1747) and Andreas Berger (1698– 1742) began preparations for the Holländisches Viertel by designing the l­ayout of the streets and building plots. The new urban quarter was constructed ­according to the king’s ideals of unity and uniformity. Only two house types were designed: three-bay wide houses with neck gables and ­five-bay wide longitudinal houses with straight cornices, which were intended for houses with workshops (fig. 6). All one hundred thirty-four houses were erected by a Dutch building team that arrived in 1732 under supervision of master carpenter Jan Bouman (1706– 1776), who was accompanied by the carpenters Anton de Ridder and Adriaan den Ouden and the bricklayer Huybrecht Keetel. The first two blocks were built between 1733 and 1739, while the third and fourth blocks were erected between 1740 and 1742. Meanwhile, a swamp between the old city centre and the new urban quarter was transformed into an urban pond with an island in the middle. On this little island, a royal pavilion was erected, the ‘Gloriette’, inspired by Dutch tea pavilions along the river Vecht (fig. 7).91   Mielke 1960; Blumert 1994; Wendland 1994.

90

 “... ein Königl. Lust-Haus nach Holländischer Manier erbauet worden”. Quote from 1741; Mielke 1960, 88 note 17. 91

423

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

6. Potsdam, ‘Holländisches Viertel’, 1733–1742, by Jan Bouman and others ­(photograph Gabri van Tussenbroek).

In 1740, Friedrich II (later called ‘the Great’) succeeded his father and in turn the taste at court in Potsdam turned once more towards international refined art and French standards of royal representation. Nevertheless, Friedrich II was also a 7. Potsdam, ‘Gloriette’ in the pond of the great admirer of Holland. In 1755, he vis‘Holländisches Viertel’, 1737–1739 (destroyed in ited Holland incognito as ‘musician to the 1949), (from: Mielke 1960, 112). Polish King’. He regarded the sober but dignified Dutch architecture as suitable for urban architecture but by no means for royal buildings, as his own building projects such as Sanssouci and the Neues Palais in Potsdam demonstrated. Under Friedrich II’s reign Jan Bouman, the building master of the Holländisches Viertel, remained respected for his skills as an experienced constructor and capable manager of the complex logistics on building sites. He was appointed Baudirektor, head of the royal building team, supervising the construction of works mostly designed by others, especially by the court architect Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff. In 1755, Bouman was even promoted to the rank of Oberbaudirektor in Berlin. In this function, he was responsible for all building projects of the state and supervised seven hundred employees. Nevertheless, his role as an architectural designer was rather limited. Abbé Laugier and the façade à la flamande In 1766, the famous French art and architecture critic abbé Marc-Antoine Laugier (1713–1769), author of Essai sur l’architecture (1753), Observations sur l’architecture (1765) and Manière de bien juger des ouvrages de peinture (published posthumously in 1771), travelled through the Low Countries in company of the twin brothers Jean-Baptiste and Edme de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye. The manuscript of the travel journal of this trip, with the title Détail de tout ce que nous avons observé et éprouvé dans notre voyage de Hollande, contained

424

Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

a mine of critical observations on the art and architecture of the Southern and Northern Low Countries.92 This excursion took Laugier and his company one month, from 21 May until 23 June 1766. They visited Senlis, Pont-Sainte-Maxence, Roye, Peronne, Mons, Brussels, Antwerp, Rotterdam, The Hague, Leiden, Haarlem, Zwolle, Zaandam, Amsterdam, and returned via Utrecht, Breda, Antwerp, Ghent, Kortrijk, Tournai, Lille, Arras, Amiens, Beauvais, Amiens, and Beaumont. Given this trajectory and the travelling time spent in coach and on boat, no unsuspected or uncommon attractions were to be expected. They frequented the highest social circles. These local connections provided access to private art collections. As contemporary travellers through Holland, they were fascinated by the religious plurality, the béguinages, the hidden church buildings, or schuilkerken, of the Catholics in the Dutch Republic and the transport on the canals in the so-called trekschuiten. Laugier’s travel journal differed from other voyages de Hollande in his explicit treatment of painting, sculpture, and architecture.93 He praised the naturalist church pulpits and the work of Michel van der Voort, which he considered the “best sculptor of Flanders”. He was seduced by the colorit of the Flemish school and his second visit to Antwerp reads as a tribute to Rubens. His minute and judicious analysis of buildings, his remarks on and sharp critique of architecture largely surpassed the commonplaces generally found in this type of literature. Moving fast from one city to another, Laugier and the De La Curne brothers had time to visit only the major sites: the occasional fortress, cathedral, and town hall, to which they added, in case of a slightly longer stay, some other churches, public buildings, private collections, and other curiosities. Consequently, the list of mentioned buildings hardly differed from other travel journals. Moreover, the manuscript showed no signs of any travel preparation regarding Netherlandish architecture, nor was the manuscript revised afterwards with hard data on the visited buildings, such as the names of architects or historical construction details. Instead, the journal was filled with fresh observations from a French author of books on architecture, destined to a public of interested amateurs. In a passage at the end of the manuscript, upon his return to Paris, the author deplored leaving the “beautiful and rich country of Flanders”, observing the “increasing ugliness and poverty the more one entered France”.94 The local contemporary architecture did not evoke this favourable impression in Laugier. Local emanations of Rococo, in addition to the palace of Prince Charles of Lorraine in Brussels and even the abbey of Saint-Martin at Tournai, the work of Laurent-Benoît Dewez, architect of the Église Belgique and local representative of the new goût antique, were labelled in bad taste (du mauvais gout). In fact, the modern architecture of the former Low Countries did not fascinate him; it was not what he sought in this region. At Valenciennes, he mentioned “some hôtels in the taste of ours”,95 following the typology of the hotel entre cour et jardin. In Rotterdam, he observed “several houses (…) which have doors decorated

  Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ms., Bréquigny 66, fol. 119r and following: “voyage de Ste Playe en Hollande en 1766”; fol. 130r and following: “Détail de tout ce que nous avons observé et éprouvé dans notre voyage de Hollande” (henceforth quoted as Laugier 1766). The account of the trip through Holland is edited and annotated in: van Strien-Chardonneau 1992. The manuscript was unknown to the principal biographer of Laugier, Wolfgang Hermann (Hermann 1962). 92

  For travel accounts through the Austrian Netherlands, see Stols 1987; Van Damme 1964; Smets 1976. For the Pays de Liège, see Hélin 1975. 94   “Le beau et riche Pais de la Flandre avoit disparu, tout paroissoit s’enlaidir et s’appauvrir en avançant dans le sein de la France”. Laugier 1766 (see note 92), fol. 152v. 95  “[…] quelques hôtels dans le goût des nôtres”. Ibidem, fol. 131v. 93

425

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

with stone columns and a large pediment under the roof with architrave, frieze and cornice; these architectural elements are predominantly of the Doric order, in rather good taste”.96 This description evokes a façade type characteristic of Dutch Classicism but this remains a sole instance in Laugier’s written observations. In fact, he mentioned few modern constructions, such as the tower “of modern construction”, of the Beffroi in Mons97 or Protestant churches on octagonal ground plans. Major buildings such as the town halls of Antwerp and Amsterdam were severely criticised. He deplored in the Antwerp town hall “this multiplicity of orders [that] causes the whole to degenerate into small pieces which, what with the great errors in the details, present a composition without effect”.98 Neither did he mince words when criticizing the masterpiece of Jacob van Campen. The architecture of seventeenth-century Dutch Classicism did not seem to have made a lasting impression on him: The town hall of Amsterdam did not measure up to its reputation, in our opinion: It is a great square mass entirely built of blue stone. Two storeys articulated with pilasters stand upon a base with a height of twelve feet. The first order is composite with bizarre elements in the capitals. The second order is Corinthian; each storey has two rows of square windows, separated by heavily wrought garlands. The two main façades have a central projection of seven bays and lateral projections of three bays at the corners. The central projections are crowned with a large pediment framing sculpture of a confused design and barbarous execution. Above the pediment fronting the square stands a tower of middling height with columns and arcades of the Corinthian order, which encloses the carillon and the clock. At the top and at the ends of each pediment, there are eleven-foot tall figures standing upon spheres, of mediocre merit.99 The Antwerp Jesuit church, “the design of which was supplied by Rubens in plan and elevation” seems to have been the only modern building he respected, or at least commented upon in a less negative manner.100 However, the studiously neutral tone of his description of the interior, formerly of marble with ceiling paintings by Rubens in the aisles but restored with stucco after the devastating 1718 fire, fits in better with the contemporary cult of Rubens than with the general architectural discourse of the journal.

 “[…] plusieurs maisons qui (…) ont des portes ornées de colonnes de pierre et un grand entablement sous le toit avec architrave, frise et corniche; le dorique domine tous ces assortiments d’architecture, qui sont d’assez bon goût”. Ibidem, fol. 139v. 97   “[…] de construction moderne”. Ibidem, fol. 132r. 98   “[…] cette multiplicité d’ordres [qui] fait dégénérer tout l’ouvrage en petites parties qui entre de grands défauts dans les détails présentent un ensemble sans effet”. Ibidem, fol. 135v. 99  “L’hôtel de ville d’Amsterdam nous a paru bien au-dessous de sa réputation: c’est une grande masse carrée, toute bâtie en pierre gros bleu. Sur un soubassement qui à 12 pieds de haut, s’élèvent deux étages d’architecture en pilastres. Le 1er ordre est composite avec des singularités bizarres dans les chapiteaux. Le 2e ordre est corinthien; à chaque étage, il y a deux rangs de fenêtres carrées, séparées par des guirlandes dont le travail est lourd et pesant. Les deux principales façades ont un avant-corps de 96

426

sept croisées dans le milieu et deux avant-corps de trois croisées dans les angles. Les avant-corps du milieu sont couronnés par un grand fronton dont le tympan est taillé de sculpture d’un dessin confus et d’une exécution barbare. Au-dessus du fronton, qui donne sur la place, est une tour ronde, de hauteur médiocre avec des colonnes et des arcades d’ordre corinthien. Elle renferme le carillon et l’horloge. A la pointe et à l’extrémité de chaque fronton, il y a sur des sphères des figures de onze en pied dont le mérite est mediocre”. Ibidem, fols. 143v-144r. 100  “dont Rubens a donné le plan et les élévations. [Elle est] différente des autres. Son portail presente les trois ordres grecs de petite manière. Dans l’intérieur, il y a deux étages de colonnes qui portent arcades tout cet intérieur étoit anciennement en marbre et les plafonds des bas côtés étoient peints par Rubens. Depuis l’incendie qui détruisit cette église on a subsitué au marbre et aux peintures de la pierre et du platre”. Ibidem, fols. 135r-135v.

Paradigm Change

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

In his Essai sur l’architecture, Laugier highly appreciated certain aspects of Gothic architecture. His travel companion Jean-Baptiste de la Curne was a renowned scholar of the Middle Ages and author of several books on ancient French literature, which could have encouraged Laugier to pay attention to medieval architecture during this trip. In this travel account of the Low Countries, he placed medieval architecture in contrast to the “bad taste of former centuries”.101 Besides more favourable adjectives, such as beau/bon, soigné, grand, majestueux, élégant, richement décoré, agréable, and du grand effet, a whole set of particular and positively connoted terms were employed in the description of the Gothic architecture of the Netherlands, such as svelte, légère, élevé, haut, and pyramidal.102 Laugier’s tribute to the tower of the city hall of Brussels read as follows: “very high, very slim, and the open-work spire is diversified with an abundance of small pyramids (...) of the highest elegance”.103 The tower of Antwerp Cathedral was praised in a comparable way: “The tower of this cathedral [of Antwerp] is the highest spire, the slimmest Gothic work, the most elegant and most beautifully formed that one can see”.104 He judged St Bavo’s Church of Haarlem “the largest Gothic building in all Holland”,105 and the Ghent St Bavo’s Church “without doubt the most beautiful in the Netherlands”. Laugier distinguished between three phases of Gothic architecture. The first, now called Romanesque, the middle, and the last. Laugier considered the nave of Tournai Cathedral, with its “two storeys of arcades” to be Gothic of the first period;106 the nave and transept of Cambrai Cathedral and the cathedral of Arras were quoted as examples of the middle or second period.107 The last period, “the highest, the slimmest and the most finished”, which Laugier appreciated most, was found in the choir of Tournai and in St Bavo’s in Ghent.108 Laugier did not extend his appreciation of the Gothic to the irregular aspects of certain (or even most) Gothic constructions. He associated this irregular aspect with the fact that most Gothic buildings were started, continued, and finished by different masters.109 Moreover, Laugier took great care to distinguish between the overall effect of a composition and the elaboration of its details.110 As a connoisseur, Laugier distinguished a local Brabantine t­ypology of church buildings, with St Michael and St Gudula’s Church in Brussels as a prototype, characterized by “thick isolated columns which receive the vaults of the arcades”.111 The same characteristics were mentioned to describe “the general composition of Flemish churches”.112 He considered the lack of stone vaults the most common defect of the churches of these northern regions, making clear that, for this French architectural critic, the Gothic architecture of Ile-de-France remained the sole frame of reference.113   “[…] le mauvais goût des derniers siècles”. Ibidem, fol. 131r. 102   Ibidem, passim. Especially the descriptions of the church at Halle; the cathedrals of Beauvais, Amiens, Cambray, Seuilis, Mons, and Antwerp, the Laurenskerk of Rotterdam, the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft, the chapel of the old palace and the town hall of Brussels. 103   “[…] très haute, très svelte, et l’ouvrage [est] percé à jour, diversifié par une foule de petites piramides […] de la dernière elegance”. Ibidem, fol. 135v. 104   “La tour de cette cathédrale [d’Anvers] est la plus haute piramide, l’ouvrage gothique le plus svelte, le plus élégant et de la meilleure forme, qu’il soit possible de voir”. ibidem, fol. 135v. 105   Ibidem, fol. 143v. 106  “ […] sans contredit la plus belle des Pays-Bas”. Ibidem, fol. 151r. 101

  Ibidem, fol. 130v.  “le plus élevé, [le] plus svelte et le plus soigné”. Ibidem, fol. 130v; fol. 151v. 109   “[…] comme on le voit dans la plupart des Edifices de ce genre qui ont été commencés, continués et achevés par différents Maitres”. Ibidem, fol. 130 r. 110   “[…] cette forme [tour] est svelte, la grande élévation faite de l’effet, les détails sont peu satisfaisants.” Cathédrale de Senlis, ibidem, fol. 130 r. 111   “Ce sont de vastes colonnes isolées qui recoivent la retombée des voûtes des arcades; elles supportent les betons qui vont joindre les nervures des grandes voûtes”. Ibidem, fol. 135v. 112   “[…] l’ordonnance générale des églises de Flandres”. Ibidem, fol. 132v , fol. 133r. 113   Ibidem, fol. 140r, fol. 141r. 107 108

427

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

In a minute analysis, Laugier described the general characteristics of the way of building houses in these northern regions, insisting on a crucial difference with Ile-de-France: “the houses are in the Flemish manner with [stepped] gables fronting the street, which are set back strongly from their base until the top”.114 He noticed this type of construction ­everywhere during his trip from the Southern Low Countries conquered by Louis XIV to the Dutch Republic in the north.115 Laugier much appreciated the stepped gable and related it to the beauty of the architecture of the North. In the charming urbanistic effect created by serried ranks of gables, he even saw a possible antidote to the dull monotony of contemporary classicising architecture: “The Flemish way of building is not to be despised at all; this crowd of gables in the street fronts, decorated in variegated ways, create a rather pleasing effect, which one cannot fail to contrast with the dreary uniformity of the roofs in our ordinary cities”.116 Whether Laugier’s appreciation of the “façade à la flamande” was related to the normative type of the cabane rustique, evoked in his Essai sur l’architecture as the solid base of all imitation in architecture, is not clear. Nor can it be determined whether its attraction was based on the picturesque qualities of this ‘authentic’, ‘local’, ‘native’, and ‘primitive’ construction. Other specifics of local construction techniques were sharply observed and analysed in contrast with the building practices in Ile-de-France. For instance, in Cambray-sur-l’Escaut, Laugier remarked on the mixed use of brick and stone in façades.117 In Holland, in Delft, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam, he is struck anew by the aforementioned gables in the Flemish mode, which “are cantilevered over the street by two or three feet”, and notes with interest that the main objective of this “menacing construction” is to keep the rain off the entrance of the house, and to facilitate the winching up of bales of merchandise to the higher storage levels “without damaging the glass windows of the house”.118. Also in Rotterdam, he observed the lightweight construction method of brick walls reinforced with iron bars, which merits to be quoted in full because of the acuity of its description: Construction in Rotterdam is, like in the whole of Holland, very light, with walls of only two bricks’ thickness, and window frames in wood painted with oils. The whole is anchored with iron ties, so that the cantilevering of the walls does not harm their strength. The houses are small, three bays wide, some of four. Those with five or six are very rare. The door of each house gives access to a raised passage paved with large flags of marble from Genoa, and some have wainscoting of the same material. At the end one discovers a very steep wooden staircase. Alongside this corridor there are one or two chambers at the front, and an equal number at the back, repeated on each floor. Gates fit for a coach

 “[…] les maisons sont à la Flamande, avec des pignons sur la rue, qui ont de fortes retraites depuis leur base jusqu’à leur sommet”. Ibidem, fol. 130r. 115   Cambray-sur-l’Escaut (ibidem, fol. 130r), Cambray (fol. 131r), Valenciennes (fol. 131v), Mons (fol. 131v), Brussels (fol. 132v), Vilvoorde (fol. 134v), Antwerp (fol. 135v), Delft (fol. 140v), Amsterdam (fols. 147rv), Utrecht (fol. 148v), Ghent (fol. 150r), Kortrijk (fol. 151r). 116  “La Façon de bâtir à la flamande n’est point du tout à mépriser, cette foule de pignons sur la rüe diversement historiés fait un effet assez agréable, et qu’on ne peut s’empêcher de préferer à la maussade 114

428

uniformité des toits dans nos villes ordinaires”. Ibidem, fol. 130r. 117   Ibidem, fol. 130r. 118   “[…] des maisons, bâties la plupart à la flamande avec un surplomb sur la rue de deux ou trois pieds. Nous fûmes frappés de cette singularité et nous apprîmes que l’objet de cette construction menaçante était d’écarter les eaux pluviales de l’entrée de la maison et de faciliter le guindage des ballots de marchandises dans les magasins supérieurs sans que les vitres de la maison soient endommagées”. Ibidem, fol. 139v; also fol. 140v and fol. 147r.

Paradigm Change

8a. Kuskovo (Russia), ‘Dutch House’ as a garden folly in the country estate of Pjotr Sjeremetev, 1749 (photograph Ekaterina Bulgakova).

in the

Early Eighteenth Century

8b. Interior of the Dutch House at Kuskova (photograph Victoria Viatris).

or courtyards or sequences of apartments (enfilade) are unknown here. In the rooms, the walls are covered with common tapestries; the wooden floors are strewn with carpets in the best rooms and with white sand in the lesser ones. Sometimes a carpet runner covers the marble floor of the entrance passage, continuing up the stairs; under each stair it is attached by small iron carpet rods.119 If seen against the background of the contemporary vogue for Dutch pavilions in the gardens of the high aristocracy, Laugier’s appreciation of the façades “à la flamande” and the Gothic towers of the Low Countries seem less provocative and more in keeping with what can be expected of a “man of taste” (homme de goût) of that era. In 1749, Pjotr Sjeremetev, son of Count Boris, field marshal of Tsar Peter the Great, built a ‘Dutch House’ in the family estate at Kuskovo, ten kilometres east from the centre of Moscow (figs. 8a-b).120 As a major asset in a garden dominated by a classicising wooden main building, the (painted) brick façade with stepped gable and kitchen with Delft blue tiles – elements which became pars pro toto design features for expressing Dutchness – evoked the row house common in the Netherlands, and found frequently in Dutch and Flemish paintings, which the owner collected. Both Laugier’s and Sjeremetev’s fascination with Netherlandish architecture arguably did not stem from a discontent with contemporary fashionable architecture, but rather from an interest in the historical or ‘authentic’ – the ‘iconic’ – Netherlandish architecture represented in Netherlandish paintings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.   “La bâtisse est à Rotterdam, comme dans toute la Hollande, très légère. Ce sont des murs qui n’ont que deux largeurs de briques et les montants des fenêtres sont en bois peint à l’huile. Le tout est lié par des ancres de fer, en sorte que le surplomb des murs ne nuit point à leur solidité. Les maisons sont petites, de trois croisées de face, quelques-unes de quatre. Celles qui en ont cinq ou six sont très rares. La porte de chaque maison est élevée sur longue allee pavée de larges carreaux de marbre de Gênes, quelquesunes ont des lambris d’appui de même matière. On trouve au fond un escalier de bois très raide. Il y a 119

le long de ce corridor une chambre ou deux sur le devant, autant sur le derrière, à tous les étages. On ne connaît point ici les portes cochères ni les cours ni les enfilades d’appartements. Les chambres sont tendues de tapisseries communes; les planchers couverts de tapis dans les belles pièces et de sable blanc dans les moindres. On trouve quelquefois un lé de tapis sur le marbre des allées et qui continue sur l’escalier auquel il est attaché sous les marches par de petites aguettes de fer”. Ibidem, fol. 139v. 120   Kuskovo Estate Museum, 2 Yunost Street, Moscow, 111402 Russia.

429

Dirk Van

de

Vijver

Conclusion Tsar Peter the Great repeatedly bore witness, in his own words, to the fact that at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Low Countries still occupied a place of some importance on the international architectural scene. This position was no longer based on specific stylistic features but centred on pragmatic issues, such as professional training possibilities in the workshop of a court architect; technical expertise on particular construction methods, such as foundations in wet soil, and hydraulic engineering involving canals and sluices; and the Dutch contribution to gardening and fortification. Towards the middle of the century, in an evolution that seemed more inspired by a ‘touristic’ appreciation avant la lettre of architectural ‘authenticity’, the brick house with its ‘Flemish gable’, known from sixteenthand seventeenth-century Netherlandish paintings, grew into the main icon of Netherlandish architecture.

430

Conclusions: Shifts

in

Time

and

Place

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge (Utrecht University, KU Leuven – University of Leuven)

The aim of this book was not to produce a complete overview on the migration of building masters and of architectural ideas and inventions from the Low Countries to other parts of Europe. Nevertheless the case-studies presented in this volume offer the possibility to draw some provisional conclusions, even if they are more in the nature of snapshots. Push and pull factors for emigration The common idea that (threat of) war and religious intolerance were the most notable factors that ‘pushed’ Netherlandish building masters to go abroad turned out to be only partly true. Economical pressure was perhaps more important, especially in the Antwerp metropolis. Lack of market opportunities at home due to the intense competition among artistic workshops stimulated those who could not withstand the pressure to seek their fortune elsewhere. And this exodus had already started decades before the political and religious situation became unstable in the late 1560s. The iconoclast rebellion (Beeldenstorm) of 1566 even motivated some Netherlandish artists to return home because they expected many new commissions for religious art. Nevertheless, it is true that the numbers of emigrating craftsmen and artists increased dramatically in the 1570s until the end of the sixteenth century. Although there are no definitive statistics available, the overall number of artists emigrating from the Low Countries in the first half of the seventeenth century was likely far lower than in the previous fifty years. The building boom of the Dutch Golden Age, especially in Holland, created manifold new possibilities for master masons, stonecutters, sculptors and architects. Only younger craftsmen without an established reputation at home still had reason to try their luck elsewhere. Yet in the seventeenth century starting a career abroad was not as easy as it once had been for newcomers from the Low Countries. In the Scandinavian and Baltic regions a second and third generation of Netherlandish émigrés, such as the Steenwinckel brothers in Copenhagen and the Van den Blockes in Gdan´  sk, had assumed a dominant position in the domain of architecture and its related sculpture. Nevertheless, a similarly wellestablished Netherlandish ‘dynasty’ was absent in Sweden and Brandenburg, for example. These courts repeatedly invited Netherlandish masters for the major court buildings, thus continuing the trend. Freedom of religion apparently did not constitute a major reason for emigration. There were not many ardent believers among artists, who seemed to be able to move swiftly from one religion to another if that facilitated their career and economic position. The survival strategies (it would be anachronistic to call it opportunism) are numerous and patronage was looked for on both sides of the religious divide. Among the most famous cases is Hans Vredeman de Vries’s, who in the 1560s dedicated his print series Scenographiae to Cardinal Granvelle and his oval intarsia designs to Peter Ernst of Mansfeld, both staunch supporters of Philip II of Spain, and who from 1577 until1585 served William of Orange and the Calvinist rule in Antwerp as fortification master and architect. In 1585, after Alexander Farnese’s reconquest of the city, he was once again registered as a Catholic and painted the great allegory of the triumphal return of Antwerp to Spain and Catholicism.1 Another example is David   Exh. cat. Antwerp 2002, 306–309.

1

431

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge Vinckeboons who in 1588 received permission to leave Mechelen with his family, pretending to be Protestant – thus profiting by Farnese’s ‘amnesty’ measures –, but once arrived safely in Amsterdam, they became loyal members of the forbidden Catholic Church.2 For the sake of their religion it would have been better if they had stayed in the Southern Low Countries, but obviously other motives came into play here. The literature on the migration of Netherlandish artists commonly focuses on the period of the Dutch Revolt during the late sixteenth century, thus putting the ‘push’ factors first while the pull factors remain underestimated. Nevertheless, taking the long view within a compass of two centuries, the ‘pull’ factors may even be more important than the ‘push’ aspects, especially where architecture is concerned. Many artists, some even of great reputation, went abroad at the invitation of a foreign prince. In many cases the patron (whether or not due to his advisors and agents) played an active and dominant role: He, or as the case may be: she, had the best international connections, had been abroad, had bought books and prints and understood the new architectural vocabulary. Motivated by a specific strategy of representation he invited capable artists from abroad to fulfil his ambitions. Destinations Within the framework of the two centuries under discussion, there is a shift in the main destinations of emigrating building masters from the Low Countries, changing from Southern Europe to the North. In the fifteenth and early sixteenth century, when the Burgundian rich and ingenious Late Gothic was most favoured, almost all invitations came from Southern Europe, especially from Spain. From the mid-sixteenth century onwards invitations from the German countries and the Scandinavian kingdoms became by far more numerous. Artists with an established name were invited to participate in specific prestigious building projects, such as the cathedral of Toledo in the fifteenth century, the Danish and Swedish royal castles in the sixteenth century and the Riddarhus in Stockholm in the seventeenth century. As a matter of course they settled at court or in the cities in the vicinity of these building sites even if these were remote from the major trade routes. Those who travelled on their own initiative looking for employment and prosperity, on the contrary settled in major trade centres, like London, Hamburg, Gdan´  sk and Riga, hoping to find new clients among the local nobility and merchant elites. Within these cities there already existed Netherlandish communities that may have been a great help in starting a new career. At some occasions these communities explicitly presented themselves as such, especially at royal events. At the coronation of James I in 1604, for example, the Netherlandish community in London erected a triumphal arch designed by Conrad Jansen, a joiner from ‘s-Hertogenbosch who had come to England in 1567 and who also worked for the court.3 Painters for this project were directly invited from Antwerp. This gate was far more elaborate and refined in its classical architecture than the five gates erected by Stephan Harrison on behalf of the city of London at that occasion.4 Next to the shores of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea such travellers could be found along the long international trade routes connecting Western, Central and Eastern Europe, from Nuremberg via Breslau/Wrocław and Cracow to Lemberg/Lviv. These regions were situated too far from the sea and the great rivers to maintain direct contact with the quarries in the Low Countries. In Central Europe Netherlandish sculptors, stone carvers and building   Ottenheym 1989, 13; Exh. cat. Amsterdam 1989.   Both sides of the gate and its description published in a pamphlet: Beschryvinghe vande Herlycke Arcus Triumphal ofte Eere Poorte vande Nederlantsche Natie

2 3

432

opgherecht in Londen, Middelburg 1604. Copy in Brussels, Royal Library (CL.14 543b CLP). Hood 2003, 46. 4   Stephan Harrison, Arch’s of Triumph, London 1604; Hood 1991, 67–82; Hood 2003, 48.

Conclusions. Shifts

in

Time

and

Place

masters were only successful if they had the possibility to acquire locally stone of equally high quality. Some obtained possession of good quarries themselves, like Van Hutten in Lviv. More research needs to be carried out on Southern Europe, however. On the face of it, France constitutes an exception, at least according to Brulez who on the basis of his analysis of Thieme-Becker had concluded that, seemingly, France was not a major destination for Netherlandish sculptors, stone carvers and building masters (see chapter 1.1). But this impression is in fact primarily based on a gap in knowledge since the records have never been systematically examined. The flourishing traffic of black and red ‘marble’ from the Mosan region towards France – it was used there among others for sumptuous overmantels, columns, fountains and funerary monuments – during the sixteenth century, for instance, engendered also traffic of artisans.5 The contracts preserved for Nevers Cathedral, dated 1580, show that the main altar was designed by Henri de Borset, maistre sculpteur et bourgeois de la cité de Liège, while the tomb of the commissioner Louis de Gonzague, duke of Nevers, was created by his compatriot Thomas Tollet. These pieces are now lost, but drawings from the Clairambault Collection (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale) confirm that the typically Netherlandish combination of black ‘touchstone’, white alabaster and red marble of Rance was used here.6 The Wespin family from the region of Dinant is another case in point; originally metalworkers, they built up flourishing careers as stone traders and middlemen from the middle of the sixteenth century through the seventeenth, expanding into France and also into Italy.7 Perpète de Wespin, the first to carry the nickname ‘Tabaguet’, had married Catherine, the sister of the famous traders in black marble Hubert and Andrieu Nonnon, whose name is connected with some of the major achievements in sculpture in the Low Countries of the 1530s, such as the supports of the chimneypiece of the Brugse Vrije and the famous rood loft of SainteWaudru in Mons.8 His grandsons Jean and Nicolas, now called ‘Tabachetti’, were active in Northern Italy from 1587 at least, playing an important role, amongst others, in the realisation of terracotta sculptures for the Sacro Monte in Varallo.9 Perpète’s great-grandson Guillaume the Younger married into the Marsy family at the beginning of the seventeenth century; this branch of descendants thus became involved in the sumptuous marble work of Versailles. Guillaume was also linked with the well-known Métézeau family of royal architects, supplying Louis Métézeau with fountains at the Tuileries in 1601 and with columns at the Louvre in 1602; decades later, in 1628 a fountain in red marble designed for the latter’s son Clément, architect to Louis XIII, was delivered to the new town of Charleville-Mézières, founded by Charles de Gonzague, son of Duke Louis.10 There is evidence of another kind suggesting that in the mid-sixteenth century building crews might have followed the road to the building sites of royalty and the high nobility, too, similar to the many painters from the Low Countries active in Fontainebleau from the 1540s at least. For example, the château of Écouen, property of Anne de Montmorency, marshall of France, features remarkable painted mantelpieces with a coved top, of a type which is not seen elsewhere in France in the sixteenth century, but is quite common in the Low Countries.11 Earlier still, from Louis XI’s time onwards, the

  With thanks to Francis Tourneur for many interesting discussions on this point. Documents in Grodecki 1985, passim. 6   Moret 1923. 7   Devigne 1920. On some of their activities in Liège, see Yernaux 1956. 8  On the contract for the Mons jubé (Hubert), see Hedicke 1912, 357–362. On the contract for the Bruges columns (Andrieu), see Roggen 1953, 225. 5

  First identified by Butler 1888.  See the recent work of Emmanuelle Loizeau, in particular Loizeau 2009 and Exh. cat. CharlevilleMézières 2010. 11  The paintings, in the style of the School of Fontainebleau, date from c. 1550: Béguin et al. 1996; Salet 1996; Turcan 1997. 9

10

433

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge vogue for colourful brick-and-stone masonry which suddenly spread from the Loire valley to Normandy might also point to exchanges with the Low Countries, even if the specific patterns and bonds are quite different.12 These avenues remain to be explored further. Reasons for success abroad Reasons for the success of the Netherlandish stonemasons, sculptors and architects abroad are hard to define. Instead of a single one, most often a conjunction of different factors will have been at play, some consciously calculated, others just by accident. Among these were definitely the availability of precious building materials as well as the logistics and infrastructure of the workshops. These together must have resulted in a competitive power to be reckoned with, the cornerstone upon which the fame of the Netherlandish workshops within international circles of the ruling nobility and civic elites abroad was based. Some sources offer a glimpse of this. Precious micro-architectural objects from the Low Countries were expensive but were nevertheless regarded as value for money. In 1579 an experienced witness, the international banker Marcus Fugger, lauded the marble choir screen that Willem van den Broecke had sculptured for the chapel of Francisco Guttiérrez de Cuellar in Segovia in such terms, writing that “such a quality work could not be made elsewhere for the same price”.13 This quote suggests that Netherlandish sculptors in the sixteenth century were able to produce at lower cost than their competitors from elsewhere (especially from Italy, one may guess in this case related to all’antica works) without any decrease in quality; nevertheless, actual proof of this is still lacking and further research on this issue is needed. In contrast to the market for paintings we know hardly any prices for this kind of art and it is hard to estimate them in a secure way – another challenge not yet undertaken thoroughly. For instance, it is not always clear whether prices mentioned in archival accounts included the cost of food and rent during the project, the wages of assistants and journeymen or even the cost of transport of stone. Moreover, particularly precious materials and gilding could be paid for separately. In his letters, quoted in chapter 2.3, Cornelis Floris mentioned two major problems in daily workshop practice that might cause delay in producing on time: availability of stone of good quality and the absence of competent assistants.14 Artists working elsewhere in Europe would have encountered the same problems. Delivering precious commissions in due time was an important quality to gain favour at foreign courts. In order to control the time schedule of production it was necessary to secure both the availability of raw materials, especially of stone, and the contribution of capable journeymen and assistants. For the latter family members were the most reliable source, for the first a close connection to the stone trade network was of the essence. Thus the availability of stone must have been another key to success. In the plains of Northern Germany, Northern Poland and the Baltic region all stone had to be imported and connections to quarries or with the established stone trade were essential for success. In Sweden and Denmark sandstone and granite were available locally, but this was not what was wanted for more prestigious commissions. From the mid-sixteenth century onwards the

  In general, see Sartre 1981.   “... tot sulcken prijse nyet en conste ergens elders gemaect worden”. Duverger & Onghena 1942. Fugger was De Cuellar’s intermediary for this commission in Antwerp. In 1580 the screen was packed in eightynine crates and sent from Flushing (Vlissingen) to 12 13

434

Spain. What has happened afterwards remains unclear but apparently the crates never arrived in Segovia. 14  Letter written 19 September 1563 (Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief), published at full length in Huysmans et al. 1996, 245–246.

Conclusions. Shifts

in

Time

and

Place

combined use of coloured marbles, black, red and white, was regarded as a clear reference to Roman antiquity and to the imperium. As a result, these precious materials gained enormous popularity among the highest class of patrons of architecture and micro-architecture such as tombs and rood lofts. In Northern Europe the epicentre for the quarrying and trading of these marble-like stones was situated in the Southern Low Countries, even for those works designed and supervised by Italians, like the examples in Freiberg and Vilnius have shown. Cornelis Floris and former assistants from his workshop took the lead in the design and production of these sumptuous architectural structures and their accompanying sculptures. Their logistics, with better connections to the quarries and better control of the transport system over sea, must have outreached these of their Italian competitors working in Northern Europe. Both those who were invited by a ruler or member of the high nobility and those settling abroad on their own initiative, maintained connections with colleagues and family at home. These networks were kept alive over several generations. Especially for sculptors of costly funerary monuments it was essential to keep in touch with the traders in red and black marble from the Southern Low Countries, one of the backbones of their success. This may be one of the major reasons why Netherlandish artists were mostly working in places that were in contact with the sea. As mentioned above, only where local quarries with stone of comparable quality were to be found (or even to be acquired), Netherlandish building masters and sculptors could establish a career independent from the logistic lifeline with the Low Countries. Matters of style The question remains whether the architecture produced by sculptors and building masters from the Low Countries was regarded by patrons and by the public as having a specific character or style, and if so, whether this specific character was recognised as ‘Netherlandish’ – like an appellation d’origine contrôlée. In other words: were Netherlandish architectural works of a certain period appreciated because they met international standards or because of specific and unique qualities that were not found in architecture elsewhere? The answer cannot be unambiguous and has to remain hypothetical. In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century the rich en elaborate modern Late Gothic architecture from the Low Countries was apparently regarded by the Catholic kings of Spain and others as a serious alternative to the all’antica fashion as developed in Italy, especially for religious monuments. Both the echo of the Burgundian prestige as well as sincere piety seemed to be part of the character of this style. Nevertheless, some decades later the quest for classical antiquity had become dominant everywhere in Europe. In the sixteenth century the demand for all’antica works north of the Alps had created specialised workshops of native artists and had stimulated Italian craftsmen to travel abroad to exploit their expertise in these matters. These travelling Italians can be found everywhere in Europe and for obvious reasons their numbers were higher in countries close to Italy, like Hungary, Austria and Poland, than in those farther north. From the second half of the sixteenth century, as we have seen in the previous chapters, Netherlandish artists began to exploit the northern parts of Europe with more or less the same activities as their Italian colleagues who in some cases now had become competitors. In general we may presume that the works produced by people from the Low Countries were not favoured because they were supposed to be different from those of the Italians, but because they could offer something similar. In general they were regarded as specialists in the antique vocabulary fitting the need for prestige of the ruling classes.

435

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge In the 1570s, for instance, Bishop Julius von Echter of Würzburg initially did not look for a Netherlandish architect, or indeed any other foreign architect at all. In 1574 he had asked the city of Nuremberg to send their city architect and only after their refusal he put his question to the elector’s court in Mainz and its court architect Joris Robijn. Apparently the latter did not win his important position in Central Germany because of specifically ‘Netherlandish’ artistic capacities. Both his qualities as an engineer and as architect with a fashionable ‘antique’ style were regarded by his patrons as fitting for keeping up appearances in the international court context. This style also included scrolled gables, but contrary to current interpretations in historiography, these were not regarded as specifically ‘Dutch’ or ‘Flemish’. Similarly, the scrolled gables of Rosenborg and Frederiksborg, the residences of Christian IV of Denmark, should not be interpreted as referencing Low Countries in particular, although the formal language used in both countries had much in common at that time. Most probably this kind of brick architecture was seen by the king and his entourage as regal on the one hand and as modern antique on the other: an international style that could carry a message to an international public, matching the international entourage of artists working at Christian IV’s court, such as Dieussart, Honthorst, Adriaan de Vries, Reichle and Gerhard. Nevertheless, the hypothesis that Netherlandish artists were only successful where Italians were absent may be rejected. This is only true for some exceptional court cases.15 A conscious preference for models from the Low Countries is evident in the use of Flemish and Dutch prints by local artists when Italian models could also have been used. On many occasions, as illustrated by several studies presented in this volume, patrons freely chose artists regardless of their nationality. The two funeral monuments in the church of Tarnow in Southern Poland, one by Padovano, the other by Jan Pfister, show that today’s standards, influenced by the Vasarian views on art, do not necessarily correspond with the contemporary view; in this particular case, a classical triumphal arch of the sixteenth century could be surpassed in the early seventeenth century by a structure overloaded with lavish sculptural details in the style of Van den Blocke (see page 169, fig. 15). Vasari’s negative remarks on northern art may help to understand its qualities in the eye of the contemporary beholder. In the 1568 edition of his Vite he blames the ‘German’ manner for being “laboured and injured by the accidents of nature” and “extravagant”.16 Vasari had a keen eye for art, and we have to take his observation seriously, albeit not his verdict. The same characteristics – ingenuity of invention and richness of form – provoked a far more positive reaction from northern clients who did not share Vasari’s Florentine-centric agenda on the arts. “Extravagance” of form might be precisely the quality that sixteenth-century patrons from the North admired most in the sculptural compositions of Netherlandish artists like Cornelis Floris, Van den Blocke, etcetera. In the seventeenth century Netherlandish architecture is explicitly mentioned as a prime source for others in Europe, to repeat once again the 1633 statement of Hans Strakowski from Gdan´  sk: “Holland is the source of all knowledge”.17 According to others some building types could even be studied better in the Low Countries than in Italy; as Tessin the Elder had explained, especially public buildings and medium-sized private residences (see chapter 3.8).

  Kaufmann 1995.   “...fatica e cotanto offesa dell’accidente... stravaganti”. Milanesi (ed.) Opere, vol. 6, 267 (on Jacopo Pontormo); translation Melion 1991, 149. 15 16

436

  Cuny 1910b, 53.

17

Conclusions. Shifts

in

Time

and

Place

‘Netherlandish’ architecture In sixteenth-century art theory the specific qualities of a ‘national’ style became a serious topic. Vasari clearly distinguished Italian art from ‘German’ and ‘Greek’ (i.e. Byzantine) art and even within Italy he defined various national styles, most evidently the Florentine and the Venetian manner. In his manuscript of Libro Sesto, Sebastiano Serlio designed a series of houses and residences for various ranks of patrons, always distinguishing an Italian and a French solution, especially for the façade and the roof construction.18 In the German countries a distinction was made between the existing art tradition and the new fashions and forms from Italy, called welsch (“foreign”) without any hierarchy concerning quality.19 In the Low Countries also, the specific contribution and the qualities of Netherlandish art had become a matter of serious debate in the second half of the sixteenth century, as becomes evident in Karel van Mander’s Schilder-Boeck reacting against Vasari.20 However, Van Mander’s writings deal with paintings primarily, including some sculpture, while architecture is excluded from the discussion. Contemporary observations on ‘Netherlandish’ architecture are only to be found in letters and descriptions, unfortunately not in a coherent treatise. The eldest reference to a specific ‘national’ architectural feature of the Low Countries may be the ‘Brabantine manner’ mentioned in 1542 (up die manier van Brabant),21 referring to a particular type of brick masonry with white limestone details, like window frames, cornerstones and horizontal mouldings, and to a particular typology of windows, arcades, and roofs (see chapter 3.2). In seventeenth-century Brandenburg the qualifications ‘Batavian’ (modo Batavi) and ‘Dutch’ (Holländisch) are used for various kind of buildings.22 The architect Pitzler described Rosenfelde, the summer estate of Admiral Raule, as ein Holländisches Haus (see page 82, fig. 23).23 Here ‘Holland’ referred to the brick walls and perhaps also to the modest scale of the building, resembling the summer houses of the Amsterdam elite along the River Vecht. In general, the expression ‘Netherlandish’, or ‘Dutch’, is mainly used to indicate the dominant building material, brick. In the eighteenth century in Brandenburg even wooden or plastered houses painted red with white joints were called ‘in the Dutch manner’ (holländische Art).24 Apparently, the building style practised by Netherlandish architects abroad was not labelled ‘Netherlandish’ either by patrons or the public. This once more reinforces the hypothesis that Netherlandish building masters were seen first of all as well-versed in the kind of architecture that was suitable for rulers and civic elites alike to keep up appearances to their international peers. Nevertheless the architecture as realised abroad is never a mere copy of what could be found at home in the Low Countries. In many cases we find Netherlandish elements integrated in local or regional building traditions; sometimes remaining Fremdkörper in a completely local habitus, but in other cases entirely assimilated, taking the existing architectural vocabulary and principles into a new direction. In this process of assimilation other foreign sources and artists with different origins may also have played a role. For example, Wenzel Dietterlin’s Architectura from 1598, that had almost no impact in the Low Countries, became an important source of inspiration for modernising the decoration system of strapwork and cartouches in Denmark and Northern Germany.25 Francini’s publication of stately   Rosenfeld 1978; Pérouse de Montclos 2001, 34–37.  See for the sixteenth-century distinction between ‘welsch’ and ‘deutsch’: Eser 2000. 20   Melion 1991. 21   De Jonge 2003b, 409. 22  “... aedificando modo Batavi”, qualification of the new orangery of 1652 by Memhard in the Berlin residence garden. Dohme 1876; Wendland 1979. 18 19

  Lorenz 1998, 46–47.  Friedrich Nicolai, Beschreibung der Königlichen Residenzstädte Berlin und Potsdam 2, Berlin 1779, 889; Mielke 1960, 15. 23 24

25  Hans and Laurens van Steenwinckel used it regularly. Their own copy is kept in the Royal Library, Copenhagen. See chapter 2.4.

437

Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge entrance gates of 1632 offers another example. It was hardly used in the Low Countries but several foreign architects who took much inspiration from Holland in the seventeenth century, integrated some of these models into their own designs, such as the Scot Robert Mylne in his monument to John Mylne (1667) in Greyfriars’ Kirkyard in Edinburgh. As a result the work of Netherlandish architects in Europe does not show any kind of unity of form. Although, in a certain period, the same sources were used on various locations by different emigrants, the result is always different because it connected with the local – the Spanish, Polish, German, Danish or Swedish, as the case may be – building traditions.26 Centre and periphery? It is tempting to describe the relation between the architecture of the Low Countries and the works produced by Netherlandish architects and stonemasons abroad with the traditional model of cultural centre and periphery, as has occurred often in the past (see ­chapter 1.3). The value of this concept in general has already been criticised seriously in 1994 by Castelnuovo and Ginzburg in their analysis of the various artistic regions in Italy.27 Similarly, in the situation under discussion here, it is wrong to present Antwerp and Amsterdam as leading centres dominating other European regions. Cities like Toledo, London, Hamburg, Wrocław and Gdan´  sk were important economical, political and artistic centres in their own right. Netherlandish artists contributed to their cultural flourishing and perhaps stimulated new developments, but they certainly did not become a province of the Low Countries. Some of the courts that employed Netherlanders were more remote from urban life, but the courts in Central and Northern Europe had always maintained a strong network which even connected more distant places. There is nowhere a delay in the assimilation of new artistic ideas, as one expects from a true ‘periphery’.28 Even in Stockholm, where Netherlandish masters contributed to the creation of a completely new court in the sixteenth century, innovations from elsewhere in Europe were rapidly absorbed. With a mix of Netherlandish, German and local Swedish elements the capital soon became a potent cultural centre in itself, constituting a premier model for up-to-date residential architecture and church buildings in the country. The foreign commissions not infrequently equalled, and sometimes surpassed, similar commissions at home in scale, like the castle of Kronborg at the Sound – on a par with ‘palaces’ such as Boussu Castle and the Antwerp town hall – and the magnificent country estate for De Geer at Finspång – rivalling Honselaarsdijk in size. By no means can these works be called a ‘spin-off’ only of what was happening in the Low Countries. Instead, these were design laboratories where new solutions in residential architecture were developed. Completely contrary to the old-fashioned model of centre and periphery, occasionally the exchange of ideas and models worked in both directions: Some regions where Netherlandish emigrants had settled influenced new developments in the Low Countries in turn. Protestant basilicas such as St James’s Church in Stockholm by Willem Boy and St John’s in Riga by Joris Frese, both dating from the 1580s, may later have inspired comparable solutions in Holland, such as De Keyser’s Zuiderkerk in Amsterdam of 1603. The funeral monuments of the Danish kings Christian III and Frederick II in Roskilde, by Cornelis Floris and Gert van Egen, must have been a prime model for the architectural frame of De Keyser’s tomb of William the Silent in Delft in 1614. The reciprocal relationship with England is most obvious. In the sixteenth century England accepted new forms of decoration from the Low Countries, like those of Vredeman de Vries, while the Royal Exchange was even directly imported from Antwerp as   Kaufmann 2007.   Castelnuovo & Ginzburg 1994.

26 27

438

28

  Ibidem, 49.

Conclusions. Shifts

in

Time

and

Place

we have seen. Some decades later, in the early seventeenth century, this building served as a model for the new exchange in Amsterdam. From 1625 onwards the new, classically inspired architecture of Inigo Jones constituted a major source of inspiration for the Dutch Classicist movement of Constantijn Huygens and Jacob van Campen. In the second half of the seventeenth century, it was Holland’s turn to offer examples to the new generation of British architects and patrons, showing how the principles of the Classicist architecture could be applied to middle-sized country houses and public buildings. Finally, the notion of a network of exchanges between various cultural centres is by far the most useful to understand the various pathways of mutual artistic relations and assimilations in early modern Europe. Migration of architects and architectural ideas from all kinds of places in Europe with all kinds of destinations was not new and existed also in previous centuries, as the well known example of the fourteenth-century Parler family, active from Strasbourg to Prague, illustrates.29 For the early modern period, however, common art history still clutches at the obsolete idea that Italy was the only centre of ‘true’ Renaissance architecture, which was disseminated over Europe exclusively by travelling Italian architects. This book illustrates the need for a paradigm change. While it concentrates on artists from the Low Countries, on Netherlandish models and on ideas originating in the Low Countries, it nonetheless does not aim to replace the Italo-centric point of view on the period with another statement of the same kind. The activities of and travels of Netherlandish masters and the inspiration their work offered to others elsewhere in Europe are only to be regarded as part of an even more complex jigsaw puzzle of architectural exchanges in early modern Europe, where migrating masters from the German countries, France, Britain, and other countries stood alongside the Italians and Netherlanders; they also should regain their place in history.

  Exh. cat. Cologne 1980.

29

439

Bibliography

Abbate 1989: Francesco Abbate, ‘Appunti su Bartolomé Ordoñez e Diego de Siloe a Napoli e in Spagna’, Prospettiva 44 (1986), 27–45. Abrahamse 2010: Jaap Evert Abrahamse, De grote uitleg van Amsterdam. Stadsontwikkeling in de zeventiende eeuw, Bussum 2010. Adler 1861: Friedrich Adler, ‘Die niederländischen Kolonien in der Mark Brandenburg’, Märkische Forschungen 7 (1861), 110–127. Adriaenssens 1980: Roger Adriaenssens, ‘Sur l’hôtel de ville d’Anvers et les apports des carrières wallonnes dans son édification’, Bulletin de la commission royale des monuments et des sites, new ser. 9 (1980), 125–141. Ahlberg 2005: Nils Ahlberg, Stadsgrundningar och planförändringar. Svensk stadsplanering 1521– 1721 (Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, Agraria 2005: 94), Uppsala 2005. Also available online: http:// epsilon.slu.se/200594-ab.html. Ahlberg 2011: Nils Ahlberg, ‘Netherlandish Expertise in Swedish Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Urban Planning’, in: Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2011, 95–127. Airs 1995: Malcolm Airs, The Tudor & Jacobean Country House. A Building History, Phoenix Mill etc. 1995. Albèri 1839–1863: Eugenio Albèri (ed.), Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato, Ser. I, Relazioni degli stati europei, tranne l’Italia, 6 vols., Florence 1839–1863. Albrecht 1989: Thorsten Albrecht, ‘Landesherrliche Baumaßnahmen im 16. Jahrhundert am Beispiel der Grafschaft Schaumburg im Spiegel archivalischer Quellen’, in: G. Ulrich Großmann (ed.), Renaissance im Weserraum, Munich/Berlin 1989, vol. 2, 159–190. Albrecht 1991: Uwe Albrecht, ‘Die Herzogsschlösser Gottorf und Tönning. Neue Aspekte zur Architektur der Renaissance in Schleswig-Holstein’, in: Krutisch & Großmann 1991, 9–35. Albrecht 1995: Uwe Albrecht, Der Adelssitz im Mittelalter. Studien zum Verhältnis von Architektur und Lebensform in Nord- und Westeuropa, Berlin 1995. Albrecht 1997: Stephan Albrecht, ‘Eine Fassade geht auf Reisen. Über die Geschäfte eines Bremer Steinmetzbetriebes mit der Stadt Leiden’, Bremen

und die Niederlande. Jahrbuch 1995/1996 der Wittheit zu Bremen, Bremen 1997, 69–73. Albrecht 2011: Uwe Albrecht, ‘Deutsche, französische und niederländische Einflüsse als Wegbereiter und Katalysatoren der dänischen Renaissance-Architektur in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Das Beispiel des Herrenhauses’, in: Andersen et al. 2011, 197–217. Albrecht 2003: Uwe Albrecht, Der Renaissancebau des Celler Schlosses. Zur Genese des Zwerchhauses und zum Bildprogramm der Fassaden des 16. Jahrhunderts, Celle 2003. Albrectsen 2001: Esben Albrectsen, ‘Middelalderens slutning 1448–1523’, in: Esben Albrectsen, Karl-Erik Frandsen & Gunner Lind (eds.), Konger og Krige 700–1648 (Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie 1), Copenhagen 2001, 164–215. Alexander-Skipnes 2007: Ingrid Alexander-Skipnes (ed.), Cultural exchange between the Low Countries and Italy (1400–1600) (Museums at the Crossroads 18), Turnhout 2007. Allard 1878: E. Allard, ‘L’Exposition universelle de Paris’, L’Émulation 4 (1878), col. 49–52, 55–57, 61–63, 73–77. Allen 1854: C. F. Allen, Breve og Aktstykker til Oplysning af Christiern den Andens og Frederik den Førstes Historie, Copenhagen 1854. Allen 1864–1872: C. F. Allen, De tre nordiske Rigers Historie under Hans, Christiern den Anden, Frederik den Første, Gustav Vasa, Grevefeiden, 1497–1536, 5 vols., Copenhagen 1864–1872. Allgulin 1932: Torsten Allgulin, Hans van Stenwinkel d.ä. Studier i den västeuropeiska renässansarkitekturen, Uppsala 1932. Alm et al. 1996: Göran Alm, Inger Estham, Torbjörn Fulton et al., Renässansen Konst (Signum svenska konsthistoria), Lund 1996. Alshut et al. 1996: Elmer Alshut, Guido von Büren, Marcel Perse, Ein Schloß entsteht... Von Jülich im Rheinland bis Horst in Westfalen (Jülicher Forschungen 5), Jülich 1996. Alshut & Peine 2010: Elmer Alshut, Hans-Werner Peine, ‘Vorreiterschaft des Niederadels: Das Beispiel der Familie von der Horst’, in: Exh. cat. Bonn 2010, 351–369.

441

Bibliography Alsteens 2010: Stijn Alsteens, ‘Drawings’, in: Exh. cat. New York 2010, 308–406. Altmeyer 1840: Jean-Jacques Altmeyer, Histoire des relations commerciales et diplomatiques des PaysBas avec le nord de l’Europe pendant le xvie siècle, Brussels 1840.

Arends 1994: G.J. Arends, Sluizen en stuwen. De ontwikkeling van de sluis- en stuwbouw in Nederland tot 1940 (Bouwtechniek in Nederland 5), Delft etc. 1994. Aristodemo 1991: Dina Aristodemo, ‘La figura e l’opera di Lodovico Guicciardini’, in: Jodoigne 1991, 19–35.

Álvaro Zamora & Borrás Gualis 1993: María Isabel Álvaro Zamora, Gonzalo M. Borrás Gualis, La escultura del Renacimiento en Aragón, Zaragoza 1993.

Arntz 1947: W.J.A. Arntz, ‘Export van Nederlandsche baksteen in vroegere eeuwen’, Economisch Historisch Jaarboek 23 (1947), 53–133.

Anca- ne 2010: Anna Anca-ne, Architecture and urban planning of Riga in the 2nd half of the 17 th century, unpublished dissertation, Institute of Art History of the Latvian Academy of Art, Riga 2010.

Arntz 1953: W.J.A. Arntz, ‘Nederlandse baksteenbouw in Oost-Engeland. De ontwikkeling in vroeger eeuwen’, Bouw. Centraal weekblad voor het bouwwezen in Nederland en België 8 (1953) 12, 210–212.

Andersen 1969: Emilie Andersen, Münchensamlingen. Kong Christian IIs, droning Elisabeths med fleres arkiver (Vejledende Arkivregistraturer XV), Copenhagen 1969.

Asche 1961: Siegfried Asche, Drei Bildhauerfamilien an der Elbe. Acht Meister des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts und ihre Werke in Sachsen, Böhmen und Brandenburg, Vienna 1961.

Andersen et al. 2010: Michael Andersen, Ebbe Nyborg, Mogens Vedsø (eds.), Masters, Meanings & Models. Studies in the Art and Architecture of the Renaissance in Denmark. Essays published in Honour of Hugo Johannsen, Copenhagen 2010.

Ashley & Plesch 2002: Kathleen Ashley, Véronique Plesch (eds.), The Cultural Processes of “Appropriation”, special issue, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 32 (2002) 1.

Andersen et al. 2011: Michael Andersen, Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, Hugo Johannsen (eds.), Reframing the Danish Renaissance. Problems and Prospects in a European Perspective, Copenhagen 2011. Andrén 1948: Erik Andrén, Skokloster. Ett slottsbygge under stormaktstiden, Stockholm1948. Andrews 2005: David Andrews, ‘The Use and Manufacture of Brick in Eastern England in the Middle Ages’, in: Barbara Perlich, Gabri van Tussenbroek (eds.), Technik des Backsteinbaus im Europa des Mittelalters (Berliner Beiträge zur Bauforschung und Denkmalpflege 2), Petersberg 2005, 139–150. Ångström-Grandien 1992: Inga Lena Ångström-Grandien, Altertavlor i Sverige under renässans och barock. Studier i deras ikonografi och stil 1527–1686, Stockholm 1992.

Avery 1994 (1987): Charles Avery, Giambologna, the complete sculpture, New York 19942 (19871). Axel-Nilsson 1950: Göran Axel-Nilsson, Dekorativ stenhuggarkonst i yngre vasastil, Stockholm 1950. de Azcárate 1948: José María de Azcárate, ‘El maestro Hanequín de Bruselas’, Archivo Español de Arte 21 (1948) 83, 173–188. de Azcárate 1950: José María de Azcárate, ‘Sobre el origen de Juan Guas’, Archivo Español de Arte 23 (1950), 225–256. de Azcárate 1951: José María de Azcárate, ‘La fachada del Infantado y el estilo de Juan Guas’, Archivo Español de Arte 24 (1951) 96, 307–320. de Azcárate 1956: José María de Azcárate, ‘La obra toledana de Juan Guas’, Archivo Español de Arte 29 (1956) 113, 9–42.

Ångström-Grandien 2003: Inga Lena Ångström-Grandien, ‘The reception of the classical ideal in Swedish 16th century art and architecture’, in: Kodres et al. 2003, 32–54.

de Azcárate 1958a: José María de Azcárate, Escultura del siglo xvi (Ars Hispaniae, Historia Universal del Arte Hispánico 13), Madrid 1958.

Apfeld 1991: Wiltrud Apfeld, ‘Die bauhistorische Entwicklung von Schloß Horst’, in: Krutisch & Großmann 1991, 43–52.

de Azcárate 1958b: José María de Azcárate y Ristori, La arquitectura gótica Toledana del siglo xv (Instituto Diego Velázquez, del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Artes y Artistas), Madrid 1958.

Arbeitskreis für Hausforschung 2010: Arbeitskreis für Hausforschung (ed.), Hausbau in Holland. Baugeschichte und Stadtentwicklung (Jahrbuch für Hausforschung 61), Marburg 2010. Archer et al. 1988: Michael Archer, Sara Crew, Peter Cormack, English Heritage in Stained Glass: Oxford, Oxford/Poughkeepsie 1988.

442

de Azcárate 1961–1962: José María de Azcárate, ‘Análisis estílistico de las formas arquitectónicas de la puerta de los leones de la catedral de Toledo’, in: Homenaje al profesor Cayetano de Mergelina, Murcia 1961–1962, 97–122.

Bibliography de Azcárate 1990: José María de Azcárate, Arte gótico en España, Madrid 1990. Baarsen 2001: Reinier Baarsen et al., Rococo in Nederland, Amsterdam 2001. Backschat 1932: Friedrich Backschat, ‘Baugeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Potsdamer Stadtschloß’, Mitteilungen des Vereins für die Geschichte Potsdams, new series 6 (1932), 339, 436–462. Badach 2004: Artur Badach, ‘Rzez´ba gdan´ska czasów nowoz˙ytnych na ziemiach Rzeczpospolitej’, in: Grzybkowska 2004, 59–76. Bahl 2001: Peter Bahl, Der hof des Großen Kurfürsten. Studien zur höheren Amtsträgerschaft BrandenburgPreußens, Cologne 2001. Balau 1895: Sylvain Balau, Le véritable auteur de la machine de Marly, Brussels 1895. Balis et al. 1987: Arnout Balis, Frans Baudouin, Klaus Demus, Nora De Poorter, De Vlaamse schilderkunst in het Kunsthistorisches Museum te Wenen (Flandria extra muros), Antwerp 1987. Balis et al. 1989: Arnout Balis, Matías Díaz Padrón, Carl Van de Velde, Hans Vlieghe, De Vlaamse schilderkunst in het Prado (Flandria extra muros), Antwerp 1989. Bang 1898–1899: Gustav Bang (ed.), Breve til og fra Kristoffer Gøje og Birgitte Bølle, Copenhagen 1898–1899. Banner 2009: Lisa A. Banner, The Religious Patronage of the Duke of Lerma, 1598–1621, Farnham 2009.

Bartetzky 2001: Arnold Bartetzky, ‘Niederlande versus Polen: Zur Rezeption nordisch-manieristischer Architektur in Danzig (1560–1620)’, in Langer & Michels 2001, 171–184. Bartetzky 2004: Arnold Bartetzky, ‘Antonis van Obbergen’, in: Id. (ed.), Die Baumeister der “Deutschen Renaissance”. Ein Mythos der Kunstgeschichte?, Beucha 2004, 143–168. Bartetzky 2005: Arnold Bartetzky, ‘Rzeczypospolita und res publica: Danzigs Verhältnis zur polnischen Krone in seiner städtischen Selbstdarstellung 1585– 1626’, in: Sabine Beckmann & Klaus Garber (eds.), Kulturgeschichte Preußens königlich polnischen Anteils in der Frühen Neuzeit, Tübingen 2005, 609–630. Bartetzky 2006: Arnold Bartetzky, ‘Antonis van Obbergen and the Great Arsenal of Gdansk’, in: Ruszkowska-Macur 2006, 31–34. Barzdevicˇa 2006: Margarita Barzdevicˇ a, ‘The plans of Riga by Heinrich Thomé’, in: Brand et al. 2006, 183–185. Baudouin 1964a: Frans Baudouin, ‘Baurscheit (Bauerscheit, Baurscheidt, Bourscheit) de Oude, Jan Peter van’, Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek, I, 1964, col. 88–93. Baudouin 1964b: Frans Baudouin, ‘Baurscheit (Bauerscheit, Baurscheidt, Bourscheit) de Jonge, Jan Peter’, Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek, I, 1964, col. 82–88.

Barbeito 1992: José Manuel Barbeito, El Alcázar de Madrid, Madrid 1992.

Baudouin 1994: Frans Baudouin, Jan Pieter van Baurscheit de jonge, architect, 1699–1768 (Lira Elegans: Liers genootschap voor geschiedenis, Jaarboek IV), Lier 1994.

Barbeito 1998: José Manuel Barbeito, ‘Felipe II y la arquitectura. Los años de juventud’, in: Exh. cat. Madrid 1998, 83–103.

Baudouin & Allard 2000: Frans Baudouin, Dominique Allard (eds.), Dessins des xviie et xviiie siècles. La collection Van Herck, Brussels 2000.

Barbieri & Beltramini 2003: Franco Barbieri & Guido Beltramini (eds.), Vincenzo Scamozzi 1548–1616, Venice 2003.

Baumgart 1990: Peter Baumgart, ‘Der Große Kurfürst. Staatsdenken und Staatsarbeit eines europäischen Dynasten’, in: Heinrich 1990, 33–57.

Baresel-Brand 2007: Andrea Baresel-Brand, Grabdenkmäler nordeuropäischer Fürstenhäuser im Zeitalter der Renaissance 1550–1650, Kiel 2007.

de Beaufort 1931: R.F.P. de Beaufort, Het mausoleum der Oranje’s te Delft, unpublished dissertation, Utrecht University 1931.

Barker 2000: Nicolas Barker (ed.), The Great Book of Thomas Trevilian. A facsimile from the manuscript in the Wormsley Library, 2 vols., London 2000.

Bechler 2002: Karin Bechler, Schloss Oranienbaum. Architektur und Kunstpolitik der Oranierinnen in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts, Halle a.d. Saale 2002.

Bartetzky 2000: Arnold Bartetzky, Das Große Zeughaus in Danzig. Baugeschichte, Architekturgeschichtliche Stellung, Repräsen­tative Funk­tion (Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Mitteleuropa 9), 2 vols., Stuttgart 2000.

Beckett 1897: Francis Beckett, Renaissancen og Kunstens Historie i Danmark, Copenhagen 1897. Beckett 1914: Francis Beckett, Frederiksborg. Slottets Historie, 2 vols., Copenhagen 1914.

443

Bibliography Beckett 1932: Francis Beckett, Portrætmaleri, Copenhagen 1932.

Renæssancens

Beckett & Christensen 1921: Francis Beckett, Charles Christensen, Uraniborg og Stjærneborg (Selskabet til Udgivelse af Danske Mindesmærker), Copenhagen/ London 1921. Bedoire 2009: Fredric Bedoire, Hugenotternas värld. Från religionskrigens Frankrike till Skeppsbroadelns Stockholm, Stockholm 2009. Beek 1984: Marijke Beek, Drie eeuwen Amsterdamse Bouwkunst. Catalogus van architectuurtekeningen in de verzameling A.A. Kok, Amsterdam 1984. Béguin et al. 1972: Sylvie Béguin et al., ‘La galerie François Ier à Fontainebleau’, Revue de l’art nos. 16–17 (1972). Béguin et al. 1996: Sylvie Béguin, Odile Delenda & Hervé Oursel, Cheminées et frises peintes du Château d’Écouen, Écouen 1996. Belfanti 2004: Carlo Marco Belfanti, ‘Guilds, Patents, and the Circulation of Technical Knowledge. Northern Italy during the Early Modern Age’, Technology and Culture 45 (2004), 569–589. Belozerskaya 2002: Maria G. Belozerskaya, Rethinking the Renaissance: Burgundian Arts across Europe, Cambridge/New York 2002. Bender 2005: Eva Bender, ‘Die Bedeutung der Niederlande als Reiseziel der Landgrafen von Hessen (1567–1800)’, in: Rainer Babel, Werner Paravicini (eds.), Grand Tour. Adeliges Reisen und europäische Kultur vom 14. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Beihefte der Francia 60), Stuttgart 2005, 327–340. Bengtsson 1938: Bengt Bengtsson, ‘Stenvinkelattributioner. En kritisk granskning’, Tidskrift för konstvetenskap 21 (1938), 55–64. Benigni 1840: Ambrosii Simigíani Historia Rerum Ungaricarum et Transivanicarum, Liber III (years 1576–1600), Anno 1581, accuravit J. Benigni de Mildenberg, Cibini 1840. Bennet & Bohrn 1974: Robert Bennett, Erik Bohrn, Strängnäs domkyrka, Stockholm 1974. Berelowitch & Medvedkova 1996: Wladimir Berelowitch, Olga Medvedkova, Histoire de Saint-Pétersbourg, Paris 1996. Berg 1646: J. A. Berg, Kurtze und eigentliche Beschreibung Des fürtrefflichen und weitberühmten Hauses Friedrichsburg, Copenhagen 1646. Berg 1916: Gustav Berg, Geschichte der Stadt und Festung Cüstrin (Schriften des Vereins für Geschichte der Neumark 35), Landsberg a.d. Warthe 1916.

444

van Berge-Gerbaud 1990: Mària van Berge-Gerbaud, ‘Some “Background” Information’, in: Villads Villadsen et al. (eds.), Festschrift to Erik Fischer: European Drawings from Six Centuries, Copenhagen 1990, 79–94. Berghaus 1855: Heinrich Berghaus (ed.), Landbuch der Mark Brandenburg und des Markgrafthums NiederlLausitz in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts; oder geographisch-historisch-statistische Beschreibung der Provinz Brandenburg, vol. 2, Brandenburg 1855. Bergström 1952: Ingvar Bergström, ‘Stenhiggere pa Gustav Adolfs och Kristinas tid, med nagra uppgifter om Aris Claeszon’, Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 21 (1952), 28–33. van Berkel 2002: Klaas van Berkel, ‘“Cornelius Meijer inventor et fecit”. On the Representation of Science in Late Seventeenth-Century Rome’, in: Pamela H. Smith, Paula Findlen (eds.), Merchants and Marvels: Commerce, Science, and Art in Early Modern Europe, London 2002, 277–294. Bermeyo 2002: Elisa Bermeyo, ‘Pintura de la época de Isabel la Católica’, in: Navascués Palacio 2002, 85–169. Bernatowicz 1990: Tadeusz Bernatowicz, ‘Peregrinus et Miles christianus. O nagrobku Mikołaja Krzysztofa Radziwiłła “Sierotki” w Nies´wiez˙u’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 52 (1990), 227–249. Berndt 1992: Siegfried Berndt, Von Wismars Wasserkünsten (Wismars Beiträge 8), Wismar 1992. Bernstorf & Soenke 1964: Otto Bernstorf, Jürgen Soenke, Niederländische Kunst in Stadthagen, Bückeburg 1964. Bers & Doose 1994: Günter Bers, Conrad Doose (eds.), Der italienische Architekt Alessandro Pasqualini (1493–1559) und die Renaissance am Niederrhein: Kenntnisstand und Forschungsperspektiven, Jülich 1994. Bers & Doose 1999: Günter Bers, Conrad Doose (eds.), Italienische Renaissancebaukunst an Schelde, Maas und Niederrhein. Stadtanlagen – Zivilbauten – Wehranlagen, Jülich 1999. Bertelsen et al. 2008: Thomas Bertelsen, Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, Hugo Johannsen, Danmarks Kirker: Ringkøbing Amt 9–10: Lomborg. Rom. Bøvling, Copenhagen 2008. Bertling 1885: A. Bertling, ‘Der Maler von Danzig und seine Zeit (Fortsetzung)’, Danziger Zeitung, 15593, Sonntag, 13. Dezember 1885, Beilage. Berveglieri 1985: Roberto Berveglieri, ‘Tecnologia idraulica olandese in Italia nel secolo XVII:

Bibliography Cornelius Janszoon Meijer a Veneza (gennaioaprile 1675)’, Studi Veneziani 10 (1985), 81–97. Bes et al. 2007: Lennart Bes, Edda Frankot, Hanno Brand (eds.), Baltic Connections. Archival Guide to the Maritime Relations of the Countries around the Baltic Sea (including the Netherlands) 1450–1800 (The Northern World 36), vol. 1, Leiden/Boston 2007. Beterams 1956–1957: F. G. C. Beterams, Inventaris van het Archief van de Commissie van Openbare Onderstand van Mechelen, vol. 1, Heilig-Geesttafels en Huisarmen, Gasthuizen en Godhuizen, Mechelen 1956; vol. 2, Het Begijnhof te Mechelen. De armenzorg in de 19e eeuw, Index, Mechelen 1957.

Biral & Morachiello 1985: Alessandro Biral, Paolo Morachiello, Immagini dell’ingenere tra quattro e settecento: Repertorio bibliografico a cura di Antonio Manno, Milan 1985. Birecki 2003: Piotr Birecki, ‘Epitafium torun´sko – gdan´skiej rodziny von der Linde w kos´ciele NMP w Toruniu’, in: Jacek Friedrich et al. (eds.), Studia z historii sztuki i kultury Gdan´ska i Europy Północnej, Gdan´sk 2003, 183–193. Bischoff & Ibbeken 2008: Michael Bischoff, Hillert Ibbeken (eds.), Schlösser der Weserrenaissance / Castles of the Weser Renaissance, Stuttgart/London 2008.

Bethe 1937: Hellmuth Bethe, Die Kunst am Hofe der pommerschen Herzöge, Berlin 1937.

Blaas 1983: P.B.M. Blaas, Historicus tussen wetenschap en journalistiek: G.W. Kernkamp, Rotterdam 1983.

Bethlen 1955: Bethlen Miklos Öpèletiràsa, 3 vols., Budapest 1955.

Bloccius 1567: Petrus Bloccius, Meer dan Twee hondert keteryen, blasphemien, en(de) nieuwe leeringen, welck uut den Misse zyn gecomen, s.l. 1567.

Beuys 1980: Barbara Beuys, Der Große Kurfürst. Der Mann, der Preußen schuf, Reinbeck 19802. Bevers 1985: Holm Bevers, Das Rathaus von Antwerpen (1561–1565). Architektur und Figurenprogramm, Hildesheim etc. 1985. Beyer 1986: Jens Christian Beyer, ‘King in Exile: Christian II and the Netherlands 1523–1531’, Scandinavian Journal of History 11 (1986), 205–228. Białostocki 1976: Jan Białostocki, ‘The Baltic Area as an Artistic Region in the Sixteenth Century’, Hafnia 4 (1976), 11–23. Bielak 1997: Jacek Bielak, ‘Ikonografia Złotej Kamienicy na nowo odczytana. O zwia˛ zkach polityki, kultury i sztuki w Gdan´sku na pocza˛tku XVII wieku’, in: Stanisława Salmonowicz (ed.), Mieszczan´stwo gdan´skie, Gdan´sk 1997, 377–392. Bientjes 1967: Julia Bientjes, Holland und der Holländer im Urteil deutscher Reisender 1400–1800, Groningen 1967. Bierens de Haan 2002: J. C. Bierens de Haan et al. (eds.), Gelderse Gezichten. Drie eeuwen portretkunst in Gelderland 1550–1850, Nijmegen 2002.

Blockmans & Prevenier 1999: Wim Blockmans, Walter Prevenier, The Low Countries under Burgundian Rule, 1369–1530, Philadelphia 1999. Blok 1935: G.A.C. Blok, ‘Die Bautätigkeit des Fürsten Johann Moritz von Nassau-Siegen in Cleve und Sonnenburg’, Siegerland 4 (1935), 118–128. Blom et al. 1999: F.R.E. Blom, H.G. Bruin, K.A. Ottenheym, Domus. Het huis van Constantijn Huygens in Den Haag, Zutphen 1999. Blondel 1688: François Blondel, Nouvelle manière de fortifier les places, The Hague 1688. Blumert 1994: Norbert Blumert, ‘Giebelhäuser im Holländischen Viertel (1732–1742) in Potsdam, ihre Struktur und Gestalt’, in: Deutsch-Niederländische Gesellschaft e.V. 1994, 46–63. Blunck 1928: Erich Blunck, Die Kunstdenkmäler des Kreises Königsberg (Neumark), vol. 1, Berlin 1928. Bochnak 1957: Adam Bochnak, ‘Eksport z miast pruskich w gła˛b Polski w zakresie rzemiosła artystycznego’, Studia Pomorskie 2 (1957), 7–112. Boeck 1938: Wilhelm Boeck, Oranienburg. Geschichte eines Preußischen Königsschlosses, Berlin 1938.

van der Bijl & Quarles van Ufford 1991: M. van der Bijl, H. Quarles van Ufford (eds.), Briefwisseling van Godard Adriaan van Reede van Amerongen en Everard van Weede van Dijkveld (27 maart 1671 – 28 juli 1672) (Nederlandse Historische Bronnen 9), The Hague 1991.

Boeck 1939a: Wilhelm Boeck, ‘Kurfürstliche Lustgärten in der Mark’, Brandenburgisches Jahrbuch 14/15 (1939), 7–19.

Billewicz 2004: Teodor Billewicz, Diariusz podróz˙ y po Europie w latach 1677–1678, ed. Marek KunickiGoldfinger, Warsaw 2004.

Böer 1979: Ludwig Böer, Das ehemalige Schloß in Schwedt/Oder und seine Umgebung, Heimatbuch des Kreises Angermünde 4 (1979).

Boeck 1939b: Wilhelm Boeck, ‘Schloß und Schloßkirche zu Altlandsberg’, Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung 59 (1939) 13, 363–367.

445

Bibliography Bøggild Johannsen 1983: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, ‘Christiansborg Slotskirke og kirkerne på Københavns Slot’, in: Id. (ed.), Danmarks Kirker. København By, vol. 5, Copenhagen 1983, 1–299. Bøggild Johannsen 2005: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, ‘Genealogical Representation in Gendered Perspective: on a Lost Royal Mausoleum from Early Sixteenth-Century Denmark’, in: Truus van Bueren (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages, Turnhout 2005, 79–105. Bøggild Johannsen 2006: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, ‘Til Kongens og Rigets behov. Nogle betragtninger om kunstforbruget ved Frederik II’s hof’, Renæssanceforum /www.renaissanceforum.dk, 3 (2006), 1–28. Bøggild Johannsen 2007: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, ‘Køn, magt og minde. Omkring den rituelle og monumentale iscenesættelse af senmiddelalderens dronningebegravelser’, in: Agnes S. Arnórsdottir, Per Ingesman, Bjørn Poulsen (eds.), Konge, kirke og samfund. De to øvrighedsmagter i dansk senmiddelalder, Aarhus 2007, 177–218. Bøggild Johannsen 2011: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, ‘The Danish perspective’, in: Andersen et al. 2011, 51–70. Bøggild Johannsen (forthcoming): Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, ‘Dronning Elisabeths gravmæle’, in: Karin Kryger (ed.), Danske konge gravmæler (Selskabet til Udgivelse af danske Mindesmærker), Copenhagen (forthcoming). Bøggild Johannsen & Johannsen 1990: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen & Hugo Johannsen, ‘Den ydmyge soldat og Udødeligheden. Wilhelm van den Blockes gravmæle over Christoph von Dohna i Odense domkirke’, in: Hugo Johannsen (ed.), Synligt og Usynligt. Studier tilegnede Otto Norn på hans 75 års fødselsdag den 13. december 1990, Herning 1990, 95–113. Bøggild Johannsen & Johannsen 2005: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, Hugo Johannsen, ‘Adelsvælde og renæssance’, in: John Erichsen, Mikkel Venborg Pedersen (eds.), Herregården 2, Copenhagen 2005, 21–94. Bøggild Johannsen & Johannsen 2006: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, Hugo Johannsen, ‘Architektur og billedkunst’, in: Carsten Bach-Nielsen et al. (eds.), Danmark og renæssancen 1500–1560, Copenhagen 2006, 112–129. Boehn 1952: Otto von Boehn, Adam Liquier Beaumont und Hans Winter: zwei Bildhauer des ausgehenden 16. Jahrhunderts (Bremische Weinachtsblätter 12), Bremen 1952. Boffa 2004: Sergio Boffa, ‘Het ideale plan van een militair kamp volgens de Castrametatio van Simon

446

Stevin (1617)’, in: Simon Stevin (1548–1620). De geboorte van de nieuwe wetenschap, Brussels 2004, 115–122. Bogucka 1962: Maria Bogucka, Gdan´sk jako os´rodek produkcyjny w XIV–XVII wieku, Warsaw 1962. Bogucka 1990: Maria Bogucka, ‘Dutch merchants’ activities in Gdansk in the first half of the 17th century’, in: J.Ph.S. Lemmink, J.S.A.M. van Koningsbrugge (eds.), Baltic Affairs. Relations between the Netherlands and North-Eastern Europe 1500–1800 (Baltic Studies 1), Nijmegen 1990, 19–32. Bohrn 1941: Erik Bohrn, Nyköpings renässansslott och Hercules Mida (Kgl. vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademiens handlingar 49), Stockholm 1941. Bok 1988: Marten Jan Bok, ‘Review of W. Brulez, Cultuur en getal, aspecten van de relatie economiemaatschappij-cultuur in Europa tussen 1400 en 1800, Amsterdam 1986’, Simiolus 18 (1988) 1–2, 63–68. van den Boogert 1992: Bob C. van den Boogert, ‘Habsburgs imperialisme en de verspreiding van renaissance-vormen in de Nederlanden: de vensters van Michiel Coxcie in de Sint-Goedele te Brussel’, Oud Holland 106 (1992), 57–79. van den Boogert 1993a: Bob C. van den Boogert, ‘De triomfen van de keizer. De verheerlijking van Karel V en de toepassing van antieke motieven in de Nederlandse kunst’, in: Exh. cat. ’s Hertogenbosch/ Utrecht 1993, 220–268. van den Boogert 1993b: Bob C. van den Boogert, ‘Macht en pracht. Het mecenaat van Maria van Hongarije’, in: Exh. cat. ’s-Hertogenbosch/Utrecht 1993, 269–301. Boonstra 1997: Jos Boonstra, De activiteiten van Russisch agent Johannes van den Burgh 1719–1725, master’s thesis Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 1997 (published online, http://www.nrac.nl/pdf/scripties/ vdburgh.pdf). Borggrefe 1994: Heiner Borggrefe, Die Residenz Bückeburg – Architekturgestaltung im früh­ neuzeitlichen Fürstenstaat, Marburg 1994. Borggrefe 1999: Heiner Borggrefe, ‘Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Renaissancearchitektur im Weserraum und ihr historisches Umfeld’, in: Bers & Doose 1999, 62–91. Borggrefe 2007: Heiner Borggrefe, Schloss Bückeburg – höfischer Glanz, fürstliche Repräsentation, Hannover 2007. Borggrefe 2008: Heiner Borggrefe, ‘Küchenfenster, welsche Giebel und Hofzeremoniell – die Ornamentik der frühen Renaissanceschlösser’, in: Bischoff & Ibbeken 2008, 28–35.

Bibliography Borggrefe 2010: Heiner Borggrefe, ‘Venezianische Rundgiebel – ein byzantinisches Würdemotiv und sein Schicksal in Mittelalter und Renaissance’, in: Franz Jäger, Anke Neugebauer (eds.), Auff welsche Manier gebauet. Zur Architektur der mitteldeutschen Frührenaissance (Hallesche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 10), Leipzig 2010, 151–196. Borggrefe 2011: Heiner Borggrefe, ‘Das Renaissanceschloss Detmold und Graf Bernhard viii. zur Lippe’, in: Detlev Hellfaier, Elke Treude (eds.), Museum, Region, Forschung, Detmold 2011, 115-129. Borggrefe 2012: Heiner Borggrefe, Der Renaissanceerker der Ratsapotheke von Lemgo, Lemgo 2012. Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005: Heiner Borggrefe & Vera Lüpkes (eds.), Hans Vredeman de Vries und die Folgen (Studien zur Kultur der Renaissance 3), Marburg 2005. Borggrefe & Marten 2002: Heiner Borggrefe & Bettina Marten, ‘“Pensionario alemano de su Magestad”. Herzog Erich II. von Braunschweig-Calenberg in den Diensten des spanischen Königs Philipp II. nach den Quellen des spanischen Zentralarchivs zu Simancas’, in: Borggrefe & Uppenkamp 2002, 181–298. Borggrefe & Uppenkamp 2002: Heiner Borggrefe, Barbara Uppenkamp (eds.), Kunst und Repräsentation. Beiträge zur europäischen Hofkultur im 16. Jahrhundert (Materialien zur Kunstund Kulturgeschichte in Nord- und Westdeutschland 29), Lemgo 2002.

Bots 1979: Hans Bots, ‘Johann Moritz und seine Beziehungen zu Constantijn Huygens’, in: de Werd 1979, 101–106. Botsack 1654: Lebendige TROST-QUELLE Der Gläubigen Kinder Gottes [...] Bey Christlicher Beerdigung Des Ehrbaren und Fürnehmen Jacob vo- dem Blocke / gewesenen Baw= und Zimmermeisters der Königlichen Stadt Danzig. Den 10. Aprilis ANNO M.DC. LIII. In der Kirchen zu S. Marien / eröffnet und erkläret Von JOHANN: BOTSACCO, D. Der Gemeine Jesu Christi daselbst Pastor: DANZIG / Druckts Philip Christian Rhete ANNO M. DC. LIV. Boucher 2005: Bruce Boucher, ‘Jacob Burckhardt and the “Renaissance” north of the Alps’, in: Kaufmann & Pilliod 2005, 21–35. Boudon-Machuel 2005: Marion Boudon-Machuel, François du Quesnoy 1597–1643, Paris 2005. Bouza 1998: Fernando J. Bouza, Cartas de Felipe II a sus hijas, Madrid 1998. Bracker 1997: Jürgen Bracker, ‘Renaissance und Palladianismus in Hamburg und Norddeutschland’, in: Id. (ed.), Bauen nach der Natur – Palladio. Die Erben Palladios in Nordeuropa, Ostfildern 1997, 147–169. Bragard 1998: Philippe Bragard, Les ingénieurs des fortifications dans les Pays-Bas espagnols et dans la principauté de Liège (1504–1713), dissertation, Université Catholique de Louvain 1998.

Borggrefe & von Büren 2008: Heiner Borggrefe, Guido von Büren, Schloss Stadthagen – Eine Residenz der Renaissance, Hannover 2008.

Bragard 2011: Philippe Bragard, Dictionnaire biographique des ingénieurs des fortifications. PaysBas espagnols, principauté de Liège, Franche-Comté, 1504–1713, Namur 2011.

Börsch-Supan 1980: Helmut Börsch-Supan, Die Kunst in Brandenburg – Preußen. Ihre Geschichte von der Renaissance bis zum Biedermeier dargestellt am Kunstbesitz der Berliner Schlösser, Berlin 1980.

Brand 2005: Hanno Brand (ed.), Trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange. Continuity and change in the North Sea area and the Baltic c. 1350–1750, Hilversum 2005.

Börsch-Supan 2000: Helmut Börsch-Supan, ‘Niederländische Künstler in Brandenburg’, in: Savelsberg & Völkel 2000, 9–15.

Brand 2007a: Hanno Brand, ‘Habsburg Diplomacy during the Holland-Wend War of 1510–1514’, in: Brand & Müller 2007, 113–135.

Boscarino 1981: Salvatore Boscarino, Sicilia barocca: architettura e città 1610–1760, Rome 1981.

Brand 2007b: Hanno Brand, ‘Baltic Connections: Changing Patterns in Seaborne Trade (c. 1450–1800)’, in: Bes et al. 2007, 1–23.

Bosman 1998: Lex Bosman, ‘De geschiedenis van de Nederlandse architectuurgeschiedenis: middeleeuwse bouwkunst’, in: Peter Hecht, Annemieke Hoogenboom, Chris Stolwijk (eds.), Kunstgeschiedenis in Nederland, Amsterdam 1998, 63–87. Bothe 1992: Rolf Bothe, ‘Rüdersdorf. Die Bauten in den Kalksteinbrüchen. Technologietransfer und Architektur nach 1800’, Brandenburgische Denkmalpflege 1 (1992) 1, 55–74.

Brand et al. 2006: Hanno Brand, Elita Grosmane, Joost C.A. Schokkenbroek, Oja-rs Spa-rı- tis (eds.), Beyond traditional borders. Eight centuries of Latvian-Dutch relations, Riga 2006. Brand & Müller 2007: Hanno Brand, Leos Müller (eds.), The Dynamics of Economic Culture in the North Sea- and Baltic Region in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period (Groningen Hanze Studies 2), Hilversum 2007.

447

Bibliography Brassat 1992: Wolfgang Brassat, Tapisserien und Politik. Funktionen, Kontexte und Rezeption eines repräsentativen Mediums, Berlin 1992.

Buis 1985: Jaap Buis, Historia Forestis. Nederlandse bosgeschiedenis. II. Houtmarkt en houtteelt tot het midden van de negentiende eeuw, Utrecht 1985.

Braun & Hogenberg 1980 (1572–1617): Georg Braun, Frans Hogenberg, Civitates orbis terrarum, 6 vols., Cologne 1572–1617, , facs. ed. R.A. Skelton et al., Amsterdam 1980.

Buist 1974: M.G. Buist, At Spes Non Fracta. Hope & Co. 1770–1815, The Hague 1974.

Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij 1982: Beatrijs Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij, ‘Notities betreffende de decoratie van de Oranjezaal in Huis ten Bosch’, Oud Holland 96 (1982), 133–185. Bricka & Friderica 1636–1640: C. F. Bricka, J. A. Friderica (eds.), Kong Christian den Fjerdes egenhændige Breve, vol. 4, 1636–1640, Copenhagen 1882. Brigode 1944: Simon Brigode, ‘L’architecture et la sculpture au seizième siècle’, in: Paul Fierens (ed.), L’art en Belgique, Brussels 19442 (s.d.1), 181–204. Broebes 2000 (1733): J.B. Broebes, Vues des palais et maisons de plaisance de Sa Majesté le Roy de Prusse, Augsburg 1733 (reprint Nördlingen 2000). Brosens et al. 2012: Koenraad Brosens, Leen Kelchtermans, Katlijne Van der Stighelen (eds.), Family Ties, Art Production and Kinship Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries (Museums at the Crossroads 23), Turnhout 2012. Bruchet 1922: Max Bruchet, ‘Notice sur la construction du palais Rihour à Lille’, Bulletin de la Commission historique du Département du Nord 31 (1922), 209–299. Bruchet 1927: Max Bruchet, Marguerite d’Autriche, Duchesse de Savoie, Lille 1927. Brulez 1986: Wilfrid Brulez, Cultuur en getal, aspecten van de relatie economie-maatschappij-cultuur in Europa tussen 1400 en 1800 (Cahiers sociale geschiedenis 6), Amsterdam 1986. Brunner 1997: Monika Brunner, ‘Päpstliches Capriccio und kaiserliche Representatio. Das Ovaltreppenhaus der rudolfinischen Kunstkammern als Form habsburgischer Architekturpolitik’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 60 (1997), 514–529.

von Büren 1995: Guido von Büren, ‘Schlosser und Basti­ onen – Importierte Renaissance. Alessandro Pasqualini (1493–1559) Architekt und Festungsbaukundiger in Nord-Westeuropa – Stand der Forschung’, Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 34 (1995), 57–79. von Büren 1996: Guido von Büren, ‘Schloß Horst und der renaissancezeitliche Schloßbau im niederländischniederrheinischen Raum – eine Skizze’, in: Alshut et al. 1996, 69–84. Burk 2005: Jens Ludwig Burk, ‘Conrad Meit, Court Sculptor to Margaret of Austria’, in: Exh. cat. Mechelen 2005, 277–285. Burk s.d.: Jens Ludwig Burk, ‘Conrad Meit: Margaret of Austria’s Court Sculptor in Malines and Brou’, in: Caecilia Pieri (ed.), Brou, un monument européen à l’aube de la Renaissance / Brou, a European Monument in the Early Renaissance, e-book, 127– 146. http://www.monuments-nationaux.fr/fichier/ editions_ebook_chapitre/711/Brou_10_Burk.pdf Burke 1993: Peter Burke, Antwerp, a Metropolis in Comparative Perspective, Antwerp 1993. Burke 1998: Peter Burke, The European Renaissance. Centres and Peripheries, Oxford/Malden MA, 1998. Busch 1867: E.H. Busch, Ergänzungen der Materialien zur Geschichte und Statistik des Kirchen und Schulwesens der Ev.-Luth. Gemeinden in Russland, vol. 1, St. Petersburg/Leipzig 1867. Bustamante García 1994: Agustín Bustamante García, La octava maravilla del mundo. Estudio histórico sobre el Escorial de Felipe II, Madrid 1994. Bustamante García 1998: Agustín Bustamante García, ‘La arquitectura de Felipe II’, in: Felipe II y el arte de su tiempo (Colección Debates sobre Arte VIII), Madrid 1998, 491–512.

Bruns et al. 1974: Friedrich Bruns, Hugo Rahtgens, Lutz Wilde, Die Bau- und Kunstdenkmäler der Hansestadt Lübeck, vol. 1, pt. 2, Rathaus und öffentliche Gebäude der Stadt, Lübeck 1974.

Butler 1888: Samuel Butler, Ex voto: an account of the Sacro Monte or New Jerusalem at Varallo-Sesia ; with some notice of Tabachetti’s remaining work at the Sanctuary of Crea, London 1888.

Bruijn 1999: Jaap R. Bruijn, ‘The maritime industries of the Dutch Republic, in particular the timber trade, in the 17th and 18th centuries’, in: Timber and trade 1999, 58–70.

Buvelot 1995: Quinten Buvelot, ‘Ontwerpen voor geschilderde decoratieprogramma’s’, in: Huisken et al. 1995, 121–153.

Buettner 2001: Brigitte Buettner, ‘Past Presents: New Year’s Gifts at the Valois Courts, ca. 1400’, The Art Bulletin 83 (2001), 598–625.

448

Byloos 1986: Brigitte Byloos, Nederlands vernuft in Spaanse Dienst. Technologische bijdragen uit de Nederlanden voor het Spaanse Rijk 1550–1700, 2 vols., unpublished master thesis, University of Leuven 1986.

Bibliography Cahn 1979: Walter Cahn, ‘Towards the Enduring Monument: Nantes, Brou, Margaret of Austria’, in: Id., Masterpieces. Chapters in the History of an Idea, Princeton 1979, 43–64. Calvete de Estrella 2000: Juan Cristoval Calvete de Estrella, Le très-heureux voyage fait par très-haut et très-puissant prince don Philippe, fils du grand empereur Charles-Quint, depuis l’Espagne jusqu’à ses domaines de la Basse-Allemagne, avec la description de tous les Etats de Brabant et de Flandre, translation Jules Petit, 5 vols., Brussels 1873–1884 ; reprint Brussels 2000 (Algemeen Rijksarchief en Rijksarchief in de provinciën, reprints, 161). Calvete de Estrella 2001: Juan Cristoval Calvete de Estrella, El felicísimo viaje del muy alto y muy poderoso príncipe don Phelipe (1548–1549), ed. P. Cuenca, Madrid 2001. Cámara 2005: Alicia Cámara (ed.), Los ingenieros militares de la monarquía hispanica en los siglos XVII y XVIII, Madrid 2005. Campbell 1717: Colen Campbell, Vitruvius Britannicus, vol. 2, London 1717. Campbell 2004: Stephen J. Campbell (ed.), Artists at Court. Image-Making and Identity, 1300–1550, Boston 2004. Campe 1939: Paul Campe, ‘Die Stadttore Rigas im 17., 18. und 19. Jh. und deren Meister’, Acta Universitatis Latviensis II, 3. Tomus, Riga 1939, 245–250. Campe 1944: Paul Campe, Der Stadt- Kunst- und Werkmeister Rupert Bindenschuh und seine Wirksamkeit in Riga, Riga 1944. Campe 1951–1957: Paul Campe, Lexikon Liv- und Kurländischer Baumeister, Bauhandwerker und Baugestalter von 1400–1850, 2 vols., Stockholm 1951, 1957. Capouillez 1985: Marcel Capouillez, ‘Historique et description des châteaux de Boussu, Binche et Mariemont’, in: Jacques du Broeucq, sculpteur et architecte de la Renaissance, Mons 1985, 177–190. Carcraft 1988: James Carcraft, The Petrine Revolution in Russian Architecture, Chicago 1988. Carlsson et al. 1967: Sten Carlsson, Jerker Rosén et al., Den svenska historien 4. Gustav Adolfs och Kristinas tid 1611–1654, Stockholm 1967. Carpeaux 2007: Carole Carpeaux (ed.), Les Wallons à Versailles (Commission royale des Monuments Sites et Fouilles – Chambre régionale), Liège 2007. Cassagnes-Brouquet 2004: Sophie Cassagnes-Brouquet, ‘Edouard, Richard et Marguerite: les princes de la maison d’York et les artistes flamands en Angleterre’, in: Jean-Marie Cauchies (ed.), Marguerite d’York et

son temps (Publications du Centre européen d’études bourguignonnes xive-xvie siècle 44), Neuchâtel 2004, 137–150. Casteels 1961: Marguerite Casteels, De beeldhouwers De Nole te Kamerijk, te Utrecht en te Antwerpen (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der Schone Kunsten 16), Brussels 1961. Casteels & Rylant 1940: Marguerite Casteels & J. Rylant, ‘De metsers van Antwerpen tegen Paludanus, Floris, de Nole’s en andere beeldhouwers’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 31 (1940), 185–203. Castelfranchi Vegas 1984: Liana Castelfranchi Vegas, Vlaanderen en Italië: Vlaamse primitieven en Italiaanse renaissance, Antwerp (Flandria extra muros), Antwerp 1984. Castelnuovo & Ginzburg 1994: Enrico Castelnuovo, Carlo Ginzburg, ‘Centre and Periphery’, in: Peter Burke (ed.), History of Italian Art, vol. 1, Cambridge 1994, 29–112. Celis 2003a: Marcel Celis, ‘Schoy, Auguste’, in: Anne Van Loo (ed.), Repertorium van de Architectuur in België van 1830 tot heden, Antwerp 2003, 500–501. Celis 2003b: Marcel Celis, ‘Janlet, Emile’, in: Anne Van Loo (ed.), Repertorium van de Architectuur in België van 1830 tot heden, Antwerp 2003, 367. Cervera Vera 1981: Luis Cervera Vera, La iglesia colegial de San Pedro en Lerma, Burgos 1981. Cervera Vera 1996: Luis Cervera Vera, El conjunto palacial de la Villa de Lerma, 2 vols., Lerma 1996. Chatelet-Lange 1997: Liliane Chatelet-Lange, ‘Firmitas und venustas im Konflikt: Zur Disposition des Großen Saales in deutschen Renaissanceschlössern’, in: Der frühe Schloßbau und seine mittelalterlichen Vorstufen (Forschungen zu Burgen und Schlössern 3), Munich/Berlin 1997, 135–151. Chatenet 1987: Monique Chatenet, Le château de Madrid au bois de Boulogne. Sa place dans les rapports franco-italiens autour de 1530 (De Architectura), Paris 1987. Chatenet 1988: Monique Chatenet, ‘Une demeure royale au milieu du xvie siècle. La distribution des espaces au château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye’, Revue de l’art, no. 81 (1988), 20–30. Chatenet 1991: Monique Chatenet, ‘Une nouvelle “cheminée de Castille” à Madrid en France’, Revue de l’art, no. 91 (1991), 36–38. Chatenet 2002: Monique Chatenet, La cour de France au xvi e siècle. Vie sociale et architecture (De Architectura), Paris 2002.

449

Bibliography Chatenet 2003: Monique Chatenet, ‘Architecture et cérémonial à la cour de Henri II: l’apparition de l’antichambre’, in: Hervé Oursel, Julia Fritsch (eds.), Henri II et les arts, Paris 2003, 355–380. Chatenet 2008: Monique Chatenet (ed.), La galerie à Paris (xiv e-xvii e siècle), special number of Bulletin monumental, 166 (2008) 1. Chatenet et al. 2011: Monique Chatenet, Krista De Jonge, Ethan Matt Kavaler, Norbert Nußbaum (eds.), Le gothique de la Renaissance (De Architectura 13), Paris 2011. Checa 1993: Fernando Checa, Felipe II, mecenas de las artes, Madrid 19932. Checa Cremades 1999: Fernando Checa Cremades, Carlos V. La imagen del poder en el Renacimiento, Madrid 1999. Checa Cremades 2000: Fernando Checa Cremades, ‘Carolus. Una imagen del Renacimiento en la Europa de la primera mitad del siglo XVI’, in: Exh. cat. Toledo 2000, 10–33. Checa Cremades 2004: Fernando Checa Cremades (ed.), Isabel la Católica. La magnificencia de un reinado, Madrid 2004. Checa & García García 2005: Fernando Checa Cremades, Bernardo García García (eds.), El Arte en la Corte de los Reyes Católicos. Rutas artísticas a principios de la Edad Moderna, Madrid 2005. Checa & Navascués 2002: Fernando Checa Cremades, Pedro Navascués, ‘Arquitectura isabelina’, in: Navascués Palacio 2002, 247–329. Chipps Smith 1994: Jeffrey Chipps Smith, German Sculpture of the Later Renaissance c. 1520– 1580. Art in an Age of Uncertainty, Princeton 1994. Christensen 1936: Victor P. Christensen, ‘Christian II’s udenlandske Mønt’, Numismatisk Forenings Medlemsblad 14 (1936) 25, 414–418. Chrzanowski 1995: Tadeusz Chrzanowski, ‘Geografia Niderlandyzmu Polskiego (XVI–XVII w.)’, in: Hrankowska 1995, 59–80. Chueca Goitia 1965: Fernando Chueca Goitia, História de la arquitectura española. Edad Antigua y Edad Media, Madrid 1965. Chueca Goitia 1982: Fernando Chueca Goitia, Casas reales en monasterios y conventos espanoles (Libros de arquitectura y arte), Madrid 1982.

Cipolla 1972: Carlo M. Cipolla, ‘The Diffusion of Innovations in Early Modern Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 14 (1972) 1, 46–52. Ciriacono 2006: Salvatore Ciriacono, Building on Water. Venice, Holland and the Construction of the European Landscape in Early Modern Times, New York/Oxford 2006. Clifton-Taylor 1972: Alec Clifton-Taylor, The Pattern of English Building, London 1972. Cole 2011: Michael W. Cole, Ambitious Form: Giambologna, Ammanati, and Danti in Florence, Princeton 2011. Colvin 1999: Howard Colvin, Essays in English Architectural History, New Haven/London 1999. Coninckx 1903: H. Coninckx, Le livre des apprentis de la Corporation des Peintres & des Sculpteurs à Malines, Mechelen 1903. Coppens et al. 2005: Chris Coppens, Marc Derez, Jan Roegiers (eds.), Sapientia Aedificavit sibi domum. Universiteitsbibliotheek Leuven 1425–2000, Leuven 2005. Cools 2001: Hans Cools, Mannen met macht. Edellieden en de Moderne Staat in de Bourgondisch-Habsburgse landen (1475–1530), Zutphen 2001. Cools 2006: Hans Cools, ‘The Burgundian-Habsburg Court as a military institution from Charles the Bold to Philip II’, in: Steven Gunn, Antheun Janse (ed.), The Court as a Stage. England and the Low Countries in the later Middle Ages, Woodbridge 2006, 156–168. Cools et al. 2006: Hans Cools, Marika Keblusek, Badeloch Noldus (eds.), Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe, Hilversum 2006. Coomans 2003: Thomas Coomans de Brachène, ‘L’architecture’, in: Christian Heck (ed.), L’art flamand et hollandais. Le siècle des Primitifs 1380–1520, Paris 2003, 17–123. Coomans 2009: Thomas Coomans, ‘Entre France et Empire: l’architecture dans le duché de Brabant au temps de Jeanne de Brabant et Wenceslas de Luxembourg (1355–1406)’, Revue de l’art no. 166 (2009), 9–25. Coomans 2011: Thomas Coomans, ‘L’apogée du gothique dans les villes des anciens Pays-Bas avant la Réforme (1492–1530)’, in: Chatenet et al. 2011, 65–87.

Chueca Goitia 1986: Fernando Chueca Goitia, El Escorial, piedra profética, Madrid 1986.

Coope 1984: Rosalys Coope, ‘The Gallery in England. Names and Meanings’, Architectural History 27 (1984), 46–55.

Cies´ lak 1992: Katarzyna Cies´lak, Kos´ciół – cmentarzem. Sztuka nagrobna w Gdan´  sku (XV – XVIII w.). “Długie trwanie” epitafium, Gdan´sk 1992.

Coope 1986: Rosalys Coope, ‘The “Long Gallery”: its origins, development, use and decoration’, Architectural History 29 (1986), 43–72.

450

Bibliography Corbet 1936: Auguste Corbet, ‘Cornelis Floris en de bouw van het stadhuis van Antwerpen’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/ Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 6 (1936), 223–264. Coster 1909: H.P. Coster, ‘Het koperen hek voor het altaar van St. Maarten in den Dom te Utrecht’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond, 2nd ser. 2 (1909), 196–218. Cudworth 1937: C.L. Cudworth, ‘The Dutch Influence on East Anglia Architecture’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 37 (1937), 24–42. Cudworth 1939: C.L. Cudworth, ‘The Dutch Gables of East Anglia’, Architectural Review 85 (1939), 113–118. Cuny 1904: Georg Cuny, ‘Hieronimus und Antonius von Obbergen’, Mitteilungen des Westpreussischen Geschichtsverein 3 (1904), 51–57. Cuny 1906: Georg Cuny, ‘Antonius von Obbergen’, Zeitschrift für Bauwesen 56 (1906), 419–442. Cuny 1907: Georg Cuny, ‘Denkmäler der Renaissance in Elbing‘, Denkmalpflege 9 (1907), 81–82, 94–96, 114. Cuny 1910a: Georg Cuny, ‘Block, Wilhelm von dem’, in: Thieme-Becker 4, Leipzig 1910, 123–124. Cuny 1910b: Georg Cuny, Danzigs Kunst und Kultur im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, vol. 1, Baugeschichtliches. Danzigs Künstler mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der beiden Andreas Schlüter, Frankfurt am Main 1910. Cupperi 2004: Walter Cupperi, ‘Arredi statuari italiani nelle regge dei Paesi Bassi asburgici meridionali (1549–56). I. Maria d’Ungheria, Leone Leoni e la galleria di Binche’, Prospettiva. Rivista di storia dell’arte antica e moderna 113–114 (2004), 98–116.

Dacos 1997: Nicole Dacos (ed.), Fiamminghi a Roma 1508–1608, Atti del convegno internazionale Bruxelles 24–25 febbraio 1995, Bollettino d’Arte 100 (1997), suppl., Rome 1997. Dacos & Meijer 1995: Nicole Dacos, Bert W. Meijer (eds.), Fiamminghi a Roma 1508–1608. Kunstenaars uit de Nederlanden en het prinsbisdom Luik te Rome tijdens de Renaissance, Ghent 1995. Dacos & Serrão 1991: Nicole Dacos, Vitor Serrão, ‘Des grotesques à la peinture de brutesques’, in: Exh. cat. Brussels 1991, 40–55. DaCosta Kaufmann: see Kaufmann Damalewicz 1649: S. Damalewicz, Series Archiepiscoporum Gnesnensium, Varsoviae 1649 (Archbishopric Archive in Gniezno, BP 1065). Danske Magazin 1794: ‘Kong Christiern II. Instrux for Kiøgemesteren, Skienken, Forbitzeren, Foermasken, Doresvenden, Cancelleren og Capellanen’, Danske Magazin 2, 1 (1794), 307–318. David 1933: Henri David, De Sluter à Sambin. Essai critique sur la sculpture et le décor monumental en Bourgogne au xve et au xvie siècles, vol. 2, La Renaissance, Paris 1933. Davids 1990: Carel A. Davids, ‘The transfer of windmill technology from the Netherlands to north-eastern Europe from the 16th to the early 19th century’, in: J.Ph.S. Lemmink, J.S.A. M. van Koningsbrugge (eds.), Baltic Affairs. Relations between the Netherlands and North-Eastern Europe 1500–1800 (Baltic Studies 1), Nijmegen 1990, 33–52. Davies & Hemsoll 1983: Paul Davies, David Hemsoll, ‘Renaissance Balusters and the Antique’, Architectural History 26 (1983), 1–23.

Curd 2011: Mary Bryan Curd, Flemish and Dutch Artists in Early Modern England, 1460–1680. Collaboration and Competition, Aldershot 2010.

Daviler 1691: Augustin-Charles Daviler, Cours d’architecture qui comprend les ordres de Vignole (…), Paris 1691.

Curran et al. 2009: Brian A. Curran, Anthony Grafton, Pamela O. Long, Benjamin Weiss, Obelisk: a history, Cambridge (MA) 2009.

Debergh 1994: Jacques Debergh, ‘Luc Lange et Jacques Du Broeucq. Quatre considerations’, Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 63 (1994), 63–72.

Czyz˙ ewski 2004: K. J. Czyz˙ewski, ‘Sarkofag Zygmunta II Augusta, 1572’, in: Grzybkowska 2004, 210.

Degen et al. 2007: Ulrike Degen, Bernd Röder, Heiner Borggrefe, ‘Die Gemäldeausstattung des Schlosses “La Fontaine” von Peter Ernst von Mansfeld’, in: Exh. cat. Luxembourg 2007, 263–300.

Daalder et al. 1998: Remmelt Daalder et al. (eds.), Goud uit Graan. Nederland en het Oostzeegebied 1600– 1850, Zwolle 1998. Dacos 1969: Nicole Dacos, La découverte de la Domus Aurea et la formation des grotesques à la Renaissance, London / leiden 1969. Dacos-Grifò 1991: Nicole Dacos-Grifò, ‘Les artistes flamands et leur influence au Portugal’, in:  Everaert & Stols 1991, 143–175.

Deidier 1734: Abbé Deidier, Le parfait ingénieur françois, ou la fortification offensive et défensive, Amsterdam 1734. De Jonge 1991a: Krista De Jonge, ‘Le contexte européen’, in: Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991, 161–172. De Jonge 1991b: Krista De Jonge, ‘Rencontres portugaises. L’art de la fête au Portugal et aux anciens Pays-Bas

451

Bibliography méridionaux au 16e et au début du 17e siècle’, in: Exh. cat. Brussels 1991, 84–101. De Jonge 1991c: Krista De Jonge, ‘Het paleis op de Coudenberg te Brussel in de vijftiende eeuw. De verdwenen hertogelijke residenties in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden in een nieuw licht geplaatst’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/ Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 61 (1991), 5–38. De Jonge 1994: Krista De Jonge, ‘Le palais de CharlesQuint à Bruxelles: ses dispositions intérieures aux xve et xvie siècles et le cérémonial de Bourgogne’, in: Jean Guillaume (ed.), Architecture et vie sociale. L’organisation intérieure des grandes demeures à la fin du Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance (De Architectura 6), Paris 1994, 107–126.

De Jonge 1999b: Krista De Jonge, ‘Het Hof van Brabant als symbool van de Spaanse hofhouding in de Lage Landen’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 98 (1999), 183–198. De Jonge 2000a: Krista De Jonge, ‘Bourgondische residenties in het graafschap Vlaanderen. Rijsel, Brugge en Gent ten tijde van Filips de Goede’, Handelingen der maatschappij voor geschiedenis en oudheidkunde van Gent, new ser. 54 (2000), 95–109. De Jonge 2000b: Krista De Jonge, ‘El emperador y las fiestas flamencas de su época (1515–1558)’, in: Exh. cat. Seville 2000, 48–71. De Jonge 2000c: Krista De Jonge, ‘Las empresas arquitectónicas del emperador y de su corte en los Países Bajos. El contexto europeo’, in: Exh. cat. Toledo 2000, 34–53.

De Jonge 1997: Krista De Jonge, ‘Une œuvre disparue de la Renaissance flamande dans un album de Du Cerceau: le portail d’entrée de l’hôtel de Maximilien Transsylvanus à Bruxelles’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 64 (1997), 75–105.

De Jonge 2001: Krista De Jonge, ‘Una arquitectura “imperial” para Flandes: Carlos V y el Renacimiento flamenco’, in: José Martínez Millán (ed.), Carlos V y la quiebra del humanismo político en Europa (1530– 1558), Madrid 2001, vol. 3, 35–49.

De Jonge 1998a: Krista De Jonge (ed.), Charles van den Heuvel, Tine Meganck, Annemie De Vos, Philippe Bragard, ‘Building Policy and Urbanisation during the Reign of the Archdukes: the Court and its Architects’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 191–219.

De Jonge 2002: Krista De Jonge, ‘Les grands jardins princiers des anciens Pays-Bas: Bruxelles et Mariemont aux xvie et xviie siècles’, in: Laurence Baudoux-Rousseau, Charles Giry-Deloison (eds.), Le jardin dans les anciens Pays-Bas (Collection d’Histoire), Arras 2002, 29–41.

De Jonge 1998b: Krista De Jonge, ‘Les jardins de Jacques Du Broeucq et Jacques Hollebecque à Binche, Mariemont et Boussu’, in: Carmen Añón Feliú (ed.), Felipe II, el rey íntimo. Jardín y Naturaleza en el siglo XVI, Madrid 1998, 191–220. De Jonge 1998c: Krista De Jonge, ‘Triunfos flamencos: Felipe II y la arquitectura del Renacimiento en Flandes’, in: José Martínez Millán (ed.), Felipe II (1527–1598). Europa y la Monarquía Católica, vol. 4, Literatura, Cultura y Arte, Madrid 1998, 347–369. De Jonge 1998d: Krista De Jonge, ‘Le language architectural de Jacques Du Broeucq’, in: Id., Marcel Capouillez (eds.), Le château de Boussu (Etudes et Documents, Monuments et Sites 8), Namur 1998, 161–187. De Jonge 1998e: Krista De Jonge, ‘Vitruvius, Alberti and Serlio: Architectural Treatises in the Low Countries, 1530–1620’, in: Vaughan Hart, Peter Hicks (eds.), Paper Palaces. The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, New Haven/London 1998, 281–296. De Jonge 1999a: Krista De Jonge, ‘Hofordnungen als Quelle der Residenzenforschung? Adlige und herzogliche Residenzen in den südlichen Niederlanden in der Burgunderzeit’, in: Holger Kruse, Werner Paravicini (eds.), Höfe und Hofordnungen 1200–1600 (Residenzenforschung 10), Sigmaringen 1999, 175–220.

452

De Jonge 2003a: Krista De Jonge, ‘C.7. Brüssel (Bruxelles)’, in: Werner Paravicini, Jan Hirschbiegel, Jörg Wettlaufer (eds.), Höfe und Residenzen im spätmittelalterlichen Reich. Ein dynastischtopographisches Handbuch (Residenzenforschung 15), Ostfildern 2003, vol. 1, 90–94. De Jonge 2003b: Krista De Jonge, ‘Up die manier van Brabant. Brabant en de adelsarchitectuur van de Lage Landen (1450–1530)’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 86 (2003), 409–423. De Jonge 2004a: Krista De Jonge, ‘A Model Court Architect. Mary of Hungary and Jacques Du Broeucq (1545–1556)’, in: Hans Vlieghe, Katlijne Van der Stighelen (eds.), Sponsors of the Past: Flemish Art and Patronage 1550–1700, Turnhout 2004, 1–15. De Jonge 2004b: Krista De Jonge, ‘Schloss Heverlee bei Leuven und die Residenzbildung in den südlichen Niederlanden um 1500’, in: G. Ulrich Großmann (ed.), Burgen und Schlösser in den Niederlanden und in Nordwestdeutschland (Forschungen zu Burgen und Schlössern 8), Munich 2004, 69–80. De Jonge 2005a: Krista De Jonge, ‘Flandes y Castilla. La arquitectura en la época de los Reyes Católicos’, in: Fernando Checa, Bernardo García García (eds.), El Arte en la Corte de los Reyes Católicos. Rutas

Bibliography artísticas a principios de la Edad Moderna, Madrid 2005, 167–182. De Jonge 2005b: Krista De Jonge, ‘Mariemont, “château de chasse” de Marie de Hongrie’, Revue de l’Art no. 149 (2005), 45–57. De Jonge 2005c: Krista De Jonge, ‘Les fondations funéraires de la haute noblesse des anciens PaysBas dans la première moitié du xvie siècle’, in: Jean Guillaume (ed.), Demeures d’éternité. Églises et chapelles funéraires aux xv e et xvi e siècles (De Architectura 10), Paris 2005, 125–146. De Jonge 2005d: Krista de Jonge, ‘The Principal Residences in Mechelen. The Court of Cambrai and the Court of Savoy’, in: Exh. cat. Mechelen 2005, 57–66. De Jonge 2005e: Krista De Jonge, ‘Vredeman de Vries as a Disseminator of Architectural Novelties’, in: Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005, 83–90. De Jonge 2007a: Krista De Jonge, ‘A Model Architect: Jacques Du Broeucq (1540–1555)’, in: De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, 79–86. De Jonge 2007b: Krista De Jonge, ‘Anticse wercken. Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500–1530’, in: De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, 21–39. De Jonge 2007c: Krista De Jonge, ‘Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530–1560’, in: De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, 55–78. De Jonge 2007d: Krista De Jonge, ‘Le château et le jardin de “La Fontaine” à Clausen dans son contexte européen’, in: Exh. cat. Luxembourg 2007, 239–262. De Jonge 2007e: Krista De Jonge, ‘Standardizing “Antique” Architecture 1539–1543’, in: De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, 41–55. De Jonge 2008a: Krista de Jonge, ‘Style and Manner in Early Modern Netherlandish Architecture (1450– 1600). Contemporary Sources and Historiographical Tradition’, in: Hoppe et al. 2008, 264–285. De Jonge 2008b: Krista De Jonge, ‘Marie de Hongrie, maître d’ouvrage (1531–1555), et la Renaissance dans les anciens Pays-Bas’, in Bertrand Federinov, Gilles Docquier (eds.), Marie de Hongrie, Politique et culture sous la Renaissance aux Pays-Bas (Monographies du Musée royal de Mariemont 17), Morlanwelz 2008, 124–139. De Jonge 2010a: Krista De Jonge, ‘Chantiers dans le milieu de la Cour des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux aux xvie-xviie siècles: organisation et innovations techniques’, in: Robert Carvais, André Guillerme, Valérie Nègre, Joël Sakarovitch (eds.), Edifice & Artifice. Histoires constructives, Paris 2010, 917–925. De Jonge 2010b: Krista De Jonge, ‘“FINIS CORONAT 1534”. An Unknown Renaissance Façade Design

Linked with the Low Countries’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Oudheidkunde en Kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 79 (2010), 37–70. De Jonge 2010c: Krista De Jonge, ‘Espacio Ceremonial, Intercambios en la arquitectura palaciega entre los Países Bajos borgoñones y España en la Alta Edad Moderna (1520–1620)’, in: García García et al. 2010, 61–90. De Jonge 2010d: Krista De Jonge, ‘Galleries at the Burgundian-Habsburg Court from the Low Countries to Spain 1430–1600’, in: Christina Strunck, Elisabeth Kieven (eds.), Europäische Galeriebauten. Galleries in a Comparative European Perspective (1400– 1800), Munich 2010, 73–88. De Jonge 2010e: Krista De Jonge, ‘Le “Précurseur”. Du Cerceau et les anciens Pays-Bas’, in: Jean Guillaume (ed.), Jacques Androuet du Cerceau, ‘un des plus grands architectes qui se soient jamais trouvés en France’, Paris 2010, 91–107. De Jonge 2010f: Krista De Jonge, ‘The Court Architect as Artist in the Southern Low Countries 1520–1560’, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 59 (2009–2010), Envisioning the Artist in the Early Modern Netherlands, Zwolle 2010, 110–135. De Jonge 2011a: Krista De Jonge, ‘A Netherlandish Model? Reframing the Danish Royal Residences in a European Perspective’, in: Andersen et al. 2011, 219–233. De Jonge 2011b: Krista De Jonge, ‘“Scientie” et “experientie” dans le gothique moderne des anciens Pays-Bas’, in: Chatenet et al. 2011, 199–216. De Jonge 2011c: Krista De Jonge, ‘Une autre conception des ordres: les colonnes à fût orné du recueil de Madrid’, Annali di Architettura 23 (2011), 73–92. De Jonge 2013: Krista De Jonge, ‘Antique et Moderne. La colonne à fût orné dans l’architecture européenne de la Renaissance’, in: Monique Chatenet, Claude Mignot (eds.), Le Génie du Lieu. La réception du langage classique en Europe (1540–1650): sélection, interprétation, invention (De Architectura), Paris 2013, 131–152. D e J onge & C apouillez 1998: Krista De Jonge, Marcel Capouillez (eds.), Le château de Boussu (Études et Documents, Monuments et Sites 8), Namur 1998. De Jonge & De Vos 2000: Krista De Jonge, Annemie De Vos, ‘Architectuur ten tijde van de aartshertogen: het Hof achterna’, in: Krista De Jonge, Annemie De Vos, Joris Snaet (eds.), Bellissimi ingegni, grandissomo splendore. Studies over de religieuze architectuur in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden tijdens de 17de eeuw, Leuven 2000, 11–42.

453

Bibliography De Jonge et al. 2009: Krista De Jonge, Piet Geleyns, Markus Hörsch, Gotiek in het hertogdom Brabant, Leuven 2009. De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007: Krista De Jonge, Konrad Ottenheym (eds.) et al., Unity and Discontinuity. Architectural Relations between the Southern and Northern Low Countries 1530–1700 (Architectura Moderna 5), Turnhout 2007. De Lattin 1955: Amand De Lattin, Doorheen OudAntwerpen. Gids en inventaris van het hedendaagse Oud-Antwerpen, Antwerp 1955. De Lucca 2012: Denis De Lucca, Jesuits and Fortifications. The Contribution of the Jesuits to Military Architecture in the Baroque Age, Leiden 2012. De Maeyer 1955: Marcel De Maeyer, Albrecht en Isabella en de schilderkunst: bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de xviide-eeuwse schilderkunst in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 9), Brussels 1955. Demps et al. 2001: Laurenz Demps, Jonas Geist, Heidi Rausch-Ambach, Vom Mühlendamm zum Schlossplatz. Die Breite Straße in Berlin-Mitte, Berlin 2001. Denhaene 1990: Godelieve Denhaene, Lambert Lombard. Renaissance et humanisme à Liège, Antwerp 1990. De Ren 1982a: Leo De Ren, De familie Robijn-Osten. Ieperse renaissance-kunstenaars in Duitsland (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 34), Brussels 1982. De Ren 1982b: Leo De Ren, Het standbeeld van Karel Alexander van Lotharingen te Brussel: een verloren werk van P.A. Verschaffelt (1710–1793) (Artium minorum folia lovaniensia XXVII), Leuven 1982, off-print from Antiek: tijdschrift voor liefhebbers en kenners van oude kunst en kunstnijverheid 17 (1982) 2, 73–88. Derveaux-van Ussel 1984: Ghislaine ­Derveaux-van Ussel, ‘Beeldhouwwerk van Jan-Pieter van Baurscheit, vader en zoon’, Bulletin des musées royaux d’art et d’histoire, Parc du cinquantenaire, Bruxelles/ Bulletin van de Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis, Jubelpark, Brussel, 55 (1984) 2, 93–105. Desimpelaere 1995: Ann Desimpelaere, Beredeneerde catalogus van architectuurtekeningen uit de Brugse academie 1757–1830, unpublished master thesis, University of Leuven 1995. De Smedt 1964: Oskar De Smedt, ‘Willem de Raet, bouwmeester en ingenieur (ca. 1537–1583). Een

454

voorlopig bestek’, Bulletin de l’institut historique Belge de Rome 36 (1964), 34–68. Deswarte 1998: Sylvie Deswarte, ‘L’expédition de Tunis (1535): images, interprétations, répercussions culturelles’, in: Bartolomé Bennassar, Robert Sauzet (eds.), Chrétiens et musulmans à la Renaissance, Paris/Geneva 1998, 75–132. Dethlefsen 1912: Richard Dethlefsen, Die Domkirche in Königsberg in Preußen nach ihrer jüngsten Wiederherstellung, Berlin 1912. van Deursen 2000: A.Th. van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau 1567–1625. De winnaar die faalde, Amsterdam 2000. Deutsch-Niederländische Gesellschaft e.V. 1994: DeutschNiederländische Gesellschaft e.V. (ed.), Auf den Spuren der Niederländer zwischen Thüringer Wald und Ostsee, Berlin 1994. Deutsch-Niederländische Gesellschaft e.V. 1997: Deutsch-Niederländische Gesellschaft e.V. (ed.), Auf den Spuren der Niederländer zwischen Berlin und Warschau, vol. 3, Berlin 1997. De Vandières 1879: Simon De Vandières, L’exposition universelle de 1878 illustrée. Quatre-vingt-sept belles gravures sur bois, Paris 1879. Devigne 1920: Marguerite Devigne, ‘Les frères Jean, Guillaume et Nicolas de Wespin, dit Tabaguet et Tabachetti, sculpteurs dinantais (xvie et xviie siècle)’, Annales de la Société d’archéologie de Bruxelles 29 (1920), 97–135. De Vos 1998: Annemie De Vos, Jacques Francart. Premier livre d’Architecture (1617). Studie van een Zuid-Nederlands modelboek met poortgebouwen (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 60, no. 65), Brussels 1998. Devreux 1935: E. Devreux, ‘Les châteaux de Binche’, Annales du Cercle archéologique de Mons 44 (1935– 1936), 3–21. Dhanens 1945–1948: Elisabeth Dhanens, ‘Jan van Roome alias van Brussel, schilder’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 11 (1945–1948), 41–146. Dhanens 1956: Elisabeth Dhanens, Jean Boulogne. Giovanni Bologna Fiammingo. Douai 1529-Florence 1608. Bijdrage tot de studie van de kunstbetrekkingen tussen het graafschap Vlaanderen en Italië (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 11), Brussels 1956.

Bibliography Dhanens 1976: Elisabeth Dhanens, ‘L’importance du peintre Jean van Roome, dit de Bruxelles’, in: Exh. cat. Brussels 1976, 231–238. Dhanens 1985: Elisabeth Dhanens, ‘Het graf van Roomskoning Willem II en de rol van Jan Gossaert in de wederuitrusting van de koorkerk te Middelbourg in Zeeland’, Academiae Analecta. Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 46 (1985). D’Hondt 1989: Eddy D’Hondt, Extraits des comptes du domaine de Bruxelles des xve et xvie siècles concernant les artistes de la cour (Algemeen Rijksarchief, Miscellanea Archivistica, Studia 4), Brussels 1989. Didier 2000: Robert Didier, Jacques Dubroeucq. Sculpteur et Maître-Artiste de l’Empereur (1500/1510–1584), Mons 2000. Didier 2001: Robert Didier, ‘L’art hispano-flamand. Réflexions critiques. Considérations concernant les sculptures espagnoles et brabançonnes’, in: Actas del Congreso internacional sobre Gil Siloé y la escultura de su época, Burgos 2001, 113–144.

Domínguez Casas 1995: Rafael Domínguez Casas, ‘El entorno familiar y social del escultor Egas Cueman de Bruselas’, Archivo Español de Arte 68 (1995), 341–352. Domínguez Casas 2000: Rafael Domínguez Casas, ‘Fiesta y ceremonial borgoñón en la corte de Carlos V’, in: María José Redondo Cantera, Miguel Ángel Zalama (eds.), Carlos V y las artes. Promoción artística y familia imperial, Valladolid 2000, 13–44. Dooley 2006: Brendan Dooley, ‘Art and Information Brokerage in the Career of Don Giovanni de’ Medici’, in: Cools et al. 2006, 81–95. Doorman 1940: G. Doorman, Octrooien voor uitvindingen in de Nederlanden uit de 16e–18e eeuw, met de bespreking van enkele onderwerpen uit de geschiedenis der techniek, The Hague 1940. van Doren 1862: P.J. van Doren, Inventaire des Archives de la ville de Malines, vol. 2, s.l. 1862. Dorsman 1990: Leen J. Dorsman, G.W. Kernkamp. Historicus en democraat 1864–1943, Groningen 1990.

Diemer 2004: Dorothea Diemer, Hubert Gerhard und Carlo di Cesare del Palagio: Bronzeplastiker der Spätrenaissance, Berlin 2004.

Döring 1868: J. Döring, ‘Die St. Trinitatis Kirche zu Mitau’, Sitzungsberichte der Kurländischer Gesellschaft für Literatur und Kunst, Mitau 1868.

Díez del Corral 1992: Rosario Díez del Corral Carnica, ‘Architettura e magnificenza nella Spagna dei Re Cattolici’, in: Exh. cat. Innsbruck 1992, 117–142.

Dressler 1973: Helga Karlsruhe 1973.

van Dillen 1914: J.G. van Dillen, Het economisch karakter der middeleeuwsche stad. I. De theorie der gesloten stad-huishouding, Amsterdam 1914. van Dillen 1929: J.G. van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam. vol. 1, 1512–1611 (Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën 69), The Hague 1929.

Dressler,

Alexander Colin,

Driessen 1989: J.J. Driessen (ed.), Russen en Nederlanders; Uit de geschiedenis van de betrekkingen tussen Rusland en Nederland 1600–1917, Amsterdam 1989. Drost 1963: Willi Drost, Die Marienkirche in Danzig und ihre Kunstschätze, Stuttgart 1963. Droste 2006: Heike Droste, ‘Sending a letter between Amsterdam and Stockholm, a matter of trust and precautions’, in: Cools et al. 2006, 135–148.

van Dillen 1974: J. G. van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam, vol. 3, 1633–1672 (Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën 144), The Hague 1974.

Dubelaar 2009: Wim Dubelaar, ‘Albast uit Nottingham. Geologie, winning en verspreiding in de Lage Landen’, GEA (Stichting Geologische Aktiviteiten) 42 (september 2009) 3, 72–77.

Diplomatarium Norvegicum 1849–1992: Chr. C. A. Lange et al. (eds.), Diplomatarium Norvegicum. Oldbreve til Kundskab om Norges indre og ydre Forhold (…), 22 vols., Oslo 1849–1992.

Dubois 1931: Lucien Dubois, L’ingénieur hydraulicien au xviiie siècle, un précurseur: Bélidor, notes sur l’architecture hydraulique de Bernard Forest de Bélidor 1693–1761, Lausanne 1931.

Długosz 1991: Jakub Sobieski, Peregrynacje po Europie (1607–1613), ed. J. Długosz, Wrocław etc. 1991. Dohme 1876: Robert Dohme, Das Königliche Schloss in Berlin. Eine Baugeschichtliche Studie, Leipzig 1876.

Duerloo 2012: Luc Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety: Archduke Albert (1598–1621) and Habsburg Political Culture in the Age of Religious Wars, Farnham 2012.

Domínguez Casas 1993: Rafael Domínguez Casas, Arte y etiqueta de los reyes católicos. Artistas, residencias, jardines y bosques, Valladolid 1993.

Duerloo & Wingens 2002: Luc Duerloo, Marc Wingens, Scherpenheuvel. Het Jeruzalem van de Lage Landen, Leuven 2002.

455

Bibliography Duffy 1979: Christopher Duffy, Siege Warfare. The Fortress in the Early Modern World 1494–1660, London 1979. Dufour 2002: Liliane Dufour, ‘Du château à la citadelle: la transformation des châteaux siciliens et la construction de la citadelle de Messine’, in: Gilles Blieck et al. (eds.), Le château et la ville: conjonction, opposition, juxtaposition (xie-xviie siècle), Paris 2002, 291–304. Duindam 2007: Jeroen Duindam, ‘The BurgundianSpanish Legacy in European Court Life: a brief reassessment and the example of the Austrian Habsburgs’, in: Jean-Marie Cauchies (ed.), Pays bourguignons et autrichiens (xive-xvie siècles): une confrontation institutionnelle et culturelle. Rencontres d’Innsbruck (Publications du Centre européen d’études bourguignonnes 46), Neuchâtel 2007, 203–220. Duindam 2010: Jeroen Duindam, ‘El legado Borgoñón en la vida cortesana de los Habsburgo austríacos’, in: García García et al. 2010, 35–58. Dunbar et al. 1995: John G. Dunbar, Aognhus MacKechnie, Margaret C.H. Stewart, Minerva’s Flame. James Smith of Whitehill, Dalkeith 1995. Duncanus 1567: Martinus Duncanus, Een cort onderscheyt tusschen Godelyke ende Afgodelyke Beelden, Antwerp 1567. von der Dunk 2007: Thomas H. von der Dunk, Een Hollands heiligdom. De moeizame architectonische eenwording van Nederland (Monografieën over Europese cultuur 13), Amsterdam 2007. Dupont & Mariage 2006: Anne Dupont, Florian Mariage, ‘L’oeuvre exquis du Jubé’. Notes et documents (1569– 1889) sur un témoin majeur du patrimoine de la Cathédrale de Tournai (Tournai – Art et Histoire. Instruments de travail 5), Tournai 2006, 32–34. Duverger 1930: Jozef Duverger, ‘Vlaamsche Beeldhouwers te Brou’, Oud Holland 47 (1930), 1–27. Duverger 1933: Jozef Duverger, De Brusselsche steenbickeleren der xivde en xvde eeuw, met een aanhangsel over Klaas Sluter en zijn Brusselsche medewerkers te Dijon, Ghent 1933. Duverger 1941: Jozef Duverger, ‘Cornelis Floris II en het stadhuis te Antwerpen’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 7 (1941), 37–72. Duverger 1978: Jozef Duverger (ed.), Twintig eeuwen Vlaanderen, deel 11, Kunst en Wetenschap, II, Bouwkunst, beeldende kunst en kunstnijverheid, Hasselt 1978. Duverger & Onghena 1938: J. Duverger, M. J. Onghena, ‘Beeldhouwer Willem van den Broecke alias

456

Guilielmus Paludanus (1530–1579 of 1580)’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 5 (1938), 75–140. Duverger & Onghena 1942: Jozef Duverger, M.J. Onghena, ‘Enkele nieuwe gegevens betreffende beeldhouwer W. van den Broecke alias Paludanus (1530–1580)’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 8 (1942), 173–204. Duverger & Onghena 1954: Jozef Duverger, M.J. Onghena, ‘Hoofdstuk XIX. De Zuidnederlandse beeldhouwkunst gedurende de zestiende eeuw’, in: Hendrik Enno van Gelder, Jozef Duverger (eds.), Kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden van de middeleeuwen tot onze tijd, vol. 1, Kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden, de middeleeuwen, de zestiende eeuw, Utrecht/ Antwerpen 19543 (19351), 362–387. Duverger, Onghena & Van Daalen 1953: Jozef Duverger, M.J. Onghena, P.K. Van Daalen, Nieuwe gegevens aangaande XVIde eeuwse beeldhouwers in Brabant en Vlaanderen (Verhandelingen Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der Schone Kunsten 15, no. 2), Brussels 1953. Dwelshauwers-Déry 1906: Victor Dwelshauwers-Déry, ‘Quelques antiquités mécaniques de la Belgique’, Actes du Congrès international des Mines, de la Métallurgie, de la Mécanique et de la Géologie appliquées, section de mécanique appliquée, Liège 1905, Trooz 1906, 65–195. Dybas´ 1989: Bogusław Dybas´, ‘Memoriał burmistrza Henryka Strobanda “Von Befestigung der Stadt Thorun” z roku 1591’, in: Id., Marek Farbiszewski, Miscellanea z´ródłowe do historii i sztuki Torunia, Wrocław 1989, 21–96. Dybas´ 1994: B. Dybas´, ‘Podróz˙ Tymoteusza Josta. Przyczynek do kształcenia budowniczych w wielkich miastach Prus Królewskich na przełomie XVI i XVII w.’, Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici, Zabytkoznawstwo i Konserwatorstwo 25 (1994), 111–125. Eberhardt 1993: Jürgen Eberhardt, Die Zitadelle von Jülich – Wehranlagen, Residenzschloß und Schloßkapelle – Forschungen zur Planungs- und Baugeschichte, Jülich 1993. van Eck et al. 2002: Xander van Eck, Christiane Coebergh-Surie, Andrea C. Gasten, The stained glass windows in the Sint Janskerk at Gouda. The works of Dirck and Wouter Crabeth (Corpus Vitrearum), Amsterdam 2002. Eckstein & Wrobel 2006: D. Eckstein, S. Wrobel, ‘Dendrochronological proof of origin of historic timber – retrospect and perspectives’, Trace 5 (2006), 8–20.

Bibliography Edelmayr 2002: Friedrich Edelmayr, Söldner und Pensionäre – Das Netzwerk Philipps II. im Heiligen Romischen Reich, Munich 2002. Eggers 1992: Barbara Eggers, Gusow. Schlösser und Gärten der Mark, Berlin 1992. Ehrenberg 1899: Hermann Ehrenberg, Die Kunst am Hofe der Herzöge von Preußen, Leipzig/Berlin 1899. Ehrensvärd 2006: Ulla Ehrensvärd, Nordiska kartans historia. Från myter till verklighet, Helsingfors 2006. Ehrhardt 1960: Traugott Ehrhardt, Die Geschichte der Festung Königsberg/Pr. 1257–1945, Würzburg etc. 1960. Eichberger 2002: Dagmar Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst. Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande (Burgundica 5), Turnhout 2002. Eichberger & Beaven 1995: Dagmar Eichberger, Lisa Beaven, ‘Family Members and Political Allies: The Portrait Collection of Margaret of Austria’, The Art Bulletin 77 (1995), 225–248.

und der ehemalige Dombezirk (Die Kunstdenkmäler des Landes Schleswig-Holstein), Berlin/Munich 1966. Elliott 1989: John H. Elliott, ‘The Court of the Spanish Habsburgs: a Peculiar Institution?’, in: Id., Spain and Its World 1500–1700: Selected Essays, New Haven/ London,1989, 142–161. Elling 1927–1928: Christian Elling, ‘Philip de Lange som Soetatens bygmester’, Historiske Meddelelser om Kobenhavn, 2nd series 3 (1927–1928), 375–403. Elling 1931: Christian Elling, Philip de Lange. En studie I Dansk Barokarkitektur (saertryk af Arkitekten), Copenhagen 1931. Engel et al. 1998: Helmut Engel, Jörg Haspel, Wolfgang Ribbe (eds.), Geschichtswerkstatt SpreeInsel. Historische Topographie – Stadtarchäologie – Stadtentwicklung, Potsdam 1998. Engel & Reichwald 1965: Helmut Engel, Helmut F. Reichwald, ‘Das Gemach zum Weißen Roß im Schloß von Hann. Münden’, Niedersächsische Denkmalpflege 6 (1965–1969), 222–234.

Eichhorn & Odelberg 1872: E. Eichhorn, Herman Odelberg, ‘Guillaume Boyen (Wilhelm Boy), peintre, sculpteur et architecte belge. Etude biographique’, Annales de l’Académie d’Archéologie de Belgique, 28 (1872), 94–132.

Erdmannsdörfer 1879: Bernhard Erdmannsdörfer (ed.), Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, 23 vols., Berlin 1864–1929.

Eimer 1961: Gerhard Eimer, Die Stadtplanung im Schwedischen Ostseereich 1600–1715, Stockholm 1961.

Errard de Bar-le-Duc 1617: Jean Errard de Bar-le-Duc, La fortification réduicte en art et démonstrée par J. Errard de Bar-le-Duc, Frankfurt a.M. 1617.

Eimer 1955: Gerhard Eimer, ‘Block, von dem (van den [fälschl. van der od. vom] Blocke, Bloch[e]), Künstlerfamilie’, in: Neue deutsche Biographie 2, Berlin [West] 1955, 309–311.

Escher 1998: Felix Escher, ‘Berlin-Cölln als Hafenund Handelsstadt im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit’, in: Engel et al. 1998, 87–98.

Eisenstadt & Roniger 1980: S.N. Eisenstadt, Louis Roniger, ‘Patron-Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (1980) 1, 42–77. Eisler 1983: William L. Eisler, The Impact of the Emperor Charles V upon the Visual Arts, unpublished dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University 1983. Ekkart 2002: R.E.O. Ekkart, ‘Gelderse portretten en portrettisten’, in: Bierens de Haan 2002, 60–63. Ellehag 1999: Claes Ellehag, Riddarhuset, Stockholm 1999. Ellehag 2003: Claes Ellehag, Jean De la Vallée, kunglig architect, Lund 2003. Ellehag 2006: Claes Ellehag, ‘Matthias Spihler, adelns arkitekt, och kronans’, Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 75 (2006), 244–268. Ellger et al. 1966: Dietrich Ellger et al. (eds.), Die Kunstdenkmäler der Stadt Schleswig, vol. 2, Der Dom

Eser 2000: Thomas Eser,‘“Künstlich auf welsch und deutschen sitten”. Italianismus als Stilkriterium für die deutsche Skulptur zwischen 1500 und 1550’, in: Bodo Guthmüller (ed.), Deutschland und Italien in ihren wechselseitigen Beziehungen während der Renaissance, Wiesbaden 2000, 319–361. van Essen 2000: Gea van Essen, ‘Daniel Stalpaert (1615–1676) stadsarchitect van Amsterdam en de Amsterdamse stadsfabriek in de periode van 1647 tot 1676’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 99 (2000), 101–121. van Essen 2011: Gea van Essen, Het stadsfabrieksambt: de organisatie van de publieke werken in de Noordelijke Nederlanden in de zeventiende eeuw, unpublished dissertation, Utrecht University 2011. van Essen & Hurx 2008: Gea van Essen, Merlijn Hurx, ‘Design and construction in the cities of Holland, I: Supraregional and municipal systems : the construction of large city churches and the earliest public works (14th-16th centuries)’, OverHolland 8 (2009), 3–30.

457

Bibliography Esteban Estríngana 2008: Alicia Esteban Estríngana, ‘Los Estados de Flandes. Reversión territorial de las Provincias leales (1598–1623)’, in: José Martínez Millán, M.ª Antonietta Visceglia (eds.), La Monarquía de Felipe III: Los Reinos, vol. 4, Madrid 2008, 593–682. Estella 1999: Marguerita Estella, ‘Escultores cortesanos del siglo XVI’, in El arte en las cortes de Carlos V y Felipe II, IX jornadas de arte del Departamento de historia del arte ‘Diego Velázquez’, Madrid 1999, 49–62. Everaert & Stols 1991: John Everaert, Eddy Stols, Vlaanderen en Portugal: op de golfslag van twee culturen, Antwerp 1991. French version: Flandre et Portugal. Au confluent de deux cultures, Antwerp 1991. Evers 1905–1911: Henri Evers, De architectuur in hare hoofdtijdperken, vol. 1, Groningen 1905; vol. 2, Amsterdam 1911. Fabri & Lombaerde 2008: Ria Fabri, Piet Lombaerde, ‘Architectural Treatises, Books and Prints in the Libraries of the Jesuits in Antwerp’, in: Piet Lombaerde (ed.), Innovation and Experience in the Early Baroque in the Southern Netherlands. The Case of the Jesuit Church in Antwerp (Architectura Moderna 6), Turnhout 2008, 187–200. Fabricius et al. 1945: Knud Fabricius, L. L. Hammerich, Vilh. Lorenzen (eds.), Holland-Danmark. Forbindelsen mellem de to Lande gennem Tiderne, 2 vols., Copenhagen 1945. Falomir Faus 1999: Miguel Falomir Faus, ‘De la camera a la galería. Usos y funciones del retrato en la Corte de Felipe II’, in:  D. Maria de Portugal, Princesa de Parma (1565–1577) e o seu tempo. As relações culturais entre Portugal e Itália na segunda metade de Quinhentos, Porto 1999, 125–140. Fernández Pardo 2006: Francisco Fernández Pardo, ‘Arnao de Bruselas escultor Brabanzón’, in: Exh. cat. Madrid/Valladolid 2006, 15–111. Fiek 1911: Hans F.W. Fiek, ‘Schloß Kaputh bei Potsdam’, Zeitschrift für Bauwesen 61 (1911), 247–260. Fierens 1944: Paul Fierens (ed.), L’art en Belgique, Brussels 19442 (s.d.1 [before 1940]). Finkemeier & Röllig 1998: Dirk Finkemeier, Elke Röllig, Vom “petit palais” zum Gästehaus. Die Geschichte von Schloß und Park Schönhausen, Berlin 1998. Fischer 1996: Albert Fischer, Daniel Specklin aus Strassburg (1536–1589): Festungsbaumeister, Ingenieur und Kartograph, Sigmaringen 1996. Fischinger 1969: Andrzej Fischinger, Santi Gucci, architekt i rzez´biarz królewski XVI wieku, Kraków 1969.

458

Flodin 1974: Barbro Flodin, Murmästeren Hans Ferster, verksamheten i Sverige 1634–1653 (dissertation, University of Stockholm 1974), Lidingö 1974. Fock 1974: C. Willemijn Fock, ‘Der Goldschmied Jacques Bylevelt aus Delft und sein Wirken in den Mediceischen Hofwerkstatt in Florence’, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 70 (1974), 89–178. Fock 1997: C. Willemijn Fock, ‘Frederik Hendrik en Amalia’s appartementen: vorstelijk vertoon naast de triomf van het porselein’, in: Exh. cat. The Hague 1997, 76–86. Fock 1998: C. Willemijn Fock, ‘Werkelijkheid of schijn. Het beeld van het Hollandse interieur in de zeventiende-eeuwse genreschilderkunst’, Oud Holland 112 (1998), 187–247. Fock 2001: C. Willemijn Fock (ed.), Het Nederlandse interieur in beeld 1600–1900, Zwolle 2001. Fock 2005: C. Willemijn Fock, ‘Interieuropvattingen van Amalia van Solms. Een Frans getint hof in de Republiek (ca. 1625–1675)’, Gentse bijdragen tot de interieurgeschiedenis 34 (2005), 25–45. Forchhammer 1949: Olaf Forchhammer, København fra bispetid til borgertid. Byplanmæssig udvikling tit 1840, Copenhagen 1949. Forest de Bélidor 1737–1739: Bernard Forest de Bélidor, Architecture hydraulique, ou l’art de conduire, d’élever et de ménager les eaux pour les différens besoins de la vie, Paris 1737–1739. Forssman 2007: Erik Forssman, ‘Wendel Dietterlin, Maler und Architekturtheoretiker’, in: Nicole Riegel, Damian Dombrowski, Severin Josef Hansbauer (eds.) Architektur und Figur, das Zusammenspiel der Künste, Munich 2007, 202–215. Franke 2007: Birgit Franke, ‘Tapisserie als Medium für das fürstliche Bildgedächtnis. Herkules, die Amazonen und das ritterliche Turnier’, in: Carola Fey, Steffen Krieb, Werner Rösener (eds.), Mittelalterliche Erinnerungskulturen (Formen der Erinnerung 27), Göttingen 2007, 185–211. Fredericq-Lilar 1982: Marie Fredericq‑Lilar, ‘Cuvilliés (Jean‑François de) dit Cuvilliés le Vieux’, Biographie nationale XLII, Brussels 1981‑1982, col. 190‑202. Fredrich 1913: C. Fredrich, Die Stadt Küstrin, Küstrin 1913. Freedberg 1986: David Freedberg, ‘Art and iconoclasm, 1525–1580. The case of the Northern Netherlands’, in: Exh. cat. Amsterdam 1986, 69–84. Fremantle 1970: Katharine Fremantle, ‘A visit to the United Provinces and Cleves in the time of William III:

Bibliography described in Edward Southwell’s Journal’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 21 (1970), 39–68. Freusberg 1878: Freusberg, ‘Das Kurfürstlich Königliche Lustschloß Bornim’, Mitteilungen des Vereins für die Geschichte Potsdams 2 (1878), 281–285. Friebe 1907: Walter Friebe, ‘Schloß Köpenick’, Zeitschrift für Bauwesen 57 (1907), 505–540. Friedrich 2000: Karin Friedrich, The Other Prussia. Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569–1772, Cambridge 2000. Friese & Friese 1992: Gerrit Friese, Karin Friese, Glashütten in Brandenburg. Die Geschichte der Glashütten vom 16. Bis zum 20. Jahrhundert mit einem Katalog ihrer Marken und 16 Farbtafeln, Eberswalde 1992.

Gachard 1856: Louis-Prosper Gachard, Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur Charles-Quint et Philippe II, Brussels 1856. Gachard 1874: Louis-Prosper Gachard, Les archives du Vatican, Brussels 1874. Galesloot 1870: M.A. Galesloot, ‘Le tombeau de Christian III, roi de Danemark, dans la cathédrale de Roeskilde, et celui de Gustave Wasa, à Upsala’, Annales de l’Académie d’Archéologie de Belgique 26 (1870), 470–474. Galland 1882: Georg Galland, Die Renaissance in Holland in ihrer geschichtliche Hauptentwicklung, Berlin 1882.

Friis 1872–1878: F.R. Friis, Samlinger til Dansk Bygningsog Kunsthistorie, Copenhagen 1872–1878.

Galland 1890: Georg Galland, Geschichte der holländischen Baukunst und Bildnerei im Zeitalter der Renaissance, der nationalen Blüte und des Klassicismus, Frankfurt a.M. 1890.

Friis 1890–1901: F.R. Friis, ‘Kunstnerfamilien Stenwinkel’, in: Id., Bidrag til dansk Kunsthistorie, Copenhagen 1890–1901, 5–42.

Galland 1893: Georg Galland, Der Grosse Kurfürst und Moritz von Nassau, der Brasilianer, Frankfurt a.M. 1893.

Frijhoff 2010: Willem Frijhoff, Meertaligheid in de Gouden Eeuw. Een verkenning (Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie voor Wetenschappen. Nieuwe reeks, deel 73 no. 2), Amsterdam 2010.

Galland 1911: Georg Galland, Hohenzollern und Oranien. Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der Niederländischen Beziehungen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, und anderes, Strassbourg 1911.

Fris 1922: Victor Fris, La citadelle de Charles-Quint et le château des Espagnols à Gand, Antwerp 1922. Fritsch 1935: Georg Fritsch, ‘Die Burgkirche zu Königsberg i. Pr. und ihre Beziehungen zu Holland: Ein Beitrag zur Neringforschung’, Prussia, Zeitschrift für Heimatkunde und Heimatschutz 31 (1935), 126–188. Fuchs 1818: M. G. Fuchs, Beschreibung der Stadt Elbing und ihres Gebietes in topographischer, geschichtlicher und statistischer Hinsicht, vol. 1, Elbing 1818. Fuhring 1997: Peter Fuhring, Hollstein’s Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450–1700. Vol. XLVII-XLVIII, Vredeman de Vries, 2 vols., Rotterdam 1997. Fuhring 2004: Peter Fuhring, Ornament Prints in The Rijksmuseum II, The seventeenth century (Studies in prints and printmaking 5), Amsterdam/Rotterdam 2004. Fürst 2005: Ulrich Fürst, ‘Die Erneuerung der Sakralarchitektur im Zeitalter der konfessionellen Auseinandersetzung’, in: Carl Hoffmann (ed.), Als Frieden Möglich war. 450 Jahre Augsburger Religionsfriede, Regensburg 2005, 185–195. Fusenig 2000: Thomas Fusenig, ‘Die Ausmalung des Römergemachs im Schloß zu Hann. Münden’, in: Exh. cat. Lemgo 2000, 276–279.

Gallet 1982: Michel Gallet, ‘Les premiers Gabriel’, in: Id., Yves Bottineau (eds.), Les Gabriel, Paris 1982, 22–25. Galster 1972: Georg Galster, Unionstidens udmøntninger. Danmark og Norge 1397–1540. Sverige 1363–1521, Copenhagen 1972. Gamrath 1975: Helge Gamrath, ’Københavns Slot’, in: Kristian Hvidt et al. (eds.), Christiansborg Slot, vol. 1, Copenhagen 1975, 48–166. García García 1998: Bernardo J. García García, ‘Bruselas y Madrid: Isabel Clara Eugenia y el duque de Lerma’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 67–77. García García & Grilo: Bernardo J. García García, Fernando Grilo (eds.), Ao modo da Flandres. Disponibilidade, inovação e mercado de arte na época dos descobrimentos (1415–1580), Lisbon/ Madrid 2005. García García et al. 2010: Bernardo J. García García, Krista De Jonge, Alicia Esteban Estríngana (eds.), El legado de Borgoña. Fiesta y Ceremonia cortesana en la Europa de los Austrias, Madrid 2010. Ga˛siorowski 1977: Eugeniusz Ga˛siorowski, ‘Antonis van Obberghen’, Hafnia. Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art 1976 – Comité international d’histoire de l’art VIIe colloque international. Les Pays du Nord et l’Europe. Art et Architecture au xvi e siècle.

459

Bibliography Copenhague 1–6 septembre 1975, 4 (1976), (1977), 71–90. Ga˛siorowski 2004: Eugeniusz Ga˛siorowski, Ratusz Staromiejski w Toruniu, Torun´ 2004. Gautier & Desprez 1878: Hippolyte Gautier, Adrien Desprez, Les curiosités de l’exposition de 1878. Guide du visiteur, Paris 1878. Ge˛ barowicz 1962: Mieczysław Ge˛barowicz, Studia nad dziejami kultury artystycznej póz´nego renesansu w Polsce, Torun´ 1962. Gebuhr et al. 2001: Ralf Gebuhr, Andrea Theissen, Martin Winter (eds.), Von Vestungen. Die brandenburgischpreußischen Festungen Spandau – Peitz – Küstrin, Berlin 2001. Geerts 2009: Katelijne Geerts, ‘Fortificatiebouwers in Antwerpen in de zestiende eeuw’, in: Piet Lombaerde (ed.), Antwerpen versterkt. De Spaanse omwalling vanaf haar bouw in 1542 tot haar afbraak in 1870, Brussels 2009, 62–91. van Geest & Sierksma 2002: Jan van Geest, Rypke Sierksma (eds.), Verloren Uitzicht. Bloei en teloorgang van het Wijkermeer, Amsterdam 2002.

Gérard 1998: Véronique Gérard, ‘La decoración del Alcázar de Madrid y el ceremonial en tiempos de Felipe II’, in: Felipe II y el arte de su tiempo (Colección Debates sobre arte VIII), Madrid 1998, 331–342. Gerritsen 2006: Elske Gerritsen, Zeventiende-eeuwse architectuurtekeningen. De tekening in de ontwerpen bouwpraktijk in de Nederlandse Republiek, Zwolle/Zeist 2006. Geurts & Bos 1981: R. Geurtsen, L. Bos, ‘Kopenhagen, dubbelstad; een bewerkte reisindruk’, Wonen TA/BK 10/11/12 (1981), 14–51. Gehrig 1921: Oscar Gehrig, Philip Brandin. Eine biographische Studie über den 1563 bis 1594 tätigen Hauptmeister der mecklenburgischer Renaissance, Rostock 1921. Geyer 1936: Albert Geyer, Geschichte des Schlosses zu Berlin, vol. 1, Die kurfürstliche Zeit bis zum Jahre 1698, Berlin 1936. Gieraths 1924: Günther Gieraths, ‘Benjamin Raule, sein Leben und insbesondere seine volkswirtschaftlichen Ansichten’, Economisch historisch jaarboek 10 (1924), 219–302.

van Gelder & Duverger 1954: Hendrik Enno van Gelder, Jozef Duverger (eds.), Kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden van de middeleeuwen tot onze tijd, vol. 1: Kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden, de middeleeuwen, de zestiende eeuw, Utrecht etc., 1954, 3rd revised edition, 11935.

Giersberg 1998: Hans-Joachim Giersberg, Das Potsdamer Stadtschloss, Potsdam 1998.

van Gelderen 1994: Martin van Gelderen, ‘Justus Lipsius zwischen niederländischem Aufstand und Brandenburg-Preußischem Absolutismus’, in: Deutsch-Niederländische Gesellschaft e.V. 1994, 35–45.

Giersberg et al. 1988: Hans-Joachim Giersberg, Claudia Meckel, Gerd Bartoschek (eds.), Der Große Kurfürst. Sammler. Bauherr. Mäzen, Potsdam 1988.

Gelfand 2003: Laura D. Gelfand, ‘Margaret of Austria and the Encoding of Power in Patronage: The Funerary Foundation at Brou’, in: Allison Levy (ed.), Widowhood and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe, Aldershot 2003, 145–159.

Giersberg 1993: Hans-Joachim Giersberg (ed.), Potsdamer Schlösser und Gärten. Bau- und Gartenkunst vom 17. bis 20. Jahrhundert, Potsdam 1993, 60–61.

Gillispie 1970: C.-C. Gillispie, ‘Bélidor, Bernard Forest de’, in: Id. (ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography I, New York 1970, 581–582. Gilman Proske 1951: Beatrice Gilman Proske, Castilian Sculpture: Gothic to Renaissance, New York 1951.

Génard 1880: Pierre Génard, Le tombeau de Christian III, roi de Danemark, dans la cathédrale de Roeskilde, Antwerp 1880 (offprint of Bulletin de l’Académie d’archéologie de Belgique).

Girondi 2013: Giulio Girondi, ‘Frans Geffels, Rubens and the Palazzi di Genova’, in: Piet Lombaerde (ed.), The Notion of the Painter-Architect in Italy and the Southern Netherlands (Architectura Moderna 11), Turnhout 2013, 183–199.

Génard 1880–1883: Pierre Génard, ‘Floris de Vriendt’, Biographie nationale VII, Brussels 1880–1883, col. 118–138.

Girouard 1983: Mark Girouard, Robert Smythson and the Elizabethan Country House, New Haven/London 1983.

Geraghty 2004: Anthony Geraghty, ‘Robert Hooke’s Collection of Architectural Books and Prints’, Architectural History 47 (2004), 113–125.

Girouard 2009: Mark Girouard, Elizabethan Architecture: Its Rise and Fall, 1540–1640, New Haven/London 2009.

Gérard 1984: Véronique Gérard, De castillo a palacio. El Alcázar de Madrid en el siglo XVI, Madrid 1984.

Glaser 1939: Otto Glaser, Die Niederländer in der Brandenburg-Preussischen Kulturarbeit, Berlin 1939.

460

Bibliography Glaser et al. 1992: Gerhard Glaser, Erich Jeschke, Werner Schmidt (eds.), Das Dresdner Schloss. Monument sächsischer Geschichte und Kultur, Dresden 19923 (19891). Glaudemans 2007: Ronald Glaudemans, ‘Koopmansrenaissance. Het Amsterdamse woonhuisinterieur in de zestiende eeuw’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 106 (2007), 215–233. Glete 2007: Jan Glete, ‘Cities, State Formation and the Protection of Trade in Northern Europe, 1200–1700’, in: Brand & Müller 2007, 13–23. Glick & Pi-Sunyer 1969: Thomas F. Glick, Oriol Pi-Sunyer, ‘Acculturation as an Explanatory Concept in Spanish History’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 11 (1969) 2, 136–154. Glotz 1995: Samuel Glotz, De Marie de Hongrie aux Gilles de Binche. Introduction critique aux Triumphes de Binche célébrés du 22 au 31 août 1549 (Les cahiers binchois 13), Binche 1995. Goetghebuer 1827: Pierre-Jacques Goetghebuer, Choix des monumens, édifices et maisons les plus remarquables du royaume des Pays-Bas, Ghent 1827. Goła˛b 1995: Renata Goł a˛ b, ‘Nagrobek Je˛drzeja Noskowskiego w Makowie Mazowieckim’, Ikonotheka. Prace Instytutu Historii Sztuki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 9 (1995), 101–110. Goldmann 1656: Nicolaus Goldmann, Tractatus de usus proportionarii sive circini proportionalis, Leiden 1656. Goldmann 1696: Nicolaus Goldmann, Vollständige Anweisung zu der Civil Bau=Kunst, ed. Leonhard Christoph Sturm, Wolfenbüttel 1696 (Braunschweig 16992; Leipzig 17083). Goldthwaite 1993: Richard A. Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy 1300–1600, Baltimore 1993. Gómez-Moreno 1983 (1941): Manuel Gómez-Moreno, Las águilas del Renacimiento español. Ordóñez, Siloee, Machuca, Berruguete, Madrid, 19832 (19411). Gomme 1985: Andor Gomme, ‘William & David Hiorn, 1712–1776; ?–1758. The Elegance of Provincial Craftsmanship’, in: Roderick Brown (ed.), The Architectural Outsiders, London 1985, 45–62. Gonska 1991: Klaus Gonska, ‘Die Bautagebücher des Rütger von der Horst (1519–1582)’, in: Krutisch & Großmann 1991, 53–60. Gorbatenko 2003: Sergey Gorbatenko, New Amsterdam. St. Petersburg and Architectural Images of the Netherlands, St. Petersburg 2003.

Gorter-van Royen 1990: Laetitia V. G. Gorter-van Royen, ‘Denmark and Habsburg: The Netherlands between Dynastic and European Policies in the Beginning of the 16th Century’, in: Lemmink & van Koningsbrugge 1990, 75–96. Gosieniecka 1971a: Anna Gosieniecka, ‘Block Dawid van den (van der Block[e], von dem Block[e])’, in: Słownik artystów polskich i obcych w Polsce działaja˛ cych, vol. 1, Wrocław etc. 1971, 177. Gosieniecka 1971b: Anna Gosieniecka, ‘Block Izaak van den (van der Block[e], von dem Block[e])’, in: Słownik artystów polskich i obcych w Polsce działaja˛ cych, vol. 1, Wrocław etc. 1971, 177–178. Gosman et al. 2003: Martin Gosman, Alasdair MacDonald, Arjo Vanderjagt (eds.), Princes and Princely Culture 1450–1650, vol. 1 (Brill’s studies in intellectual history 118/1), Leiden 2003. Gosmann 1982: Michael Gosmann, ‘Von der Burg zum Lustschloss. Ein Grundriß des Arnsberger Schlosses von 1653’, Heimatblätter. Zeitschrift des Arnsberger Heimatbundes 3 (1982), 55–58. Goudeau 1995: Jeroen Goudeau, ‘Nikolaus Goldmann (1611–1665) en de praktijk van de studeerkamer’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 94 (1995), 185–203. Goudeau 2005: Jeroen Goudeau, Nicolaus Goldmann (1611–1665) en de wiskundige architectuurwetenschap, Groningen 2005. Grabar 1954: I.E. Grabar, ‘Oboetsjenije roesskich masterov za granitsej’, Roesskaja architektoera pervoj poloviny XVIII veka, Moscow 1954. Grafe 1999: Gottfried Grafe, ‘Zur Bauforschung und zur Restaurierung des Schlosses Oranienburg’, Brandenburgische Denkmalpflege 8 (1999) 2, 77–84. Grapheus 1550: Cornelius Grapheus, Spectaculorum in susceptione Philippi hisp. ... an. M. D. XLIX. Antuerpiæ aeditorum, mirificus apparatus, Antwerp 1550. Griesa 1994: Siegfried Griesa, ‘Der einfluß der Niederlande auf die Alma Mater Viadrina in Frankfurt an der Oder im 17. Jahrhundert’, in: DeutschNiederländische Gesellschaft e.V. 1994, 28–34. Grieten 2014: Stefaan Grieten, ‘The discovery of a monument of the Renaissance in Liège: the portal of Erard de la Marck’s residence in Antwerp’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 77 (2014) 1, 73–100. Grell 1996: Ole Peter Grell, ‘Tribute and triumph: Dutch pageants and Stuart coronations’, in: Id., Calvinist exiles in Tudor and Stuart London, Aldershot 1996, 163–190.

461

Bibliography Grodecki 1985: Catherine Grodecki, Histoire de l’art au xvie siècle (1540–1600), tome I. Architecture – vitrerie – menuiserie – tapisserie – jardins (Documents du minutier central des notaires de Paris), Paris 1985. Groeneveld 2010: Inger Groeneveld, ‘Steinböden im Amsterdamer Wohnhaus 1620–1770’, in: Arbeitskreis für Hausforschung 2010, 341–362. Groessens & Tourneur 2007: Eric Groessens, Francis Tourneur, ‘Les marbres wallons à Versailles’, in: Carpeaux 2007, 389–407. Grosjean 1985: Ardis Grosjean, ‘Wilhelm van den Blocke’s Bielke Tomb. A late sixteenth-century work in its historical Swedish-Polish context’, Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 54 (1985), 2–15. Grosmane 2004: Elita Grosmane, ‘No Baltijas arhitekta Ì Vilhelma Bokslafa darba “Ieguldı- jums pieminek u kopšana” par senajam Rı gas un Terbatas baznı cam’, Ma-kslas ve- sture un teorija (2004) 3, 47–57. Grossmann 1994: Dieter Großmann, ‘Emporenkirchen und Kirchenemporen in Deutschland im 16. Jahrhundert’, in: Klaus Raschzok, Reiner Sörries (eds.), Geschichte des protestantischen Kirchenbaues, Erlangen 1994, 29–34. Grossmann 2003: G. Ulrich Großmann, ‘Die Einführung von Architekturformen der frühen Renaissance in Europa’, in: Nußbaum et al. 2003, 167–185. Grossmann 2010: G. Ulrich Großmann, Renaissanceschlösser in Hessen. Architektur zwischen Reformation und Dreißigjährigem Krieg, Regensburg 2010.

Güttler 1997: Peter Güttler (ed.), Berlin und seine Bauten, vol. 6, Sakralbauten, Berlin 1997. Guicciardini 1567: Lodovico Guicciardini, Descrittione… di tutti i Paesi Bassi, altrimenti detti Germania inferiore, Antwerp 15671. Guicciardini 1987: Lodovico Guicciardini, De idyllische Nederlanden. Antwerpen en de Nederlanden in de 16de eeuw, transl. and ed. Monique Jacqmain, Antwerp/Amsterdam, 1987. Guillaume 1993: Jean Guillaume, ‘La galerie dans le château français: place et fonction’, Revue de l’art no. 102 (1993), 32–42. Guillaume 1994: Jean Guillaume (ed.), Architecture et vie sociale. L’organisation intérieure des grandes demeures à la fin du Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance (De Architectura 6), Paris 1994. Guillaume 2000: Jean Guillaume, ‘Modèles italiens et manière nationale. L’invention d’une architecture nouvelle en France au milieu du xvie siècle’, in: Max Seidel (ed.), L’Europa e l’arte italiana, Venice 2000, 236–253. Guillaume 2003a: Jean Guillaume, ‘Avant-propos: Renaissance ou Renaissances ?’, in: Id. (ed.), L’invention de la Renaissance. La réception des formes “à l’antique” au début de la Renaissance (De Architectura 9), Paris 2003, 7–8. Guillaume 2003b: Jean Guillaume, ‘Le candélabre en Normandie. Les metamorphoses d’un ornement de 1500 à 1540’, in: Bernard Beck et al. (eds.), L’architecture de la Renaissance en Normandie, vol. 1, Caen 2003, 83–98.

Grundmann 1937: Günther Grundmann, Die Baumeisterfamilie Frantz. Ein Beitrag zur Architekturgeschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts in Schlesien, Schweden und Polen (Forschungen zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte 22), Breslau 1937.

Guillaume 2005: Jean Guillaume, ‘Styles and manners: reflections on the longue durée in the history of architecture’, in: Kaufmann & Pilliod 2005, 37–58.

Grzybkowska 1995: Teresa Grzybkowska, ‘Niderlandyzm w sztuce gdanskiej’, in: Hrankowska 1995, 93–112.

Habela 1992a: Jadwiga Habela, ‘Block (Blocke) Abraham van (von) den (der, dem)’, in: Stanisław Gierszewski (ed.), Słownik biograficzny Pomorza Nadwis´lan´skiego 1, Gdan´sk 1992, 115–117.

Grzybkowska 2004: Teresa Grzybkowska (ed.), Gdan´sk dla Rzeczypospolitej. W słuz˙bie Króla i Kos´cioła, Gdan´sk 2004. Günther 2003: Hubertus Günther, ‘Die ersten Schritte in die Neuzeit. Gedanken zum Beginn der Renaissance nördlich der Alpen’, in: Nußbaum et al. 2003, 31–88. Guerzoni 1999: Guido Guerzoni, ‘Liberalitas, Magnificentia, Splendor: The Classic Origins of Italian Renaissance Lifestyles’, in: Neil De Marchi, C.D.W. Goodwin (eds.), Economic Engagements with Arts (History of Political Economy 31), Durham NC/ London 1999, 332–378.

462

Gut 1984: Albert Gut, Das Berliner Wohnhaus des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1984, 19171.

Habela 1992b: Jadwiga Habela, ‘Block (Blocke) Egidiusz van (von) den (der, dem)’, in: Stanisław Gierszewski (ed.), Słownik biograficzny Pomorza Nadwis´lan´skiego 1, Gdan´sk 1992, 118. Habela 1992c: Jadwiga Habela, ‘Block (Blocke) Jakub van (von) den (der, dem)’, in: Stanisław Gierszewski (ed.), Słownik biograficzny Pomorza Nadwis´lan´skiego 1, Gdan´sk 1992, 120. Haencke 1911: Berthold Haencke, ‘Der niederländische Einfluss auf die deutsche Kunst des 16. Jahrhunderts’,

Bibliography Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, new series 22 (1911) 233–238. Hafnia 1976: ‘Les Pays du Nord et l’Europe. Art et architecture au xvie siècle. VIIe colloque international d’histoire de l’art’, Hafnia. Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art (1976), 1–184. Hahn & Lorenz 1998: Peter-Michael Hahn, Hellmut Lorenz (eds.), Formen der Visualisierung von Herrschaft. Studien zu Adel, Fürst und Schloßbau vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, Potsdam 1998. Hahn & Lorenz 2000: Peter-Michael Hahn, Hellmut Lorenz (eds.), Herrenhäuser in Brandenburg und der Niederlausitz. Kommentierte Neuausgabe des Ansichtenwerks von Alexander Duncker (1857– 1883), 2 vols., Berlin 2000. Hahr 1907: August Hahr, Arkitektfamiljen Pahr. Studier i Johan III’s Renässans I, Uppsala/Leipzig 1907. Hahr 1910: August Hahr, Villem Boy. Bildhuggaren och Byggmästeren. Studier i Johan III’s Renässans II, Uppsala/Leipzig 1910. Hahr 1913: August Hahr, Studier i nordisk renässanskonst. Foregangarna till Johann III grafmonument i Uppsala i dess ursprungliga afseda gestalt, Uppsala 1913.

Harasimowicz 1986: Jan Harasimowicz, ‘Mauzoleum Górków w Kórniku’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 47 (1986) 2-4, 277–299. Harasimowicz 1990: Jan Harasimowicz, ‘Schlesische Epitaphien und Grabmäler der Reformationszeit – ihre Typen und architektonisch-plastische Struktur’, in: G. Ulrich Großmann (ed.), Renaissance in NordMitteleuropa, vol. 1, Munich/Berlin 1990, 189–224. Harasimowicz 1991: Jan Harasimowicz, ‘Zwia˛zki artystyczne Wielkopolski i S´la˛ska w zakresie rzez´by kamiennej w XVI i w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 53 (1991), 201–225. Harasimowicz et al. 2006: Jan Harasimowicz, Piotr Osczanowski, Marcin Wisłocki (eds.), On the Opposite Sides of the Baltic Area. Relations between Scandinavian and Central European Countries, Wrocław 2006. Harris 1953: Lawrence E. Harris, Vermuyden and the Fens, London 1953. Harris 1990: John Harris, ‘James Gibbs, Eminence Grise at Houghton’, in: Charles Hind (ed.), New Light on English Palladianism, London 1990, 5–9.

Haidacher et al. 2004: Christoph Haidacher, Dorothea Diemer et al., Maximilian I: der Kenotaph in der Hofkirche zu Innsbruck, Innsbruck 2004.

Hart 1976: Simon Hart, ‘Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de houthandel’, in: Id., Geschrift en getal. Een keuze uit de demografisch-, economisch- en sociaalhistorische studiën op grond van Amsterdamse en Zaanse archivalia, 1600–1800, Dordrecht 1976, 71–92.

Hallendorff 1926: Carl Hallendorff (ed.), Sveriges Riddarhus, Stockholm 1926.

Hartmann 1998: Sys Hartmann (ed.), Weilbach. Dansk Kunstnerleksikon, vol. 8, Copenhagen 1998.

Hallo 1930: Rudolf Hallo, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des Schlossbaus von Wilhelmsthal’, Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 1930, 64–83.

Haupt 1923: Albrecht Haupt, Baukunst der Renaissance in Frankreich und Deutschland (Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft 2), Berlin 1923.

Halsema-Kubes 1979: Willy Halsema-Kubes, ‘Die von Artus Quellinus und Bartholomäus Eggers für Johann Mortiz geschaffenen Skulpturen’, in: de Werd 1979, 213–232.

Hébrard 1756 (1980): Pierre Hébrard, Caminologie, ou traité des cheminées, contenant des observations sur les différentes causes qui font fumer les cheminées, avec des moyens pour corriger ce défaut, ouvrage intéressant & utile, tant pour les particuliers, que pour les artistes: avec figures, Paris, 1756 (reprint Paris, 1980).

Hamberg 1955 (20022): Per Gustav Hamberg, Tempelbygge för protestanter. Arkitekturhistoriska studier i äldre reformert och evangelisk-luthersk miljö, Stockholm 1955. (English ed. Temples for Protestants. Studies in the Architectural Milieu of the Early Reformed Church and of the Lutheran Church, Gothenburg 2002.) Hanschke 1997: Ulrike Hanschke, ‘“… uns ein Bibliothecam architectonicam zu machen”. Die Architekturzeichnungen des Landgrafen Moritz’, in: Exh. cat. Lemgo/Kassel 1997, 265–286. Häpke 1923: Rudolf Häpke, ‘Benjamin Raule und seine Handlungsbücher’, Economisch Historisch Jaarboek 9 (1923), 214–220.

Heckmann 1998: Hermann Heckmann, Baumeister des Barock und Rokoko in Brandenburg-Preussen, Berlin 1998. Heckmann 2000: Hermann Heckmann, Baumeister des Barock und Rokoko in Mecklenburg, SchleswigHolstein, Lübeck, Hamburg, Berlin 2000. Heckner 1995: Ulrike Heckner, Im Dienst von Fürsten und Reformation. Fassadenmalerei an den Schlössern in Dresden und Neuburg an der Donau im 16. Jahrhundert (Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien 64), Munich/Berlin, 1995.

463

Bibliography Hedicke 1904: Robert Hedicke, Jacques Dubroeucq von Mons. Ein niederländischer Meister aus der Frühzeit des italienischen Einflusses, Strassbourg 1904. Hedicke 1912: Robert Hedicke, Jacques Dubrœucq de Mons (Annales du cercle archéologique de Mons 40 [1911]), Brussels 1912. Hedicke 1913: Robert Hedicke, Cornelis Floris und die Florisdekoration. Studien zur niederländischen und deutschen Kunst im XVI. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1913. Heeres et al. 1988: W.G. Heeres et al. (eds.), From Dunkirk to Danzig. Shipping and trade in the North Sea and the Baltic, 1350–1850, Hilversum 1988. Heesters 1988: J.H.P. Heesters, Vier eeuwen behang. De geschiedenis van de wandbespanning in Nederland, Delft 1988. Heiberg 1988: Steffen Heiberg, Christian 4. Manden, mennesket, monarken, Copenhagen 1988. Heiberg 2006a: Steffen Heiberg (ed.), Christian 4. og Frederiksborg, Copenhagen 2006. Heiberg 2006b: Steffen Heiberg, ‘Et kongeligt triumftog’, in: Heiberg 2006a, 28–41. Heim & Yuste Galán 1998: Dorothee Heim, Amalia María Yuste Galán, ‘La torre de la catedral de Toledo y la dinastía de los Cueman. De Bruselas a Castilla’, Boletín del seminario de estudios de arte y arqueología 64 (1998), 229–250. Hein 1929: Max Hein, Otto von Schwerin. Der öberpräsident des Großen Kurfürsten, Königsberg 1929. Hein 1999: Ants Hein, ‘Jacob Stael von Holstein and the development of Palladianism in Estonian architecture in the 17th century’, in: Krista Kodres, Juhan Maiste, Vappe Vabar (eds.), Sten Karling and Baltic Art History (Estonian Academy of Arts Proceedings 6), Tallinn 1999, 103–124. Hein 2009: Jørgen Hein, The Treasure Collection at Rosenborg Castle (Selskabet for Udgivelse af danske Mindesmærker), 3 vols., Copenhagen 2009. Heinrich 1990: Gerd Heinrich (ed.), Ein sonderbares Licht in Teutschland. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Großen Kurfürsten von Brandenburg (1640–1688), Berlin 1990. Hélin 1975: Étienne Hélin, ‘XVII, L’opinion d’autrui: un miroir déformant ?’, in: Hervé Hasquin (ed.), La Wallonie, le pays et les hommes: histoire – économies – sociétés, vol. 1: des origines à 1830, Brussels 1975, 445–468. Henares Cuéllar 2001: Ignacio L. Henares Cuéllar, ‘Ciudad y arquitectura: el conjunto catecralicio de Granada

464

en la Edad Moderna’, in: Miguel Ángel Castillo Oreja (ed.), Las catedrales españolas en la Edad Moderna. Aproximación a un nuevo concepto del espacio sagrado (Collección Debates sobre Arte, Encuentros sobre Patrimonio 12), Madrid 2001, 85–127. Hendrikman 2001: Lars Hendrikman, ‘Christian II als Scandinavische Constantijn’, Millenium. Tijdschrift voor middeleeuwse studies 15 (2001), 30–57. Hendrikman 2005: Lars Hendrikman, ‘Portraits and politics. Evolution in the depiction of King Christian II of Denmark during his reign and exile (1513– 1531)’, in: Brand 2005, 186–210. Hennaut 1989: Eric Hennaut, ‘Auguste Schoy (1838– 1885)’, in: Jean-Paul Midant (ed.), Académie de Bruxelles. Deux siècles d’architecture, Brussels 1989, 240–244. Hennaut 2003: Eric Hennaut, ‘Saintenoy, Paul’, in: Anne Van Loo (ed.), Repertorium van de Architectuur in België van 1830 tot heden, Antwerp 2003, 493–494. Hennebo 1955: Dieter Hennebo, ‘Zur Geschichte des Parkes Friedrichsfelde’, Berliner Heimat 1 (1955) 3, 14–20. Heppe 1995: Dorothea Heppe, Das Schloss der Landgrafen von Hessen in Kassel von 1557 bis 1811, Marburg 1995. Hermanin 1934: Federico Hermanin, Opera del genio italiano all’estero, ser. I, 1: Artisti italiani in Germania. Gli architetti, Rome 1934. Hermann 1962: Wolfgang Hermann, Laugier and Eighteenth-Century French Thought, London 1962. Hernando Sánchez 2000: Carlos J. Hernando Sánchez (ed.), Las fortificaciones de Carlos V, Madrid 2000. Herrmann 1998: Dirk Herrmann, Schloß Zerbst in Anhalt. Geschichte und Beschreibung einer vernichteten Residenz, Halle 1998. Herzberg & Rieseberg 1987: Heinrich Herzberg, Hans Joachim Rieseberg, Mühlen und Müller in Berlin. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Produktivkräfte, Berlin 1987. Herzog 2004: Harald Herzog, ‘Viereckburgen im Rheinland’, in G. Ulrich Großmann (ed.), Burgen und Schlösser in den Niederlanden und in Nordwestdeutschland (Forschungen zu Burgen und Schlössern 8), Munich 2004, 163–176. Heussner 2005: Karl-Uwe Heußner, ‘Handel mit Holz’, in: Jöns et al. 2005, 125–128. van den Heuvel 1991: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Papiere Bolwercken’. De introductie van de Italiaanse stedeen vestingbouw in de Nederlanden (1540–1609) en het gebruik van tekeningen, Alphen aan den Rijn 1991.

Bibliography van den Heuvel 1994a: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Bartolomeo Campi successor to Francesco Paciotto. A different method of designing citadels: Groningen and Flushing,’ in: Marino Viganò (ed.), Architetti e ingegneri militari italiani all’estero dal XV al XVIII secolo, Livorno 1994, 153–167. van den Heuvel 1994b: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Stevins “Huysbou” en het onvoltooide Nederlandse architectuurtractaat. De praktijk van het bouwen als wetenschap’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 93 (1994), 1–18. van den Heuvel 1996: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Een atlas voor Gilles de Berlaymont, baron van Hierges. Belegeringsscenes, plattegronden en fortificatieontwerpen voor een “soldat-gentilhomme”, 1570– 1578’, Caert-thresoor. Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis van de kartografie in Nederland 15 (1996) 3, 57–96. van den Heuvel 2004: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Simon Stevin, de Crychconst en de Duytsche Mathematique’, in: Simon Stevin (1548–1620). De geboorte van de nieuwe wetenschap, Brussels 2004, 103–113. van den Heuvel 2005: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘De Huysbou’. A reconstruction of an unfinished treatise on architecture, town planning and civil engineering by Simon Stevin, Amsterdam 2005. van den Heuvel 2006: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘De vesting als mathematisch en cultureel kenissysteem. Het onderwijs in de vestingbouw aan hovelingen, kooplui en ambachtslieden in de Hollandse Republiek (17de eeuw)’, Scientiarium Historia 32 (2006), 99–117. van den Heuvel 2007a: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Les ingénieurs dans la boue. Adapter les styles internationaux aux pratiques néerlandaises en matière de fortifications’, in: Isabelle Warmoes, Victoria Sanger (eds.), Vauban, bâtisseur du RoiSoleil, Paris 2007, 42–47. van den Heuvel 2007b: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Nieuwe steden, stadsuitbreidingen en de inrichting van het platteland’, in: Koos Bosma, Aart Mekking, Konrad Ottenheym, Auke van der Woud (eds.), Bouwen in Nederland 600–2000, Amsterdam/Zwolle 2007, 278–295. van den Heuvel 2011: Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Multilayered Grids and Dutch Town Planning. Flexibility and Temporality in the Design of Settlements in the Low Countries and Overseas’, in: Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2011, 27–44. van den Heuvel (forthcoming): Charles van den Heuvel, ‘The Training of Noblemen in the Arts and Sciences in the Low Countries around 1600. Treatises and Instructional Materials’, in: Krista De Jonge, Sebastiaan

Derks, Hans Cools (eds.), Alexander Farnese and the Low Countries, Turnhout, forthcoming. van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000: Charles van den Heuvel, Bernhard Roosens, ‘Los Países Bajos. Las fortificaciones y la coronación de la defensa del Imperio de Carlos V’, in: Hernando Sánchez 2000, 579–606. van den Heuvel & van Wezel 1999: Charles van den Heuvel, Gerard van Wezel, ‘A Pasqualini-Puzzle? Building fragments of Buren’, in: Bers & Doose 1999, 495–511. Heydel 1995a: Maria Heydel, ‘Block (Blocke), van den (von der; von dem), David’, in: Saur Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon 11, Munich/Leipzig 1995, 534. Heydel 1995b: Maria Heydel, ‘Block (Blocke), van den (von der; von dem), Isaak (Izaak)’, in: Saur Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon 11, Munich, Leipzig 1995, 534. Hillewaert & Van Besien 2007: Bieke Hillewaert, Elisabeth Van Besien, Het Prinsenhof in Brugge, Bruges 2007. Himler 1974: Albert Himler, ‘Historiek en voorgeschiedenis van het Hanzehuis te Antwerpen 1564–1893’, Tijdschrift der Stad Antwerpen 20 (1974), 99–111, 166–175. Hinterkeuser 2007: Guido Hinterkeuser, ‘Zwischen Politik, Ökonomie und Repräsentation. Berlin und die großen Schlösser des preußischen Adels (Dohna, Dönnhoff, Finckenstein)’, in: Birte Pusback, Jan Skuratowicz (eds.), Landgüter in den Regionen des gemeinsamen Kulturerbes von Deutschen und Polen – Entstehung, Verfall und Bewahrung (Das Gemeinsame Kulturerbe – Wispólne Dziedzictwo IV), Warsaw 2007, 31–58. Hipp 1990: Hermann Hipp, ‘Die Bückeburger “Structura”: Aspekte der Nachgotik in Zusammenhang mit der deutschen Renaissance’, in: G. Ulrich Großmann (ed.), Renaissance in Nord- Mitteleuropa, vol. 1 (Schriften des Weserrenaissance-Museums Schloß Brake 4), Munich/Berlin 1990, 159–170. Hirschbiegel et al. 2012: Jan Hirschbiegel, Werner Paravicini, Jörg Wettlaufer (eds.), Städtisches Bürgertum und Hofgesellschaft. Kulturen integrativer und konkurrierender Beziehungen in Residenzund Hauptstädten vom 14. bis ins 19. Jahrhundert (Residenzenforschung 25), Stuttgart 2012. Hitchcock 1978: Henry-Russel Hitchcock, Netherlandish Scrolled Gables of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries, New York 1978. Hitchcock 1981: Henry-Russel Hitchcock, German Renaissance Architecture, Princeton 1981.

465

Bibliography Hoc 1966: Marcel Hoc, ‘Histoire d’une statue. Charles de Lorraine à Bruxelles’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 35 (1966) 1–2, 51–70. den Hoed 1929: Petronella Maria den Hoed, Iets over de cultuuraanraking van Nederland met Denemarken en Zweden, Haarlem 1929. Hoekstra 2002: Tarq Hoekstra (ed.), Middachten. Huis en heerlijkheid, Utrecht 2002. Hørby 1980: Kai Hørby, ‘Tiden fra 1340 til 1523’, in: Kai Hørby, Mikael Venge (eds.), Danmarks historie, vol. 2, 1, Copenhagen 1980, 13–270. Hörsch 1994: Markus Hörsch, Architektur unter Margarethe von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande (1507–1530). Eine bau- und architekturgeschichtliche Studie zum Grabkloster St. Nicolas-de-Tolentin in Brou bei Bourg-en-Bresse (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 54), Brussels 1994. Hofmann 1985: Cristina Hofmann, Das spanische Hofzeremoniell von 1500–1700 (Erlanger Historische Studien 8), Frankfurt a.M. 1985. Hofmann-Randall 1995: Cristina Hofmann-Randall, ‘Die Herkunft und Tradierung des Burgundischen Hofzeremoniells’, in: Jörg Jochen Berns, Thomas Rahn (eds.), Zeremoniell als höfische Ästhetik in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, Tübingen 1995, 150–156. Holst 1995: B. Holst, ‘Klein, Vilhelm’, in: Sys Hartmann (ed.), Weilbach Dansk Kunstnerleksikon, 4, Copenhagen 1995, 301–303. Holzhausen 1959: Walter Holzhausen, Lackkunst in Europa, Braunschweig 1959. Holzschuh-Hofer 2010a: Renate Holzschuh-Hofer, ‘Feuereisen im Dienst politischer Propaganda von Burgund bis Habsburg. Zur Entwicklung der Symbolik des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies von Herzog Philipp dem Guten bis Kaiser Ferdinand I’, RIHA Journal 2010, 0006, http://www.riha-journal. org/articles/. Holzschuh-Hofer 2010b: Renate HolzschuhHofer, ‘Radikal elitär oder schlicht bescheiden? Zur Ikonologie der Wiener Hofburg im 16. Jahrhundert unter Ferdinand I’, in: Werner Paravicini, Jörg Wettlaufer (eds.), Vorbild – Austausch – Konkurrenz. Höfe und Residenzen in der gegenseitigen Wahrnehmung (Residenzenforschung 23), Stuttgart 2010, 257–274. Holzschuh-Hofer 2011: Renate Holzschuh-Hofer, ‘Bild gewordenes Manifest: Die Schallaburg im

466

16. Jahrhundert’, in: Peter Aichinger-Rosenberger (ed.), Die Schallaburg. Geschichte, Archäologie, Bauforschung, Schallaburg 2011, 305–329. Holzschuh-Hofer (forthcoming a): Renate HolzschuhHofer, ‘Multiple identities of Casa Austria during the 16th century: the function of “Residence Architecture” designed as an enduring component within the culture of presence, “Präsenzkultur”, of the early modern time’, in: Herbert Karner (ed.), The Habsburgs and their Courts in Europe, 1400–1700. Between Cosmopolitanism and Regionalism, Vienna, forthcoming. Holzschuh-Hofer (forthcoming b): Renate HolzschuhHofer, ‘Paradox of power: dynastic politics versus imperial politics under Charles V and Ferdinand I as reflected through their residences’, in: Bernardo J. García García (ed.), Felix Austria. Lazos familiares, cultura política y mecenazgo artístico entre las cortes de los Habsburgo en el contexto europeo (1516– 1715), Madrid 2013 (forthcoming). Holzschuh-Hofer & Beseler 2008: Renate HolzschuhHofer, Susanne Beseler, ‘Nobles Grau-Gold. Bauforschung am Schweizertor in der Wiener Hofburg’, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Denkmalpflege 62 (2008), 643–670. Honnens de Lichtenberg 1988: Hanne Honnens de Lichtenberg, ‘Christian IV and the Art of Sculpture’, Apollo 128 (1988), 103–109. Hood 1991: Gervase Hood, ‘A Netherlandic triumphal arch for James I’, in: Susan Roach (ed.), Across the narrow seas: Studies in the history and bibliography of Britain and the Low Countries, London 1991, 67–82. Hood 2003: Gervase Hood, ‘The Netherlandic community in London and patronage of painters and architects in early Stuart London’, in: Roding et al. 2003, 43–56. Hoogewerff 1920: G.J. Hoogewerff, ‘Cornelis Jansz. Meijer. Amsterdamsch ingenieur in Italië (1629– 1701)’, Oud Holland 38 (1920), 83–103. Hoogewerff 1928: G.J. Hoogewerff, ‘Giovanni van Santen, architetto della Villa Borghese’, Roma 6 (1928) 1–2, 1–28. Hopkins & Witte 1996: Andrew Hopkins, Arnold Witte, ‘From deluxe architectural book to builder’s manual: the Dutch editions of Scamozzi’s L’Idea della Architettura Universale’, Quaerendo 26 (1996), 274–302. Hoppe 1928: Willi Hoppe, ‘Geschichte der Stadt Küstrin’, in: Blunck 1928, 303–357. Hoppe 1929: Willi Hoppe, Lenzen. Aus 1000 Jahren einer märkischen Stadt 929–1929, Lenzen 1929.

Bibliography Hoppe 2000: Stephan Hoppe, ‘Die ursprüngliche Raumorganisation des Güstrower Schlosses und ihr Verhältnis zum mitteldeutschen Schlossbau’, in: Burgen und frühe Schlösser in Thüringen und seine Nachbarländer (Forschungen zu Burgen und Schlössern 5), Munich/Berlin 2000, 129–148. Hoppe 2005: Stephan Hoppe, ‘Antike als Maßstab. Ottheinrich als Bauherr in Neuburg und Heidelberg’, in: Exh. cat. Neuburg 2005, 211–213. Hoppe 2006: Stephan Hoppe, ‘Paper villas: the drawings by the Landgrave Moritz von Hessen (1572–1632) for some “Lustschlösser” in the countryside’, in: Monique Chatenet (ed.) Maisons des champs dans l’Europe de la Renaissance (De Architectura 11), Paris 2006, 159–170. Hoppe et al. 2008: Stephan Hoppe, Matthias Müller, Norbert Nussbaum (eds.), Stil als Bedeutung in der nordalpinischen Renaissance. Wiederentdeckung einer methodischen Nachbarschaft, Regensburg 2008. Hoppen 1979: Alison Hoppen, The fortification of Malta by the Order of St. John 1530–1798, Edinburgh 1979. Hoppen 1981: Alison Hoppen, ‘Military Engineers in Malta, 1530–1798’, Annals of Science 38 (1981), 413–433. Hornung 1959: Zbigniew Hornung, ‘Gdan´ska szkoła rzez´biarska na przełomie XVI i XVII wieku’, Teka Komisji Historii Sztuki 1 (1959), 103–132. Hornung 1995: Zbigniew Hornung, Jan de Witte, Architekt kos´cioła Dominikanów we Lwowie, Warsaw 1995. van der Horst 1736: Tieleman van der Horst, Theatrum machinarum universale; of keurige verzameling van verscheide grote en zeer fraaie waterwerken, schutsluizen, waterkeringen, ophaalen draaibruggen..., Amsterdam 1736. van der Horst 1790: Tieleman van der Horst, Neue Treppenbaukunst für Tischler, Zimmerlaute und Liebhaber, Nuremberg 1790. Howard 1987: Maurice Howard, The Early Tudor Country House: Architecture and Politics 1490–1550, London 1987. Howard 1995: Deborah Howard, ‘Sir William Bruce’s design for Hopetoun House and its forerunners’, in: Ian Gow, Alistair Rowan (eds.), Scottish Country Houses 1600–1914, Edinburgh 1995, 53–67. Hrankowska 1995: Teresa Hrankowska (ed.), Niderlandyzm w sztuce polskiej. Materiały Sesji Stowarzyszenia Historyków Sztuki Torun˛, grudzien˛ 1992, Warsaw 1995. Hubach 2002: Hans Hubach, ‘Kurfürst Ottheinrichs neuer hofbaw in Heidelberg. Neue Aspekte eines

alten Themas’, in: Volker Rödel (ed.), Mittelalter. Schloss Heidelberg und die Pfalzgrafschaft bei Rhein bis zur Reformationszeit, Regensburg 2002, 191–203. Hubach 2008: Hans Hubach, ‘Architectus Heidelbergensis Illustrissimo Principi Othoni Henrico. Materialien zur Biographie des Steinmetzen und Architekten Heinrich Gut’, in: Hans Ammerich, Hartmut Harthausen (eds.), Kurfürst Ottheinrich und die humanistische Kultur in der Pfalz, Speyer 2008, 151–187. Hughes 1993: Quentin Hughes, Malta. A guide to the fortifications, Valletta 1993. Huisken et al. 1995: Jacobine Huisken, Konrad Ottenheym, Gary Schwartz (eds.), Jacob van Campen. Het klassieke ideaal in de Gouden Eeuw, Amsterdam 1995. Huizinga 1963: Johan Huizinga, Nederland’s beschaving in de 17de eeuw. Een schets, Haarlem 1963. Hunt & de Jong 1988: John Dixon Hunt, Erik de Jong (eds.), The Anglo-Dutch Garden in the Age of William and Mary – De gouden eeuw van de Hollandse tuinkunst, London/Amsterdam 1988. Hurx 2009: Merlijn Hurx, ‘Architecten en gildedwang; vernieuwingen in de ontwerppraktijk in de vijftiende en zestiende eeuw’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 108 (2009) 1, 1–18. Hurx 2010: Merlijn Hurx, De particuliere bouwmarkt in de Nederlanden en de opkomst van de architect (1350–1530), dissertation, Technical University Delft 2010. Hurx 2012: Merlijn Hurx, Architect en aannemer. De opkomst van de bouwmarkt in de Nederlanden (1350–1530), Nijmegen 2012. Husmeier 2002: Gudrun Husmeier, Graf Otto IV. von Holstein-Schaumburg (1517–1576). Landesherrschaft, Reichspolitik und Niederländischer Aufstand, Bielefeld 2002. Husselby 2002: Jill Husselby, ‘The Politics of Pleasure: William Cecil and Burghley House’, in: Pauline Croft (ed.), Patronage, Culture and Power. The Early Cecils (Studies in British Art 8), New Haven/London 2002, 21–45. Huth 1957: Hans Huth, Europäische Lackarbeiten 1600–1850, Darmstadt [1957]. Huth 1971: Hans Huth, Lacquer of the west. The history of a craft and an industry. 1550–1950, Chicago 1971. Huysmans 1987: Antoinette Huysmans, ‘De grafmonumenten van Cornelis Floris’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor de Oudheidkunde en Kunstgeschiedenis/Revue Belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 56 (1987), 91–122.

467

Bibliography Huysmans et al. 1996: Antoinette Huysmans, Jan Van Damme, Carl Van de Velde, Christine Van Mulders, Cornelis Floris 1514–1575: beeldhouwer, architect, ontwerper, Brussels 1996. IJssel de Schepper 1870: G. A. IJssel de Schepper, Lotgevallen van Christiern II en Isabella van Oostenrijk, koning en koningin van Denemarken; voornamelijk gedurende hunne ballingschap in de Nederlanden, Zwolle 1870. Imray 1997: Jean Imray, ‘The Origins of the Royal Exchange’, in Ann Saunders (ed.), The Royal Exchange, London 1997, 20–35. Ingang 1986: Gabriëlle Ingang, Klein en toch te pronk voor de wereld. De Belgische deelneming aan de grote wereldtentoonstellingen in de negentiende eeuw, unpublished master thesis, University of Leuven 1986. Iñiguez Almech 1952: Francisco Iñiguez Almech, Casas reales y jardines de Felipe II, Rome 1952. Iogansen 1997: M.V. Iogansen, ‘Ivan Korobov’, Zodcie Sankt-Peterburga; XVIII vek., St. Petersburg 1997, 191–216. Istoriceskij ocerk … 1961: Istoriceskij ocerk i obzor fondov rukopisnogo otdela Biblioteki Akademii Nauk. Karty, plany, certezi, risunki i gravjury sobranija Petra I, Moscow/Leningrad 1961. Iwanoyko 1986: Eugeniusz Iwanoyko, Sala Czerwona ratusza gdan´skiego, Wrocław 1986. Iwicki 2001: Zygmunt Iwicki, Oliwa wczoraj i dzis´. Przewodnik po zabytkach katedry i byłego klasztoru, Gdan´sk 2001. Jacobs 1998: Lynn F. Jacobs, Early Netherlandish carved altarpieces, 1380–1550. Medieval tastes and mass marketing, Cambridge MA 1998. Jamski 2006: Piotr Jamski, ‘Kaplica s´wie˛tego Kazimierza w Wilnie i jej twórcy’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 68 (2006), 19–44. Janse 1965: Herman Janse, Bouwers en bouwen in het verleden. De bouwwereld tussen 1000 en 1650, Zaltbommel 1965. Janse 1987: Herman Janse, ‘Het bouwbedrijf en de steenhandel ten tijde van de Keldermans-familie’, in: Janse et al. 1987, 173–182. Janse et al. 1987: Herman Janse, Ruud Meischke, J. H. van Mosselveld, Frieda Van Tyghem (eds.), Keldermans. Een architectonisch netwerk in de Nederlanden, The Hague/Bergen op Zoom 1987. Janse & de Vries 1991: Herman Janse, Dirk Jan de Vries, Werk en merk van de steenhouwer. Het

468

steenhouwersambacht in de Nederlanden voor 1800, Zwolle 1991. Jansen & Van Herck 1942: Adolf Jansen, Charles Van Herck, ‘J.P. van Baurscheit I en J.P. van Baurcheit II. Antwerpsche beeldhouwers uit de 18e eeuw’, Jaarboek van de Koninklijke oudheidkundige Kring van Antwerpen 28 (1942), 3–74. Jansma 1995: Esther Jansma, Rememberings: The development and application of local and regional tree-ring chronologies of oak for the purposes of archaeological and historical research in the Netherlands, Amsterdam 1995. Jensen 1951–1953: Chr. Axel Jensen, Danske adelige Gravsten fra Sengotikens og Renaissancens Tid, 2 vols., Copenhagen 1951–1953. Jern 1976: Carl Henrik Jern, Uraniborg. Herresäte och himlaborg, Lund 1976. Jetter 1986: Dieter Jetter, Das europäische Hospital, van der Spätantike bis 1800, Cologne 1986. Jiménez Díaz 1998: Pablo Jiménez Díaz, ‘Spain, Prague, and the Habsburg Ideology: Some Aspects of the Architecture of Rudolf II’, in: Lubomír Konecˇný, Beket Bukovinská, Ivan Muchka (eds.) Rudolf II, Prague and the World, Papers from the International Conference Prague, 2–4 September, 1997, Prague 1998, 11–15. Jiménez Díaz 2001: Pablo Jiménez Díaz, El coleccionismo manierista de los Austrias: Entre Felipe II y Rodolfo II, Madrid 2001. Jodoigne 1991: Pierre Jodoigne (ed.), Lodovico Guicciardini (1521–1589) (Travaux de l’Institut Interuniversitaire pour l’étude de la Renaissance et de l’Humanisme 10), Louvain 1991. Jöns et al. 2005: Hauke Jöns, Friedrich Lüth, Heiko Schäfer (eds.), Archäologie unter dem Straßenpflaster. 15 Jahre Stadtkernarchäologie in MecklenburgVorpommern, Schwerin 2005. Jørgensen 1926: Ellen Jørgensen, ‘Nordiske Studerende i Louvain’, Personalhistorisk Tidsskrift 8 (1926) 5, 118–122. Johannsen 1996: Hugo Johannsen, ‘Helsingør: Kronborg Castle’, in: Jane Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art, vol. 14, London/New York 1996, 368–370. Johannsen 1998–2001: Hugo Johannsen, ‘S. Hans Kirke. Bygning’, in: Birgitte Bøggild Johannsen, Hugo Johannsen, Karin Kryger (eds.), Danmarks Kirker. Odense Amt, vol. 3, Herning 1998–2001, 1254–1337. Johannsen 2004: Hugo Johannsen, ‘Floris (F. de Vriendt), Cornelis (II)’, Saur Allgemeines Kunstlerlexikon, vol. 41, Munich/Leipzig 2004, 358–359.

Bibliography Johannsen 2006a: Hugo Johannsen, ‘Kronborg’, in: Carsten Bach-Nielsen et al. (eds.), Danmark og renæssancen, Copenhagen 2006, 290–299. Johannsen 2006b: Hugo Johannsen, ‘Arkitektur på papir – og Tychos huse’, in: Poul Grinder-Hansen (ed.), Tycho Brahes Verden. Danmark i Europa 1550– 1600. The world of Tycho Brahe, Copenhagen 2006, 95–110. Johannsen 2010a: Hugo Johannsen, ‘Dignity and Dynasty. On the History and Meaning of the Royal Funeral Monuments for Christian III, Frederik II and Christian IV in the Cathedral of Roskilde’, in: Andersen et al. 2010, 117–149. Johannsen 2010b: Hugo Johannsen, ‘Stonemasons in Denmark from the reigns of Frederik II (1559–1588) and Christian IV (1588–1648). The Emergence and Antecedents of the Renaissance Portal’, in: Andersen et al., 160–183.

Jorberg 1968: Friedrich Jorberg, ‘Admiral Aernoult Gijsels van Lire. Ein Holländer in Brandenburgischem Dienst’, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse vereniging voor zeegeschiedenis 17 (1968), 27–35. Jordan 1991: Annemarie Jordan, ‘Images de majesté. Le portrait de cour au Portugal (1552–1571)’, in: Exh. cat. Brussels 1991, 118–155. Jordan 2000: Annemarie Jordan, ‘Portuguese royal collecting after 1521: the choice between Flanders and Italy’, in: Lowe 2000, 265–293. Joseph 1895: David Joseph, ‘Neues zur Nering Forschung’, Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung 15 (1895), 469–472. Kabza 1911a: Alexander Kabza, ‘Ein Studienreise des deutsche Festungs-Baumeister Daniel Specklin in die Niederlande’, Oud Holland 29 (1911), 166–171.

Jolly 1999a: Anna Jolly, ‘Netherlandish sculptors in sixteenth-century northern Germany and their patrons’, Simiolus 27 (1999) 3, 119–143.

Kabza 1911b: Alexander Kabza, Handschriftliche Pläne von Daniel Specklin als Beiträge zur Baugeschichte rheinischer und niederländischer Festungen nebst einer Studie zur Biographie Specklins, Bonn 1911.

Jolly 1999b: Anna Jolly, ‘Philip Brandin, ein niederländischer Bildhauer des 16. Jahrhunderts im Dienst der Herzöge von Mecklenburg’, Oud Holland 113 (1999), 13–34.

Kadatz 1983: Hans-Joachim Kadatz, Deutsche Renaissancebaukunst von der frühbürgerlichen Revolution bis zum Ausgang des Dreißigjährigen Krieges, Berlin 1983.

de Jong 1981: Erik de Jong, ‘Virgilian Paradise. A Dutch gardener near Moscow in the early 18th century’, Journal of Garden History 1 (1981) 4, 305–344.

Kaiser 2006: Barbara Kaiser, Schloss Eggenberg, Vienna/ Graz 2006.

de Jong 1993: Erik de Jong, Natuur en Kunst. Nederlandse tuin- en landschapsarchitectuur 1650– 1740, Bussum 1993. de Jong 1996a: Erik de Jong, ‘“Tuijngesigten en perspektive”. De Nederlandse tuin ihn de verbeelding van kunstenaars van de late vijftiende tot en met de achttiende eeuw’, in: Erik de Jong, Marleen Dominicus-van Soest, Aardse Paradijzen. 1. De tuin in de Nederlandse kunst 15de tot 18de eeuw, s.l. 1996, 11–123.

Kaladžinskaite˙ 2006: Aukse Kaladžinskaite˙, ‘Nauji duomenys apie Liachovicˇ iu˛ pilies statyba˛‘, Menotyra. Studies of Art 43 (2006) 2, 31–34. Kalecin´ ski 2011: Marcin Kalecin´ski, Mity Gdan´ska. Antyk w publicznej sztuce protestanckiej res publiki, Gdan´sk 2011. Kallmeyer 1910: Theodor Kallmeyer, Die evangelischen Kirchen und Prediger Kurlands, Riga 1910.

de Jong 1996b: Erik de Jong, ‘Paradisus Batavus. Peter de Grote en de Nederlandse Tuinarchitectuur’, in: Kistemaker et al. 1996, 115–123.

Kandt 2001: Kevin Kandt, ‘A Recently Discovered Archival Source for the Epitaph of Sambor II and Mestwin II at Pelplin Cathedral and the Some Unknown Biographical Notes on Andreas Schluter the Elder’, Barok. Historia – Literatura – Sztuka 8 (2001) 2, 47–57.

de Jong 1998: Rob de Jong, Nominatiedossier Droogmakerij De Beemster, Utrecht 1998.

Karling 1936: Sten Karling, Narva. Eine baugeschichtliche Untersuchung, Stockholm 1936.

Joosen 1960–1961: H. Joosen, ‘Dekens en Gezworenen van de Mechelse Ambachten. Aanvullende lijsten’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 64–65 (1960–1961). Jorberg 1965: Friedrich Jorberg, ‘Benjamin Raule’, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse vereniging voor zeegeschiedenis 9 (1965), 1–9.

Karling 1937–38: Sten Karling, ‘Hans Fleming. Ett bidrag till kännedomen om hans verksamhet i Tyskland och Sverige’, Tidskrift för Konstvetenskap 21 (1937–1938), 65–86. Karling 1938: Sten Karling, ‘Jacob och Magnus de la Gardie som Byggherrar i Estland’, Svio-Estonica 1938. Karling 1939: Sten Karling, ‘Arent Passer’, Kunsthistorisk Tidskrift 8 (1939): 97–119.

469

Bibliography Karling 1955: Sten Karling, ‘Dutch influences on Swedish Architecture’, in: Actes du xviie congrès international d’histoire de l’art, Amsterdam 23–31 juillet 1952, The Hague 1955, 445–452.

Kaufmann 2004a: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Das Ostseeraum als Kunstregion: Historiographie, Stand der Forschung, und Perspektiven künftiger Forschung’, in: Krieger & North 2004, 9–21.

Karner 2010: Herbert Karner, ‘Raumordnung und Identität. Spanisches in Wien?’, in: Werner Paravicini, Jörg Wettlaufer (eds.), Vorbild, Austausch, Konkurrenz. Höfe und Residenzen in der gegenseitigen Wahrnehmung (Residenzenforschung 23), Stuttgart 2010, 275–288.

Kaufmann 2004b: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Toward a Geography of Art, Chicago/London 2004.

Karpowicz 2003: Mariusz Karpowicz, ‘Chronologia i geografia niderlandyzmu w rzez´bie 1. połowy XVII wieku’, in: Mateusz Kapustka et al. (eds.), Niderlandyzm na S´ l a˛ sku i w krajach os´ciennych, Wrocław 2003, 43–53. Kaspersen 1988: Søren Kaspersen, ‘Købmand Michelbeckers palae og den københavske palladianisme. En arkitekturhistorisk og socialpsykologisk studie’, in: Kjeld de Fine Licht (ed.), Forblommet Antik. Klassicismer i dansk architektur og havekunst, Copenhagen 1988, 9–57. Kastler 1989: José Kastler, ‘Malerei und Plastik der Renaissance im Weserraum’, in: G. Ulrich Großmann (ed.), Renaissance entlang der Weser. Kunst and Kultur in Nordwestdeutschland zwischen Reformation und Dreißigjährigem Krieg, Cologne 1989, 76–120. Kaufmann 1978: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Remarks on the Collections of Rudolf II: The Kunstkammer as a Form of Representatio’, Art Journal 38 (1978) 1, 22–28. Kaufmann 1989: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Christian IV and Europe. The 19th Art Exhibition of the Council of Europe, Denmark 1988’, Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 48 (1989), 19–22. Kaufmann 1995: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Italian Sculptors and Sculpture Outside of Italy (Chiefly in Central Europe): Problems of Approach, Possibilities of Reception’, in: Claire Farago (ed.), Reframing the Renaissance, New Haven/London 1995, 47–66. Kaufmann 1998: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Planeten im kaiserlichen Universum. Prag und die Kunst an den deutschen Fürstenhöfen zur Zeit Rudolfs II.’, in: Exh. cat. Braunschweig 1998, 9–19. Kaufmann 2002: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Die Kunstmetropole Antwerpen und ihr Einfluß auf Europa und die Welt’, in: Exh. cat. Antwerp 2002, 41–50. Kaufmann 2003: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Early Modern Ideas about Artistic Geography Related to the Baltic Region’, Scandinavian Journal of History 27 (2003): 263–272.

470

Kaufmann 2004c: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, The Eloquent Artist. Essays on Art, Art Theory and Architecture, Sixteenth to Nineteenth Century, London 2004. Kaufmann 2006a: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Cultural Transfer and Arts in the Americas’, in: Exh. cat. Stanford 2006, 18–25. Kaufmann 2006b: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Ways of Transfer of Netherlandish Art’, in: Ruszkowska-Macur 2006, 13–22. Kaufmann 2007: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Acculturation, Transculturation, Cultural Difference and Diffusion. Assessing the Assimilation of the Renaissance’, in: De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, 339–349. Kaufmann & Pilliod 2005: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Elisabeth Pilliod (eds.), Time and place. The geohistory of art (Histories of Vision), Aldershot/ Burlington VT 2005. Kaufmann et al. 2003: Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Heiner Borggrefe, Thomas Fusenig, Art and Architecture in Central Europe 1550–1620 – an annotated bibliography, Marburg 2003. Kavaler 2000: Ethan Matt Kavaler, ‘Renaissance Gothic in the Netherlands: The Uses of Ornament’, The Art Bulletin 82 (2000), 226–251. Kavaler 2004: Ethan Matt Kavaler, ‘Margaret of Austria, Ornament, and the Court Style of Brou’, in Stephen J. Campbell (ed.), Artists at Court. Image-making and Identity 1300–1550, Boston/Chicago 2004, 124–137. Kavaler 2006: Ethan Matt Kavaler, ‘Tournai’s Renaissance Jubé: Art as Instrument of Empowerment’, in: Amy Golahny, Mia M. Mochizuki, Lisa Vergara (eds.), In His Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michael Montias, Amsterdam 2006, 193–207. Kavaler 2012: Ethan Matt Kavaler, Renaissance Gothic, New Haven 2012. Kavaler s.d.: Ethan Matt Kavaler, ‘Geometers at Brou: Architecture and Ornament in Spain, Brabant and Western Europe around 1500’, in: Caecilia Pieri (ed.), Brou, un monument européen à l’aube de la Renaissance/Brou, a European Monument in the Early Renaissance, e-book, 118–124. http://www. monuments-nationaux.fr/fichier/editions_ebook_ chapitre/711/Brou_09_Kavaler.pdf

Bibliography Ke˛błowski 1970: Janusz Ke˛błowski, ‘Zagadnienie odre˛bnos´ci sztuki w Wielkopolsce w XVI i na pocz a˛ tku XVII wieku (na przykładzie rzez´by i architektury)’, in: Tadeusz Rudkowski (ed.), Studia nad renesansem w Wielkopolsce, Poznan´ 1970, 101–118. Kelly & O’Hagan 2005: Elish Kelly, John O’Hagan, ‘Geographic clustering of economic activity: The case of prominent western visual artists’, Journal of Cultural Economics 31 (2007), 109–128. van Kempen 1924: Wilhelm van Kempen, ‘Der Baumeister Cornelis Ryckwaert. Ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte Brandenburgs und Anhalts im 17. Jahrhundert’, Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 1 (1924), 195–266. Kent & Simons 1987: Francis William Kent, Patricia Simons (eds.), Patronage, Art and Society in Renaissance Italy, New York 1987. Kernkamp 1902: Gerhard Wilhelm Kernkamp, ‘Memorien van Ridder Theodorus Rodenburg betreffende het verplaatsen van verschillende industrieën uit Nederland naar Denemarken met daarop genomen resolutien van koning Christiaan IV (1621)’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 23 (1902), 189–257. Kernkamp 1903: Gerhard Wilhelm Kernkamp, Verslag van een onderzoek in Zweden, Noorwegen en Denemarken naar archivalia, belangrijk voor de geschiedenis van Nederland op last der regeering ingesteld, The Hague 1903.

Kiesler 1996: Claudia-Ros Kiesler, ‘Schloß Hessen – Raumstruktur, Ausstattung und Nutzung nach den Inventaren des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts’, in: Anne Schunicht-Rawe, Vera Lüpkes, Heiner Borggrefe, “… zur zierde und schmuck angelegt…”. Beiträge zur frühneuzeitlichen Garten- und Schloßbaukunst, Marburg 1996, 53–108. Kinds 1999: Karel Kinds, Kroniek van de Opstand in de Lage Landen, 1555–1609. Actuele oorlogsverslaggeving uit de zestiende eeuw met 228 gravures van Frans Hogenberg, 2 vols., Merksplas 1999. Kipling 1977: Gordon Kipling, The Triumph of Honour. Burgundian origins of the Elizabethan Renaissance (Publications of the Sir Thomas Browne Institute Leiden, general series 6), Leiden 1977. Kirgus 2003: Isabelle Kirgus, Die Rathauslaube in Köln (1569–1573): Architektur und Antikenrezeption, Bonn 2003. Kirk & Kirk 1900–1908: R.E.G. Kirk, E.F. Kirk (eds.), Returns of aliens dwelling in the City and suburbs of London. From the reign of Henry VIII to that of James I, 3 vols., Aberdeen 1900–1908. Kistemaker et al. 1996: Renée Kistemaker, Natalja Kopaneva, Annemiek Overbeek (eds.), Peter de Grote en Holland. Culturele en wetenschappelijke betrekkingen tussen Rusland en Nederland ten tijde van tsaar Peter de Grote, Bussum/Amsterdam 1996.

Kernkamp 1908: Gerhard Wilhelm Kernkamp, Zweedsche archivalia, (Bijdragen en Mededeelingen, Historisch Genootschap te Utrecht 29), Utrecht 1908.

Kizik 2005–2006: Edmund Kizik, ‘Jesien´ hanzeatyckiego miasta. Uwagi o warunkach rozwoju kultury w osiemnastowiecznym Gdan´sku’, in: Exh. cat. Gdan´sk 2005, 17–24.

Kernkamp 1915: Gerhard Wilhelm Kernkamp, ’Rekeningen van Pompejus Occo aan Koning Christiaan II van Denemarken, 1520–23’, Bijdragen en mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 36 (1915), 255–329.

Klausmeier 2001: Axel Klausmeier, ‘Houghton, Raynham and Wolterton Hall: On Thomas Ripley’s major works in Norfolk – Architectural success amidst political tensions’, Norfolk Archaeology 43 (2001) 4, 607–630.

Ketner 1946: Frans Ketner, Handel en scheepvaart van Amsterdam in de vijftiende eeuw, Leiden 1946. Kettering 2002: Sharon Kettering, Patronage in Sixteenthand Seventeenth-Century France, Aldershot 2002. Kieling 1987: Uwe Kieling, Berlin. Baumeister und Bauten. Von der Gotik bis zum Historismus, Berlin etc. 1987.

Klausmeier 2007: Axel Klausmeier, ‘Houghton Hall in Norfolk – Ein palladianisches Denkmal für Englands ersten Premierminister’, in: Leo Schmidt (ed.), Forschen, Bauen & Erhalten. Jahrbuch 2007/2008, Berlin/Bonn 2007, 40–50.

Kiene 1991: Michael Kiene, ‘Zur Planungsgeschichte der Kölner Rathausvorhalle’, Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 52 (1991), 127–150.

Kleiner 1998: Monica Kleiner, ‘Sonnenburg, ein “niederländisches Palais” in der Neumark. Kulturtransfer von den Niederlanden nach Brandenburg im 17. Jahrhundert am Beispiel der Johanniterordensresidenz Sonnenburg’, in: Hahn & Lorenz 1998, 57–86.

Kiene 2000: Michael Kiene, ‘Die Kölner Rathauslaube und die Rezeption der italienischen Renaissancearchitektur am Niederrhein’, Annali di architettura 20 (2000), 143–158.

Klinkert 2005: Christi Marije Klinkert, Nassau in het nieuws. Nieuwsprenten van Maurits van Nassau’s militaire ondernemingen uit de periode 1590–1600, Zutphen 2005.

471

Bibliography Knetsch 1903: Carl Knetsch, ‘Die Künstlerfamilie von dem Block in Danzig’, Mitteilungen des Westpreußischen Geschichtsvereins 2 (1903) 2, 26–32.

Korthals Altes 1924a: Jacobus Korthals Altes, De eerste bedijking der groote en kleine moeren in WestVlaanderen, Bruges 1924.

Kobe (forthcoming): Rainer Kobe, ‘Die Danziger Künstlerfamilie von Block, wie mennonitisch war sie?’, Mennonitische Geschichtsblättern (forthcoming).

Korthals Altes 1924b: Jacobus Korthals Altes, Polderland in Engeland: de geschiedenis van een Zeeuwsch bedijker uit de Gouden Eeuw en zijne grootsche Hollandsch-Engelsche onderneming, The Hague 1924.

Kodres 2005: Krista Kodres, ‘Der Vredeman de Vries-Stil als Markenzeichen Arent Passers in Reval/Tallinn’, in: Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005, 50–57. Kodres et al. 1999: Krista Kodres, Juhan Maiste, Vappu Vabar (eds.), Sten Karling and Baltic Art History (Estonian Academy of art Proceedings 6), Tallinn 1999. Kodres et al. 2003: Krista Kodres, Piret Lindpere, Eva Näripea (eds.), The Problem of Classical Ideal in the Art and Architecture of the Countries around the Baltic Sea/Das Problem des klassischen Ideals in der Kunst und Architektur der Länder des Ostseeraums (Estonian Academy of Arts, Proceedings 13), Talinn 2003. Köhler 2003: Marcus Köhler, ‘Bauten in Mecklen­ burg im Spiegel unbekannter Architektur- und Gartengraphik’, Mecklenburgische Jahrbücher 118 (2003), 167–194. Kok 1918: Abel Antoon Kok, Nederlandsche bouwkunst langs de Oostzee, Goes 1918. Kolderup-Rosenvinge 1821–1846: J. L. A. KolderupRosenvinge, Samling af gamle danske Love (…), 5 vols., Copenhagen 1821–1846. Koldeweij 1998: Eloy F. Koldeweij, Goudleer in de Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën. Nationale ontwikkelingen en de Europese context, unpublished dissertation, Leiden University 1998. Koldewey 2000: Eloy F. Koldeweij, ‘Die Oranienbaumer Ledertapeten und die Geschichte der Ledertapeten in Deutschland’, in: Savelsberg & Völkel 2000, 116–123.

Korthals Altes 1925: Jacobus Korthals Altes, Sir Cornelius Vermuyden: the lifework of a great AngloDutchman in land-reclamation and drainage, London/The Hague 1925. Korthals Altes 1928: Jacobus Korthals Altes, Polderland in Italië: de werkzaamheden der Nederlandsche bedijkers in vroeger eeuwen en het Italiaansche polderland voorheen en thans, The Hague 1928. Kossmann 1929: E.F. Kossmann, ‘Hendrick de Keyser als uitvinder’, Oud Holland 46 (1929), 284–288. Kovács 2003: András Kovács, Késö reneszánsz építészet Erdélyben, 1541–1720, Budapest/Kolozsvár 2003. Kovács 2011: Klára P. Kovács, ‘The Construction of Bastioned Fortresses in 16th-Century Transylvania’, in: Gyöngy Kovács Kiss (ed.), Studies in the History of Early Modern Transylvania, New York 2011, 359–395. Kozakiewiczowa 1978: Helena Kozakiewiczowa, Renesans i manieryzm w Polsce, Warsaw 1978. Kragelund 2006: Patrick Kragelund, ‘Olympens Guder’, in: Heiberg 2006a, 44–61. Kramm 1860: Christiaan Kramm, Levens en werken der hollandsche en vlaamsche kunstschilders, beeldhouwers, graveurs en bouwmeesters van den vroegsten tot op onzen tijd, vol. 4, Amsterdam 1860.

Koldeweij 2008: Eloy F. Koldeweij (ed.), Over de vloer. Met voeten getreden erfgoed, Zwolle 2008.

Kramm 1936: Walter Kramm, ‘Die beiden ersten Kasseler Hofbildhauerwerkstätten im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert’, Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 8–9 (1936), 329–90.

Kollmann 2000: Stephanie Kollmann, Niederländische Künstler und Kunst im London des 17. Jahrhunderts, Hildesheim 2000.

Kreft & Soenke 1986: Herbert Kreft, Jürgen Soenke, Die Weserrenaisance, Hameln 1986, 6th revised ed. (19751).

Konradsheim 1976: Guido Conrad von Konradsheim, ‘Hanequin Coeman de Bruxelles, introducteur de l’Art Flamand au xve siècle dans la region Tolédane’, Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 12 (1976), 127–140.

Krieger & North 2004: Martin Krieger, Michael North (eds.), Land und Meer. Kultureller Austausch zwischen Westeuropa und dem Ostseeraum in der Frühen Neuzeit, Cologne etc. 2004.

Konter 1991: Erich Konter, Das Berliner Schloss im Zeitalter des Absolutismus. Architektursoziologie eines Herrschaftsortes, Berlin 1991.

Krollmann 1941: Christian Krollmann, ‘von dem Block, Wilhelm’, in: Id. (ed.), Altpreußische Biographie, vol. 1, Königsberg 1941, 62.

Kooiman 1941: W.J. Kooiman, De ronde Lutherse kerk te Amsterdam: geschiedenis van haar bouw en dienst, Amsterdam 1941.

Kruft 1972: Hanno Walter Kruft, ‘Un cortile rinascimentale italiano nella Sierra Nevada: La Calahorra’, Antichità Viva 11 (1972), 35–51.

472

Bibliography Kruse & Paravicini 1999: Holger Kruse, Werner Paravicini (eds), Höfe und Hofordnungen 1200–1600 (Residenzenforschung 10), Sigmaringen 1999.

ter Kuile 1964: E.H. Ter Kuile, ‘Het ontwerp van de Leidse stadhuisgevel van 1597’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 6th ser. 17 (1964), col. 89–106.

Krutisch & Großmann 1991: Petra Krutisch, G. Ulrich Großmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Renaissance zwischen 1520 und 1570, Marburg 1991.

Kunze 1993: Wolfgang Kunze, Leben und Bauten Herzog Erichs II. von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Hannover 1993.

Krzysiak 1999: Franciszek Krzysiak, ‘Supliki Hansa Kramera i Willema van den Blocke do Rady Miejskiej w Gdan´sku’, Porta Aurea 6 (1999), 59–78.

Kusche 1991a: María Kusche, ‘La antigua galería de retratos del Pardo: su reconstrucción arquitectónica y el órden de colocación de los cuadros’, Archivo Español de Arte 64 (1991) 253, 1–28.

Krzyz˙ anowski 1958: Lech Krzyz˙anowski, ‘Plastyka nagrobna Wilhelma van den Blocke’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 20 (1958), 270–298. Krzyz˙ anowski 1966: Lech Krzyz˙anowski, Rzez´ba kamienna w Gdan´sku, 1517–1628, unpublished dissertation, Warsaw 1966. Krzyz˙ anowski 1967: Lech Krzyz˙anowski ‘Rzez´ba kamienna na Pomorzu w 2. połowie XVI i na pocz a˛ tku XVII w.’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 29 (1967), 589. Krzyz˙ anowski 1970a: Lech Krzyz˙anowski, ‘Nagrobek arcybiskupa Wojciecha Baranowskiego’, in: Aleksandra S´wiechowska (ed.), Katedra gniez´nien´ ska, Poznan´ 1970, 223–226. Krzyz˙ anowski 1970b: Lech Krzyz˙anowski, ‘Portale w arkadach prezbiterium’, in: Aleksandra S´wiechowska (ed.), Katedra gniez´nien´ ska, Poznan´ 1970, 308–309. Krzyz˙ anowski 1971a: Lech Krzyz˙anowski, ‘Blocke (Block) Abraham van den’, in: Słownik artystów polskich i obcych w Polsce działaj a˛ cych, vol. 1, Wrocław etc. 1971, 178–179.

Kusche 1991b: Maria Kusche, ‘La antigua galería de retratos del Pardo: su reconstrucción pictórica’, Archivo Español de Arte 64 (1991) 255, 261–283. Kusche 1992: María Kusche, ‘La antigua galería de retratos del Pardo: su importancia para la obra de Tiziano, Moro, Sánchez Coello y Sofonisba Anguissola y su significado para Felipe II, su fundador’, Archivo Español de Arte 65 (1992) 257, 1–36. Küttner 2001: Irmelin Küttner, ‘Siedlungspolitik und Landeskultur in Brandenburg-Preußen 1648 bis 1871’, Brandenburgische Denkmalpflege 10 (2001) 1, 4–18. Kutschbach 1849: K.W. Kutschbach, Chronik der Stadt Küstrin, Küstrin 1849. Kuyper 1980: Wouter Kuyper, Dutch classicist architecture: a survey of Dutch architecture, gardens and Anglo-Dutch architectural relations from 1625 to 1700, Delft 1980. Kuyper 1984: Wouter Kuyper, ‘Dichtung und Wahrheit in tekeningen van Adriaan Dortsman van Pieter Roman’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkunige Bond 83 (1984), 241–293.

Krzyz˙ anowski 1971b: Lech Krzyz˙anowski, ‘Blocke Willem van den’, in: Słownik artystów polskich i obcych w Polsce działaj a˛ cych, vol. 1, Wrocław etc. 1971, 179–181.

de Laborde 1851: Léon-Emmanuel-Simon-Joseph de Laborde, Les Ducs de Bourgogne, IIe Partie, vol. 2, Paris 1851.

Kubach 1960: H ans E. Kubach, Die Kunstdenkmäler des Kreises Oststernberg, Stuttgart 1960.

Lacoste 1962: Henri Lacoste, ‘Notice sur Paul Saintenoy’, Annuaire de l’Académie royale de Belgique, Brussels 1962, 79–100.

Kucharski 1990: Jan Kucharski, Dawny Gdan´sk. Album Fotografii, Wrocław etc. 1990. Küchler 1979: Gerhard Küchler, ‘Einflüsse der Niederländer des 17. Jahrhunderts auf BerlinBrandenburgische Gärten’, Das Gartenamt 28 (1979), 451–458. Küffner & Spohr 1999: Hatto Küffner, Edmund Spohr, Burg und Schloß Düsseldorf. Baugeschichte einer Residenz (Jülicher Forschungen 6), Jülich 1999. Kugler 2003: Georg Kugler, ‘Kunst und Geschichte im Leben Ferdinands I.’, in: Exh. cat. Vienna 2003, 200–213.

Lademacher 1999: Horst Lademacher (ed.), Onder den Oranje boom. Textband. Dynastie in der Republik. Das Haus Oranien-Nassau als Vermittler niederländischer Kultur in deutschen Territorien im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Munich 1999. Ladendorf 1937: Heinz Ladendorf, ‘Smidts, Michael Matthias’, in: Thieme-Becker 31, Leipzig 1937, 161–162. Laleman 1981: Marie-Christine Laleman, ‘Rooman (Romain, Roman, Romanus, Romein), Franciscus’, Nieuw Biografisch Woordenboek, vol. 9, Brussels 1981, col. 651–653.

473

Bibliography Laleman 1987: Marie-Christine Laleman (ed.), 7 Bruggen: Historiek & restauratie van zeven Gentse Leiebruggen, Ghent 1987.

Leeuwenberg 1968: Jaap Leeuwenberg, ‘Nederlandse Tuinvazen op Waddesdon Manor’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 16 (1968) 4, 147–163.

Lamberty et al. 1972–1978: Max Lamberty, Rob van Roosbroeck, Michiel Vandekerckhove et al. (eds), Twintig eeuwen Vlaanderen, Hasselt 1972–1978.

Leh 1957: Gustav Leh, Die St.-Marienkirche zu Berlin. Ihre Geschichte und ihr Bild, Berlin 1957.

Landheer-Roelants 2011: Anneke Landheer-Roelants (ed.), Uit Padmoes verrezen. De Nieuwe Kerk in Den Haag, Utrecht 2011. Langberg 1998–2001: Harald Langberg, Christof Marselis. En europaeisk arkitekts eventyr, 3 vols., Copenhagen 1998, 2000, 2001. Lange 1996: Karl-Ludwig Lange (ed.), Geformt, Getrocknet, Gebrannt. Märkische Ziegel für Berlin – Eine Spurensuche, Velten 1996. Langer & Michels 2001: Andrea Langer, Georg Michels (eds.), Metropolen und Kulturtransfer im 15./16. Jahrhundert. Prag – Krakau – Danzig – Wien, Stuttgart 2001. Langereis 2001: Sandra Langereis, Geschiedenis als ambacht. Oudheidkunde in de Gouden Eeuw: Arnoldus Buchelius en Petrus Scriverius (Hollandse Studiën 37), Hilversum 2001. Langhelle 1999: Svein Ivar Langhelle, ‘The Timber Export from the Tysvær-Area in the 16th and 17th Century’, Timber and trade 1999, 24–36. Lantin 1971: A. Lantin, Scherpenheuvel: Oord van Vrede, Kempen 1971. Laporte 2000: Dirk Laporte (ed.), Het prinselijk hof Ten Walle Gent, Ghent 2000. Larsson 1967: Lars Olof Larsson, ‘Hans Mont van Gent. Versuch einer Zuschreibung’, Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 36 (1967), 1–12. Larsson 1988: Lars Olof Larsson, ‘Bildhauerkunst und Plastik am Hofe Rudolfs II’, in: Prag um 1600. Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II, Essen 1988, 130–31, 165–66, 372–74. Larsson 1982: Lars Olof Larsson, ‘Bildhaukunst und Plastik am Hofe Kaiser Rudolfs II.’, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 1 (1982), 211–235. Laursen 1903; 1908; 1910; 1913; 1916; 1919: L. Laursen (ed.), Kancelliets Brevbøger 1580–1583, Copenhagen 1903; 1588–1592, Copenhagen 1908; 1593–1596, Copenhagen 1910; 1596–1602, Copenhagen 1913; 1609–1615, Copenhagen 1916; 1616–1620, Copenhagen 1919. Lavedan 1959: Pierre Lavedan, Histoire de l’urbanisme. Renaissance et Temps modernes, Paris 1959.

474

Leitão 2003: Henrique Leitão, ‘Jesuit Mathematical Practice in Portugal, 1540–1759’, in: Mordechai Feingold (ed.), The New Science and Jesuit Science: Seventeenth Century Perspectives, Dordrecht 2003, 229–247. Lejeune & Stiennon 1977–1979: Rita Lejeune, Jacques Stiennon (eds.), La Wallonie. Le Pays et les Hommes. Lettres – arts – culture, 3 vols., Brussels 1977–1979. Lemmink & van Koningsbrugge 1990: J.Ph.S. Lemmink, J.S.A.M. van Koningsbrugge (ed.), Baltic Affairs. Relations between the Netherlands and North-Eastern Europe 1500–1800 (Baltic Studies 1), Nijmegen 1990. Lenaghan 1993: Patrick Lenaghan, The arrival of the Italian Renaissance in Spain: the tombs by Domenico Fancelli and Bartolomé Ordóñez, unpublished dissertation, New York University 1993. Lengnich 1900: Gottfried Lengnich, Ius publicum civitatis Gedanensis, oder Der Stadt Danzig Verfassung und Rechte, ed. O. Günther, Gdan´sk 1900. Lesger 1992: Clé Lesger, ‘Lange-termijn processen en de betekenis van politieke factoren in de Nederlandse houthandel ten tijde van de Republiek’, Economischen sociaal-historisch jaarboek 55 (1992), 105–142. Lesger & Wijnroks 2005: Clé Lesger, Eric Wijnroks, ‘The spatial organisation of trade. Antwerp merchants and the gateway Systems in the Baltic and the Low Countries c. 1550’, in: Brand 2005, 15–35. Leskovec et al. 2006: Jure Leskovec, Ajit Singh, Jon Kleinberg, ‘Patterns of Influence in a Recommendation Network’, Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2006; http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/pakdd06cascade.pdf. Lespinasse 1929: Pierre Lespinasse, Les artistes français en Scandinavie (L’art français à l’étranger), Paris 1929. Leurs 1936–1937: Stan Leurs (ed.), Geschiedenis van de Vlaamsche kunst, Antwerp 1936–1937. Leurs 1946: Stan Leurs, Geschiedenis der bouwkunst in Vlaanderen: van de Xe tot het einde der XVIIIe eeuw, Antwerp 1946. Lileyko 1987: Jerzy Lileyko, Regalia Polskie, Warsaw 1987.

Bibliography Lilienberg 1928: Albert Lilienberg, Stadsbildningar och stadsplaner i Götaälvs mynningsområde från äldsta tider till omkring adertonhundra, Göteborg 1923. Lillehammer 1999: Arnvid Lillehammer, ‘The Timber Trade and the Ryfylke Farmers c. 1500–1700’, Timber and trade 1999, 6–23. Lindberg 1996: Kirsten Lindberg, Sirenernes stad København. By- og bygningshistorie før 1728, 3 vols., Copenhagen 1996. Lindblad 1990: J. Thomas Lindblad, ‘Evidence of DutchSwedish trade in the 17th century’, in: Lemmink & van Koningsbrugge 1990, 205–228. Lipin´ ska 2006a: Aleksandra Lipin´ska, ‘“Ein tafell von Alabaster zu Antorff bestellen”: Southern Netherlandish alabaster sculpture in central Europe’, Simiolus 32 (2006), 231–258. Lipin´ ska 2006b: Aleksandra Lipin´ska, ‘Adaptations of Imported Southern Netherlandish Alabaster Sculpture in the Baltic Area till the 2nd half of the 16th Century’, in: Harasimowicz et al. 2006, 347–356. Lipin´ ska 2007: Aleksandra Lipin´ska, Wewne˛trzne ´swiatło. Południowoniderlandzka rzez´ba alabastrowa w Europie ´srodkowo-wschodniej, Wrocław 2007. Lippmann 2011: Wolfgang Lippmann, ‘Don Giovanni de’Medici – Artilleriegeneral in habsburgischen Diensten und kaiserlicher Festungbaumeister: ein Beitrag zu seinen Leistungen als Architekturdilettant in Wien und den ungarischen Grenzgebieten’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 53 (2011), 151–188. Llewellyn 1977: Nigel Llewellyn, ‘Two notes on Diego de Sagredo. I. The Cornice and the Face. II. The Baluster and the Pomegranate’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 40 (1977), 292–300. Llewellyn 2000: Nigel Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England, Cambridge 2000. Lockhart 2007: Paul Douglas Lockhart, Denmark 1513–1660. The Rise and Decline of a Renaissance Monarchy, Oxford 2007. Loizeau 2009: Emmanuelle Loizeau, Louis et Clément Métezeau, unpublished dissertation, Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2009. Lombaerde 1998: Piet Lombaerde, ‘Dominating Space and Landscape: Ostend and Scherpenheuvel’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 173–183. Lombaerde 1999: Piet Lombaerde, ‘The fortifications of Ostend during the Great Siege of 1601–1604’, Fort 27 (1999), 93–112. Lombaerde 2001: Piet Lombaerde, ‘Antwerp in its golden age: “one of the largest cities in the Low Countries”

and “one of the best fortified in Europe”’, in: Patrick O’Brien et al. (eds.), Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe. Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, Cambridge 2001, 99–127. Lombaerde 2002: Piet Lombaerde (ed.), The Reception of of P.P. Rubens’s Palazzi di Genova during the 17th Century in Europe: Questions and Problems (Architectura Moderna 1), Turnhout 2002. Lombaerde 2004: Piet Lombaerde, ‘De heropbouw van Oostende na 1604’, in: Werner Thomas (ed.), De val van het Nieuwe Troje. Het beleg van Oostende 1601– 1604, Leuven 2004, 113–125. Lombaerde 2005a: Piet Lombaerde (ed.), Hans Vredeman de Vries and the Artes Mechanicae revisited (Architectura Moderna 3), Turnhout 2005. Lombaerde 2005b: Piet Lombaerde, ‘Hydraulic projects by Hans Vredeman de Vries and their related construction problems’, in: Lombaerde 2005a, 101–115. Lombaerde 2006: Piet Lombaerde, ‘Anthonis van Obbergen and his Fortification Works in Gdan´sk and the “Vistula Land”: a Status Questionis’, in: Ruszkowska-Macur 2006, 35–44. Lombaerde 2009a: Piet Lombaerde, ‘De vroege versterkingswerken van Antwerpen en de Spaanse omwalling’, in: Id. (ed.), Antwerpen versterkt. De Spaanse omwalling vanaf haar bouw in 1542 tot haar afbraak in 1870, Brussels 2009, 14–61. Lombaerde 2009b: Piet Lombaerde, ‘Traktaten over artillerie, oorlogvoering en vestingbouw uit de Spaanse Nederlanden. Hun verspreiding in de Iberische en Ibero-Amerikaanse wereld’, in: Werner Thomas, Eddy Stols (eds.), Een wereld op papier. Zuid-Nederlandse boeken, prenten en kaarten in het Spaanse en Portugese wereldrijk (16de–18de eeuw), Leuven/The Hague 2009, 355–380. Lombaerde 2011: Piet Lombaerde, ‘Castrametatio and the Grid in the Spanish Habsburg World. Contributions from the Low Countries, 1550–1750’, in: Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2011, 129–160. Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2001: Piet Lombaerde, Charles van den Heuvel, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries und die technischen Künste’, in: Exh. cat. Lemgo 2001, 117–125. Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2011: Piet Lombaerde, Charles van den Heuvel (eds.), Early Modern Urbanism and the Grid. Town Planning in the Low Countries in international Context. Exchanges in Theory and Practice 1550‑1800 (Architectura Moderna 10), Turnhout 2011.

475

Bibliography Long 1991: Pamela O. Long, ‘Invention, Authorship, “Intellectual Property”, and the Origin of Patents: Notes toward a Conceptual History’, Technology and Culture 32 (1991) 4, [special issue] Patents and Invention: 846–884. Long 1997: Pamela O. Long, ‘Power, Patronage, and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age’, Isis 88 (1997) 1, 1–41. Long 2001: Pamela O. Long, Openness, secrecy, authorship: technical arts and the culture of knowledge from antiquity to the Renaissance, Baltimore 2001. López Torrijos 1987: Rosa López Torrijos, ‘La scultura genovese in Spagna’, in: La scultura a Genova e in Liguria dalle origini al Cinquecento, Genoa 1987, vol. 1, 366–393. Lorenz 1998: Helmut Lorenz (ed.), Berliner Baukunst der Barockzeit. Die Zeichnungen und Notizen aus dem Reisetagebuch des Architekten Christoph Pfitzler (1657–1707), Berlin 1998. Lorenzen 1930: Vilhelm Lorenzen, Problemer i Københavns historie 1600–1660, belyst ved samtidige kort, Copenhagen 1930. Lorenzen 1933–1934: Vilhelm Lorenzen, ‘Nederlandse bouwmeesters en stedebouwers in Denemarken in de 17de eeuw en hun werken’, Roomsch-Katholiek Bouwblad 5 (1933–1934), 287–288. Lorenzen 1937: Vilhelm Lorenzen, Christian IV’s Byanlæg og andre Bybygningsarbejder, Copenhagen 1937. Loriaux 1971: Christine Loriaux, Jacques du Broeucq (1505–1584), Gembloux 1971. Louw 1981: Hentie J. Louw, ‘Anglo-Netherlandish architectural interchange, c. 1600–c. 1660’, Architectural History 24 (1981), 1–23. Louw 2009: Hentie J. Louw, ‘Dutch Influence on British Architecture in the Late-Stuart Period, c. 1660–c. 1714’, Dutch Crossing 33 (2009) 2, 83–120. Lowe 2000: K.J.P. Lowe (ed.), Cultural Links between Portugal and Italy in the Renaissance, Oxford 2000. Lundborg 1928: Matheus Lundborg, Heliga Trefaldighetskyrkan i Kristianstad, Kristianstad 1928. Lynch 2007: Gerard Lynch, The History of Gauged Brickwork: Conservation, Repair and Modern Application, Amsterdam 2007. van Maanen & Vanpaemel 2006: Jan van Maanen, Geert Vanpaemel, ‘Migratie patronen van wiskundigen in de Lage Landen 1550–1650. Een voorlopige schets’, Scientiarum Historia 32 (2006), 75–98.

476

Macaulay 1987: James Macaulay, The Classical Country House in Scotland, 1660–1800, London/Boston 1987. MacKechnie 2002: Aonghus MacKechnie, ‘Sir William Bruce: “the chief introducer of Architecture in this country”’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 132 (2002), 499–519. Madonna 2000: María Luisa Madonna, ‘El viaje de Carlos V por Italia después de Túnez: el triunfo clásico y el plan de reconstrucción de las ciudades’, in: Exh. cat. Seville 2000, 119–153. Mager 1987: Johannes Mager, Mühlenflügel und Wasserrad: Mühlen und Hebewerke für Wasser und Sole, Leipzig 1987. Maggiorotti 1933–1939: Leone Andrea Maggiorotti, Opera del genio italiano all’estero: architetti e architetture militari, 3 vols., Rome, 1933–1939. Magirius 1989: Heinrich Magirius, ‘Das Georgentor’, in: Glaser et al. 1992, 62–65. Mai 1994: Hartmut Mai, ‘Tradition und Innovation im protrestantischen Kirchenbau bis zum Ende des Barock’, in: Klaus Raschzok, Reiner Sörries (eds.), Geschichte des protestantischen Kirchenbaues. Festschrift für Peter Poscharsky zum 60. Geburtstag, Erlangen 1994, 11–26. Maier 1962: Konrad Maier, ‘Uslar – Schloßruine’, Erlebte Heimat 4, Northeim 1962, 7–19. Maiste 1995: Juhan Maiste, The House of the Brotherhood of Blackheads, Tallinn 1995. Maiste 1999: Juhan Maiste, ‘Arent Passer (1560–1637) and his time in Tallinn. Passer and Tallinn’s Renaissance tradition’, in: Kodres et al. 1999, 51–80. Makarov 2004: Boris Makarov, ‘Harman van Bolios – de verpersoonlijking van een “Nederlandse” droom’, in: Emmanuel Waegemans, Hans van Koningsbrugge (eds.), Noord- en Zuid-Nederlanders in Rusland 1703–2003 (Baltische studies 9), Groningen 2004, 255–273. Manessot Mallet 1691: Allain Manessot Mallet, Les travaux de Mars ou l’art de la guerre, The Hague 1691. Manzi 1960: Pietro Manzi, ‘Carlo Theti, da Nola, ingegnere militare del sec. XVI’, Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico e di Cultura dell’Arma del Genio 26 (1960), 355–371. March 1951: José María March, ‘El primer marqués de Cenete. Su vida suntuosa’, Archivo Español de Arte 24 (1951), 47–65.

Bibliography Marczali 1878: Henrik Marczali, ‘Regesták a külföldi levéltárakból. I. Közlemény [Part I]’, Történelmi Tár I (1878).

Pieter Martens (eds.), La genèse du système bastionné en Europe / The genesis of the bastioned system in Europe (1500–1540), Paris, forthcoming.

Marggraf 1991: R. Marggraf, ‘L’influence du carreau céramique hollandais sur la production faïencière portugaise (vers 1700)’, in: Everaert & Stols 1991, 201–211.

Martinelli & Puccinelli 1983: Roberta Martinelli, Giuliana Puccinelli, Lucca: Le mura del Cinquecento. Vicende costruttive dal 1500 al 1650, Lucca 1983.

Marías 1989: Fernando Marías, El largo siglo XVI. Los usos artísticos en el Renacimiento español (Conceptos fundamentales en la historia del arte español 5), Madrid 1989. Marías 1990–1992: Fernando Marías, ‘Sobre el castillo de La Calahorra y el Codex Escurialensis’, Quaderni dell’istituto di storia dell’architettura, new ser. (1990– 1992) 15–20, 539–553. Marías 2000a: Fernando Marías, ‘El palacio de Carlos V en Granada: formas romanas, usos castellanos’, in: María José Redondo Cantera, Miguel A. Zalama (eds.), Carlos V y las artes. Promoción artística y familia imperial, Valladolid 2000, 107–128.

Martines 1998: Lauro Martines, ‘The Renaissance and the Birth of Consumer Society’ [review], Renaissance Quarterly 51 (1998), 193–203. Martínez Burgos 2002: Palma Martínez Burgos, ‘Egas’, Saur Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, vol. 32, Munich/ Leipzig 2002, 289–293. Martínez Leiva & Rodríguez Rebollo 2007: Gloria Martínez Leiva, Ángel Rodríguez Rebollo (eds.), Quadros y otras cosas que tiene Su Magestad Felipe IV en este Alcazar de Madrid, año de 1636, Madrid 2007. Martínez Tercero 1985: Enrique Martínez Tercero, ‘Valsaín: un Real sitio Flamenco en el Bosque de Segovia’, Reales sitios 22 (1985) 84, 12–24.

Marías 2000b: Fernando Marías, ‘La Casa Real Nueva de Carlos V en la Alhambra: letras, armas y arquitectura entre Roma y Granada’, in: Exh. cat. Granada 2000a, 201–221.

Martín González 1970: José J. Martín González, ‘El palacio de El Pardo en el siglo XVI’, Boletín del seminario de estudios de arte y arqueologia 36 (1970), 5–41.

Marías & Serra 2005: Fernando Marías, Andrea Serra, ‘La capilla Albornoz de la catedral de Toledo y los enterramienteos monumentales de la España bajomedieval’, in: Jean Guillaume (ed.), Demeures d’éternité. Églises et chapelles funéraires aux xve et xvie siècles (De Architectura 10), Paris 2005, 33–48.

Martín González 1992: María Angeles Martín González, El Real Sitio de Valsaín, Madrid, 1992.

Marino 1977: Angela Marino, ‘Urbanistica e “Ancien Régime” nella Sicilia barocca’; ‘Disegni di fortificazioni siciliane nell’archivio di Simancas’, Storia della città 2–3 (1977), 3–84; 50–64. Marquet & Glotz 1991: Léon Marquet, Simon Glotz, Une relation allemande méconnue (1550) des fêtes données par Marie de Hongrie, à Binche et à Mariemont, en août 1549 (Les cahiers binchois, numéro spécial), Binche 1991. Martens 2009: Pieter Martens, Militaire architectuur en vestingoorlog in de Nederlanden tijdens het regentschap van Maria van Hongarije (1531−1555). De ontwikkeling van de gebastioneerde vestingbouw, 2 vols., unpublished dissertation, University of Leuven 2009. Martens 2013: Pieter Martens, ‘Alexander Farnese, principe ingegnere in the Low Countries’, in: Hans Cools, Krista De Jonge, Sebastiaan Derks (eds.), Alexander Farnese and the Low Countries, Turnhout, in print. Martens (forthcoming): Pieter Martens, ‘Albrecht Dürer’s treatise on fortification (1527)’, in: Nicolas Faucherre,

Materna & Ribbe 1995: Ingo Materna, Wolfgang Ribbe (eds.), Brandenburgische Geschichte, Berlin 1995. Matthes 1967: Gisela Matthes, Der Lettner von St. Maria im Capitol zu Köln von 1523, dissertation, University of Bonn 1967. Matušakaite 2009: Maria Matušakaite, Iše˙ jusiems atminti. Laidosena ir kapu˛ ženklinas LDK, Vilnius 2009. Matuszewicz 1986: Marcin Matuszewicz, Diariusz z˙ycia mego, 1714–1757, 2 vols., ed. Bohdan Królikowski et al., Warsaw 1986. Mauter 1974: Horst Mauter, ‘Neues über die Berliner Festungsanlage des 17. Jahrhunderts’, Ausgrabungen und Funde 19 (1974), Berlin (Ost), 168–172. Maxwell 2011: Susan Maxwell, The court art of Friedrich Sustris. Patronage in Late Renaissance Bavaria, Farnham/Burlington VT 2011. McAllister Johnson 1972: William McAllister Johnson, ‘On some neglected usages of Renaissance diplomatic correspondence’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 79 (1972) 1, 51–54. Medema 2011: Geert Medema, Achter de façade van de Hollandse stad. Het stedelijk bouwbedrijf in de achttiende eeuw, Nijmegen 2011.

477

Bibliography Medvedkova 2006: Olga Medvedkova, ‘La bibliothèque d’architecture de Pierre le Grand: entre curiosité et passion’, Cahiers du monde russe 47 (2006) 3, 467–502.

Meischke & Ottenheym 2011: Ruud Meischke, Koen Ottenheym, ‘De herbouw van het huis Amerongen (1673–1685)’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 110 (2011), 3–18.

Meganck 1998: Tine Meganck, De kerkelijke architectuur van Wensel Cobergher (1557/61–1634) in het licht van zijn verblijf te Rome (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 60, no. 64), Brussels 1998.

Meischke & Van Tyghem 1987: Ruud Meischke, Frieda Van Tyghem, ‘Huizen en hoven gebouwd onder leiding van Anthonis I en Rombout II’, in: Janse et al. 1987, 131–154.

Meganck 2005: Tine Meganck, ‘Cornelis Floris and the “Floris-school” in the Baltic’, in: Arnout Balis, Paul Huvenne et al. (eds.), Florissant. Bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden (15de–17de eeuw). Liber amicorum Carl Van de Velde, Brussels 2005, 171–184. Meier 2007: Esther Meier, ‘Bild und Memoria im protestantischen Sakralraum am Beispiel des Grabmals von Philipp dem Grossmütigen und Christine von Sachsen in der Martinskirche zu Kassel’, in: Susanne Wegmann, Gabriele Wimböck (eds), Konfession im Kirchenraum. Dimensionen des Sakralraums in der Frühen Neuzeit, Korb 2007, 345–363. Meijer 1996: Jola Meijer, ‘De buitenplaats Petersburg, een ontwerp van Simon Schijnvoet’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 95 (1996), 203–213. Meilink-Roelofsz 1969: M.A.P. Meilink-Roelofsz, ‘Artus Gijsels in Oost-Azië’, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse vereniging voor zeegeschiedenis 18 (1969), 5–16. Meinardus 1906: Otto Meinardus, ‘Eigenhändige Briefe des Großen Kurfürsten an Joh. Moritz v. Nassau’, Forschungen zur brandenburgisch-preußischen Geschichte 19 (1906), 115–155. Meine-Schawe 1992: Monika Meine-Schawe, Die Grablege der Wettiner im Dom zu Freiberg. Die Umgestaltung des Domschores durch Giovanni Maria Nosseni 1585–1694, Munich 1992. Meischke 1987: Ruud Meischke, ‘Het Markiezenhof te Bergen op Zoom’, in: W.A. van Ham (ed.), Bergen op Zoom gebouwd en beschouwd, Bergen op Zoom 1987, 1–69. Meischke 1989: Ruud Meischke, ‘Een nieuwe gevel voor het Leidse stadhuis (1593–1598)’, Leids Jaarboekje 1989, 54–83.

Mejer Antonsen & Møller 1994: Inge Mejer Antonsen, Søren Møller, ‘Nationalmuseets festsal før og nu’, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1993, Copenhagen 1994, 124–134. Meldahl 1888: Ferdinand Meldahl, Denkmaeler der Renaissance in Daenemark, Berlin 1888. Melion 1991: Walter S. Melion, Shaping the Netherlandish Canon. Karel van Mander’s Schilder-Boeck, Chicago/ London 1991. Melzheimer 1989: Werner Melzheimer, Die Festung und Garnison Küstrin, Berlin 1989. Mensger 2002: Ariane Mensger, Jan Gossaert. Die niederländische Kunst zu Beginn der Neuzeit, Berlin 2002. Mensger 2008: Ariane Mensger, ‘Jan Gossaert und der niederländische Stilpluralismus zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts – eine Annäherung’, in: Hoppe et al. 2008, 188–211. Mertens 2003: Melanie Mertens, Berliner Barockpaläste. Die Entstehung eines Bautyps in der Zeit der ersten preußischen Könige (Berliner Schriften zur Kunst 14), Berlin 2003. Mertens 2006: Line Mertens, ‘Het Gelmelslot te Hoogstraten ten tijde van Antonis de Lalaing: een bouwkundige reconstructie van het vroeg zestiendeeeuwse kasteel’, Jaarboek erfgoed Hoogstraten 2 (2006–2007), 5–111. Meyer-Brunswik 1990: Uwe Meyer-Brunswik, Palaisähnliche Bürgerhäuser des 17. Jahrhunderts und ihre Geschichte, Hamburg 1990. Middell 2001: Matthias Middell, ‘Von der Wechselseitigkeit der Kulturen in Austausch. Das Konzept des Kulturtransfers in verschiedenen Forschungskontexten’, in Langer & Michels 2001, 15–52.

Meischke 1994: Ruud Meischke, ‘Het Amsterdamse fabrieksambt van 1595–1625’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 93 (1994), 100–122.

Miedema 1994–1999: Hessel Miedema, Karel van Mander. The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, from the first edition of the Schilder-boeck (1603–1604), 6 vols., Doornspijk 1994–1999.

Meischke et al. 1995: Ruud Meischke et al., Huizen in Nederland 2. Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Zwolle 1995.

Mielke 1960: Friedrich Mielke, Das Holländische Viertel in Potsdam, Berlin 1960.

478

Bibliography Mielke 1964: Friedrich Mielke, ‘Philipp de Chieze’, Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands 13–14 (1964), 384–392. Mielke 1967: Hans Mielke, Hans Vredeman de Vries. Verzeichnis der Stichwerke und Beschreibung seines Stiles sowie Beiträge zum Werk Gerard Groennings, unpublished dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin 1967.

Moret 1923: Justin Moret, ‘Henri de Borset et Thomas Tollet, sculpteurs liégeois du xvie siècle. Leurs travaux dans la cathédrale de Nevers’, Bulletin de l’institut archéologique liégeois 48 (1923), 85–184. Morris 1989: An Morris, Het tijdschrift l’Emulation en de architektuurtentoonstellingen in de periode 1874–1890, unpublished master thesis, University of Leuven 1989.

Mielke 1979: Friedrich Mielke, ‘Johann Mortiz und das Potsdamer Stadtschloß’, in: de Werd 1979, 159–163.

Mossakowski 1994: Stanislaw Mossakowski, Tilman van Gameren. Leben und Werk, Munich 1994.

Mielke 1983: Friedrich Mielke, ‘Johann Gregor Memhardts Darstellungen des Potsdamer Schlosses’, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 25 (1983), 161–169.

Mossakowski 2007: Stanislaw Mossakowski, Kaplica Zygmuntowska (1515–1533). Problematyka artystyczna i ideowa mauzoleum króla Zygmunta I, Warsaw 2007.

Mielke 1991: Friedrich Mielke, Potsdamer Baukunst. Das klassische Potsdam, Frankfurt a.M. 1991. Mikocka-Rachubowa 1994: Katarzyna MikockaRachubowa, ‘Mistrz nagrobka Provany – rzez´biarz krakowski przełomu XVI i XVII wieku’, Rocznik Historii Sztuki 20 (1994), 5–85. Millech 1949: Knud Millech, ‘Klein Vilhelm’, Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon, vol. 2, Copenhagen 1949, 131–133. Millington 2007: Mark Millington, ‘Transculturation: Contrapuntal Notes to Critical Orthodoxy’, Bulletin of Latin American Research 26 (2007), 256–268. Minguet 1988: Philippe Minguet, France Baroque, Paris 1988. Monballieu 1958: Adolf Monballieu, ‘Een gebeeldhouwd blazoen van de Mechelse rederijkskamer “De Lischbloeme” (1561)’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 62 (1958), 81–88. Monballieu 1971: Adolf Monballieu, ‘Documenten van het Mechels schilders- en beeldsnijdersambacht II. Het rekwest van 1562 en het probleem van de 51 of 150 ateliers’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 75 (1971), 71–82. Monna 1975: A.D.A. Monna, ‘The place of Hendrik Ruse in 17th-century fortification’, Janus 62 (1975), 169–177. Monte García 2006: Carmen Morte García, ‘Arnao de Bruselas en Aragón’, in: Exh. cat. Madrid/Valladolid 2006, 239–273. Montes Bardo 1993: Joaquín Montes Bardo, La sacra capilla de El Salvador de Úbeda: arte, mentalidad y culto, Úbeda/Jaén 1993, 111–145. Morán Turina & Checa Cremades 1986: Miguel Morán Turina, Fernando Checa Cremades, Las casas del rey. Casas de campo, cazaderos y jardines. Siglos XVI y XVII, Madrid 1986.

de Moulin 1979: Daniel de Moulin, ‘Medizinische und naturwissenschaftliche Aspekte der Regierungszeit des Grafen Johann Moritz von Nassau als Gouverneur in Brasilien (1637–1644)’, in: de Werd 1979, 33–46. Mouquin 2007: Sophie Mouquin, ‘Versailles, un édifice de marbre. Le rouge de Rance et les harmonies colorées versaillaises’, in: Carpeaux 2007, 355–387. Muchka 1991: Ivan Muchka, ‘Rudolf II. als Bauherr’, in: Elisa Fucˇ íková, Beket Bukovinská, Ivan Muchka, Die Kunst am Hofe Rudolfs II. Prag, Prague 1991, 179–201. Muchka 2009: Ivan Muchka, ‘Architektur in Prag und München um 1600 – eine Juxtaposition’, in: Beket Bukovinská, Lubomír Konecˇný (eds.), München – Prag um 1600 (Studia Rudolphina. Sonderheft), Prague 2009, 143–154. Mulder 1949: A.W.J. Mulder, Het kasteel Amerongen en zijn bewoners, Maastricht 1949. Müller 1938: Wolfgang Müller, ‘Die Anfänge des kurfürstlichen Schiffbaues in Berlin’, Brandenburgische Jahrbücher 11 (1938), 94–98. Müller 1990: Rose-Marie Müller, Het hertogelijk kasteel van Tervuren in de middeleeuwen, archivalisch en iconografisch onderzoek. Een bijdrage tot de studie van de middeleeuwse kasteelarchitectuur, unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leuven 1990. Müller 1995: Leos Müller, ‘The role of the merchant network. A case history of two Swedish trading houses, 1650–1800’, in: Clé Lesger, Leo Noordegraaf (eds.), Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship in Early Modern Times: Merchants and Industrialists within the Orbit of the Dutch Staple Market (Hollandse Historische Reeks 24), The Hague 1995, 147–163. Mülverstedt 1855: A. von Mülverstedt, ‘Der Bildhauer Wilhelm von Bloe’, Der neuen Preußischen Provinzial-Blätter, andere Folge 7 (1855), 30–31.

479

Bibliography Muller 1911: Samuel Muller Fz, ‘Specklin’s afbeeldingen en Hogenberg’s prentwerk’, Oud Holland 29 (1911), 172–178.

Neurdenburg 1940: Elisabeth Neurdenburg, ‘Pieter de Keyser als beeldhouwer’, Oudheidkundig Jaarboek 9 (1940), 62–72.

Muller & zandvliet 1987: E. Muller, Kees Zandvliet, Admissies als landmeter in Nederland voor 1811, Alphen aan den Rijn 1987.

Neurdenburg 1948: Elisabeth Neurdenburg, De zeventiende eeuwsche beeldhouwkunst in de Noordelijke Nederlanden. Hendrick de Keyser, Artus Quellinus, Rombout Verhust en tijdgenoten, Amsterdam 1948.

Mummenhof 1979: Karl E. Mummenhof, Nordkirchen, Munich/Berlin 1979.

Schloss

Muñoz Corbalán 1993: Juan Miguel Muñoz Corbalán, Los Ingenieros Militares de Flandes a España (1691– 1718), 2 vols., Madrid 1993. Munthe 1916: Ludvig W:son Munthe, Kungl. Fortifikationens historia 6:1. Biografiska anteckningar, Stockholm 1916. Murray 1985: John J. Murray, Flanders and England, a cultural bridge: the influence of the Low Countries on Tudor-Stuart England (Flandria extra muros), Antwerp 1985. Nadler 1968: Ekhard Nadler, ‘Der Lustgartner Michael Hanff und seine Familie’, Willdenowia 5 (1968) 1, 145–161. Nagy 1970: Margit B. Nagy, Reneszánsz ès barokk Erdélyben, Bukarest 1970. Navarro Brotóns 2006: Víctor Navarro Brotóns, ‘Spain and the Low Countries: Aspects of the scientific relationship in the sixteenth century’, in: Michał Kokowski (ed.), The Global and the Local. The History of Science and the Cultural Integration of Europe. Proceedings of the 2nd ICESHS (Cracow, Poland, September 6–9, 2006), 689–694. Navascués Palacio 2002: Pedro Navascués Palacio (ed.), Isabel la Católica, reina de Castilla, Barcelona/ Madrid 2002. Neeffs 1876: Emmanuel Neeffs, Histoire de la peinture et de la sculpture à Malines, vol. 1. La gilde de Saint-Luc. L’Académie des Beaux-Arts. Les Peintres malinois, Ghent 1876; vol. 2. Les Sculpteurs malinois, Ghent 1876. Nering 1985: Gerda Nehring, Johann Arnold Nering. Ein preußischer Baumeister, Essen 1985. Neufforge 1757–1768: Jean-François de Neufforge, Recueil élémentaire d’Architecture, Paris 1757–1768. Neufforge 1772–1780: Jean-François de Neufforge, Supplément du Recueil élémentaire d’Architecture, Paris 1772–1780. Neumann 1986: Hartwig Neumann, Zitadelle Jülich. Grosser Kunst- und Bauführer, Jülich 1986. Neurdenburg 1930: Elisabeth Neurdenburg, Hendrick de Keyser. Beeldhouwer en Bouw­meester van Amsterdam, Amsterdam [1930].

480

Neurdenburg 1953: Elisabeth Neurdenburg, ‘Hendrick de Keyser en het beeldhouwwerk aan de galerij van Frederiksborg in Denemarken’, Oudheidkundig Jaarboek 12 (1953), 33–41. Neville 2009: Kristoffer Neville, Nicodemus Tessin the Elder. Architecture in Sweden in the Age of Greatness (Architectura Moderna 7), Turnhout 2009. Newland 2007: Kate Newland, ‘Norwegian Timber and the Scottish Great House’, Architectural Heritage 18 (2007), 35–53. Nicolai 1786: Friedrich Nicolai, Beschreibung der Königlichen Residenzstädte Berlin und Potsdam und aller daselbst befindlichen Merkwürdigkeiten. Nebst einem Anhange, enthaltend die Leben aller Künstler, die seit Churfürst Friedrich Wilhelms des Großen Zeiten in Berlin geleben haben, oder deren Kunstwerke daselbst befindlich sind, Berlin etc. 1786. Nielsen 1872–1874: O. Nielsen (ed.), Kjøbenhavns Diplomatarium, 2 vols., Copenhagen 1872–1874. Nieto et al. 1993: Víctor Nieto, Alfredo J. Morales, Fernando Checa, Arquitectura del Renacimiento en España, Madrid 1993. Noel 2005: Charles C. Noel, ‘L’étiquette bourguignonnne à la cour d’Espagne, 1547–1800’, in: Catherine Arminjon, Béatrix Saule (eds.), Tables royales et festins de cour en Europe 1661–1789, Paris 2005, 171–191. Nørregård-Nielsen 1984: Hans Edvard NørregårdNielsen, ‘Omkring Evert Janssen. Af Charlottenborgs bygningshistorie’, Architectura. Arkitekturhitorisk Årsskrift 6 (1984), 140–160. Noldus 1998: Badeloch Noldus, ‘A Dutch merchant with a penchant for parks’, Lustgården 1998, 1–18. Noldus 2003: Badeloch Noldus, ‘Dealing in politics and Apart: Agents between Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen’, Scandinavian Journal of History 28 (2003), 215–225. Noldus 2004: Badeloch Noldus, Trade in Good Taste. Relations in Architecture and Culture between the Dutch Republic and the Baltic World in the Seventeenth Century (Architectura Moderna 2), Turnhout 2004.

Bibliography Noldus & Roding 2007: Badeloch Noldus, Juliette Roding (eds.), Pieter Isaacsz (1568–1625). Court Painter, Art Dealer and Spy, Turnhout 2007. Noordhoek 1954: W.J. Noordhoek, ‘Sir Cornelius Vermuyden. Een ondernemende Zeeuw (1590–1677)’, Zeeuws Tijdschrift 4 (1954), 8–16. Nordberg 1931: Tord O:son Nordberg, ‘Gustav II Adolf som byggherre. Studier rörande Stockholms slotts byggnadshistoria under 1600-talets början’, Fornvännen 26 (1931), 94–131. Nordberg 1970: Tord O:son Nordberg, De la Vallée. En arkitektfamilj i Frankrike, Holland och Sverige, Stockholm 1970. Norn 1948: Otto Norn, Mester Michiels to Breve til Christian den Anden. Et Bidrag til Nederlandenes og Danmarks kunstneriske Forbindelse, Copenhagen 1948. Norn 1954: Otto Copenhagen 1954.

Norn,

Kronborgs

Bastioner,

Norn 1959: Otto Norn, ‘Serlio and Denmark’, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 1 (1959), 105–120. Norn 1983: Otto Norn, ‘Hercules at the Frontier. Christian IV’s Castle at Kolding’, in: Art in Denmark 1600–1650. Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 2 (1983), 157–175. Norn 1986: Otto Norn, To grænseslotte. Frederik I’s Gottorp og Christian IV’s Koldinghus (Skrifter udgivne af Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland 62), Aabenraa 1986. North & Ormrod 1999: Michael North, David Ormrod (eds.), Art Markets in Europe, 1400–1800, Aldershot 1999. Nübel 1972: Otto Nübel, Pompejus Occo 1483 bis 1537. Fuggerfaktor in Amsterdam, Tübingen 1972. Nülken 1992: Christian Nülken, ‘Frankfurt an der Oder. Das “Junkerhaus” im 17. Jahrhundert’, Brandenburgische Denkmalpflege 1 (1992) 2, 57–68. Nußbaum et al. 2003: Norbert Nußbaum, Claudia Euskirchen, Stephan Hoppe (eds.), Wege zur Renaissance. Beobachtungen zu den Anfängen neuzeitlicher Kunstauffassung im Rheinland und den Nachbargebieten um 1500, Cologne 2003. Odelberg 1870: [Christian] Herman Odelberg, ‘Les retables de Strengnas (Suède)’, Annales de l’Académie d’Archéologie de Belgique 26 (1870), 475–480. Oestreich 1968: Gerhard Oestreich, Die niederländische Bewegung und Brandenburg-Preußen. Geschichtliche Einführung in die Ausstellung Die Niederlande und Brandenburg-Preußen. Ein Jahrhundert geistiger

Beziehungen in der europäischen Gelehrtenrepublik, Berlin 1968. O’Hagan & Hellmanzik 2008: John O’Hagan, Christiane Hellmanzik, ‘Clustering and Migration of Important Visual Artists. Broad Historical Evidence’, Evidence Matters. Historical Methods 41 (2008), 121–134. Olde Meierink 1991: Ben Olde Meierink, ‘Arnt Johannsen, Baumeister von Schloß Horst’, in: Krutisch & Großmann 1991, 103–114. Oldenburger-Ebbers & Reiman 2001: Carla OldenburgerEbbers, Andrey L. Reiman, ‘Nogmaals Petersburg langs de Vecht: een vergelijking tussen twee plattegronden voor deze buitenplaats uit de collectie Beudeker en uit de collectie van Peter de Grote’, Bulletin van de Koninklijk Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 100 (2001), 100–112. Olsson 1935: Martin Olsson, ‘Finspångs Slott. En holländsk slottsbyggad i den karolinska Sverige’, in: Sigurd Erixon, Sigurd Wallin (eds.), Svenska Kulturbilder, vol. 2 [ny följd], parts 3–4, Stockholm 1935. Olsson & Nordberg 1940: Martin Olsson, Tord O:son Nordberg, Stockholms Slott Historia I. Det Gamle Slottet, Stockholm 1940. Op de Beeck 2000: Roland Op de Beeck, ‘Aspects économiques de la production des retables du gothique tardif’, in: Marjan Buyle, Christine Vanthillo (eds.), Retables Flamands et Brabançons dans les monuments belges, Brussels 2000, 63–78. Opgenoorth 1971: Ernst Opgenoorth, Friedrich Wilhelm. Der Große Kurfürst von Brandenburg. Eine politische Biographie, 2 vols., Frankfurt a.M. etc. 1971–1978. Opgenoorth 1979: Ernst Opgenoorth, ‘Johann Moritz von Nassau-Siegen als klevischer Statthalter’, in: de Werd 1979, 61–70. Orlich 1838–1839: Leopold von Orlich, Geschichte des Preußischen Staates im siebzehnten Jahrhundert; mit besonderer Beziehung auf das Leben Friedrich Wilhelms des Großen Kurfürsten, 3 vols., Berlin 1838–1839. Ormrod 1999: David Ormrod, ‘Art and its markets’, Economic History Review 52 (1999) 3, 544–551. Ortiz 1940: Fernando Ortiz, Contrapunteo Cubano del tabaco y el Azúcar. Advertendencia de sus contrastes agrarios, económicos, históricos y sociales, Havana 1940. von der Osten Sacken 1984: Cornelia von der Osten Sacken, El Escorial. Estudio iconológico (Libros de Arquitectura y Arte), Madrid 19842.

481

Bibliography Oszczanowski 1999: Piotr Oszczanowski, ‘“Gdan´szczanin we Wrocławiu”. Czy moz˙na mówic´ o ekspozyturze sztuki gdan´skiej we Wrocławiu na przełomie XVI i XVII wieku?’, Porta Aurea 6 (1999), 89–125.

Ottenheym 2003a: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Renaissancearchitektur und Architekturpraxis im städtischen Bereich’, in: Nußbaum et al. 2003, 211–232.

Oszczanowski 2001: Piotr Oszczanowski, ‘Renesans’, in: Exh. cat. Legnica 2001, 29–40.

Ottenheym 2003b: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Tylman z Gameren w Holandii Nauki I z´ródła inspiracji’, in: Exh. cat. Warsaw 2003, 7–23.

Oszczanowski 2002: Piotr Oszczanowski, Gerard Hendrik z Amsterdam (1559–1615). Zycie i twórczos´ c´ wrocławskiego rzez´biarza, unpublished dissertation, Warsaw University 2002. Oszczanowski 2005: Piotr Oszczanowski, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries and Silesian art in the age of mannerism’, in: Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005, 65–75. Oszczanowski 2006: Piotr Oszczanowski, ‘Vroom, Hendricksz. and Hendrik – Dutch artists in Gdan´sk in the second half of the 16th century’, in: RuszkowskaMacur 2006, 51–58. Oszczanowski 2008: Piotr Oszczanowski, ‘Gerard Hendriksz. (1585) i Gerhard Hendrik (1615) z Amsterdamu – z historii niderlandzkiej rzez´by manierystycznej w Gdan´sku’, Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici, Zabytkoznawstwo i Konserwatorstwo 35 (2008), 69–87. Oszczanowski 2011: Piotr Oszczanowski, ‘Wrocławski rodowód artystyczny Jana Pfistera’, in: Andrzej Betlej et al. (eds.), Mie˛dzy Wrocławiem a Lwowem. Sztuka na S´la˛sku, w Małopolsce i na Rusi Koronnej w czasach nowoz˙ ytnych, Wrocław 2011, 85–101. Ottenheym 1989: Konrad Ottenheym, Philips Vingboons (1607–1678). Architect, Zutphen 1989. Ottenheym 1994: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Kampen, Houghton en Moskou. Hollandse architectuurcitaten omstreeks 1700’, in: Elisabeth den Hartog, Raphael Rijntjes, Jos Stöver, Eelco van Welie (eds.), Bouwen en duiden. Studies over architectuur en iconologie, Alphen aan den Rijn 1994, 15–24. Ottenheym 1998: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘De Vitruviusuitgave van Johannes De Laet (1649)’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 97 (1998), 69–76. Ottenheym 1999: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Fürsten, Architekten und Lehrbücher. Wege der holländische Baukunst nach Brandenburg im 17. Jahrhundert’, in: Lademacher 1999, 287–298. Ottenheym 2002a: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Tilman van Gameren in Holland, education and sources of inspiration’, in: Exh. cat. Amsterdam 2002, 24–39. Ottenheym 2002b: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Peter Paul Rubens’ Palazzi di Genova and its Influence on Architecture in The Netherlands’, in: Lombaerde 2002, 81–98.

482

Ottenheym 2003c: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Dutch contributions to the classicist tradition in Northern Europe in the seventeenth century: patrons, architects and books’, Scandinavian Journal of History 28 (2003), 227–242. Ottenheym 2005: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Amsterdam 1700: Urban Space and Public Buildings’, in: Henry A. Millon (ed.), Circa 1700: Architecture in Europe and the Americas (CASVA Studies in the History of Art), Washington etc. 2005, 119–137. Ottenheym 2007a: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Architectura Moderna. The Systemization of Architectural Ornament Around 1600’, in: De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, 111–136. Ottenheym 2007b: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Dutch influences in William Bruce’s architecture’, Scotia-Europa interactions in the late-Renaissance. Architectural Heritage 18 (2007), 135–149. Ottenheym 2008: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Defaecatissimis temporibus Graecorum ac Romanorum. Constantijn Huygens’ Quest for the “true” Principles of Architecture in 17th Century Holland’, in: Hans Hubach, Barbara von Orelli-Messerli, Tadej Tassini (eds.), Reibungspunkte. Ordnung und Umbruch in Architektur und Kunst (Festschrift für Hubertus Günther), Petersberg 2008, 217–224. Ottenheym 2009: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Seventeenthcentury country seats of the Orange court and their Influence abroad’, in: Barbara Arciszewska (ed.), The Baroque Villa. Suburban and Country Residences c. 1600–1800, Wilanów 2009, 81–90. Ottenheym 2010: Konrad Ottenheym, Schoonheid op maat. Vincenzo Scamozzi en de architectuur van de Gouden Eeuw, Amsterdam 2010. Ottenheym 2011: Konrad Ottenheym, ‘Hendrick de Keyser and Denmark’, in: Andersen et al. 2011, 313–324. Ottenheym et al. 1988: Konrad Ottenheym, Willem Terlouw, Rob van Zoest (ed.), Daniel Marot: vormgever van een deftig bestaan, Amsterdam/Zutphen 1988. Ottenheym et al. 2003: K.A. Ottenheym, H. Scheepmaker, P.B. Garvin, W. Vroom (eds.), Vincenzo Scamozzi, Venetian Architect. The Idea of a Universal Architecture III : Villas and Country Estates, Amsterdam 2003.

Bibliography Ottenheym et al. 2008: Konrad Ottenheym, Niek Smit, Paul Rosenberg, Hendrick de Keyser. Architectura Moderna. Moderne bouwkunst in Amsterdam 1600–1625, Amsterdam 2008. Ottenheym et al. 2010: Konrad Ottenheym, Monique Chatenet, Krista De Jonge (eds.), Public Buildings in Early Modern Europe (Architectura Moderna 9), Turnhout 2010. Ottenheym & De Jonge 2007: Konrad Ottenheym, Krista De Jonge, ‘Of Columns and Wooden Piles. The Foundations of Architectural Theory in the Low Countries 1560–1625’, in De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, 93–110. Oudesluijs 1994: Diedericke M. Oudesluijs, ‘Die Beziehungen der Oranier zu Brandenburg-Preußen’, in: Deutsch-Niederländische Gesellschaft e.V. 1994, 11–27. Oudesluijs 1997: Diedericke M. Oudesluijs, ‘Frühe Emigration östlich der Elbe – Mythos und Wirklichkeit’, in: Deutsch-Niederländische Gesellschaft e.V. 1997, 33–47. Oursel 1907: Charles Oursel, ‘Deux artistes dijonnais du xvie siècle (Nicolas de la Cour, Jean Damotte)’, Mémoires de la Société bourguignonne de géographie et d’histoire 29 (1907), 547–83. Ozinga 1929: Murk Daniel Ozinga, De protestantsche kerkenbouw in Nederland van Hervoming tot Franschen tijd, Amsterdam 1929. Ozinga 1938: Murk Daniel Ozinga, Daniel Marot: de schepper van den Hollandschen Lodewijk XIV‑stijl, Amsterdam 1938. Paar 1996: Edwin Paar, ‘De “Nederlandse school” der fortificatieleer en de theoretische en praktische invloeden op de Portugese militaire architectuur in de zeventiende eeuw’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 95 (1996), 12–23. Paar 2000: Edwin Paar, ‘Jan Ciermans. Een Bossche vestingbouwkundige in Portugal’, De Brabantse Leeuw 49 (2000) 4, 201–214. Paczkowski 1975: Renate Paczkowski, Die Vorhalle von 1570 am Rathaus zu Lübeck. Überlegungen zu ihrer kunstgeschichtlichen Stellung und ihrer typologischen Verbindungen, unpublished dissertation, ChristianAlbrechts-Universität zu Kiel 1975. Palm 1979: Erwin Walter Palm, ‘Überlegungen zu Mauritiopolis-Recife’, in: de Werd 1979, 25–32. Pałubicki 1981: Janusz Pałubicki, ‘Rzez´ba kamienna w Gdan´sku w latach 1517–1585’, Gdan´ skie Studia Muzealne 3 (1981), 188–190. Pałubicki 2008: Janusz Pałubicki, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries w Gdan´sku w latach 1591–1596’, in: Elz˙bieta Basiul et al.

(eds.), Album Amicorum. Mie˛dzy Wilnem a Toruniem. Ksie˛ga pamia˛tkowa dedykowana profesorowi Józefowi Poklewskiemu, Torun´ 2008, 231–256. Pander 1935: A. Pander, ‘Ruse, Hendrik’, in: ThiemeBecker 29, Leipzig 1935, 222–223. Pane 1977: Roberto Pane, Il Rinascimento nell’Italia meridionale, 2 vols., Milan 1977. Paradin 1615: Claude Paradin, Princeliicke Devissen, Leiden 1615. Paravicini 1991a: Werner Paravicini, ‘Die Residenzen der Herzöge von Burgund, 1363–1477’, in: Hans Patze, Werner Paravicini (eds.), Fürstliche Residenzen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa, Sigmaringen 1991, 207–264. Paravicini 1991b: Werner Paravicini, ‘The Court of the Dukes of Burgundy: A Model for Europe?’, in: Ronald G. Asch, Adolf M. Birke (eds.), Princes, Patronage, and the Nobility. The Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age c. 1450–1650, Oxford 1991, 69–102. Paravicini 1997: Werner Paravicini (ed.), Zeremoniell und Raum (Residenzenforschung 6), Sigmaringen 1997. Paravicini 2003: Werner Paravicini, ‘La cour de Bourgogne selon Olivier de la Marche’, in: Jean-Marie Cauchies (ed.), Autour d’Olivier de la Marche (Publications du Centre européen d’études bourguignonnes 43), Neuchâtel 2003, 89–124. Park 1973: Helen Park, A List of Architectural Books Available in America before the Revolution (Art and architecture bibliographies 1), Los Angeles 1973. Parry 2006: Graham Parry, The Arts of the Anglican Counter-Reformation: Glory Laud and Honour, Woodbridge 2006. Pasierb 1974: Janusz St. Pasierb, Malarz gdan˛ski Herman Han, Warsaw 1974. Passavant 2001: Georg Passavant, Wolf Caspar von Klengel: Dresden 1630–1691. Reisen, Skizzen, Baukünstlerischen Tätigkeiten, Munich/Berlin 2001. Paunel 1965: Eugen Paunel, Die Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. Ihre Geschichte und Organisation während der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte seit ihrer Eröffnung 1661–1871, Berlin 1965. Paviot 1999: Jacques Paviot, ‘Ordonnances de l’hôtel et cérémonial de cour aux xve et xvie siècles, d’après l’exemple bourguignon’, in: Kruse & Paravicini 1999, 167–174. Paviot 2007: Jacques Paviot, ‘Tenir état à table’, in: Jean-Marie Cauchies (ed.), Boire et manger en pays bourguignons (xive–xvie siècles). Rencontres de Boulogne-sur-mer (Publications du Centre européen d’études bourguignonnes 47), Neuchâtel 2007, 23–35.

483

Bibliography Pawin´ ski 1882: Adolf Pawin´ski (ed.), Akta Metryki Koronnej, 1576–1586, Warsaw 1882. Payne 1999: Alina A. Payne, The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance: Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture, Cambridge MA 1999. Peipst 1978: Swantje Peipst, Berlin-Brandenburg. Fayencen des 17. Und 18. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1978. Peitsch 1985: Dietmar Peitsch, Zunftgesetzgebung und Zunftverwaltung Brandenburg-Preußens in der frühen Neuzeit (Europäische Hochschulschriften II, Rechtswissenschaft 442), Frankfurt a.M. etc. 1985. Peltzer 1926–1927: Rudolf Arthur Peltzer, ‘Eine niederländische Künstlerkolonie in Aachen im späten 16. Jahrhundert’, Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 3–4 (1926–1927), 222–226. Pepper 2003: Simon Pepper, ‘Artisans, Architects and Aristocrats: Professionalism and Renaissance Military Engineering’, in: D.J.B. Trim (ed.), The Chivalric Ethos and the Development of Military Professionalism, Leiden 2003, 117–147. Pérez de Tudela 2011: Almudena Pérez de Tudela, ‘Crear, coleccionar, mostrar e intercambiar objetos: una perspeciva general de las fuentes de archivo relacionadas con las pertenencias personales de la infanta Isabel’, in: van Wyhe 2011, 61–87. Pérez de Tudela (forthcoming): Almudena Pérez de Tudela, ‘Los años de la infanta Catalina Micaela en la corte de Madrid (1567–1584) y sus relaciones con España: regalos y retratos’, in: Blythe Alice Raviola, Franca Varallo (eds.), L’infanta Caterina d’Austria, duchessa di Savoia (1567–1597), Proceedings of the international conference, 29 September–1 October 2009, Milan (forthcoming). Pérez de Tudela & Jordan Gschwend 2001: Almudena Pérez de Tudela, Annemarie Jordan Gschwend, ‘Luxury goods for royal collectors: exotica, princely gifts and rare animals exchanged between the Iberian courts and Central Europe in the Renaissance (1560– 1612)’, in: Helmut Trek, Sabine Haag (eds.), Exotica: Portugals Entdeckungen im Spiegel fürstlicher Kunstund Wunderkammern der Renaissance (Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, new series 3), Mainz 2001, 1–127. Périer-d’Ieteren 1989: Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren, ‘Le marché d’exportation et l’organisation du travail dans les ateliers brabançons aux xve et xvie siècles’, in: Xavier Barral i Altet (ed.), Fabrication et consommation de l’œuvre (Artistes, artisans et production artistiques au Moyen Âge 3), Paris 1989, 629–645. Pérouse de Montclos 1982: Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos, L’architecture à la française. xvie, xviie, xviiie siècles, Paris 1982.

484

Pérouse de Montclos 1995: Brigitte Pérouse de Montclos, ‘Introduction à l’architecture de Saint-Pétersbourg’, in : Saint-Pétersbourg. Le défi architectural des tsars, Garenne Lemot 1995, 17–31. Perouse de Montclos 2001: Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos, L’architecture à la française, du milieu du xve siècle à la fin du xviiie siècle, Paris 2001. Perrault 1681: Claude Perrault, Architecture générale de Vitruve, réduit et abrégé, Amsterdam 1681. Peschken & Klünner 1982: Goerd Peschken, HansWerner Klünner, Das Berliner Schloß, Frankfurt a.M. etc. 1982. Petersen 1851: N. M. Petersen (ed.), ‘Samtidig Beretning om Forhandlingerne imellem Kong Christian den Anden og Hertug Frederik, samt dennes Kongevalg’, Danske Magazin 3, III (1851), 1–26. Petersen 1879: Henry Petersen, ‘Gravstenen fra Timgaard, “Dyvekes Ligsten” kaldet’, Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1879, 56–86. Pevsner & Cherry 1975: Nikolaus Pevsner, Bridget Cherry, The Buildings of England: Wiltshire, Harmondsworth 1975. Pfandl 1938: Ludwig Pfandl, ‘Philipp II und die Einführung des Burgundischen Hofzeremoniells in Spanien’, Historisches Jahrbuch der GörresGesellschaft 58 (1938), 1–38. Philippot et al. 2003: Paul Philippot, Denis Coekelberghs, Pierre Loze, Dominique Vautier, L’architecture religieuse et la sculpture baroques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et la principauté de Liège 1600–1770, Sprimont 2003. Picon 1992: Antoine Picon, L’Invention de l’ingénieur moderne: l’E´cole des Ponts et Chaussées 1747–1851, Paris 1992. Pietrzyk 2005: Zdzisław Pietrzyk et al. (eds.), Peregrynacja Jana Heidensteina przez Belgie˛, Francje˛ i Włochy w roku 1631 zacze˛ta a w roku 1634 zakon´   czona, Kraków 2005. Pick 1913: Hermann Pick, ‘Der unvollendet gebliebene Bibliotheksbau des Großen Kurfürsten’, in: Beiträge zum Bibliotheks- und Buchwesen. Paul Schwenke zum 20.13.1913 gewidmet, Berlin 1913, 211–215. Piljavskij 1953: V. Piljavskij, ‘Ivan Kuzmic Korobov. Materialy dlja izucenija tvorcestva’, Arhitekturnoe nasledstvo 4, Moscow/ Leningrad 1953, 41–62. Pimentel 2005: António Filipe Pimentel, ‘“À Flanders por devoção e à Itália por ostentação” ou ao invés: as razões do manuelino’, in: García García & Grilo 2005, 159–168. Pinon 1986: Pierre Pinon (ed.), Un canal... des canaux..., Paris 1986.

Bibliography Pistohlkors 1994: Gert von Pistohlkors (ed.), Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas. Baltische Länder, Berlin 1994.

Postema 1993: Jan Postema, Johan van den Corput (1542–1611). Kaartmaker, vestingbouwer, krijgsman, Kampen 1993.

Pita Andrade 1981: José Manuel Pita Andrade, La Capilla Real y la Catedral de Granada, León 1981.

Postma 1995: Albert Postma, ‘Een Zuidnederlandse hovenier in Spanje. Over Philips II, Jehan Holbecq en een nieuwe tuinkunst’, Tuinkunst. Nederland Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van Tuin- en Landschapsarchitectuur 1 (1995), 9–22.

Plathe 1993: Sissel F. Plathe, ‘Brabantine carved altarpieces in Denmark’, in: Exh. cat. Antwerp 1993b, 94–110. Pleguezuelo Hernández 2002: Alfonso Pleguezuelo Hernández, ‘Jan Floris (c. 1520–1567), a Flemish tile maker in Spain’, in: Majolica and Glass. From Italy to Antwerp and beyond, Antwerp 2002, 123–144. Ploys van treslong prins 1922: P.C. Ploys van Treslong Prins, Genealogische en heraldische gedenkwaardigheden in en uit de Kerken der provincie Zuid-Holland, Utrecht 1922. Podol’skij 1992: P. Podol’skij, ‘Ivan Korobov’, Architecture soviétique 3 (1952), 105–116. Poiret 1994: Marie-Françoise Poiret, Le monastère de Brou. Le chef-d’œuvre d’une fille d’empereur, Paris 1994. Poklewski-Koziełł & Waz˙ ny 2006: Tadeusz PoklewskiKoziełł, Tomasz Waz˙ny, ‘The Łe˛czyca evidence of planting an industrial forest about the year 1590’, Fasciculi Archaeologica Historicae 18 (2006), 29–34. Pollak 2010: Martha Pollak, Cities at War in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge 2010. Polleroß 1998: Friedrich Polleroß, ‘Tradition und Recreation. Die Residenzen der österreichischen Habsburger in der frühen Neuzeit (1490–1780)’, Majestas 8 (1998), 91–148 Polleroß 2006: Friedrich Polleroß, ‘Romanitas in der habsburgischen Repräsentation von Karl V. bis Maximilian II.’, in: Richard Bösel, Grete Klingenstein, Alexander Koller (eds.), Kaiserhof – Papsthof (16. –18. Jahrhundert), Vienna 2006, 207–223. Polly 1734: Jacob Polly, Groot volkomen Moolen Boeck of nav Keurig Ontwerp van allerhande de et nog toe behade soorten van Moolens der Leendert van Natrus, Iac. Polly en Cornelius van Vuuren, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1734–1736. Poncelet 1934: Edouard Poncelet, ‘Lettres inédites et mémoires du baron de Ville touchant la machine de Marly’, Bulletin de la Commission royale d’Histoire 98 (1934), 239–310. Popplow 1998: Marcus Popplow, Neu, nützlich und erfindungsreich. Die Idealisierung von Technik in der frühen Neuzeit (Cottbuser Studien zur Geschichte von Technik, Arbeit und Umwelt 5), Münster/New York, 1998.

Prak 2003: Maarten Prak, ‘Guilds and the Development of the Art Market during the Dutch Golden Age’, Simiolus 30 (2003), 236–251. Prak et al. 2006: Maarten Prak, Catharina Lis, Jan Lucassen, Hugo Soly (eds.), Craft Guilds in the Early Modern Low Countries. Work, Power and Representation, Aldershot 2006. Przybos 1977: Adam Przybos (ed.), Podróz˙ królewicza Władysława Wazy do krajów Europy Zachodniej w latach 1624–1625 w ´swietle ówczesnych relacji, Kraków 1977. Puciata-Pawłowska 1958–1959: Jadwiga PuciataPawłowska, ‘Program ikonograficzny zaginionego stropu Antoniego Möllera w ratuszu torun´skim’, Zapiski Historyczne 24 (1958–1959) 4, 67–86. Puciata-Pawłowska 1959: Jadwiga Puciata-Pawłowska, ‘Z dziejów stosunków artystycznych Torunia i Gdan´ska w XVI i XVII wieku’, Teka Komisji Historii Sztuki 1 (1959), 143–238. Rachel 1938: Hugo Rachel, ‘Benjamin Raulé’, Brandenburgische Jahrbücher 11 (1938), 79–84. Ramada Curto & Molho 2002: Diogo Ramada Curto, Anthony Molho (eds.), Commercial Networks in the Early Modern World (European University Institute Working Paper, HEC 20002/2), San Domenico 2002. Réau 1922: Louis Réau, ‘L’art français sur le Rhin au xviiie siècle’, Congrès d’histoire de l’art. Organisé par la Société de l’Histoire de l’Art français. Paris 26 Septembre–5 Octobre 1921, Paris 1922, 212–213. Réau 1926: Louis Réau, L’art français aux E´tats-Unis, Paris 1926. Réau 1931: Louis Réau, Histoire de l’expansion de l’art français. Pays Scandinaves. Angleterre. Amérique du Nord, Paris 1931. Réau 1946: Louis Réau, Le rayonnement de Paris au xviiie siècle, Paris 1946. Redworth & Checa 1999: Glyn Redworth, Fernando Checa, ‘The Courts of the Spanish Habsburgs, 1500– 1700’, in: John Adamson (ed.), The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture Under the Ancien Régime, 1500–1700, London 1999, 47–50. van Regteren Altena 1938: Johan Q. van Regteren Altena, De Goudsche Glazen, 1555–1603, The Hague 1938.

485

Bibliography de Reiffenberg 1845–1846: Reiffenberg, [baron de], ‘Suite de la notice des manuscripts conservés, soit dans les dépôts publics, soit dans des bibliothèques particulières (… )’, Bulletin de la commission royale d’histoire 1st ser., 9 (1845–1846), 716–717. Reiman 1996: Andrej Reiman, ‘Nederlandse invloeden op de tuinkunst in Sint-Petersburg in het eerste kwart van de achttiende eeuw’, in: Kistemaker et al. 1996, 124–131. Reindel 2011: Ulrik Reindel, The King Tapestries. Pomp & Propaganda at Kronborg Castle, Copenhagen 2011. Reißmann 1937: Kurt Reißmann (ed.), Die Kunstdenkmäler des Stadt- und Landkreises Landsberg (Warthe). Die Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Brandenburg, Berlin 1937. Reh et al. 2005: Wouter Reh, Clemens Steenbergen, Diederik Aten, Zee van Land. De droogmakerijen als atlas van de Hollandse landschapsarchitectuur, Wormer 2005. Rensing 1960: Theodor Rensing, ‘Fürstbischof Friedrich Christian von Plettenberg als Auftraggeber und Mäzen’, Westfalen 38 (1960), 174–201. Reuschel 1987: Andreas Reuschel, Schloß Freudenthal in Uslar, Uslar 1987. Ribbe 1998: Wolfgang Ribbe, ‘Cölln bei Berlin. Entwicklung der Spree-Insel’, in: Engel et al. 1998, 73–86. Richardot 1567: Francois Richardot, Het Sermoon vande Beelden teghen die Beeldtschenders, Leuven 1567. Ridinger 1991: Georg Ridinger, Architektur des Schlosses Johannisburg zu Aschaffenburg, ed. Hans-Bernd Spies, Aschaffenburg 1991. Rietzsch 1987: Barbara Rietzsch, Künstliche Grotten des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Formen der Gestaltung von Außenbau und Innenraum an Beispielen in Italien, Frankreich und Deutschland (Beiträge zur Kunstwissenschaft 17), Munich 1987. Rise Hansen 1958: Carl Rise Hansen, Christian 2.s arkiv, dets opdagelse i München og den tidligste udgivelse af aktstykker derfra, Copenhagen 1958. Rivera Blanco 1984: José Javier Rivera Blanco, Juan Bautista de Toledo y Felipe II: la implantación del clasicismo en España, Valladolid 1984. Rivera Blanco 2000: José Javier Rivera Blanco, ‘El Palacio de El Pardo entre Carlos V y Felipe II’, Reales sitios 37 (2000) 145, 2–15. Robinson & Adams 1968: Henry W. Robinson, Walter Adams (eds.), The Diary of Robert Hooke 1672–1680, London 1968.

486

Robertson 1922: Alexander Robertson, The Life of sir Robert Moray, London 1922. Roch 1991: Irene Roch, ‘Stilistische Zusammenhänge zwischen den Schlössern in Mansfeld und den Schloßbauten Jörg Unkairs im Wesergebiet’, in: Krutisch & Großmann 1991, 189–202. Rodegast 1999: Günter Rodegast, Zwei Persönlichkeiten, die in der Prignitz wirkten: Hauptmann Gottfried Levin Christian von Kitscher, letzter Burgherr von Wittenberg; Admiral Gijsel van Lier, Herr des Amtes Lenzen, Wittenberg 1999. Rödel 1979: Walter G. Rödel, ‘Johann Moritz als Herrenmeister der Ballei Brandenburg des Johanniterordens (1652–1679)’, in: de Werd 1979, 81–90. Roding 1982: Juliette Roding, ‘De invloed van de Nederlandse vestingbouw in Scandinavië 1600–1650’, in: J. Sneep, H. A. Treu, M. Tydeman (eds.), Vesting. Vier eeuwen vestingbouw in Nederland, Zutphen 1982, 30–35. Roding 1990: Juliette G. Roding, ‘“The Myth of the Dutch Renaissance” in Denmark. Dutch Influence on Danish Architecture in the 17th century’, in: J.Ph.S. Lemmink, J.S.A.M. van Koningsbrugge (eds.), Baltic Affairs. Relations between the Netherlands and North-Eastern Europe 1500–1800 (Baltic Studies 1), Nijmegen 1990, 343–353. Roding 1991: Juliette Roding, Christiaan IV van Denemarken (1588–1648). Architectuur en stedebouw van een Luthers vorst, Alkmaar 1991. Roding 1996: Juliette Roding, ‘The North Sea coasts, an architectural unity?’, in: Roding & Heerma van Voss 1996, 96–106. Roding 1999: Juliette G. Roding, ‘Voorstellingen van vermaak in de plafonddecoratie van de grote zaal in het lustslot Rosenborg (circa 1620)’, in Jan de Jongste, Juliette Roding, Boukje Thijs (eds.), Vermaak van de elite in de vroegmoderne tijd, Hilversum 1999, 262–287. Roding 2003: Juliette Roding, ‘Philip de Lange (ca. 1704–1766). Het indrukwekkende oeuvre van een onbekende architect uit de Republiek in dienst van de Deense marine’, in: Leo Akveld et al. (eds.), In het kielzog. Maritiem-historische studies aangeboden aan Jaap R. Bruijn, Amsterdam 2003, 494–504. Roding 2007: Juliette Roding, ‘The Isaacsz Family – Constant travellers between Holland and Denmark’, in: Noldus & Roding 2007, 131–137. Roding 2010: Juliette Roding, ‘The Copenhagen Exchange (1619–1624) designed by the van Steenwinckel brothers: “not for the secret arts of Mercury and Laverna”’, in: Ottenheym et al. 2010, 241–248.

Bibliography Roding et al. 2003: Juliette Roding, Erik Jan Sluijter et al. (eds.), Dutch and Flemish Artists in Britain 1550– 1850 (Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 13), Leiden 2003.

Rohrlach & Badstübner-Gröger 1994: Peter Rohrlach, Sibylle Badstübner-Gröger, Schloß Friedrichsfelde, Munich 1994.

Roding & Heerma van Voss 1996: Juliette Roding, Lex Heerma van Voss (eds.), The North Sea and Culture (1550–1800), Hilversum 1996.

Rorive 1992: Jean-Pierre Rorive, ‘Le hutois Arnold de Ville entrepreneur de la machine de Marly’, Annales du cerlce hutois des Sciences et Beaux-Arts 46 (1992), 177–190.

Rodríguez Ruiz 2000: Delfín Rodríguez Ruiz, ‘Sobre los dibujos del palacio de Carlos V en la Alhambra de Granada conservados en la Real Biblioteca’, Reales sitios 37 (2000) 145, 16–27.

Rosenfeld 1978: Myra Nan Rosenfeld, Serlio on domestic architecture: Different dwellings from the meanst hovel to the most ornate palace, New York/Cambridge MA 1978.

Rodríguez Villa 1906: Antonio Rodríguez Villa (ed.), Correspondencia de la Infanta Archiduquesa Doña Isabel Clara Eugenia de Austria con el Duque de Lerma y otros personajes, Madrid 1906.

Rosenthal 1961: Earl Rosenthal, The Cathedral of Granada, Princeton NJ 1961.

Rodríguez Villa 1913: Antonio Rodríguez Villa, Etiquetas de la Casa de Austria, Madrid 1913. Roelandts 1939: Oscar Roelandts, Beeldhouwer Pieter‑Antoon Verschaffelt 1710–1793 (Académie royale de Belgique, Classe des Beaux-Arts, Mémoires collection in-8°, IIe sér., IV), Brussels 1939. de Roever 1944: J.G. de Roever, Jan Adriaenszoon Leeghwater. Het leven en werk van een zeventiendeeeuwse waterbouwkundige, Amsterdam 1944. Roggen 1953: Domien Roggen, ‘Jehan Mone, artiste de l’empereur’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 14 (1953), 207–245. Roggen & Withof 1942: Domien Roggen, Jan Withof, ‘Cornelis Floris’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 8 (1942), 79–171. Roggen & Dhanens 1943: Domien Roggen, Elisabeth Dhanens, ‘De ontwerpers van de praalgraven van Brou’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 9 (1943), 127–132. Roggen & Withof 1943: Domien Roggen, Jan Withof, ‘Cornelis Floris’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 9 (1943), 133–136. Roll & Strzelecka 2006: Barbara Roll, Iwona Strzelecka (eds.), Katalog zabytków sztuki, Miasto Gdan˛sk 1. Główne Miasto (Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, Seria nowa, VIII/1), Warsaw 2006. Romano 1993: Dennis Romano, ‘Aspects of Patronage in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Venice’, Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993) 4, 712–733. Rombouts & Van Lérius 1864–1872: Philippe Rombouts, Théodore Van Lérius, De Liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpsche Sint-Lucasgilde, 2 parts in 15 issues, Antwerp/The Hague 1864–1872. Römelingh 1973: Joan Römelingh, ‘Hendrik Ruse’, Spiegel Historiael 8 (1973), 565–569.

Rosenthal 1971: Earl Rosenthal, ‘PLUS ULTRA, NON PLUS ULTRA, and the Columnar Device of Emperor Charles V’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 34 (1971), 204–228. Rosenthal 1973: Earl Rosenthal, ‘The Invention of the Columnar Device of Emperor Charles V at the Court of Burgundy in Flanders in 1516’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36 (1973), 198–230. Rosenthal 1988: Earl Rosenthal, El palacio de Carlos V en Granada, Madrid 1988, transl. of Princeton 1985. Rowan 1984: Alistair Rowan, ‘The building of Hopetoun’, in: Design and Practice in British Architecture. Studies in Architectural History Presented to Howard Colvin. Architectural History 27 (1984), 183–209. Rubio Cebrián & Acemel 1912: Germán Rubio Cebrián, Isidoro Acemel, La Escultura Española del siglo XV. El Maestro Egas en Guadalupe. Estudio basado en documentos y dibujos inéditos, Madrid 1912. Rudolf 1992: Karl Friedrich Rudolf, ‘Coleccionismo, Antigüedad clásica y jardín durante el siglo XVI en las cortes de Viena y Praga’, in: Exh. cat. Madrid 1992, 15–34. Rudolph 1889: Theodor Rudolph, Die niederländischen Kolonien der Altmark im XII. Jahrhundert. Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung, Berlin 1889. Rudolph 1964: Martin Rudolph, ‘Friedrichsgracht Nr. 58. Bilder aus der Geschichte eines Altberliner Hauses und seiner Bewohner’, Jahrbuch für brandenburgische Landesgeschichte 15 (1964), 98–130. Rudolph 1965: Martin Rudolph, ‘Nochmals: Friedrichsgracht Nr. 58. Nachträge und Berichtigungen’, Jahrbuch für brandenbur­ gische Landesgeschichte 16 (1965), 111–115. Rückbrod 1977: Konrad Rückbrod, Universität und Kollegium. Baugeschichte und Bautyp, Darmstadt 1977.

487

Bibliography Ruelens 1890: Charles Ruelens (ed.), Le Passetemps de Jean Lhermite I (Maatschappij der Antwerpsche Bibliophilen 17), Antwerp etc. 1890. Rupprich 1956–1968: Hans Rupprich, Dürer: Schriftlicher Nachlass, 3 vols., Berlin 1956–1969. Ruse 1653: Hendrick Ruse, Versterckte Vesting, uitgevonden in velerley voorvallen, en geobserveert in dese laeste oorlogen, soo in de Vereenigde Nederlanden als in Vranckryck, Duyts-land, Italien, Dalmatien, Albanien en die daer aengelegen landen, Amsterdam 1653. Ruszkowska-Macur 2006: Malgorzata Ruszkowska-Macur (ed.), Netherlandish artists in Gdansk in the time of Hans Vredeman de Vries, Lemgo 2006. van Ruyven-Zeman 1998: Zsuzsanna van Ruyven-Zeman, ‘Antoinette Huysmans, Jan Van Damme, Carl Van de Velde en Christine Van Mulders, Cornelis Floris 1514–1575. Beeldhouwer architect ontwerper, Brussel (Gemeentekrediet) 1996 [book review]’, Oud Holland 112 (1998) 4, 259–271. Rylant & Casteels 1940: J. Rylant, Marguerite Casteels, ‘De metsers van Antwerpen tegen Paludanus, Floris, de Nole’s en andere beeldhouwers’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 31 (1940), 185–203. Rynkiewicz-Domino 2005: Wiesława RynkiewiczDomino, ‘Bauwesen und Kunsthandwerk in Elbing von der Mitte des 16. Jahrhundert bis etwa 1772’, in: S. Beckmann et al. (eds.), Kulturgeschichte Preußens königlich polnischen Anteils in der Frühen Neuzeit, Tübingen 2005, 637–693. Rzempołuch 1992: Andrzej Rzempołuch, Przewodnik po zabytkach sztuki dawnych Prus Wschodnich, Olsztyn 1992. Saar-Kozłowska 2001: Alicja Saar-Kozłowska, ‘Historia fundacji i rekonstrukcje pomnika grobowego króla Jana III w katedrze w Uppsali. Przyczynek do badan´ nad twórczos´ci a˛ Willema van den Blocka’, in: Andrzej Rottermund (ed.), Stosunki polsko-szwedzkie w epoce nowoz˙ ytnej, Warsaw 2001, 63–106. Saar-Kozłowska 2010: Alicja Saar- Kozłowska, ‘Problem autorstwa wyposaz˙enia architektoniczno – rzez´biarskiego kaplicy Kołudzkich w katedrze w Gniez´nie. Próba rozpoznania cech warsztatu’, Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici, Zabytkoznawstwo i Konserwatorstwo 38 (2010), 15–87.

Saintenoy 1907: Paul Saintenoy, ‘Les architectes flamands dans le Nord de l’Allemagne au xvie siècle’, Académie royale d’archéologie de Belgique, Bulletin 5 (1907), 161–172. Saintenoy 1914–1920: Paul Saintenoy, ‘Schoy, Auguste’, Biographie nationale XXII, Brussels 1914–1920, col. 26–32. Saintenoy 1932, 1934, 1935: Paul Saintenoy, Les arts et les artistes à la Cour de Bruxelles. I. Leur rôle dans la construction du Château Ducal de Brabant sur le Coudenberg de 1120 à 1400 et dans la formation du Parc de Bruxelles. II. Le Palais des Ducs de Bourgogne sur le Coudenberg à Bruxelles du règne d’Antoine de Bourgogne à celui de Charles-Quint. III. Le Palais Royal du Coudenberg du règne d’Albert et Isalbelle à celui d’Albert Ier, Roi des Belges, 3 vols., Brussels 1932, 1934, 1935. Salet 1962: Francis Salet, ‘Le palais Rihour à Lille’, in: Congrès archéologique de France. CXXe session. Flandre, Paris 1962, 175–185. Salet 1996: Francis Salet, ‘Château d’Écouen (Vald’Oise). Cheminée peinte’, Bulletin monumental 154 (1996) 1, 85–86. Sánchez 2011: Magdalena S. Sánchez, ‘¿Recuerdos y afetos? La correspondencia de Isabel Clara Eugenia con el duque de Lerma’, in: van Wyhe 2011, 202–225. van Santen 1989: Bettina [E.C.] van Santen, ‘De groteskendecoratie aan de gevel van het 16de-eeuwse Utrechtse stadhuis’, Jaarboek Oud Utrecht 1989, 58–73. Sartre 1981: Josiane Sartre, Châteaux “brique et pierre” en France. Essai d’architecture, Paris 1981. Sass 1970: Else Kai Sass, ‘Studier i Christiern II’s ikonografi’, in: Festskrift udgivet af Københavns Universitet i anledning af Hans Majestæt Kongens fødselsdag, 11. marts 1970, Copenhagen 1970, 50–76. Sass 1976: Else Kai Sass, ‘À la recherché d’un portrait disparu de Christian II, Roi de Danemark, peint par Albrecht Dürer en 1521’, Hafnia, Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art,1976, 163–184. Saunders 1989: Andrew D. Saunders, Fortress Britain. Artillery fortification in the British Isles and Ireland, Liphook 1989.

Sáenz de Miera & Checa Cremades 2005: Jésus Sáenz de Miera, José Luis Checa Cremades (eds.), El pasatiempos de Jehan Lhermite. Memorias de un Gentilhombre Flamenco en la corte de Felipe II y Felipe III, Madrid 2005.

Saunders 1996: Andrew D. Saunders, ‘Sir Bernard de Gomme: a Dutch military engineer in English service’, in: Vestingbouw overzee. Militaire architectuur van Manhattan tot Korea (Stichting Menno van Coehoorn, Vestingbouwkundige bijdragen IV), Utrecht 1996, 8–17.

Sahner 1948: Wilhelm Sahner, Die Architektur Deutschlands und der Niederlande in ihren Wechselbeziehungen, Gelsenkirchen [1948].

Saunders 1997: Ann L. Saunders, ‘The Building of the Exchange’, in Id. (ed.), The Royal Exchange, London 1997, 36–49.

488

Bibliography Saunders 2004: Andrew D. Saunders, Fortress Builder. Bernard de Gomme, Charles II’s military engineer, Exeter 2004.

Schloss Oranienburg 2001: Schloss Oranienburg. Ein Inventar aus dem Jahre 1743, ed. Stiftung Preußische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg, Berlin 2001.

Savelsberg & Völkel 2000: Wolfgang Savelsberg, Christiane Völkel (eds.), Die Niederlande und Deutschland. Aspekte der Beziehungen zweier europäischer Länder im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Dessau 2000.

Schmid 1995: Wolfgang Schmid, Der Petrusbrunnen auf dem Trierer Hauptmarkt. Ein Werk Hans Ruprecht Hoffmanns von 1595, Trier 1995.

SBL 1918-…: Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, Stockholm 1918-.

Schmid 1999: Wolfgang Schmid, ‘Grabdenkmäler und Kunstpolitik der Erzbischöfe von Trier und Köln im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation’, in: Michael Embach et al. (eds.), Sancta Treveris, Trier 1999, 515–552.

Schachinger 2001: Erika Schachinger, Die Dorotheenstadt 1673–1708. Eine Berliner Vorstadt, Köln 2001.

Schmidt 1999: Georg Schmidt, Der Dreissigjährige Krieg, Munich 41999.

Schäfer 2001: C. Schäfer, ‘Krygsvernuftelingen’. Militäringenieure und Fortification in den Vereinigten Niederlanden, unpublished dissertation, Justus-LiebigUniversität Giessen 2001.

Schmidt 2006: Freek Schmidt, Paleizen voor prinsen en burgers. Architectuur in Nederland in de achttiende eeuw, Zwolle 2006.

Scheicher 1975: Elisabeth Scheicher, ‘Der Spanische Saal von Schloss Ambras’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 71 (1975), 39–94. Scheicher 1986: Elisabeth Scheicher, ‘Das Grabmal Kaiser Maximilians I. in der Hofkirche’, in: Österreichische Kunsttopographie XLVII. Die Kunstdenkmäler der Stadt Innsbruck, die Hofbauten, Wien 1986, 359–426. Schéle 1951: Sune Schéle, ‘Bielkegraven i Linköpings domkyrka – ett verk av Wilhelm von dem Block’, Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 20 (1951), 20–32. Schéle 1958: Sune Schéle, ‘Drottninggravarna i Uppsala domkyrka’, Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 27 (1958), 83–107. Schéle 1965: Sune Schéle, Cornelis Bos. A Study of the Origins of the Netherland Grotesque, Stockholm 1965. Schellekens 1992: Jona Schellekens, ‘Scrolled Gables of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries in the Low Countries’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51 (1992), 430–435. Scheltema 1814: J. Scheltema, Peter de Groote, keizer van Rusland in Holland en te Zaandam in 1697 en 1717, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1814. Schierer 1939: Heinz Schierer, Die Befestigung Berlins zur Zeit des Großen Kurfürsten (Schriften des Vereins für die Geschichte Berlins 57), Berlin 1939. Schillemans 1947: C.A. Schillemans, De houtveilingen van Zaandam in de jaren 1655–1811, The Hague 1947 [also published in: Economisch Historisch Jaarboek 23 (1947), 171–315]. Schimmelman 1999: J.G. Schimmelman, Architectural Books in Early America; Architectural Treatises and Building Handbooks Available in American Libraries and Bookstores through 1800, New Castle DE 1999.

Schneider 2003: Arnd Schneider, ‘On “appropriation”. A critical reappraisal of the concept and its application in global art practices’, Social Anthropology 11 (2003) 2, 215–229. Schneppen 1960: Heinz Schneppen, Niederländische Universitäten und deutsches Geistesleben von der Gründung der Universität Leiden bis ins späte 18. Jahrhundert, Münster 1960. Schönfeld 1999a: Stephan Schönfeld, Der niederländische Einfluß auf den Kirchenbau in Brandenburg und Anhalt im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (European University Studies, Series XXVIII History of Art 346), Frankfurt a.M. etc. 1999. Schönfeld 1999b: Stephan Schönfeld, ‘Zum niederländischen Einfluss auf den Kirchenbau in Brandenburg im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert’, in: Lademacher 1999, 309–320. von Schönherr 1890: D. von Schönherr, ‘Geschichte des Grabmals Kaisers Maximilians I. und die Hofkirche zu Innsbruck’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 11 (1890), 140–268. Scholten 1989a: F.W.J. Scholten, Militaire topografische kaarten en stadsplattegronden van Nederland 1579– 1795, Alphen aan den Rijn 1989. Scholten 1989b: Frits Scholten (ed.), Goudleer Kinkarakawa. De geschiedenis van het Nederlands goudleer en zijn invloed in Japan, Amsterdam / Zwolle 1989. Scholten 1993: Frits Scholten, ‘De Nederlandse handel in Italiaans marmer in de 17de eeuw’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 44 (1993), 197–214. Scholten 2003: Frits Scholten, Sumptuous Memories. Studies in seventeenth-century Dutch tomb sculpture, Zwolle 2003.

489

Bibliography Scholten 2007: Frits Scholten, ‘Spiriti veramente divini: Sculptors from the Low Countries in Italy, 1500– 1600’, in: Alexander-Skipnes 2007, 225–238. Schonert 1937: Erich Schonert, Schloß Schönhausen und seine Geschichte, Berlin 1937. Schoy 1872: Auguste Schoy, ‘Cérémonies publiques célébrées aux Pays-Bas du xvie au xviiie siècle’, Journal des Beaux-Arts et de la littérature. Peinture, Sculpture, Gravure, Architecture, Musique, Archéologie, Bibliographie, Belles-Lettres, etc. 14 (1872), 104–105.

Schwarz Lausten 1991: Martin Schwarz Lausten, ‘Københavns Universitet i middelalderen 1479–ca. 1530’, in: Svend Ellehøj, Leif Grane et al. (eds.), Københavns Universitet 1479–1979, I, Copenhagen 1991, 1–77. Schwindrazheim 1937: Hildamarie Schwindrazheim, ‘Eine Porträtsammlung Wilhelms IV. von Hessen und der “Güldene Saal”’, Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 10 (1937), 263–306. Scocozza 1992: Benito Scocozza, Kongen og købekonen. Om Christian 2. og Mor Sigbrit, Copenhagen 1992.

Schoy 1878: Auguste Schoy, ‘Architecture – matériaux de construction. Façade nationale belge’, in: Edmond Frederix (ed.), La Belgique à l’exposition universelle de 1878, Brussels etc. 1878, 237–268.

Seidel 1890: Paul Seidel, ‘Die Beziehungen des Großen Kurfürsten und König Friedrichs i. zur niederländischen Kunst’, Jahrbuch der Preußischen Kunstsammlungen 11 (1890), 119–143.

Schoy 1879: Auguste Schoy, Histoire de l’influence italienne sur l’architecture dans les Pays-Bas (Mémoires couronnés et mémoires des savants étrangers publiés par l’Académie Royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, series in-quarto, 39), Brussels 1879.

Sello 1888: Georg Sello, Potsdam und Sans-souci. Forschungen und Quellen zur Geschichte von Burg, Stadt und Park, Breslau 1888.

Schreiner 1934: Johan Schreiner, ‘Die Niederländer und die norwegische Holzausfuhr im 17. Jahrhundert’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 49 (1934), 303–328.

Severinsen 1932–48: Peder Severinsen (ed.), Skrifter of Paulus Helie, 7 vols., Copenhagen 1932–1948. Sicking et al. 2004: Louis Sicking, Harry de Bles, Erlend des Bouvrie (eds.), Dutch Light in the “Norwegian Night”. Maritime Relations and Migrations across the North Sea in Early Modern Times, Hilversum 2004.

Schreurs 1999: Eugeen Schreurs, ‘Petrus Alamire: Music Calligrapher, Musician, Composer, Spy’, in: Herbert Kellman (ed.), The Treasury of Petrus Alamire. Music and Art in Flemish Court Manuscripts 1500–1535, Ghent/Amsterdam 1999, 15–27.

Sierksma 2002: Rypke Sierksma, ‘Puriteinse tuinpret’, in: van Geest & Sierksma 2002, 45–78.

Schroedter 2001: Beate Schroedter, ‘Oranienburg. Die wechselvolle Geschichte der Orangerie im Schlosspark’, Brandenburgische Denkmalpflege 10 (2001) 1, 70–82.

Silva Maroto 2004: Pilar Silva Maroto, ‘La colección de pinturas de Isabel la Católica’, in: Checa Cremades 2004, 115–126.

Schütte 1984: Ulrich Schütte, Architekt und Ingenieur. Baumeister in Krieg und Frieden, Wolfenbüttel 1984. Schütz 1992: Karl Schütz, ‘Massimiliano e l’arte’, in: Exh. cat. Innsbruck 1992, 143–169. Schukmann & Luijten 1997: Christiaan Schuckman, Ger Luijten, The New Hollstein Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engavings and Woodcuts 1450–1700: Gerard van Groeningen I, Rotterdam 1997. Schumacher 1902: Bruno Schumacher, Niederländische Ansiedlungen im Herzogtum Preussen zur Zeit Herzog Albrechts (1525–1568), unpublished dissertation, Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg 1902. Schumacher et al. 1993: Horst Schumacher et al., Die Potsdamer Kulturlandschaft. Eine Untersuchung des historisch-kulturellen Landschaftpotentials (Arbeitshefte des Brandenburgischen Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege 2), Potsdam 1993. Schurig & Sommer 1998: Gerd Schurig, Claudia Sommer, Schloß und Park Caputh, Potsdam 1998.

490

Sievers 1969: Johannes Sievers, Schloß Glienicke, Berlin 1969.

Silva Santa-Cruz 2004: Noelia Silva Santa-Cruz, ‘Maurofilia y mudejarismo en época de Isabel la Católica’, in: Exh. cat. Medina del Campo/Madrigal de las Altas Torres 2004, 141–154. Simson 1900: Paul Simson, Der Artushof in Danzig und seine Brüderschaften, die Banken, Gdan´sk 1900 (reprint Aalen 1969). Simson 1918: Paul Simson, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig, vol. 2, Von 1517 bis 1626, Gdan´sk 1918. Skibin´ ski 2010: Franciszek Skibin´ski, ‘Warsztat Willema van den Blocke w s´wietle akt gdan´skiego cechu murarzy, kamieniarzy I rzez´biarzy’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 72 (2010), 85–92. Skibin´ ski 2012a: Franciszek Skibin´ski, ‘Early Modern Netherlandish Sculptors in Central Europe. A study in dissemination through interrelation and workshop practice’, in: Dulcia Meijers, Frits Scholten, Joanna Woodall (eds.), Artists on the Move. Migrating artists from the Low Countries, 1400–1750. Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art / Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 63 (2012).

Bibliography Skibin´ ski 2012b: Franciszek Skibin´ski, ‘Kilka uwag o Hansie Strakowskim, Simonie Herle i architekturze gdan´skiej przełomu XVI i XVII w.’, Porta Aurea 11 (2012), 121–132. Skibin´ ski 2013: Franciszek Skibin´ski, Willem van den Blocke. Netherlandish sculptor in the Baltic region, unpublished dissertation, Utrecht University 2013. Skovgaard 1973: Joakim A. Skovgaard, A King’s Architecture. Christian IV and his buildings, London 1973. Slothouwer 1924: Dirk Frederik Slothouwer, Bouwkunst der Nederlandsche Renaissance in Denemarken, Amsterdam 1924. Smed 1990: Mette Smed, ‘Vor Frelsers Kirke på Christianshavn: Til ære for Gud og Christian den femte’, in: Hugo Johannsen (ed.), Synligt og Usynligt. Studier tilegnede Otto Norn, Herning 1990, 201–215. Smets 1976: Irene Smets, Het beeld van de Zuidelijke Nederlanden in reisverhalen uit de periode 1681– 1745, unpublished master thesis, University of Leuven 1976. Smolar-Meynart 1998: Arlette Smolar-Meynart, ‘Un palais dominant le centre urbain, le Coudenberg (xiie-xviie siècles)’, in: Arlette Smolar-Meynart, André Vanrie (eds.), Le quartier royal, Brussels 1998, 15–41. Smolar-Meynart 1999: Arlette Smolar-Meynart, ‘De grands travaux dans un contexte politique difficile (1452–1459). La “Aula Magna” du palais de Philippe le Bon édifiée par la ville de Bruxelles’, in: PierrePaul Bonenfant, Pierre Cockshaw (eds.), Mélanges offert à Claire Dickstein-Bernard, Annales de la Société royale d’archéologie de Bruxelles 63 (1999), 377–397. Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991: Arlette Smolar-Meynart, André Vanrie (eds.), Het paleis te Brussel. Vijf eeuwen kunst en geschiedenis, Brussels 1991. French edition: Le Palais de Bruxelles. Huit siècles d’art et d’histoire, Brussels 1991. Snaet 2002: Joris Snaet, ‘Case Study. Rubens’s “Palazzi di Genova” and the Jesuit Churches of Antwerp and Brussels’, in: Lombaerde 2002, 161–182. Snaet 2007: Joris Snaet, ‘For the greater glory of God. Religious architecture in the Low Countries 1560– 1700’, in: De Jonge & Ottenheym 2007, 251–298. Snaet 2011: Joris Snaet, ‘La archiduquesa Isabel y el monasterio de los capuchinos de Tervuren’, in: van Wyhe 2011, 358–381.

Soenke et al. 1974: Jürgen Soenke, Johan van Rijswijck, Johan van Valckenburgh, ‘Die Befestigung deutscher Städte und Residenzen 1600–1625 durch holländische Ingenieuroffiziere’, Mitteilungen des Mindener Geschichtsvereins 46 (1974), 7–39. Sogner 1996: Sølvi Sogner, ‘Popular contacts between Norway and The Netherlands in the Early Modern Period’, in: Roding & Heerma van Voss 1996, 185–198. Sogner 2004: Sølvi Sogner, ‘Norwegian-Dutch Migrant Relations in the Seventeenth Century’, in: Sicking et al. 2004, 43–56. Soly 1977: Hugo Soly, Urbanisme en kapitalisme te Antwerpen in de 16de eeuw. De stedebouw­kundige en industriële ondernemingen van Gilbert van Schoonbeke, Brussels 1977. Sommer 1993: Claudia Sommer, ‘Das kurfürstlichkönigliche Stadtschloss in Potsdam 1660–1713’, in: Exh. cat. Potsdam 1993, 13–19. Sorgeloos 1991: Claude Sorgeloos, ‘Les sources imprimées de la “Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi”’, in: Jodoigne 1991, 37–98. Spa-ri-tis 2006: Oja-rs Spa-rı-tis, ‘The architect Joris Joriszn Frese’, in: Brand et al. 2006, 173–176. Spatz 1912: Willy Spatz, Der Teltow. 3. Teil. Geschichte der Ortschaften des Kreises Teltow, Berlin 1912. Spicer 2007: Andrew Spicer, Calvinist churches in early modern Europe, Manchester/New York 2007. Spiteri 2001: Stephen Spiteri, Fortresses of the Knights, Malta 2001. Staring 1944: A. Staring, ‘Aanteekeningen op de Hollandsche beeldhouwwerken van J. P. Van Baurscheit, vader en zoon’, Oudheidkundig jaarboek 1944, 40–49. Steenberg 1950: Jan Steenberg, Frederiksborg, Hillerød 1950.

Christian

IVs

Stallaert 1890: Karel Stallaert, Glossarium van verouderde rechtstermen, kunstwoorden en andere uitdrukkingen uit Vlaamsche, Brabantsche en Limburgsche oorkonden, vol. 2, Leiden 1890. Stechow 1887: R. Stechow, Geschichte der Dorotheenstädtische Kirche und Gemeinde. Zur Feier des 200jährigen Kirchen-Jubiläums, Berlin 1887. Steinborn 1996: Bozena Steinborn, ‘Izaak van den Blocke’, in: Jane Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art 4, London/New York 1996, 147–148.

Sneep 1982: J. Sneep, ‘Menno baron van Coehoorn’, in: Sneep et al. 1982, 53–57.

Stenvert 1996: Ronald Stenvert, ‘Conveyed by land, returned by ship; mannerism and sandstone’, in: Roding & Heerma van Voss 1996, 420–434.

Sneep et al. 1982: J. Sneep, H. A. Treu, M. Tydeman (eds.), Vesting. Vier eeuwen vestingbouw in Nederland, The Hague 1982.

Sterk 1980: J.J.B.M.M. Sterk, Philips van Bourgondië (1465–1524), bisschop van Utrecht als protagonist van de Renaissance, zijn leven en maecenaat, Zutphen 1980.

491

Bibliography Stevin 1634: Simon Stevin, Les oeuvres mathématiques de Simon Stevin revue, corrigée et augmenté, par Gerard, Leiden 1634.

Sulewska 2004: Renata Sulewska, Dłutem wycie˛te. Snycerstwo północnych ziem Polski w czasach Zygmunta III Wazy, Warsaw 2004.

Stewart 1995: M.C.H. Stewart, ‘Anna Duchess of Buccleuch and Monmouth, and the concept of Dalkeith Palace’, in: Dunbar et al. 1995, 6–9.

Summerson 1966: John Summerson, The Book of Architecture of John Thorpe in Sir John Soane’s Museum (Walpole Society XL), 1966.

Stiennon 1978: Jacques Stiennon, ‘La contribution wallonne à l’art français’, in: Lejeune & Stiennon 1977–1979, vol. 2, Brussels 1978, 289–298.

Szmydki 2008: Ryszard Szmydki, Artystyczno – dyplomatyczne kontakty Zygmunta III z Niderlandami Południowymi, Lublin 2008.

Stoesser Johnston 2000: Allison Stoesser Johnston, ‘Robert Hooke and Holland’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 99 (2000), 121–137.

Tacke 1990: Andreas Tacke, ‘Michael Matthias Smidts Domkornhäuser. Zu einem baugeschichtlichen Detail des Berliner Stadtschlosses unter dem Großen Kurfürsten’, Berlin in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Jahrbuch des Landesarchivs Berlin (1990), 7–16.

Stoesser Johnston 2003: Allison Stoesser Johnston, ‘The influence of Dutch classicist architects on the works of Robert Hooke, scientist and architect’, in: Roding et al. 2003, 189–206. Stols 1987: Eddy Stols, ‘De Oostenrijkse Nederlanden in de kijker van de buitenlanders’, in: Hervé Hasquin (ed.), Oostenrijks België 1713–1794: de Zuidelijke Nederlanden onder de Oostenrijkse Habsburgers, Brussels 1987, 505–532. Stols & Bleys 1993: Eddy Stols, Rudi Bleys, Vlaanderen en Latijns-Amerika: 500 jaar confrontatie en métissage (Flandria extra muros), Antwerp 1993. Streetz 1998: Michael Streetz, ‘Das Fürstentum Calenberg-Göttingen (1495/1512–1584)’, Nieder­ sächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 70 (1998), 192–235. Streetz 1999: Michael Streetz, ‘“Die unterste Gallerey vor den andern und dritten Flügel” – über den verlorenen Arkadenhof des Renaissance-Schlosses Hannoversch Münden’, in: Marion Ackermann (ed.), Kunst und Geschichte – Festschrift für Karl Arndt zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Munich 1999, 105–129. Streetz 2004: Michael Streetz, Das Renaissanceschloß Hannoversch Münden in den Inventaren des 16, 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, eine Fallstudie zur Auswertung schriftlicher Quellen und ihrer Verbindung mit Ergebnisse der Bauforschung, Frankfurt a.M. 2004. Streidt & Feierabend 1999: Gert Streidt, Peter Feierabend (eds.), Preußen. Kunst und Architektur, Köln 1999. van Strien 1993: Kees van Strien, British Travellers in Holland during the Stuart Period, Leiden 1993. van Strien-Chardonneau 1992: Madeleine Marie Gilberte van Strien-Chardonneau, “Le voyage de Hollande”. Recits de voyageurs français dans les Provinces-Unies 1748–1795, unpublished dissertation, University of Groningen 1992. Stynen 1998: Herman Stynen, De onvoltooid verleden tijd. Een geschiedenis van de monumenten- en landschapszorg in België 1835–1940, Brussels 1998.

492

Tafuri 1988: Manfredo Tafuri, ‘Il palazzo di Carlo V a Granada: architettura “a lo romano” e iconografia imperiale’, El siglo de oro. Architettura spagnola del ‘500, Ricerche di Storia dell’arte 32 (1988), 4–26. Tafuri 1992: Manfredo Tafuri, Ricerca del Rinascimento. Principi, città, architetti, Turin 1992. Taverne 1978: Ed Taverne, In ‘t land van belofte: in de nieue stadt. Ideaal en werkelijkheid van de stadsuitleg in de Republiek 1580–1680, Maarssen 1978. Taverne 1979: Ed Taverne, ‘Henrick Ruse und die “Verstärkte Festung” von Kalkar’, in: de Werd 1979, 151–158. Techen 1919: Friedrich Techen, ‘Die Wismarche Wasserkunst und Meister Heinrich Dammert’, Mitteilungen des Vereins für Lübeckische Geschichte und Altertumskunde (1919), 60–67. Temminck Groll 2002: C.L. Temminck Groll, W. van Alphen, The Dutch Overseas. An architectural survey of the mutual heritage of four centuries in three continents, Zwolle 2002. Temple 1922 (1682): William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands 1682 (ed. Oxford 1922). Terttu Knapas 1999: Marja Terttu Knapas, ‘Sepulchral monuments in Finland attributed to the workshop of Arent Passer’, in: Kodres et al. 1999, 81–93. Terwen 1979a: Jan J. Terwen, ‘The buildings of Johan Maurits’, in: Ernst van den Boogaart et al. (eds.), Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen 1604–1679. A Humanist Prince in Europe and Brazil, The Hague 1979, 54–141. Terwen 1979b: Jan J. Terwen, ‘Johann Moritz und die Architektur’, in: de Werd 1979, 127–142. Terwen & Ottenheym 1993: Jan J. Terwen, Konrad Ottenheym, Pieter Post (1608–1669). Architect, Zutphen 1993. Theuerkauff 1981: Christian Theuerkauff, Die Brandenburgisch-Preußischen Kunstkammer. Eine Auswahl aus den alten Beständen, Berlin 1981.

Bibliography Theunisz 1943: Johan Theunisz, De Nederlandse Oostkolonisatie. Meer in het bizonder die in Brandenburg in de 17e eeuw tijdens de regering van den Groten Keurvorst, Amsterdam 1943.

Timber and Trade 1999: Timber and Trade. Articles on the timber export from the Ryfylke-area to Scotland and Holland in the 16th and 17th century (Fagrapport 1), Aksdal 1999.

Thieme-Becker 1908–1950: Ulrich Thieme, Felix Becker (eds.), Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, 37 vols., Leipzig 1908–1950.

Timmer 1997: Han Timmer, Henri Evers 1855–1929. Architect, geschiedschrijver, hoogleraar (BONAS Bibliografieën en oeuvrelijsten van Nederlandse architecten en stedenbouwkundigen), Rotterdam 1997.

Thies 1997: Harmen Thies, Das Juleum Novum – Paul Francke (Beiträge zur Geschichte des Landkreises und der ehemaligen Universität Helmstedt 9), Helmstedt 1997. Thijssen 1992: Lucia Thijssen, 1000 jaar Polen en Nederland, Zutphen 1992. Thøfner 2007: Margit Thøfner, A Common Art: Urban Ceremonial in Antwerp and Brussels during and after the Dutch Revolt, Zwolle 2007. Thomas 2010: Werner Thomas, ‘La fiesta como estrategia de pacificación de los Países Bajos meridionales (1598–1621)’, in: García García et al. 2010, 267–303. Thomas 2004: Werner Thomas (ed.), De val van het nieuwe Troje. Het beleg van Oostende 1601–1604, Leuven/Ostend 2004. Thomas & Duerloo 1998: Werner Thomas, Luc Duerloo (eds.), Albert & Isabella 1598–1621. Essays, Turnhout 1998. Thomassen 1965: O. Thomassen, ‘Quartieri residenziali storici di Copenhagen’, Urbanistica 43 (1965), 36–39. Thomson 1993: David Thomson, Renaissance architecture. Critics, Patrons, Luxury, Manchester/ New York 1993. Thorlacius-Ussing 1926: Viggo Thorlacius-Ussing, Billedhuggeren Thomas Quellinus, Copenhagen 1926. Thurley 1993: Simon Thurley, The Royal Palaces of Tudor England: Architecture and Court Life 1460– 1547, New Haven/London 1993. Thurley 2009: Simon Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace: an incident in Anglo-Dutch architectural collaboration?’, The Georgian Group Journal 17 (2009), 1–18. van Tielhof 1995: Milja van Tielhof, De Hollandse graanhandel 1470–1570. Koren op de Amsterdamse molen, The Hague 1995. van Tielhof 1999: Milja van Tielhof, ‘De handel op de Oostzee. Een unieke momentopname van het bedrijfsleven’, Holland 31 (1999), 261–271. Tijs 1993: Rutger Tijs, ‘Antwerpen als invoerhaven en draaischijf van renaissance-ideeën’, in: Ed Taverne, Irmin Visser (eds.), Stedebouw. De geschiedenis van de stad in de Nederlanden van 1500 tot heden, Nijmegen/Heerlen 1993, 93–102.

Timmers 1952: J.J.M. Timmers, Atlas van de Nederlandse Beschaving, Amsterdam/Brussels 1952. Tønnes 1997: Rikke Tønnes, Stephen Hansens Palae: bygherren: arkitekten Philip de Lange: liveti og omkring et helsingørsk handelshus, Copenhagen 1997. Tønnesen 1985: Allan Tønnesen, Helsingørs udenlandske borgere og indbyggere ca. 1550–1600 (Dansk Komité for Byhistorie: Byhistoriske Skrifter 3), Ringe 1985. Tønnesen 2003: Allan Tønnesen, ‘Al het Hollandse volk dat hier nu woont’. Nederlanders in Helsingør circa 1550–1600 (Zeven Provinciënreeks 21), Hilversum 2003. Tönnesmann 2005: Andreas Tönnesmann, ‘Reisen und Bauen. Mobilität und kulturelle Aneignung in der Architektur der Renaissance’, in: Rainer Babel, Werner Paravicini (eds.), Grand Tour. Adeliges Reisen und europäische Kultur vom 14. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Beihefte der Francia 60), Stuttgart 2005, 499–512. Tossavainen 1994: Jouko Tossavainen, Dutch Forest Products’ Trade in the Baltic from the Late Middle Ages until the Peace of Munster in 1648, Jyväskylä 1994. Tourneur 2007: Francis Tourneur, ‘Le marbre wallon à travers les tourmentes de la Révolution rançaise. L’industrie marbrière wallonne au tournant des xviiie et xixe siècles’, in: Carpeaux 2007, 409–416. Tournoy & Oosterbosch 2002: Gilbert Tournoy, Michel Oosterbosch, ‘The library of Pieter Gillis’, in: Rudolf De Smet (ed.), Les humanistes et leur bibliothèque. Humanists and their Libraries (Travaux de l’Institut Interuniversitaire pour l’Etude de la Renaissance et de l’Humanisme XIII), Leuven etc. 2002, 143–158. Trebbin 1938: Hermann Trebbin, ‘Der FriedrichWilhelms-Kanal’, Brandenburgische Jahrbücher 11 (1938), 27–42. Treu 1982: H.A. Treu, ‘Coehoorn – brieven en bevelen’, in: Sneep et al. 1982, 58–65. Trumpy 1991: Inger Trumpy, Nederlandske husaltertavler med alabastrelieffer fra 2. halvdel af 1500-tallet i Danmark, unpublished master thesis, Copenhagen University 1991.

493

Bibliography Turcan 1997: Robert Turcan, ‘Sur une cheminée peinte du château d’Écouen (Val-d’Oise)’, Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 141 (1997) 2, 465–473. Turk Christensen 2003: Stephen Turk Christensen, ‘Introduction’, in: Id. (ed.), ‘Cultural Traffic and Cultural Transformation around the Baltic Sea, 1450– 1720’, Scandinavian Journal of History 28 (2003) 3–4, 151–283. van Tussenbroek 2000: Gabri van Tussenbroek, ‘Alle Wege führen nach Brandenburg. Niederländisches Bauen in Brandenburg in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts’, Brandenburgische Denkmalpflege (2000) 1, 4–17. van Tussenbroek 2001: Gabri van Tussenbroek, ‘Belgisch marmer in de Zuidelijke en Noordelijke Nederlanden (1500–1700)’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 100 (2001), 49–71. van Tussenbroek 2004: Gabri van Tussenbroek, ‘Michiel Matthijsz. Smids (Rotterdam 1626 – Berlijn 1692). Keurvorstelijk bouwmeester in Brandenburg’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 103 (2004) 1–2, 23–48. van Tussenbroek 2006a: Gabri van Tussenbroek, Grachten in Berlijn. Hollandse bouwers in de Gouden Eeuw, Amsterdam 2006. van Tussenbroek 2006b: Gabri van Tussenbroek, The Architectural Network of the Van Neurenberg Family in the Low Countries (1480–1640) (Architectura Moderna 4), Turnhout 2006. van Tussenbroek 2007: Gabri van Tussenbroek, ‘Joost Janszoon Bilhamer (1521–1590). Landmeter en ingenieur, aannemer en beeldhouwer’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 99 (2007), 42–79. van Tussenbroek 2009: Gabri van Tussenbroek, ‘Dendrochronologisch onderzoek in Amsterdam (1490–1790). Bouwhout als materiële bron’, Stadsgeschiedenis 4 (2009) 2, 135–165. Tylicki 1993: Jacek Tylicki, ‘Niederländisches in der polnischen Kunst (Niderlandyzm w stuce Polskiej)’, Kunstchronik 46 (1993) 6, 283–289. Tylicki 1997a: Jacek Tylicki, ‘Meer, van der, czyli Barth‘, Słownik Biograficzny Pomorza Nadwis´lan´ skiego, vol. 3, Gdan´sk 1997, 180–185. Tylicki 1997b: Jacek Tylicki, ‘Obraz “Alegoria cnoty małz˙en´skiej”. Klucz do drugiego oblicza sztuki Hermana Hana’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 59 (1997), 38–59. Tylicki 2000: Jacek Tylicki, Bartłomiej Strobel. Malarz epoki wojny trzydziestoletniej, 2 vols., Torun´ 2000.

494

Tylicki 2005: Jacek Tylicki, Rysunek gdan´ski ostatniej c´wierci XVI i pierwszej połowy XVII wieku, Torun´ 2005. Tylicki 2009a: Jacek Tylicki, ‘Herman Han. Holender z Gdan´ska’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 71 (2009), 201–204. Tylicki 2009b: Jacek Tylicki, ‘Niderlandzkie korzenie rodziny van den Blocke’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 71 (2009), 191–200. Ugglas 1916: C.R. Ugglas, ‘Ett par portaler i staden inom broarna och Aris Claesz från Haarlem’, St. Eriks årsbok (1916), 123–173. Uhlemann 1994: Hans-Joachim Uhlemann, Berlin und die Märkischen Wasserstraßen, Hamburg 1994. Uhlenbeck 1891: C.C. Uhlenbeck, Verslag aangaande een onderzoek in de archieven van Rusland ten bate der Nederlandsche geschiedenis, The Hague 1891. Unnerbäck 1986: Eyvind Unnerbäck, Vadstena slott 1550–1563, Stockholm 1986. Unnerbäck 1996: Eyvind Unnerbäck, Vadstena slott. Från befästning till renässanspalats 1563–1620, (Kungl. Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitetsakademiens handlingar, Antikvariska serien 39), Stockholm 1996. Unnerbäck 1971: Eyvind Unnerbäck, Welsche Giebel. Ein italienisches Renaissancemotiv und seine Verbreitung in Mittel- und Nordeuropa (Antikvariskt Arkiv 42), Stockholm 1971. Upmark 1900: Gustav Upmark, ‘Ein Besuch in Holland 1687, aus den Reiseschilderungen des Schwedischen Architekten Nicodemus Tessin d.J.’, Oud Holland 18 (1900), 117–128, 144–152, 199–210. Uppenkamp 1993: Barbara Uppenkamp, ‘Roll- und Beschlagwerk in der “Weserrenaissance”’, in: Petra Krutisch, G. Ulrich Großmann (eds.), Baudekoration als Bildungsanspruch, Marburg 1993, 9–119. Uppenkamp 2001: Barbara Uppenkamp, ‘Der Einfluss von Hans Vredeman de Vries auf Architektur und Kunstgewerbe’, in: Exh. cat. Lemgo 2001, 91–104. Uppenkamp 2002: Barbara Uppenkamp, ‘Ein Inventar von Schloß Wolfenbüttel aus der Zeit des Herzogs Julius von Braunschweig und Lüneburg’, in: Borggrefe & Uppenkamp 2002, 69–107. Uppenkamp 2005: Barbara Uppenkamp, ‘The influence of Hans Vredeman de Vries on the cityscape constructed like a picture,’ in: Lombaerde 2005a, 117–137. Uppenkamp 2010: Barbara Uppenkamp, ‘The Academia Julia in Helmstedt as a model university building in Germany around 1600’, in: Ottenheym et al. 2010, 343–360.

Bibliography Urrea 1999: Jesús Urrea, ‘La plaza de San Pablo escenario de la corte’, in: Congreso Internacional Valladolid, historia de una ciudad. I: La ciudad y el arte, Valladolid 1999, 27–41. Vacková 1979: Jarmila Vacková, ‘The imperial Room in the castle at Bucˇ ovice in Moravia. Some remarks on the origin and the meaning of its decoration’, Jaarboek van het Koninklijke Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1979), 227–247. Vaernewijck 1872 (1566–1568): Marcus van Vaernewijck, Van de beroerlicke tijden in die Nederlanden en voornamelijk in Ghendt 1566–1568, ed. Ferdinand Vanderhaeghen, vol. 1, Ghent 1872. Van Damme 1964: R. Van Damme, De Zuidnederlander in reisverhalen in de tweede helft van de achttiende eeuw (1748–1795), unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leuven 1964. Vandendaele 1980: Richard Vandendaele (ed.), Poelaert en zijn tijd, Brussels 1980. Vanderjagt 2003: Arjo Vanderjagt, ‘The Princely Culture of the Valois Dukes of Burgundy’, in: Martin Gosman, Alasdair MacDonald, Arjo Vanderjagt (eds.), Princes and Princely Culture 1450–1650, vol. 1 (Brill’s studies in intellectual history 118/1), Leiden 2003, 51–79. Van der Wee 1963: Herman Van der Wee, The Growth of the Antwerp Market, 3 vols., The Hague 1963. Van de Velde 1996: Carl Van de Velde, ‘De tekeningen’, in: Huysmans et al. 1996, 17–35. Van de Velde et al. 2005: Carl Van de Velde et al. (eds.), Constructing Wooden Images. Proceed­ings of the symposium on the organization of labour and working practices of late Gothic carved altarpieces in the Low Countries, Brussels 25–26 October 2002, Brussels 2005.

d’architecture en français. Etienne-Louis Boullée l’utopie et la poésie de l’art, Paris 2006, 98–108. Van de Vijver 2007: Dirk Van de Vijver, ‘Jean-François de Neufforge: architecte-graveur liégeois à Paris’, in: Carpeaux 2007, 301–321. Van de Vijver 2011: Dirk Van de Vijver, ‘Claiming Danish Renaissance. The historiography of the architectural relations between the Low Countries and the Balticum/Denmark’, in: Andersen et al. 2011, 347–359. Van de Vyver 1975: Omer Van de Vyver, Jan Ciermans (Pascasio Cosmander) 1602–1648, wiskundige en vestingbouwer (Mededelingen uit het Seminarie voor Geschiedenis van de Wiskunde en de Natuurwetenschappen aan de Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven), Leuven 1975. Van de Vyver 1977: Omer Van de Vyver, ‘Ciermans (Cosmander), Jan, wiskundige en militair ingenieur’, Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek VII, Brussels 1977, col. 138–148. Van Doorslaer 1923: Georges Van Doorslaer, ‘Antoine van Oberghen, grand architecte Malinois’, Mechlinia 2 (1923), 164–167. Van Driessche 1978: Roger Van Driessche, ‘De Bouwkunst [van de Nieuwe Tijd]’, in: Duverger 1978, 262–291. Van Driessche 1990: R.A.C. Van Driessche, ‘Het Mausoleum van Isabella van Oostenrijk (+1526) in de Gentse Sint-Pieters Abdijkerk’, Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent 44 (1990), 125–38. Van Even 1874: Edouard Van Even, Renseignements inédits sur la construction du refuge de l’abbaye de Herkenrode, à Hasselt (1542–1545), s.l. 1874.

Van de Vijver 2001: Dirk Van de Vijver, Le Choix des monumens… de Pierre-Jacques Goetghebuer. Une histoire de l’architecture nationale du royaume des Pays-Bas, Brussels 2001.

Van Hal 2010: Toon Van Hal, ‘Moedertalen en taalmoeders’. Het vroegmoderne taalvergelijkende onderzoek in de Lage Landen (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, nieuwe reeks), Brussels 2010.

Van de Vijver 2005: Dirk Van de Vijver, ‘Een prototypon seu schema van Hendrik Frans Verbrugghen’, in: Coppens et al. 2005, 59–61.

Van Haute 2000: Bernadette Van Haute, David III Ryckaert. A seventeenth-century Flemish painter of peasant scenes, Turnhout 2000.

Van de Vijver 2006a: Dirk Van de Vijver, ‘L’étude de la science architecturale. Formation d’un gentilhomme architecte russe en Brabant et en Hollande (1718– 1727)’, Cahiers du Monde russe 47 (2006) 3, 515–550.

Van Hoofstat 2005: Leen Van Hoofstat, De bouwmeester Hanequin de Bruselas (eind veertiende eeuw – ca. 1472) te Toledo: een onderzoek naar het ware Brabantse karakter van zijn ‘Spaans-Vlaamse’ stijl, unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leuven 2005.

Van de Vijver 2006b: Dirk Van de Vijver, ‘Les relations franco-belges dans les publications d’architecture au siècle des Lumières’, in: Daniel Rabreau, Dominique Massounie (eds.), Claude Nicolas Ledoux et le livre

Van Impe 2008: Ellen Van Impe, Architectural Historiography in Belgium 1830–1914, dissertation, University of Leuven 2008.

495

Bibliography Van Langendonck 2002: Linda Van Langendonck, ‘Het Karbonkelhuis van kannunik Willem Heda. Een renaissance primavera op de Groenplaats in Antwerpen (1520–1522)’, in: Stefaan Grieten (ed.), Vreemd gebouwd. Westerse en niet-Westerse elementen in onze architectuur, Turnhout 2002, 93–112. Van Lokeren 1841: Aguste Van Lokeren, ‘La cour du Prince à Gand, 1231–1835’, Messager des sciences historiques de Belgique (1841), 36–52. Van Miegroet 2001: Hans Van Miegroet, ‘Modern, Antique, and Novelty Antique in 1517’, in: Joost Vander Auwera (ed.), Liber Amicorum Raphaël De Smedt. 2. Artium Historia (Miscellanea Neerlandica XXIV), Leuven 2001, 153–172.

Veress 1918: Andre Veress (ed.) Rationes Curiae Stephani Bathory Regis Poloniae, Monumenta Hungarorum in Polonia, I, Fontes Rerum Hungarorum, III, Budapest 1918. Vermeulen 1928–1941: Frans André Jozef Vermeulen, Handboek tot de Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Bouwkust, 3 vols., The Hague 1928–1941. Vermeylen 2000: Filip Vermeylen, ‘Exporting art accross the globe: the Antwerp art market in the sixteenth century’, in: Reindert Falkenburg et al. (eds.), Kunst voor de markt, 1500–1700/Art for the market, 1500– 1700 (Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50), Zwolle 2000, 13–30.

Van Sprang 2010: Sabine Van Sprang, ‘Voyez notre belle capacité à gouverner. Sobre las Fiestas del papagayo de 1615 en Bruselas en honor de la infanta Isabel’, in: García García et al. 2010, 305–321.

Verpoest 2002: Luc Verpoest, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries en de Belgische architectuur in de negentiende eeuw: architectuurgeschiedschrijv­ ing en nationale identiteit’, in: Exh. cat. Antwerp 2002, 375–381.

Van Vlierden 1991: Christine Van Vlierden, ‘Sculpture [The 16th century]’, in: Herman Liebaers et al. (eds.), Flemish Art From the Beginning till Now, Antwerp 1991, 241–253.

Viersen 2008: André Viersen, ‘De vloerconstructie van de Grote Zaal van Kasteel Amerongen’, in: Koldeweij 2008, 116–125.

van Veen 1939: Johan van Veen, ‘Inpolderingen in vroegere eeuwen door Nederlanders in het buitenland’, De Ingenieur 22 (1939), 215–219. Veldman 1986: Ilja M. Veldman, Leerrijke reeksen van Maarten van Heemskerck, The Hague 1986. Veldman 1993a: Ilja M. Veldman, ‘Keulen als toevluchtsoord voor Nederlandse kunstenaars, 1567– 1612’, Oud Holland 107 (1993) 1, 34–58. Veldman 1993b: Ilja M. Veldman, ‘Protestant emigrants. Artists from the Netherlands in Cologne, 1567–1612’, in Thomas W. Gaethgens (ed.), Künstlerischer Austausch/Artistic exchange, vol. 1, Berlin 1993, 163–174. Venge 1975: Mikael Venge, Bondekær eller tyran? Tekster til Christian II’s regime, politik og personlighed, Odense 1975. Venge 1979: Mikael Venge, ‘Christian II’, in: Dansk Biografisk Leksikon 3, Copenhagen 1979, 293–297. Venge 1981: Mikael Venge, ‘To studier over problemer fra Christian II’s tid. 2. Relatrix Sibrecht’, Historisk Tidsskrift 81 (1981), 33–68. Venge 1987: Mikael Venge, Fra åretold til toldetat. Middelalderen indtil 1660 (Dansk Skattehistorie 1), Copenhagen 1987. Vennekool 1661–1664: Jakob Vennekool, Afbeelding van ‘t stadt huys van Amsterdam, In dartigh coopere platen, geordineert door Jacob van Campen, en geteeckent door Jacob Vennekool, Amsterdam 1661–1664.

496

Viganò 1994–1999: Marino Viganò, Architetti e ingegneri militari Italiani all’estero dal XV al XVIII secolo, 2 vols., Livorno 1994 and 1999. Vignola 1617: Regola de’ cinque ordini d’architettura=Regel van de vijf ordens der architectuur=Reigle des cinq ordres d’architecture=Regel der funff orden von Architectur=The Rule of the V orders of architecture, di Giacomo Barozzio da Vignola; con la nuova aggionta di Michel-Angelo Buonaroti, Amsterdam 1617. Vingboons 1648: Philips Vingboons, Afbeelsels der voornaemste gebouwen uyt alle die Philips Vingboons geordineert heeft, Amsterdam 1648. Vingboons 1674: Philips Vingboons, Tweede deel van de Afbeeldsels der voornaemste gebouwen uyt alle die Philips Vingboons geordineert heeft, Amsterdam 1674. Vinken 2000: Gerhard Vinken et al. (ed.), Brandenburg. Georg Dehio Handbuch der Deutschen Kunstdenkmäler, Munich 2000. Visscher-Fuchs 1995: Livia Visser-Fuchs, ‘“Il n’a plus lion que lieppart, que voeulle tenir de sa part”: Eduard IV in exile, October 1470 to March 1471’, in: Jean-Marie Cauchies (ed.), L’Angleterre et les pays bourguigons: relations et comparaisons (xve-xvie siècle) (Publications du Centre européen d’études bourguignonnes xive-xvie siècle 35), Neuchâtel 1995, 91–106. Vitruvius (de Laet) 1649: Johannes de Laet, M. Vitrvvii Pollionis De Architectvra Libri Decem; Cum notis, castigationibus & observationibus […] Cum variis

Bibliography indicius copiosissimis; Omnia in unum collecta, digesta & illustrate A Ioanne De Laet, Amsterdam 1649. Vlaardingerbroek 1996: Pieter Vlaardingerbroek, ‘Adriaen Dortsman en Jan Six. Architectuur en interieurs aan de hand van Herengracht 619’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 95 (1996), 149–169. Vlaardingerbroek 2011: Pieter Vlaardingerbroek, Het paleis van de Republiek. Geschiedenis van het stadhuis van Amsterdam, Zwolle/Amersfoort 2011. Vlieghe 1978: Hans Vlieghe, ‘De beeldhouwkunst [van de Nieuwe Tijd]’, in: Duverger 1978, 242–261. Vlieghe et al. 1992: Hans Vlieghe, Guy C. Bauman, Walter A. Liedtke, Flemish paintings in America: a survey of early Netherlandish and Flemish paintings in the public collections of North America (Flandria extra muros), Antwerp 1992. Voigt 1938: Christoph Voigt, ‘Admiral Aernoult Gijssels van Lier’, Brandenburgische Jahrbücher 11 (1938), 85–94. Voigt 1938: Walter Voigt, ‘Der havelberger Seeschiffbau. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der brandenburgischen Guineakompanie’, Brandenburgische Jahrbücher 11 (1938), 43–78. Volkmann 1996: Torsten Volkmann, ‘Gartendenkmalpflege im Schlosspark Oranienburg’, Brandenburgische Denkmal­pflege 5 (1996) 2, 22–30. Voogd 2007: Fanta Voogd, ‘Negen eeuwen Waterbeheer in het buitenland’, De Ingenieur, 9 October 2007, http://www.deingenieur.nl/nl/nieuws/3847/ wereldwaterstaat.html. Voort 1970: H. Voort, ‘Die Holländischen Steinhandelsgesellschaften in der Grafschaft Bentheim’, Overijsselsch Regt en Geschiedenis 85 (1970), 87–106. de Vries 1984: Jan de Vries, European urbanization 1500–1800, London 1984. de Vries 1994: Dirk J. de Vries, Bouwen in de late Middeleeuwen: Stedelijke architectuur in het voormalige Over- en Nedersticht, Utrecht 1994. Wackernagel 1915: Martin Wackernagel, Die Baukunst des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. II. Baukunst des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts in den germanischen Ländern (Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft), Berlin 1915. Waegemans 1998: E. Waegemans, Peter de Grote in de Oostenrijkse Nederlanden, Antwerp 1998. Wagner 2008: Wulf D. Wagner, Das Königsberger Schloss. Eine Bau- und Kulturgeschichte. Band I: Von der Gründung bis zur Regierung Friedrich Wilhelms I., Regensburg 2008.

Walstra & De Wilde 1989: Pauline Walstra, Frank De Wilde, ‘Christoffel Brants, zakenman en vriend van Peter de Grote’, Spiegel Historiael 24 (1989) 6, 259–262. Wanscher 1937: Vilhelm Wanscher, Christian 4.s Bygninger, Copenhagen 1937. Wanscher 1939: Vilhelm Wanscher, Kronborgs Historie, Copenhagen 1939. Wardzyn´ ski 2004: Michał Wardzyn´ski, ‘Zwischen Niederlanden und Polen – Litauen: Danzig als Mittler niederländischer Kunst und Müsterbücher’, in: Krieger & North 2004, 28–39. Wardzyn´ ski 2005: Michał Wardzyn´ski, ‘Foreign Marble and other building Material in Polish Renaissance and Baroque Sculpture during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cetury, in: Jean-Louis Van Belle (ed.), Actes du XIVe Colloque International de Glyptographie de Cardoue, Braine-le-Château 2005, 527–533. Wardzyn´ ski 2006: Michał Wardzyn´ski, ‘Analiza materiałowa zabytków małej architektury i rzez´by kamiennej z XVI i pocza˛tku XVII wieku w Wilnie i Nies´wiez˙u’, in: Sztuka Kresów Wschodnich 6, Kraków 2006, 187–223. Wardzyn´ ski 2007: Michał Wardzyn´ski, ‘The Import and Use of Belgian Marble and Limestone in Small Architecture and Stone Sculpture on Polish Territory from the Middle Ages to the Second Half of Eighteenth century’, in: Jean-Louis Van Belle (ed.), Actes du XVe Colloque International de Glyptographie de Cardoue, Braine-le-Château 2007, 377–421. Wardzyn´ ski 2008: Michał Wardzyn´ski, ‘Marmury i wapnienie południowoniderlandzkie na ziemiach polskich od s´redniowiecza do 2 połowy XVIII wieku. Import i zastosowanie w małej architekturze i rzez´bie kamiennej’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 70 (2008), 307–357. Wardzyn´ski 2009: Michał Wardzyn´ski ‘Mie˛dzy Italia˛ a Niderlandami. s´ rodkowoeuropejskie os´rodki kamieniarsko – rzez´biarskie wobec tradycji nowoz˙ ytnej. Uwagi z dziedziny materiałoznawstwa’, in: Aleksandra Lipin´ska (ed.), Materiał rzez´by. Mie˛dzy technika˛ a semantyka˛, Wrocław 2009, 425–455. Wardzyn´ ski 2010: Michał Wardzyn´ski, ‘Import kamieni i dzieł rzez´by z Gotlandii i Olandii do Rzeczpospolitej (od XIII do 2. połowy XVIII w.)’, Porta Aurea 9 (2010), 45–119. Warnke 1985: Martin Warnke, The Court Artist. On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist (Ideas in Context), Cambridge 1993 (original German edition: Cologne 1985). Waz˙ ny 1990: Tomasz Waz˙ny, Aufbau und Anwendung der Dendrochronologie für Eichenholz in Polen, unpublished dissertation, Hamburg University 1990.

497

Bibliography Waz˙ ny 2005: Tomasz Waz˙ny, ‘The origin, assortments and transport of Baltic timber’, in: Van de Velde et al. 2005, 115–126. Wegener 1856–1860: C. F. Wegener, ‘Danske Kongers Haandfæstninger og andre lignende Acter’, Aarsberetninger fra Det Kongelige Geheimearchiv 2 (1856–1860), 1–150. Weilbach 1994–2000: Philip Weilbach, Weilbach – Dansk Kunstnerleksikon, ed. Sys Hartmann et al., 9 vols., 1994–2000, 4th edition, 11877–1878. Also available online: https://www.kulturarv.dk/kid/OmWeilbach. do. Weissman 1904: Adriaan Willem Weissman, ‘Het geslacht De Keyser’, Oud Holland 22 (1904), 65–91. Weissman 1911: Adriaan Willem Weismann, ‘De Engelse bloedverwanten van Hendrik de Keyser’, Bulletin van den Nederlandschen Oudheidkundigen Bond 2nd ser. 4 (1911), 49–66. Weissman 1912: Adriaan Willem Weissman, ‘Een Amsterdamsch kunstwerk te Lübeck’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 10 (1912), 187–191. Weissman 1920: Adriaan Willem Weismann, ‘De schoonzoon van Hendrick de Keyser’, Oud Holland 38 (1920), 155–164. Wellens 1962: Robert Wellens, Jacques du Broeucq, sculpteur et architecte de la Renaissance. 1505–1584, Brussels 1962. Wells-Cole 1997: Anthony Wells-Cole, Art and Decoration in Elizabethan and Jacobean England: The Influence of Continental Prints 1558–1625, New Haven/London 1997. Wemyss 2005: Charles Wemyss, ‘Merchant and citizen of Rotterdam, tax collector, “The bitterest factionalist partie man of his quality in all Scotland”. The early career of William Bruce’, Architectural Heritage 16 (2005), 14–31. Wemyss 2008: Charles Wemyss, A Study of Aspiration: the Scottish Treasury Commission and its Impact upon the Development of Scottish Country House Architecture 1667–1682, unpublished dissertation, University of Dundee 2008. Wendland 1979: Folkwin Wendland, Berlins Gärten und Parke von der Gründung der Stadt bis zum ausgehenden neunzehnten Jahrhundert, Frankfurt a.M. etc. 1979. Wendland 1994: Christian Wendland, ‘Die Niederländer im Holländischen Viertel in Potsdam’, in: DeutschNiederländische Gesellschaft e.V. 1994, 64–79. Wendt 1991: Antje Wendt, Das Schloß zu Reinbek. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung, Anlage und

498

Architektur eines landesherrlichen unpublished dissertation, Kiel 1991.

Schlosses,

de Werd 1979: Guido de Werd (ed.), So weit der Erdkreis reicht. Johann Moritz von Nassau-Siegen (1604–1679), Kleve 1979. Werner 1915: Johannes Werner, Børsen. En Fremstilling i billeder og text af Kobenhavns børsbygnings historie 1619–1915, Copenhagen 1915. Westerbeek Dahl 2001: Bjørn Westerbeek Dahl, ‘“En saadan kapabel person”, Ingeniøren Hendrick Ruse (1624–79)’, Personalhisorisk Tidsskrift (2001), 145–87. Westerbeek Dahl [s.a.]: Bjørn Westerbeek Dahl, Kastellet som det aldrig blev. Byplan og bygninger i Hendrik Ruses Kastel, Kastellets Venner & Historiske Samling [without impressum]. Westra 1992: Frank Westra, Nederlandse ingenieurs en de fortificatiewerken in het eerste tijdperk van de Tachtigjarige Oorlog, (1573–1604), Alphen aan den Rijn 1992. Westra 2010: Frank Westra, Bouwers van sterke werken. Nederlandse ingenieurs in het tweede tijdperk van de Tachtigjarige Oorlog, 1605–1648, Alphen aan den Rijn 2010. Wethey 1943: Harold B. Wethey, ‘The Early Works of Bartholomé Ordóñez and Diego de Siloe’, The Art Bulletin 25 (1943), 226–238. van Wezel 1999: Gerard W.C. van Wezel, Het paleis van Hendrik III graaf van Nassau te Breda (De Nederlandse Monumenten van Geschiedenis en Kunst), Zeist/Zwolle 1999. White 1999: Adam White, ‘A Biographical Dictionary of London Tomb Sculptors c. 1560–c.1660’, Walpole Society 61 (1999), 1–162. Widerberg 1924: C.S. Widerberg, Norges første militaeringeniør Isaac van Geelkerck og hans virke 1644–1656: et bidrag til norske befaestningers historie, Oslo 1924. bei der Wieden 1974: Helge bei der Wieden, ‘Schaumburg und die Niederlande in der Zeit des Achtzigjährigen Krieges’, Schaumburg-Lippische Mitteilungen 23 (1974), 5–21. Wieringen 1982: J.S. van Wieringen, ‘De overgang van het Oudnederlandse naar het Nieuwenderlandse stelsel 1648–1704’, in: Sneep et al. 1982, 37–51. Wiesinger 1989: Liselotte Wiesinger, Das Berliner Schloß. Von der kurfürstlichen Residenz zum Königsschloß, Darmstadt 1989. Wilin´ ski 1955: Stanisław Wilin´ski, ‘Krzysztofa Opalin´skiego stosunek do sztuki. Malarstwo i grafika’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 17 (1955), 191–207.

Bibliography Wilin´ ski 1956: Stanisław Wilin´ski, ‘Rzez´by Sebastiana Sali dla Krzysztofa Opalin´skiego’, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 18 (1956), 55-83. Wilkinson Zerner 1993: Catherine Wilkinson Zerner, Juan de Herrera: Architect to Philip II of Spain, New Haven 1993. Willems 1838: J.F. Willems, ‘Isabella van Ostenryk’, Belgisch Museum 2 (1838), 199–240. Willemsen 1988: R.Th.H. Willemsen, ‘Dutch sea trade with Norway in the seventeenth century’, in: Heeres et al. 1988, 471–482. Willis 1984: Alfred E. Willis, Flemish Renaissance Revival in Belgian Architecture (1830–1930), unpublished dissertation, Columbia University 1984. Wilson 1987: Charles Wilson, ‘The divided Netherlands. Rebellion, liberty and nationhood’, in: Hugh TrevorRoper (ed.), The Golden Age of Europe. From Elizabeth I to the Sun King, London 19872, 63–90. Winkelman 1971: P.H. Winkelman, Nederlandse rekeningen in de tolregisters van Koningsbergen 1588–1602. Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Oostzeehandel in de zeventiende eeuw 1 (Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën 133), The Hague 1971. Winkelman 1983: P.H. Winkelman, Amsterdamse bevrachtingscontracten, wisselprotesten en bodemerijen van de notarissen Jan Franssen Bruyningh, Jacob Meerhout e.a. 1609–1616. Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Oostzeehandel in de zeventiende eeuw 5 (Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën 185), The Hague 1983. van Winter 1998: P.J. van Winter, Hoger beroepsonderwijs avant-la-lettre. Bemoeiingen met de vorming van landmeters en ingenieurs bij de Nederlandse universiteiten in de 17de en 18de eeuw, Amsterdam etc. 1998. Wipprecht 1981: Ernst Wipprecht, Schloß BerlinFriedrichsfelde. Der Bau und seine Wiederherstellung [Berlin 1981]. Witkam 1967–1969: H.J. Witkam, ‘Jean Gillot, een Leids ingenieur’, Leids Jaarboekje 1967, 29–54 and Leids Jaarboekje 1969, 39–70. Wittendorf 1989: Alex Wittendorf, På Guds og Herskabs nåde 1500–1600 (Gyldendals og Politikens Danmarks historie 7), Copenhagen 1989.

Worp 1895: J.A. Worp, ‘Dirk Rodenburg’, Oud Holland 13 (1895), 65–90, 143–173, 209–237. Worsley 1995: Giles Worsley, Classical Architecture in Britain: the Heroic Age, New Haven/London 1995. Woz´niak 1995: Michał Woz´niak, ‘Uwagi o recepcji maniery stycznych wzorników niderlandzkich w Gdan´sku i w Prusach Krolewskich’, in: Hrankowska 1995, 225–247. Wubs-Mrozewic 2007: Justina Wubs-Mrozewic, “Alle goede coepluyden …”. Strategies in the Scandinavian trade politics of Amsterdam and Lübeck c. 1440– 1560’, in: Brand & Müller 2007, 86–101. Wubs-Mrozewicz 2008: Justina Wubs-Mrozewicz, Traders, Ties and Tensions. The Interaction of Lübeckers, Overijsslers and Hollanders in Late Medieval Bergen, Hilversum 2008. Wustrack 1982a: Michael K. Wustrack, Die Mechelner Alabaster-Manufaktur des 16. Jahrhunderts und frühen 17. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt a.M. 1982. Wustrack 1982b: Michael K. Wustrack, ‘Das 1554 datierte Mechelner Alabaster-Relief in der Kasseler Löwenburg’, Kunst in Hessen und am Mittelrhein 21 (1982), 15–16. van Wyhe 2011: Cordula van Wyhe (ed.), Isabel Clara Eugenia. Soberanía femenina en las cortes de Madrid y Bruselas, Madrid 2011. Yernaux 1956: Jean Yernaux, ‘Contribution à l’histoire de la sculpture mosane’, Bulletin de la Société des bibliophiles liégeois 19 (1956), 137–180. Zalama 2004: Miguel Ángel Zalama, ‘Arquitectura y estilo en tiempos de los Reyes Católicos’, in: Checa Cremades 2004, 127–140. Zander 1901: Carl Zander, Chronik der Stadt Lenzen a.d. Elbe, Lenzen 1901. Zandvliet 2001: Kees Zandvliet (ed.), Maurits. Prins van Oranje, Amsterdam 2001. Zangheri 1984: Luigi Zangheri, ‘Tre temi fiamminghi’, in: Franco Borsi et al. (eds.), Firenze e la Toscana dei Medici nell’Europa del Cinquecento, vol. 1, Il potere e lo spazio. La scena del principe, Florence 1984, 149–154. Zaske & Zaske 1985: Nikolaus Zaske, Rosemarie Zaske, Kunst in Hansestädte, Cologne 1985.

Wörner 1999: Martin Wörner, Vergnügung und Belehrung. Volkskultur auf den Weltausstellungen 1851–1900, Münster 1999.

de Zeeuw et al. 1995: Peter de Zeeuw, Clemens Steenbergen, Erik de Jong, ‘De Beemster. Een arena van natuur, kunst en techniek’, in: Toon Lauwen (ed.), Nederland als kunstwerk. Vijf eeuwen bouwen door ingenieurs, Rotterdam 1995, 153–167.

Wolfe 2007: Heather Wolfe (ed.), The Trevelyon Miscellany of 1608: A Facsimile of Folger Shakespeare Library MS V.b.232, Washington DC 2007.

Zerner 2003: Henri Zerner, Renaissance Art in France: The Invention of Classicism, Paris 2003 (original French edition: Paris 1996).

499

Bibliography Zimmermann 2002: Petra Sophia Zimmermann, Die Architectura von Hans Vredeman de Vries. Entwicklung der Renaissance-architektur in Mitteleuropa, Munich 2002.

Amsterdam 2013: Pieter Vlaardingerbroek, Konrad Ottenheym, Adriaan Dortsman 1635–1682. De ideale gracht, exh. cat. Museum Van Loon Amsterdam, Zwolle/Amsterdam 2013.

van Zuiden 1916: D.S. van Zuiden, ‘Nieuwe bijdragen tot de kennis van de Hollands-Russische relaties in de 16de–18de eeuw. Bronnenpublicatie uit de Amsterdamse notaris protocollen’, Economisch historisch jaarboek 2 (1916), 258–295.

Antwerp 1935: Charles Van Herck, Jubeltentoonstelling Walter Pompe en de Antwerpsche Laat-Barok Beeldhouwers, exh. cat. Oudheidkundige Kring Antwerpen, Zaal Van Herck, Antwerp 1935.

Zweite 1980: Armin Zweite, Marten de Vos als Maler – ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Antwerpener Malerei in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1980. Žygas 2000: Paul K. Žygas, ‘The spirit of austerity and the materials of opulence. Architectural sources of the St. Casimir Chapel in Vilnius’, Journal of Baltic Studies 31 (2000), 5–43. van Zyl 1761: Johannis van Zyl, Theatrum machinarum unviersale, of groot algemen Moolen Boeck, Amsterdam 1761.

Exhibition Catalogues Amsterdam 1986: Wouter Th. Kloek, Willy HalsemaKubes, Reinier J. Baarsen, Jan P. Filedt Kok, Kunst voor de beeldenstorm. Noordnederlandse kunst 1525– 1580, 2 vols., exh. cat. Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1986. Amsterdam 1989: Friso Lammertse (ed.), Het kunstbedrijf van de familie Vingboons, exh. cat. Koninklijk Paleis op de Dam, Amsterdam 1989. Amsterdam 1990: Caroline Godfried, Nederland en Denemarken – Danmark og Holland. Een expositie over de wederzijdse relaties sinds de zestiende eeuw. Een keuze uit de zestigjarige Bibliotheca Danica en een selectie uit de collecties van de Algemene Bibliotheek Universiteit van Amsterdam, exh. cat., Amsterdam 1990. Amsterdam 1998: Frits Scholten et al., Adriaen de Vries 1556–1626, imperial sculptor, exh. cat. Rijksmuseum Amsterdam/Nationalmuseum Stockholm/J. Paul Getty Museum Los Angeles, Zwolle 1998. Amsterdam 2002: Eymert-Jan Goossens, Konrad A. Ottenheym (eds.), Tilman van Gameren 1632–1706. A Dutch Architect to the Polish Court, exh. cat. Paleis op de Dam Amsterdam, Amsterdam 2002. Polish version see Exh. cat. Warsaw 2003. Amsterdam 2003: Frits Scholten et al., Willem van Tetrode, Sculptor (c. 1525–1580). Guglielmo fiammingo scultore, exh. cat. Rijksmuseum Amsterdam/Frick Collection New York, Zwolle 2003.

500

Antwerp 1993a: Jan Van der Stock (ed.), Antwerpen. Verhaal van een metropool 16de–17de eeuw, exh. cat. Hessenhuis Antwerp, Antwerp/Ghent 1993. Antwerp 1993b: Hans Nieuwdorp et al. (eds.), Antwerpse retabels 15de–16de eeuw, exh. cat. Museum voor Religieuze Kunst, Antwerp 1993. Antwerp 1995: Werner Thomas, Eddy Stols et al., Vlaanderen en Castilla y León. Op de drempel van Europa, exh. cat. Antwerp Cathedral, Valladolid 1995. Antwerp 2002: Heiner Borggrefe, Thomas Fusenig, Barbara Uppenkamp (eds.), Tussen stadspaleizen en luchtkastelen. Hans Vredeman de Vries en de Renaissance, exh. cat. Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerp, Antwerp/Ghent 2002. Aranjuez 1998: Carmen Añón Feliu (ed.), Felipe II, el rey íntimo. Jardín y Naturaleza en el siglo XVI, exh. cat. Palacio del Real Sitio de Aranjuez, Madrid 1998. Bonn 2010: Lothar Altringer, Guido von Büren, Georg Mölich (eds.), Renaissance am Rhein, exh. cat. Landesmuseum Bonn, Ostfildern 2010. Braunschweig 1998: Silke Gatenbröcker (ed.), Hofkunst der Spätrenaissance. Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel und das kaiserliche Prag um 1600, exh. cat. Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum Braunschweig/Sternbersky Palác, Národní Galerie Prague, Braunschweig 1998. Brussels 1976: Guy Delmarcel (ed.), Tapisseries bruxelloises de la pré-Renaissance, exh. cat. Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire Brussels, Brussels 1976. Brussels 1977: De Beeldhouwkunst in de eeuw van Rubens in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden en het prinsbisdom Luik, exh. cat. Museum voor Oude Kunst, Brussels 1977. Brussels 1991: Krista De Jonge (ed.), Portugal en Vlaanderen. Europa in het verschiet (1550–1680) (Europália 91 Portugal), exh. cat. Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België, Museum voor Oude Kunst Brussels, Brussels 1991. French ed. Helena Bussers (ed.), Portugal et Flandre. Visions de l’Europe (1550–1680) (Europália 91 Portugal), exh. cat. Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Musée d’Art Ancien Brussels, Brussels 1991.

Bibliography Brussels 1998: Luc Duerloo, Werner Thomas (eds.), Albert & Isabella 1598–1621. Catalogue, exh. cat. Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België Brussels, Turnhout/Brussels 1998. Charleville-Mézières 2010: Charleville chef-d’oeuvre du xviie siècle, actes du colloque international (Charleville-Mézières, 1er-2 décembre 2006) et catalogue de l’exposition, exh. cat. Musée de l’Ardenne Charleville-Mézières, Charleville-Mézières 2010. Cologne 1980: Anton Legner (ed.), Die Parler und der schöne Stil 1350–1400. Europäische Kunst unter den Luxemburgern, 4 vols., exh. cat. Schnütgen-Museum in der Kunsthalle Köln, Cologne 1980. Copenhagen 1988: Steffen Heiberg (ed.), Christian IV and Europe. The 19th Art Exhibition of the Council of Europe, exh. cat. Copenhagen 1988. Düsseldorf 1971: Christian Theuerkauff (ed.), Europäische Barockplastik am Niederrhein, Grupello und seine Zeit, exh. cat. Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf 1971. Edinburgh 1970: John G. Dunbar, Sir William Bruce 1630–1710, exh. cat. Scottish Arts Council Edinburgh, Edinburgh 1970. Gdan´ sk 2005: Anna Mosingiewicz, Dariusz Kaczor (eds.), Portret ponad wszystko – Jacob Wessel i jego wiek. Sztuka Gdan˛ska XVIII wieku, exh. cat. Muzeum Narodowe w Gdan´sku, Gdan´sk 2005. Granada 2000a: Fernando Marías, Felipe Pereda (eds.), Carlos V. Las armas y las letras, exh. cat. Hospital Real Granada, Madrid 2000. Granada 2000b: Pedro Galera Andreu (ed.), Carlos V y la Alhambra, exh. cat. Palacio Carlos V, Alhambra, Granada, Madrid 2000. Güstrow 2006: Kornelia von Berswordt-Wallrabe (ed.), Schloss Güstrow. Prestige und Kunst 1556–1636, exh. cat. Schloss Güstrow, Schwerin 2006. ’s-Hertogenbosch/Utrecht 1993: Bob C. van den Boogert, Jacqueline Kerkhoff (eds.), Maria van Hongarije. Koningin tussen keizers en kunstenaars 1505–1558, exh. cat. Utrecht, Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent Utrecht/Noordbrabants Museum ’s-Hertogenbosch, Zwolle 1993. Innsbruck 1992: Wilfred Seipel (ed.), Hispania-Austria. I Re Cattolici, Massimiliano I e gli inizi della Casa d’Austria in Spagna (Arte intorno al 1492), exh. cat. Schloß Ambras Innsbruck, Milan 1992. Krefeld/Oranienburg/Apeldoorn 1999: Thomas Hoeps (ed.), Onder den Oranje boom, exh. cat. KaiserWilhelm-Museum Krefeld/Schloß Oranienburg

Oranienburg/Stichting Paleis Het Loo, Nationaal Museum, Apeldoorn, Munich 1999. Legnica 2001: Mateusz Kapustka, Andrzej Kozieł, Piotr Oszczanowski (eds.), Op nederlandse manier. Inspiracje niderlandzkie w sztuce ´sla·kiej VX–XVIII w. Legnica, exh. cat. Muzeum Miedzi Legnica, Legnica 2001. Lemgo 1989: G. Ulrich Großmann (ed.), Renaissance im Weserraum (Schriften des WeserrenaissanceMuseums Schloß Brake 1), exh. cat. WeserrenaissanceMuseum Schloß Brake Lemgo, Munich/Berlin 1989. Lemgo 2000: José Kastler, Vera Lüpkes (eds.), Die Weser. Ein Fluss in Europa, vol. 2. Aufbruch in die Neuzeit, exh. cat. Weserrenaissance-Museum Schloß Brake Lemgo, Holzminden 2000. Lemgo 2001: Heiner Borggrefe, Thomas Fusenig, Barbara Uppenkamp (eds.), Hans Vredeman de Vries und die Renaissance im Norden, exh. cat. WeserrenaissanceMuseum Schloß Brake Lemgo, Munich 2001. Lemgo/Kassel 1997: Heiner Borggrefe, Vera Lüpkes, Hans Ottomeyer (eds.), Moritz der Gelehrte – Ein Renaissancefürst in Europa, exh. cat. Weserrenaissance-Museum Schloß Brake Lemgo/ Orangerie Staatliche Museen Kassel, Eurasburg 1997. Leuven 2003: Dirk Van de Vijver, Ingenieurs en architecten op de drempel van een nieuwe tijd, 1750– 1830, ed. Krista De Jonge, exh. cat. Celestijnenpriorij, University of Leuven, Leuven 2003. Luxemburg 2007: Jean-Luc Mousset, Krista De Jonge (eds.), Un prince de la Renaissance. PierreErnest de Mansfeld (1517–1604), vol. 2. Essais et catalogue, exh. cat. Musée national d’histoire et d’art Luxembourg, Luxemburg 2007. Madrid 1992: Jesús Urrea (ed.), Adán y Eva en Aranjuez. Investigaciones sobre la escultura en la Casa de Austria, exh. cat. Museo del Prado, Madrid 1992. Madrid 1998: Fernando Checa Cremades (ed.), Felipe II un monarca y su época. Un príncipe del Renacimiento, exh. cat. Museo del Prado Madrid, Madrid 1998. Madrid 1999: Alejandro Vergara (ed.), El arte en la corte de los Archiduques Alberto de Austria e Isabel Clara Eugenia (1598–1633). Un reino imaginado, exh. cat. Palacio Real Madrid, Madrid 1999. Madrid/Ghent/Santa Cruz de La Palma 2004: Fernando Checa Cremades (ed.), El fruto de la Fé. El legado artístico de Flandes en la isla de La Palma, exh. cat. Fundación Carlos de Amberes Madrid/Kunsthal SintPietersabdij Ghent/Museo Insular, Convento de San Francisco, Santa Cruz de La Palma, Madrid 2004.

501

Bibliography Madrid/Valladolid 2006: Luis A. Grau et al., Arnao de Bruselas. La escultura en la ruta Jacobea, exh. cat. Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, Madrid/ Museo de la Universidad, Valladolid, Valencia 2006.

Vienna 2003: Wilfried Seipel (ed.), Kaiser Ferdinand I. 1503–1564. Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie, exh. cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna 2003.

Mechelen 2005: Dagmar Eichberger (ed.), Women of Distinction. Margaret of York, Margaret of Austria, exh. cat. Lamot Mechelen, Leuven 2005.

Vienna 2012: Eva Michel, Maria Luise Sternath (eds.), Emperor Maximilian I (1459–1519) and the Age of Dürer, exh. cat. Albertina Wien, Munich etc. 2012.

Medina del Campo/Madrigal de las Altas Torres 2004: Fernando Checa Cremades (ed.), Isabel la Católica. La magnificencia de un reinado, exh. cat. Monasterio de Nuestra Señora de Prado, Colegiata de San Antolín, Medina del Campo/Monasterio de Nuestra Señora de Gracia, Madrigal de las Altas Torres, Madrid 2004.

Warsaw 2003: Konrad A. Ottenheym et al. (eds.), Tylman z Gameren – architekt Warszawy. Holender z pochodzenia, Polak z wyboru, exh. cat. Zamek Królewski w Warszawie [Royal Castle Warsaw], Warsaw 2003.

Munich 2006: Renate Eikelmann (ed.), Conrat Meit. Bildhauer der Renaissance “desgleichen ich kein gesehen …”, exh. cat. Bayerisches Nationalmuseum Munich, Munich 2006.

Library Catalogues (as referred to in the Epilogue)

Neuburg 2005: Suzanne Bäumler, Evamaria Brockhoff, Michael Henker (eds.), Von Kaisers Gnaden. 500 Jahrhe Pfalz-Neuburg, exh. cat. Neuburg an der Donau, Augsburg 2005. New York 2010: Maryan W. Ainsworth (ed.), Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures. Jan Gossarts’s Renaissance. The Complete Works, exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum New York, New Haven/London 2010. Oranienbaum 2003: Wolfgang Savelsberg, Ingo Pfeifer, Thomas Weiss et al. (eds.), Oranienbaum – Huis van Oranje. Wiedererweckung eines anhaltischen Fürstenschlosses. Oranische Bildnisse aus fünf Jahrhunderten (Kataloge und Schriften der Kulturstiftung Dessau-Wörlitz 21), exh. cat. Schloß Oranienbaum, Munich/Berlin 2003. Potsdam 1993: Hans-Joachim Giersberg (ed.), Potsdamer Schlösser und Gärten. Bau- und Gartenkunst vom 17. bis 20. Jahrhundert, exh. cat. Potsdam-Sanssouci, Potsdam 1993. Seville 2000: Alfredo J. Morales (ed.), La fiesta en la Europa de Carlos V, exh. cat. Real Alcázar Seville, Madrid 2000. Stanford 2006: Suzanne Stratton-Pruitt (ed.), The Virgin, Saints and Angels: South American Paintings 1600– 1825 from the Thoma Collection, exh. cat. The Cantor Arts Center Stanford, Milan 2006. The Hague 1997: Peter van der Ploeg, Carola Vermeeren et al., Vorstelijk verzameld. De kunstcollectie van Frederik Hendrik en Amalia, exh. cat. Mauritshuis The Hague, Zwolle 1997.

Lib. cat. Robert Adam 1773 (1818): A Catalogue of A Valuable Library consistsing of printed books of architecture, among which are many of rarity and value; (…) the proprerty of the late Robert Adam (…), London 1818 (reprint in: David Watkin (ed.), Sale catalogues of Libraries of Eminent Persons, vol. 4, Architects, London 1972, 135–191). Lib. cat. Jean Michel Billon 1778: Barbara Roth-Lochner, Livio Fornara, ‘Bibliothèques d’architectes genevois du xviiie siècle’, in: Paul Bissegger, Monique Fontannaz (eds.), Hommage à Marcel Grandjean. Des Pierres et des Hommes. Matériaux pour une histoire de l’art monumental régional, Lausanne 1995, 347–366. Lib. cat. François Blondel 1686: Anthony Gerbino, ‘The library of François Blondel 1618–1686’, Architectural History 45 (2002), 289–324. Lib. cat. Bovet 1775: Barbara Roth-Lochner, Livio Fornara, ‘Bibliothèques d’architectes genevois du xviiie siècle’, in: Paul Bissegger, Monique Fontannaz (eds.), Hommage à Marcel Grandjean. Des Pierres et des Hommes. Matériaux pour une histoire de l’art monumental régional, Lausanne 1995, 347–366. Lib. cat. Georg Dance 1825 (1837): Catalogue of the architectural and miscellaneous library of the late G. Dance, Esq., London 1837 (reprint in: David Watkin (ed.), Sale catalogues of Libraries of Eminent Persons, vol. 4, Architects, London 1972, 193–221). Lib. cat. Tilman van Gameren: Mossakowski 1994, 303–307 (‘Anhang II, Die Bibliothek Tilmans van Gameren’).

Toledo 2000: Fernando Checa Cremades (ed.), Carolus, exh. cat. Museo de Santa Cruz Toledo, Madrid 2000.

Lib. cat. Nicolaus Goldmann 1665: Catalogus Variorum & Insignium librorum praecipuè mathematicorum, Nicolai Goldmanni, Mathematici, (…), Leiden 1665 (published in: Goudeau 2005, 481–501 (‘Bijlage 1. De veilingcatalogus van Goldmanns boekenbezit’).

Valladolid 2003: Jesús Urrea (ed.), La Plaza de San Pablo. Escenario de la corte, exh. cat. Palacio de Pimentel Valladolid, Valladolid 2003.

Lib. cat. Hawksmoor 1740: A Catalogue Of a curious Collection of Original Pictures, Prints, Drawings, and Brass Figures, Books, and Books of Prints, and

502

Bibliography of Architect, of that well known Architect Nicholas Hawksmoor, Esq; deceased, Principal Assistant to Sir C. Wren and Sir John Vanbrugh (…), London 1740 (reprint in: David Watkin (ed.), Sale catalogues of Libraries of Eminent Persons, vol. 4, Architects, London 1972, 79–105). Lib.cat.MathurinJousse1652:PatrickLebœuf,‘Labibliothèque de Mathurin Jousse: une tentative de reconstitution’, In situ 1 (2001). http://www4.culture.fr/patrimoines/ patrimoine_monumental_et_archeologique/insitu/ article.xsp?numero=1&id_article=plb001–780 Lib. cat. Jacques Lemercier 1654: Annalisa Avon, ‘La biblioteca, gli instrumenti scientifici, le collezioni di antichità e opere d’arte di un architetto del XVII secolo, Jacques Le Mercier (1585–1654)’, Annali di Architettura 8 (1996), 179–196. Lib. cat. Louis Le Vau 1670: Hilary Ballon, Louis Le Vau, Mazarin’s Collège, Colbert’s Revenge, Princeton 1999, 149–174 (‘Appendix D. Louis Le Vau’s Library: the inventory’).

Lib. cat. François Mansart 1722: Bibliothecae petaviana Mansartiana ou catalogue des bibliotheques de feu messieur Alexandre Petau Conseiller au Parlement de Paris; et François Mansart Intendant des Bâtiments de France, The Hague 1722. Lib. cat. Gottfried Erich Rosenthal 1795: Gottfried Erich Rosenthal, Litteratur der Technologie…, Berlin 1795, 34–41 (‘Baukunst’). Lib. cat. Thibault 1826: Catalogue de Tableaux, dessins et estampes, livres sur les artzs, manuscrits, recueils, porte-feuilles d’études, ustensiles de peinture, laissés par feu M. Thibault (…), Paris 1826. Lib. cat. Christopher Wren 1748: A Catalogue of the Curious and Entire Libraries Of that ingenious Architect Sir Christopher Wren, Knt. and Christopher Wren, Esq; his Son,(…), London 1748 (reprint in: David Watkin (ed.), Sale catalogues of Libraries of Eminent Persons, vol. 4, Architects, London 1972, 45–78).

503

Photo Credits

The authors have made every effort to obtain permission to reproduce the illustration material included in this book in accordance with the law. Every other presumed holder of copyright in any form is invited to contact them forthwith. All credits are mentioned in the captions to the illustrations except for the photographs taken by the two editors:

Krista De Jonge Chapter 1.2: fig. 7. Part 2, Introduction: fig. 1. Chapter 2.7: fig. 7. Part 3, Introduction: fig. 1. Chapter 3.2: figs. 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, 17, 21.

Konrad Ottenheym Chapter 1.2: figs. 8, 10, 13, 16. Chapter 2.1: figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 29, 31. Chapter 2.3: figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25a, 29. Chapter 2.4: fig. 2. Chapter 2.5: figs. 7, 8, 11, 16. Chapter 2.8: figs. 3, 7, 11. Chapter 3.1: figs. 1, 7, 8a, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18. Chapter 3.4: fig. 5. Chapter 3.5: fig. 4. Chapter 3.6: figs. 8, 10. Chapter 3.8: figs. 2, 5, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16b, 21, 25, 27. Chapter 4.1: fig. 9. Epilogue: figs. 1, 2.

504

Index

of

Historical Persons

A Aachen, Hans van – 67 Abel, Arnold – 58, 110 Adam, William – 347 Adolf I of Schleswig Holstein Gottorf – 257 Adriaens, Cornelis – 369 Aerssen, Veronica van – 216 Aertsz (Aertsen/ van Arendz), Jan/Johan – 400 Albertine Agnes of Orange – 81 Albinus, Johan Tobias – 68, 78 Albrecht (Albert) of Austria, Archduke – 73, 177, 182, 185, 191, 192, 199, 243 Albrecht of Prussia – 45, 55, 66, 67, 104, 105, 145, 164, 213 Alkmaer, Herman of – 268 Allgulin, Torsten – 139 Amalia van Solms – 81, 83, 344 Amberes, Francisco de – 17 Amman, Jost – 306 Ammanati, Bartolomeo – 96, 97 Amsterdam, Reinier of – 202 Andersson, Johan – 64 Andriesen, Jan – 70 Anna of Courland – 293 Anna of Pomerania – 94 Anna Maria of Prussia – 67, 108 Anne of Jagellon – 172 Apelboom, Harald – 69 Arendsen, Julius – 315 Arias Montano, Benito – 22 Azcárate, José Luis – 40

B Badoero, Federico – 241 Bacon, Nicholas – 91 Baes, Pedro/Pierre – 47, 376 Bahr, Juditha and Simon – 153 Balechouse, John – 306, 307 Baner, Gustav – 126 Baranowski, Wojciech – 167, 173 Barchman, Gert – 139 Bar-le-Duc, Jean Errard de – 381, 389 Barth, Wilhelm, the Younger (also called Wilhelm van der Meer) – 25, 26, 58 71, 148, 160, 163, 165, 171 Bastian, Hinrich – 290 Bates, Johan – 324 Báthory, Andrzej (Andreas) – 153, 165 Báthory, Baltazar – 153 Báthory, Christoph – 147, 165, 172 Báthory, Stephen: see Stephen I of Poland Baurscheit the Elder, Jan Peter van – 411, 413, 415–417, 422 Baurscheit (theYounger), Jan Peter van – 416 Beaumont, Adam Liquier – 59, 91, 92

Becket, Francis – 39, 139, 140 Belcum, Geraert van – 324 Bélidor, Bernard Forest de – 413, 422 Bell, Henry – 338 Belloni, Giovanni – 322, 323 Bemer, Andrzej – 227 Bentheim, Luder von – 103 Berecci, Bartolommeo – 172 Berger, Andreas – 423 Berkeley, Maurice – 302 Besche, Willem de, –75, 94, 400, 402 - Hubert, Gilles, and Gerard de – 75 De Beste, Jacques – 47, 376 Bethlen, Niclas – 222, 223 Bielke, Ture – 150 Bilhamer, Joost Jansz – 75, 195 Binck, Jacob – 35, 55, 66, 67, 104, 129, 139, 164 Bindenschuh, Rupert – 80, 335, 373 Bing, Anders – 133, 134 Bisse, Philip – 309 Blasius, Leonard – 137, 138 Blemke, Eduard – 149 Blesendorf, Joachim Ernst – 318, 331 Bloccius, Petrus – 89 Blocke, van den, family (not all family ­members ­mentioned in chapter 2.5 are included in this list) – 35, 54, 71, 74, 75, 143, 144, 431 - Abraham – 27, 118, 145, 152, 153, 160, 167, 169, 171, 176 - David – 152, 155 - Gillis (Aegidius) – 144, 145, 147, 152 - Frans (François), (‘Trommelslagher’) – 143, 144 - Isaac – 152, 154, 155 - Jacob – 76, 145, 152, 154, 156 - Jacob (the Younger) – 76 - Philips – 144 - Willem – 26, 27, 76, 99, 100, 107, 109, 110, 144–154, 160-166, 169, 171-173, 175, 176, 436 Bloemaert, Cornelis – 119 Blockemager, Jan de – 273 Blon, Michel le – 69 Blume, Heinrich – 26, 211 Boddecker (Bötticher), Bernt – 290 Bodecker, Valentin – 149, 162 Bodt, Jean de – 375 Boekop, Arnt Johansen toe – 253 Boghem, Loys van – 19, 21 Bolduque, Roque de – 91 Bol’es, Harmen van – 411, 414, 421 Bølle, Birgitte – 133 Bonjour, Jean de – 320 Bosch, Hieronymus – 248 Borbeck, Jacob – 384 Borchers brothers – 84

505

Index

of

Historical Persons

Borset, Henri de – 433 Bos, Cornelis – 24, 27, 223, 225 Bosboom, Simon – 123 Boulogne, Jean de: see Giambologna Bouman, Jan – 412, 423, 424 Boxel, Cornelis van – 273 Boy, Adolph – 413 Boy, Wilhelm – 32, 59, 62, 63, 118, 259, 349, 396, 438 Brachum, Laurenz von – 253, 254 Brahe, Tycho – 131, 133, 137-139, 370 Brandes, Dorothea and Jan – 100 Brandin, Philip – 56, 94, 95, 99, 100, 108, 113, 114, 388, 391 Brant, Jacop – 273 Brant, Jan – 113 Brants, Christoffel – 420 Bray, Salomon de – 28, 135, 138 Brendel von Homburg, Daniel – 111 Bresemeister, David – 293 Brueghel the Elder, Jan – 185 Brockway of Frome St. Quentin, Robert – 304 Broecke (Paludanus), Willem van den – 24, 90, 97, 260, 434 Brosse, Salomon de – 65 Bruce, Alexander – 216, 217 Bruce, William – 216, 217, 231, 333, 346, 347 Brulle, Albert van den – 24 Brulez, Wilfrid – 4-6, 433 Bruselas, Arnao de – 90, 91 Bruselas, Hanequín Cueman de (Jan van der Eycken) – 17, 42, 43, 45, 55, 90 Burckhardt, Jacob – 10 Burgh, Johannes van der – 415, 419-421 Buysser, Paulus – 382, 384 Bye, Joris Dircksz de – 271 Bylevelt, Jacques – 74 Byron, John – 200

C Campbell, Colen – 343, 346 Campen, Jacob van – 28, 72, 73, 123, 125, 230, 231, 233, 234, 319, 320, 328, 337, 340, 342, 344, 351, 354, 411, 417, 422, 426, 439 Canavesi, Girolamo – 170 Çarça, Diogo de – 24 Cardon, Gilles – 74 Carels (Carols), Johan – 402 Carl Wilhelm of Anhalt-Zerbst – 323 Carlier, Jan – 22 Carpi, Ugo da – 97 Catalina Micaela of Savoy – 238 Cavalli, Marino – 241 Cayard, Jean Louis – 324 Cecil, Robert, 1st Earl of Salisbury – 26 Cecil, William – 23 Cellini, Benvenuto – 90, 99 Cerezuela, Juan de – 17, 42, 55

506

Ceulen, Ludolph van – 380 Charisius, Jonas – 372 Charles V, Emperor – 20, 97, 177, 187, 241, 250–252, 271, 279, 280 Charles the Bold of Burgundy – 15, 240, 269 Chartres, Claude de – 271 Chieze, Philippe de – 321, 326, 327 Christian II of Denmark – 20, 55, 129, 263-272, 275, 276 Christian III of Denmark – 32, 34, 45, 67, 104, 105, 109, 129, 130, 266 Christian IV of Denmark – 46, 67, 68, 121, 125, 129, 139, 199, 257, 263, 268, 275, 372, 379-382, 384, 385, 391 Christian V of Denmark – 216 Christina of Sweden – 64, 69 Christoph of Mecklenburg-Gadebusch – 100 Ciaveri, Gaitano – 414, 421 Ciermans, Jan (Padre João Cosmander) – 375 Cieze, Philippe de – 344 Cobergher, Wensel – 47, 73, 178, 188 Cobos, Francisco de los – 179 Cock, Hieronymus – 412 Coecke van Aelst, Pieter – 22, 164, 223, 227, 248 Coehoorn, Menno van – 47, 413 Cöllen (Köllen), Heinrich van – 395 Collaert, Adriaen – 308 Collins, Thomas – 303 Colt, Maximilian – 26 Colonia, Juan de (Hans von Köln) – 17 Colonia, Simon de – 17 Colijn (Colin), Alexander – 34, 45, 58, 59, 92, 93, 110, 261 Coninck, Juan Ramón – 47 Constance of Habsburg, Queen of Sweden and Poland – 151 Copernicus – 371 Coppens, Cornelis – 116 Coppens, Robert – 100 Cornelisz, Claes – 103 Cornelissen, Jacob – 138 Cornelissen, Willem (Willum) – 39, 134, 138, 383 Cort, Cornelis – 308 Cosmander, see: Ciermans, Jan Coulon, Jean – 81 Cour, Nicolas de la – 91 Crabeth, Wouter – 280 Crivelli, Pietro (Pieter Griffel) – 138 Cromwell, Thomas – 302 Croy, Ernst Bogislaus – 171 Croÿ, William of (Lord of Chièvres) – 244, 254 Cuelbis, Diego de – 248 Cuny, Georg – 34-36 Cure, Cornelius – 26, 91 Cure, William (Willem Keur) – 26, 74, 91 Curne de Sainte-Palaye, Jean-Baptiste and Edme de La – 424, 427 Cuvilliés, Jacques – 43

Index D Daems, Jan – 260 Dahlbergh, Erik – 215, 404 Dahlen, Friedrich Statius von – 219, 373 Danckaert, Pieter – 17 Danckerts, Cornelis (master mason) – 121, 196, 199 Danckerts, Cornelis (publisher) – 32, 135, 412 Danckerts, Hendrick – 350 Danti, Vincenzo – 96, 97 Daviler, Augustin-Charles – 413, 418 Decquer, Jan and Heinrich – 204 Dedelinc, Willem – 270 Delft, van, family – 125 - Aris Claesz – 126 - Claes Adriaensz – 125, 126 - Herman – 125 - Pieter – 126 Descartes, René – 371, 375 Dewez, Laurent-Benoît – 425 Dietterlin, Wendel – 138, 140, 437 Dieussart, Charles Philippe – 72, 336 Dieussart, François – 72, 314, 436 Diewas (De Vos), Philip – 110 Dircksz, Pieter and Gerbrand – 271 Doesborch, Johan Corneliszoon van – 324 Dögen, Matthias – 53, 70, 312, 313 Dohna, Abraham von – 327 - Christian Albrecht von – 321, 327, 331 - Christoph von – 149, 375 Domínguez Casas, Rafael – 43 Dominicini, Paolo (‘Romano’) – 227 Donia, Syerck van – 110 Doren (Duerne), van, family – 75 - Anthonie – 144 - Paul – 160, 164 Dorothea of Denmark – 104, 108, 129 Dorothea of Prussia – 55, 66, 100 Dortsman, Adriaan – 69, 87, 88, 330, 351 Doubleth, Philips – 410 Douchette, Richard – 382 Drakenhielm, Wilhelm – 335 Du Broeucq, Jacques – 21, 22, 89, 91, 92, 96, 104, 213, 255, 260, 261 Ducerceau, Jacques Androuet – 64, 126, 138, 301 Duncanus, Martinus – 89 Duquesnoy, François – 73 Dürer, Albrecht – 66, 90, 267, 271, 282, 361 Duverger, Jozef – 43-45 Dyveke – 266, 271 Działyn´  ski, Mikołaj – 163

E Echter von Mespelbrunn, Julius – 57, 111, 436 Echter von Mespelbrunn, Sebastian – 93 Egas, family – 17, 21, 19, 44, 74 - Antón – 17, 42 - Diego – 21

of

Historical Persons

- Egas Cueman (Koeman van der Eycken) – 17, 42, 43, 55 - Enrique – 17, 18, 21, 42 - Enrique II – 21 - Pedro – 21 Egen, Gert van – 75, 109, 110, 130, 438 Egen, Peter van – 27, 75, 130, 135 Eggenberg, Hans Ulrich von – 251 Eggers, Bartholomeus – 200, 329 Egidiano, Juan Bautista – 47 Ehrenberg, Herman – 163 Eichhorn, E. – 32 Einhorn, Alexander – 293 Elisabeth of England – 301, 302 Elizabeth of Habsburg, Queen of Denmark – 20, 266, 267, 269 Elisabeth of Mecklenburg-Güstrow – 55, 94 Elisabeth of Prussia – 164 Elsholz, Johann Sigismund – 315 Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy – 255, 283 Eosander, Johann Friedrich – 422 Erasmus, Johann Jakob – 79 Erich II of Braunschweig –Calenberg – 56, 255, 280–284 Erik XIV of Sweden – 59, 62 Ernst of Holstein-Schaumburg – 286 Eropkin, Piotre – 421 Evelyn, John – 231, 339 Evers, Henri – 37 Eyck, Jan van – 16, 90

F Fancelli, Domenico – 18 Farnese, Alexander – 363 Ferdinand of Aragon – 18, 41 Ferdinand I of Habsburg – 252 Ferdinand II of Tirol – 251 Ferdinand I de’ Medici – 366, 368 Ferster, Hans – 28, 65 Ficardo, Francisco – 47 Fierens, Paul – 44 Firlej, Henryk – 167 Flandes, Juan de – 41 Fleischer, Hans and Michael – 115, 116 Flemming, Klas – 65 Fleming (Fleminck), Hans – 95, 114, 115, 385, 396, 397, 400 Floris, family - Claudius – 23, 103 - Cornelis (II) – 25, 27, 28, 32–35, 45, 56, 57, 66, 67, 83, 90, 94, 96, 98–100, 103–112, 114–116, 119–121, 127, 129–131, 145, 161, 163, 171, 199, 223, 224, 259, 260, 279, 306, 411, 434–436, 438 - Cornelis III – 106 - Frans – 97, 284, 308 - Hans – 108, 257 - Jacob – 283, 306 - Jean – 333

507

Index

of

Historical Persons

Fontana, Carlo – 370 Francart, Jacques – 28, 228 Francini, Alessandro – 437 Francis I of France – 238 Frandsen, Thomas – 131 Franqueville, Pierre – 97, 99 Frans, Peter – 362 Frantz, Martin – 352, 353 Frederick I of Denmark – 55, 66, 104, 107, 129, 130, 163, 166, 276, 380 Frederick II of Denmark – 61, 105, 109, 129, 131, 257, 263 Frederick III of Denmark – 141, 374, 379, 380 Frederik Hendrik of Orange – 64, 311, 316, 344 Freitag, Adam – 222, 389, 403 Frend, John and Anthony – 303 Frese, Joris Jorissen – 117, 288-290, 294-296, 299, 369, 438 Friborg, Jørgen – 138, 139 Friedrich II (the Great) of Prussia – 424 Friedrich III of Gottorf – 386 Friedrich Wilhelm, Great Elector of Brandenburg – 35, 57, 70, 77, 81, 200, 204, 208, 220, 233, 234, 311–314, 316–319, 324, 325, 328–331, 344, 374, 385, 410 Friedrich Wilhelm, King of Prussia – 414, 422, 423 Friedwald, Nicolaus – 163 Fromantiou, Hendrik de – 322 Fromont, Oste – 273 Fugger, Marcus – 434 Furttenbach, Joseph – 27

G Galesloot, Louis – 32 Galland, Georg – 35, 40 Galle, Philips – 307, 308 Galt, Anne Pedersdatter – 133 Gameren, Tilman van – 9, 58, 77, 221, 222, 336, 338, 340, 345 Gand, Olivier de – 17 Gardie, Jacob de la – 28, 84 Gardie, Magnus Gabriel de la – 57, 69, 84, 232, 335 Gardie, Pontus de la – 118, 119 Gayette, Pierre de – 423 Geelkercken, Arnold van – 319 Geelkerk, Isaac van – 40, 48 Geer, Louis de – 78, 335, 402 - Louis de, the Younger – 86-88, 201, 342 - Steven de – 84, 87 Geffels, Frans – 73 Gell, Anthony – 304 Génard, Pierre – 32 Georg of Saxony – 278 Georg Friedrich of Prussia – 145, 164 Gerhard, Hubert – 34, 74, 89, 97, 436 Gertsen, Herman (Harmen) – 130 Gesewits, Jürgen – 78 Giambologna (Jean de Boulogne) – 22, 73, 74, 89–91, 96-99, 286

508

Gibbs, James – 343 Giese, Michael – 164 Gijseling, Jan (father and son) – 87 Gijsels van Lier, Aernoult – 313, 314 Gillot, Jean – 375 Glaser, Otto – 36 Glymes, Jan II – 244 Gockheller, Hans Caspar – 171 Gockheller, Hans Michael – 168 Godefroy, Elias – 91, 92, 99 Goetghebuer, Pierre-Jacques – 34 Goins, Pierre – 376 Goldmann, Nicolaus – 37, 215, 219-223, 311, 312, 318, 380 Goltzius, Hendrik – 96 Goltzius, Julius – 310 Gomme, Bernard de – 374 Gonzaga, Louis and Charles de – 433 Gossaert , Jan (Mabuse) – 21, 270 Gotthard Kettler of Courland – 290-293 Gouda, Cornelis of – 269 Goujon, Jean – 100 Gøye, Birgitte – 105, 130, 259 Graaf, Willem de – 383 Granvelle, Antoine Perrenot de – 238, 431 ‘s-Gravesande, Arent van – 338, 350 Grek, Afanasij – 415, 419 Grendel, Gerard de – 413 Gresham, Thomas – 23, 106, 260, 338 Groening, Gerard van – 310 Groningen, Gert van – 130 Groot, Like de – 324 Grubbe, Eiler – 257 Grünberg, Martin – 353, 410 Grunenberg, Charles (Carlos) – 376, 377 Grunenberg, Ferdinand (Fernando) – 376 Guas, Jean/Juan – 17, 42 Guas, Pierre/Pedro – 17 Gucci, Santi – 147, 172 Guicciardini, Ludovico – 3, 7, 22, 260 Gustav Adolf of Mecklenburg – 72 Gustav Vasa of Sweden – 59, 62 Gustav II Adolf of Sweden – 64, 75, 118, 125, 372, 389, 398, 402 Gustav III of Sweden – 150 Gut, Heinrich – 261 Guttiérrez de Cuellar, Francisco – 434 Gyldenløve, Ulrik Frederik – 342

H Haase, Peter de – 279 Hackeney, Georg and Nicasius – 45, 57 Hadrian VI, Pope – 275 Haen, Johannes de – 386 Hagaert, Hein – 45, 110 Hammond, William – 409 Han, Herman – 159, 160 Hand, Arvid – 400 Hanff, Michael – 316

Index Hannover, Emil – 39 Hardouin, Hieronymus – 243 Harrison, Stephan – 432 Haupt, Albrecht – 36, 40 Haven, Lambert van – 136, 215, 353, 354 Haven, Salomon van – 215 Haye, Abraham de la – 39, 382, 384, 391 Heda, Willem – 22 Hedicke, Robert – 35, 39 Hedwig Eleonora of Sweden – 341 Heemskerck, Marten van – 283, 284, 307, 308 Heere, Jan de – 270 Heidenstein, Johann – 174 Heilsberg, Christopher – 164 Heinrich Julius of Braunschweig-Lüneburg – 72, 139, 254, 285 Helie, Paulus – 269 Hendrick, Gerard – 75 Hendricksz, Cornelis – 74 Hendricksz, Gerard – 75, 165 Hendricx, Jan – 122 Hendriks, Ari – 23 Hendrik of Nassau – 213 Henne, Joost – 78 Hennin-Liétard, Jean de – 21, 245 Henning, Salomon – 293 Henrietta Catharina of Orange – 81, 82, 323 Henry VII of England – 19 Hermassone, Arnoult – 22 Heroldt, Johan Georg – 409 Herrera, Juan de – 246, 249 Hertefeld, Jobst Gerhard von – 313, 326 Hire, Philippe de la – 410 Höerl, Simon – 227 Hof, Paul van – 71 Hoffman, Hans Ruprecht – 224 Hoffwen, Ludwig von – 396 Hofslag, Arent – 396 Hogenberg, Frans – 97, 364 Hohenlohe, Wolfgang von – 56, 111 Hollemans, Garret – 71 Holst, Geroen van der – 273 Holst, Jacob – 324 Honthorst, Gerard van – 436 Hooft, P.C. – 69 Hooft, Willem – 203 Hooke, Robert – 47, 216, 217, 233, 338, 339 Hope, Charles – 346, 347 Horst, Henryk (Heinrich) – 116, 170 Horst, Rütger von der – 253 Hove, Willem van den – 386 Hovius, Mathias – 188 Hutte, Hermann van – 116, 170 Huydecoper, Joan – 56, 57 Huygens, Constantijn – 29, 72, 216, 439

I Isaacsz, Pieter – 67, 68, 199 Isabel of Bourbón – 179, 183

of

Historical Persons

Isabel Clara Eugenia of Habsburg, Archduchess – 47, 73, 177-194, 199, 243, 246, 250 Isabella of Castile – 16, 18, 41, 42 Isenburg, Salentin von – 253

J Jakob Kettler of Courland – 69 Jamete, Esteban – 100 Janes, Jacob – 203 Janlet, Charles-Emile – 34 Jansen, Bernard – 122, 123 Jansen, Conrad – 432 Jansen, Dirck – 203 Janssen, Burchardt – 160 Janssen, Evert – 141, 230, 342 Janssen, Adrian and Lambert – 117 Janssen, Noe – 389 Jansz, Hendrick – 122 Jerman, Edward – 338 Joanna of Castile – 18 Jode, Gerard de – 302, 412 - Pieter de – 308 Johann Georg II of Anhalt-Dessau – 81, 323 John III of Sweden – 59, 63, 107, 150, 165, 258, 259 John the Fearless of Burgundy – 239 Jones, Inigo – 122, 439 Jonkbloet, Tieleman – 325 Joosten, Jacob – 58, 370 Juan II of Castile – 16 Jülich, Johann von – 154 Julius of Braunschweig-Lüneburg – 68, 71, 254, 285, 368 Jurgens, Peter – 316

K Karffycz, Adrian – 160 Karl of Hesse-Kassel – 410 Karl IX of Sweden – 68, 75, 95, 372 Katarina Jagellonica of Sweden – 59, 258 Keetel, Huybrecht – 423 Keldermans, family – 103 - Laureys – 21 - Rombout II – 203 Kemp, Peter Nicolaes de – 385, 390, 397 Kerckrinck, Theodoor – 79, 80 Kernkamp, Gerhard Wilhelm – 37, 265 Kessler, Franz – 174 Ketel, Cornelis – 67 Key, Lieven de – 28, 45, 103, 286 Keyser, Hendrick de – 28, 34, 67, 68, 83, 103, 119–127, 135, 140, 196–198, 215, 228–230, 295, 338, 349–351, 368, 438 - Hendrick Jr. (II) de – 197, 199 - Hendrick III de – 124, 200 - Pieter de – 124, 125, 197 - Willem de – 123, 124 Khevenhüller, Hans – 250 Klaassen, Harm – 389 Klein, Vilhelm – 32

509

Index

of

Historical Persons

Klengel, Wolf Caspar von – 217 Kloet, Willem van der – 333 Knobelsdorff, Georg Wenzeslaus von – 424 Kock, Isaak – 335 Kock, Jørgen – 275 Kok, Abel Antoon – 38 Korthals Altes, Jacobus – 47 Korobov, Ivan – 415-422 Kos, Mikołaj – 163 Kostka, Piotra – 168 Kourakin, Boris – 419 Kramer, Hans – 112, 160 Krasin´  ski, Jan Bonaventura – 58, 340 Krel, Hans – 99 Kristler, Hans Jacob – 28 Kröll, Georg Gunther – 380, 385, 390 Krosowska, Katarzyna – 171 Krull, Joost – 198

L Lamberts, Hans – 136 Lambertsen, Geraert – 68, 69, 121 Lange, Luc – 92 Lange, Philip de – 412 Langelaer, Dietrich van – 317 Langerack, Frederik Hendrik van – 324 Langevelt, Rutger van – 326, 330, 331, 353, 354 Laud, William – 303, 308, 309 Laugier, Marc-Antoine – 414, 424–429 Lauridsen, Jens – 230 Léchy, Mathildis de – 244 Leeghwater, Jan Adriaensz – 369 Leicester, Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of – 301 Lepautre, Jean – 337, 345, 410 Lerma, duke of (Francisco Gómez de Sandoval y Rojas) – 177-179, 181, 189, 193, 246 Leurs, Stan – 41, 43-45 Leijonhufvud, Margareta – 25 Lhermite, Jean – 245, 248, 249 Ligne, Claude Lamoral de – 376, 377 Linge, Bernard van – 308 Lipphart, Georg – 74 Lipsius, Justus – 324 Lombard, Lambert – 21, 279 Loon, Theodoor van – 188 Loos, Gerrit Dirckszoon – 313, 314 Lorenzen, Vilhelm – 39, 40 Lossius, Johann – 213 Louise Henrietta of Orange – 81, 82, 312, 315, 316, 318, 319, 327, 350 Łubien´ski, Maciej – 167, 173 Lubomirski, Jerzy Sebastian – 58, 219, 336 Lubomirski, Stanislaw – 77, 345 Luna, Álvaro de – 44

M Machim (Maxim) – 17 Macky, John – 348

510

Madsen, Oluf – 139 Magnus Vasa – 60, 115 Malinas, Juan de – 90 Mander, Karel van – 67, 98, 437 Mansfeld, Johann Gebhard – 253 Mansfeld, Peter Ernst of – 249, 431 Marche, Olivier de la – 19 Marchi, Francesco de – 367 Marck, Érard de la – 21, 22, 279 Margaret of Austria – 19, 45, 57, 177, 269, 277 Margaret of Bourbon – 42 Margaret of Male – 15 Margaret of Parma – 177 Margaret of York – 19, 177, 240, 269 Maria of Orange – 81 Marolois, Samuel – 380, 384, 385, 389, 390 Marot, Daniel – 47, 81, 83, 413 Marselis, Christof – 77 Martens, Willem – 163 Mary of Burgundy – 15 Mary of Hungary – 20, 89, 179, 187, 238, 240, 245, 247, 260 Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots – 26 Mathiesen, Albert – 221 Mathijs, Jan – 230 Matveev, A. – 415 Maurits of Nassau-Orange – 48, 72, 175, 327, 372, 389, 398 Maximilian I of Habsburg – 15, 16, 19, 20, 45, 58, 92, 110 May, Hugh – 216, 338 Maynard, Allen – 301, 302 Medici, Giovanni de’ – 364, 366 Meer, Wilhelm van der: see Barth, Wilhelm Meijer, Cornelis Jansz – 370, 371 Meldahl, Ferdinand – 35, 38 Melin, Abraham – 47, 376 Memhardt, Johann Georg – 82, 214, 315–319, 321, 324, 325, 327, 328, 344 Menchikov, Alexander – 333, 418 Mendoza, Diego Hurtado de – 18 Merode, jan van – 163 Merwen, Symon Franszoon van – 380 Métézeau, Clément and Louis – 433 Metsu, Ernst (von Dannenstern) – 80 Metsys, Quentin – 271 Meulen, Andries and Daniel van der – 286 Meyt, Conrad – 19, 271 Michelangelo – 18, 28, 91, 96, 99, 120, 227, 228 Michel Heynrick (van Haarlem) – 265, 272, 273, 275 Midow, family – 108 - Claus / Nicolas – 94, 95, 108 - Colijn – 108 - Hercules – 95, 99, 114 - Robert – 108 Mikkelsen, Hans – 272 Mirto, Ottavio – 243 Mitchurin, Ivan – 415, 419

Index Molina, Argote de – 248 Möller, Anton – 155, 162, 164 Momma, Jacob – 78, 335 Monmouth and Buccleuch, Anna Scott, Duchess of – 347 Mont, Hans – 52, 74, 98, 99 Montmorency, Anne de – 433 Mora, Juan Gómez de – 180 Morães, Francisco de – 178, 180, 238 Moray, Robert – 216, 217 Mordvinov, Ivan – 415, 419-421 Moritz the Learned of Hesse-Kassel – 238, 286 Moritz of Saxony – 99 Moro, Antonio – 248 Mosca, Giovanni Maria (‘Padovana’) – 169, 436 Mussdorfer, Friedrich - 395 Muysen, Gillis van – 144, 152 Mylne, Robert – 231, 333, 438 Myrica, Johannes de – 269

N Nadal, Jerónimo – 308 Nassau, Catharina of – 56 Nassau, Juliana of – 56 Nassau-Siegen, Johan Maurits of – 35, 56, 77, 205, 233, 234, 311, 314, 319–321, 325, 326, 331 Nassau-Siegen, Maria of – 56 Nering, Johan Arnold – 328, 329, 331, 351 Neufforge, Jean-François de – 45 Neurenberg, van, family – 125, 196, 197 - Coenraad II – 106 - Pieter – 199 - Willem II – 199 Nole, De, family – 22 - Colijn – 25 Nonnon, Hubert and Andrieu de – 433 Noorwits, Pieter – 350 Noot, Thomas van der – 78, 79, 335 Noskowski, Jerdrzej – 166 Noyen (Oyen), Augustin van – 167 Noyen, Sebastiaan van – 363 Nussdörfer, Friedrich – 213

O Occo, Pompeius – 201, 265, 271, 272 Odelberg, Herman – 32 Oisy, Jean d’ – 43 Olésnicki, Mikolaj – 169 Olgiati, Gianmaria – 363 Olszowski, Andrzej – 168 Onghena, M.J. – 44, 45 Opalin´ski, Krzysztof – 173, 174 Oort, Jan van – 333 Oostsanen, Jacob Cornelisz van – 271 Opbergen, Anthonis van – 26, 35, 36, 39, 45, 46, 62, 72, 75, 130, 131, 137, 160, 162, 171, 227, 257, 259, 368, 390, 391 - (Oberberg), Hercules van – 137

of

Historical Persons

Ordóñez, Bartholomé – 18, 21 Orly, Philips van – 226 Osten, Peter – 74, 92, 93, 111 Ostrogski, Janusz – 169 Otter, Hillebant den – 203 Otto IV of Holstein-Schaumburg – 284 Ouden, Adriaan den – 423 Overlander, Volcker – 203 Oviedo y Valdés, Gonzalo Fernando de – 241 Oxenstierna, Axel – 28, 56, 57, 65, 68, 69, 214, 229 Oxenstierna, Erik – 335 Oyen, see: Noyen, van

P Paciotto, Francesco – 246, 259 Paesschen, Hans van – 62, 108, 130, 137, 259 Paesschen (Passe), Hendrik van – 24, 45, 106, 260 Palladio, Andrea – 11, 24, 28, 30, 78, 138, 215, 333, 337, 354, 412 Panderen, Egbert van – 308 Panten, Kaspar – 63, 118, 125, 126, 221, 368 Parler family – 439 Parr (Pahr), family – 56, 115 - Christoph – 95, 114 - Franz/ Franciscus – 94, 114 - Johan Baptista – 113 Pasqualini, Alessandro – 252, 295 Passe, Crispijn de – 308 Passer, Arend – 58, 118, 119 - Peter – 118 Passeri, Bernardino – 309 Pembroke, Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of – 302 Perceval, Adriaan de – 384, 385, 391 Perceval, Pieter de – 385 Perréal, Jean – 19 Perret, Jacques – 295 Person (Perron), Gorus – 318 Peter the Great of Russia – 235, 414–422, 430 Pfister, Jan – 116, 169, 176, 436 Philibert of Savoy – 367 Philip of Burgundy (admiral and bishop) – 21, 22, 270, 271 Philip the Bold of Burgundy – 15, 239 Philip the Good of Burgundy – 16, 239, 244 Philip the Fair of Habsburg – 18, 190, 240 Philip the Magnanimous of Hesse-Kassel – 91, 92 Philip II of Spain – 56, 97, 177, 181, 182, 187, 190, 193, 213, 241, 242, 245-251, 254, 257, 260, 280, 281, 284, 286 Philip III of Spain – 177, 180, 182, 189, 190, 192, 193, 250 Philip Julius of Pommerania – 165 Philip William of Orange – 187 Pictorius, Gottfried Laurenz – 348 Piele, Jacob – 369 Pimentel, Luís Serrao – 376 Pirenne, Henri – 45 Pitzler, Christoph – 81, 217, 218, 437

511

Index

of

Historical Persons

Plettenberg, Christian von – 348 Pole, Reginald – 21 Porta, Guglielmo della – 90 Portius, David – 389, 391 Post, Frans – 319 Post, Pieter – 37, 72, 217, 218, 230, 231, 233, 235, 320, 321, 337, 338, 339, 344, 350, 410, 412 Pötter, Joachim – 68 Pratt, Roger – 216, 338 Preuss, Georg – 291 Prié, Hercule Joseph Louis Turinetti, marquis de – 416 Primaticcio – 238 Promnitz, Ulrich Hipparch von – 327 Prynne, William – 309

Q Quellinus, Artus – 141, 200, 326 Quellinus, Thomas – 141

R Radi, Bernardino – 28 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj Krzysztof – 166, 173 - Stanisław – 166 Raet, Willem de – 68, 72, 368 Rantzau, Christian von – 85 - Heinrich von – 137 Raule, Benjamin – 81, 205, 437 Reede, Godard Adriaan van – 204, 205, 326 Reede-Ginkel, Godard van, Earl of Albermarle – 347, 410 Reimers, Reimer – 386 Reyher, Samuel – 220 Richardot, Francois – 89 Richter, Jacob – 60 Richter, Wilhelm – 153, 167, 172 Ridder, Anton de – 423 Ridinger (Rudinger), Georg – 255 Rijswijck, Johan van – 387, 388, 391 Ripley, Thomas – 343 Robijn (Robin), family – 46, 75, 111, 279 - Arend – 56 - Jan – 74, 99, 111 - Jaspero – 75, 278, 279 - Joris (Georg Robin) – 45, 56, 57, 74, 93, 111, 368, 436 Roch, John – 349 Roche, Pierre de la – 60 Rollfinck, Herman – 139 Roman, Franciscus (frère Romain) – 376 Roman, Jacob – 77, 346, 348, 410 - Pieter Jacobsz – 77, 410 Roodenburg, Theodorus (Dirk) – 68, 69, 121 Rose, Axel von – 335 Rosenkrantz, Jørgen – 257 Rosso Fiorentino – 238 Roy, Arendt de – 60, 396 Rubens, Peter Paul – 34, 96, 173, 174, 185, 215, 227, 308, 335, 412, 413, 425, 426

512

Rudbeck, Olof – 221 Rudolph II of Habsburg – 250 Ruse, Hendrick – 40, 141, 200, 204, 324, 325, 373, 374, 382, 391 Ryckwaert, Adriaen Daniel – 321, 324 Ryckwaert, Cornelis – 78, 82, 205, 320-324, 331, 344, 354

S Sachse, Arnold – 76, 154 Sahner, Wilhelm – 36 Sala, Sebastiano – 170, 173 Salandt, Peter – 326 Santen, Jan van (Giovanni Vasanzio) – 40, 73 Saintenoy, Paul – 34 Sambin, Hugues – 301 Sanmicheli, Michele – 148 Sansovino, Andrea – 280 Scamozzi, Vincenzo – 11, 28, 30, 65, 78, 215, 227, 230, 333, 334, 337, 341, 344, 348, 354, 374, 375, 412 Schack, Hans – 141 Schaumburg, Adolf XIII von – 57, 279, 280 - Anton von – 57, 280 - Otto von – 56 Schega (Schegaert), Peter – 273 Schijnvoet, Simon – 420 Schlüter, Andreas – 171, 340, 422 Schmidt, Jacob – 164 Schneider von Lindau, Hans – 165, 175 Scholten, Joost van – 40 Schoninck, Martin – 160 Schoonhoven, Adrian of – 269 Schooten Sr, Frans van – 380 Schooten Jr, Frans van – 372, 380 Schooten, Petrus van – 380 Schoy, Auguste – 32-34, 37 Schut, Hans – 122 Schut, Norbert – 418 Schwarzburg, Albrecht von – 56 - Günther von – 56, 111 Schweikard von Kronberg, Johann – 255 Schwendi, Lazarus von – 363 Schwerin, Otto von – 318, 319, 326, 327, 331 Sebastiaansen, Heinrich / Hendrik – 369 Sems, Johan – 39, 48, 373, 381, 382, 385, 391 Serlio, Sebastiano – 22, 27, 60, 138, 160, 164, 215, 223, 226-228, 261, 302, 437 Seron / Serron, Antonis de (van Zerroen) – 99, 108, 279 Sersander, Andries – 399 Shakespeare, William – 263 Shrewsbury, Elizabeth – 306, 307 Sigismond II August of Poland – 164 Sigismond III Vasa of Sweden and Poland – 150, 163, 165, 173, 174, 199 Siloé, Diego de – 21 Siloé, Gil de – 42 Simonetti, Giovanni – 323

Index Simonis, Giovanni de – 168, 170 Simons, Peter – 84 Sjeremetev, Pjotr – 429 Slothouwer, Dirk Frederik – 39 Sluys, Christian van der – 384 Smetyns Here, Matheus de – 270 Smids, Michiel Matthijszoon – 204, 205, 318, 319, 321, 322, 327, 329-331, 353 Smids, Walther Matthias – 325 Smytere, Jan de – 270 Smith, James – 347 Smythson, Robert – 305, 306 Sobieski, Jakub – 174 Soop, Erik – 125 Southwell, Edward – 414 Sparr, Otto Christoph von – 200, 326 Specklin, Daniel – 138, 361, 362 Speerfork, Eggert – 39 Spellemann, Johan – 272 Spierinck, Peter – 69 Spihler, Matthias – 79, 352 Spinola, Ambrogio – 186 Spoorwater, Evert – 103 Spranger, Bartolomeus – 98 Staël von Holstein, Jacob – 215, 335 Staets, Hendrik – 196 Stalpaert, Daniël – 331, 338, 351 Steenwinckel, van, family – 35, 39, 45, 46, 74, 129, 141, 431 - Antoni – 137 - Hans the Elder – 26, 27, 62, 70, 77, 131, 133, 134, 137–140, 383, 387, 391 - Hans the Younger (II) – 12, 39, 76, 121, 122, 134–140, 199, 382, 383, 391 - Hans the Youngest (III) – 136, 141 - Hendrick – 131 - Laurens the Elder – 70, 201, 387, 391 - Laurens (II) – 12, 76, 121, 122, 125, 134, 135, 138, 140, 383 - Morten – 134, 138 - Oluf – 137 - Willum – 131, 385 - Willum (II) – 134 Steffano, Jean (Giovanni) – 416 Steffens, Hans – 164 Steffens, Haye – 313 Stephen I Báthory of Poland – 147, 165, 172, 287 Stevin, Simon – 324, 372, 380, 384–386, 389, 390, 401, 402, 412 Stone, Nicholas – 122, 123, 197, 216 Story, Abraham – 216 Strada, Jacopo – 98, 99 Straet, Jan van der (Stradanus) – 308 Strakowski, Hans – 28, 161, 163, 213, 214, 373, 436 Streng, Pieter – 315 Stroband, Christian and Jan – 100 - Heinrich – 162, 163 Stuijfsack, Jacob – 273

of

Historical Persons

Stuart, Karl Magnus - 295 Sturm, Johann Christoph – 220 - Leonhard Christoph – 220 Sualem, Pierre – 414, 421 Sualem, Rennequin – 46 Sustris, Friedrich – 12 Sweys, Laurens – 121, 125, 199 Swieten, Stefan van – 414, 421

T Tarnowski, Jan – 169 Tarnowski, Jan, Primate of Poland – 165, 173 Tarnowski, Piotr – 149 Temple, William – 339 Tencala, Constantino – 199 Tessin the Elder, Nicodemus – 47, 57, 66, 214, 215, 220, 221, 335, 340, 341, 345, 350, 355, 404, 409, 436 Tessin the Younger, Nicodemus – 200, 217, 218, 405, 409 Tetrode, Willem van – 89, 90, 99, 254 Teuffel, Georg – 339 Theti, Carlo – 364 Thola, Gabriele and Benedetto – 99 Thomas Francis of Savoy – 367 Thorpe, John – 305 Thynne, John – 301, 305 Tienen, Jacob of – 43 Tiepolo, Paolo – 241, 242 Tijsen, Johan – 126 Timmers, J.J.M. – 40 Titian – 248 Toledo, Juan Bautista de – 246 Tollet, Thomas – 433 Tomé, Heinrich – 373, 382 Tornelli, Giovanni – 323 Tott, Åke – 64 Traytorrens, Frans de – 387, 389 Trezzini, Domenico – 411, 414, 421 Trevelyon (Trevilian), Thomas – 309, 310 Trip, Louis and Hendrick – 53, 68, 230, 232 Troch, Gille – 273 Trolle, Herluf – 105, 108, 130, 259 Trotzig, Peter – 65, 69, 84, 88, 232, 233 Tylicki, Bartłomiej – 163

U Uffelen, Dominicus van – 124 Ughi, Gabriele – 364, 366 Ulmer, Christoffer – 138 Ulrich III of Mecklenburg-Güstrow – 55, 94, 100, 108 Ursula of Mecklenburg – 95 Urze˛dowa, Jan Michałowicz z – 170, 176 Utenhof, Wolfgang – 266, 267

V Vaernewijck, Marcus van – 89 Vallée, Jean de la – 47, 57, 66, 79, 335, 350-352, 404 - Simon de la – 64, 65, 229

513

Index

of

Historical Persons

Van Driessche, Roger – 45 Vanvitelli, Luigi – 73 Vasanzio, Giovanni: see Santen, Jan van Vasari, Giorgio – 120, 436, 437 Vauban, Sébastien le Prestre de – 47 Vega, Gaspar de – 213, 217, 245 Vennekool, Jacob – 231, 412 - Steven – 348, 410 Verboom, George Prosper – 377, 378 Verbrugghen, Hendrik Frans – 411, 418 Verhuys, Johan ten – 325 Vermeulen, Frans – 40 Vermuyden, Cornelis – 47 Vernukken, Wilhelm – 34, 106, 253, 255 Vieregge, Joachim Heinrich von – 336 Verschaffelt, Pieter-Antoon – 411 Vignola, Giacomo Barozzi da – 227, 228, 354 Ville, Arnold de – 46 Vinckeboons, David – 432 Vingboons, Johannes – 230 - Justus – 53, 57, 65, 66, 69, 229, 233, 341, 351 - Philips – 56, 57, 65, 83–86, 123, 125, 141, 215, 218, 228, 330, 335, 336, 338, 340-343, 374, 412 Voort, Michel van der – 425 Vormodsen, Frans – 269 Vos, Marten de – 284, 285, 307, 308, 310 Vos, Willem de – 68 Vries, Adriaan de – 74, 89, 97, 120, 135, 286, 436 Vries, Hans Vredeman de – 9, 27, 28, 33–35, 45, 46, 49, 67, 71, 72, 99, 100, 112, 115, 127, 138, 140, 145, 152, 162, 214, 215, 224–227, 261, 283–285, 292, 293, 296–298, 301–305, 309, 368, 390, 431, 438 Vries, Philippe de – 24 Vroom, Frederik Hendricksz – 71, 74, 160, 162 Vroom, Hendrick Cornelisz – 74 Vrijman, J.A.W. – 38

W Wackernagel, Martin – 36, 40 Walgensten, Thomas – 220, 221 Walker, John – 409 Walman, Hendrik – 324 Walpole, Robert – 343 Ward, Richard – 303 Warren, Whitney – 36 Wasner – 222 Weerden, Jacob van – 367 Wely, Hans van – 197 Werdt, Lucas de – 113 Wespin, Guillaume the Younger de – 433 Wespin, Jean and Nicolas de (‘Tabachetti’) – 433 Wespin, Perpète de (‘Tabaguet’) – 433

514

Wessel, Hans – 99 Wicquefort, Joachim de – 69 Wiemken, Edo – 45, 110 Wierdt (Werdt/ Weerdt), Jo(o)st van – 400 Wijngaerde, Anton van den – 248 Wijngaert, Johan – 313 Wijngaert, Lambert – 313 Wilhelm, Heinrich – 28, 65 Wilho (Guilgot), Jean – 97 Willem Frederik of Nasau-Dietz – 81 Willems, Hendrik – 23 Willemsdaughter, Sybrech (Sigbrit) – 201, 265, 267, 268, 271-273 Willemsz, Harmen – 265, 268, 271, 272 Willer, Peter – 73, 171 Willers (de Wilna), Hans – 67 William (I) of Orange – 56, 111, 120, 197, 253, 279, 431 William II of Orange – 56, 81 William III of Orange /William and Mary – 40, 47, 56, 57, 77, 338, 346, 348, 409, 410 William V the Wealthy of Jülich-Kleve-Berg – 252 William IV (the Wise) of Hesse-Kassel – 91, 92, 255 Willoughby, Francis – 305, 306 Wiltberg, Hendrik von – 93 Witte, Jan de – 12 Witte, Johann – 58 Witte, Pierre de (Candid) – 34, 96 Wittel, Caspar van – 73, 370 Wolff, Alexander Ludwig – 168 Wolff, Dorothea – 152 Wolff the Elder, Jakob – 226 Worcester, William Somerset, 3rd Earl of – 301 Worm, Willem – 220, 221 Wrangel, Carl Gustav – 53, 57, 69, 232 Wrangel, Herman – 56 Wren, Christopher – 47, 217, 233, 338 Wren, Matthew – 303, 304

X Ximenes, Manuel – 203

Y Yonge, John – 303 Ypres, Jean d’ – 17

Z Zamoyski, Jan – 151, 165, 173 Zele (Cele), Adrian – 47, 378 Zemtsov, Mikhail – 411, 421 Zimmermann, Lorenz – 58 Zún´ iga, Baltasar de – 190