Unity and Discontinuity: Architectural Relationships between the Southern and Northern Low Countries (1530-1700) (Architectura Moderna) 9782503513669, 2503513662

Citation preview

Unity and Discontinuity Architectural Relations Between the Southern and Northern Low Countries 1530-1700

ARCHITECTURA MODERNA Architectural Exchanges in Europe, 16th - 17th Centuries Vol. 5

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

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

Unity and Discontinuity. Architectural Relations between the Southern and Northern Low Countries 1530-1700

Edited by Krista De Jonge & Konrad Ottenheym

Contributing Authors Krista De Jonge Konrad Ottenheym Joris Snaet Gabri van Tussenbroek and Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann

H

F

Cover illustrations: (left) Leiden, entrance of the Marekerk, 1659 (photo Konrad Ottenheym) (right) Bruges, deanery of St. Donaas, 1665 (photo Konrad Ottenheym) (background) Claes Jansz. Visscher, Novissima, et Accuratissima Leonis Belgici, seu Septemdecim Regionum Descriptio, Amsterdam 1611 (Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, Kaarten en Plannen, inv. no. IV 561-XIII A Pays-Bas Gén. - 1609 – Visscher)

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). Text revised by P.D. Garvin, with the support from the NWO. Published with the support of the Universitaire Stichting van België/Uitgegeven met de steun van de Universitaire Stichting van België.

© 2007 Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium and the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this book 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/2007/0095/20 ISBN 978-2-503-51366-9 Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

Table of contents

Table of Contents Preface page VII by Krista De Jonge Introduction: Unity and Discontinuity in the Historiography of the Low Countries 1 by Konrad Ottenheym Part One. The First Reception of the Antique 15 Introduction: Italy as a Beacon? 17 by Krista De Jonge Chapter I: ‘Anticse Wercken’: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530 21 by Krista De Jonge Chapter II: Standardizing ‘Antique’ Architecture 1539-1543 41 by Krista De Jonge Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560 55 by Krista De Jonge 79 Chapter IV: A Model Architect: Jacques Du Broeucq 1540-1555 by Krista De Jonge Part Two. Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 87 Introduction: Antique vs. Modern? 89 by Konrad Ottenheym & Krista De Jonge Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles. The Foundations of Architectural 93 Theory in the Low Countries 1560-1625 by Konrad Ottenheym & Krista De Jonge Chapter II: Architectura Moderna. The Systemization of Architectural Ornament around 1600 111 by Konrad Ottenheym Chapter III: La vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi. Rubens and Huygens on Vitruvius 137 by Konrad Ottenheym Part Three. Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 163 Chapter I: The Production Process of Architecture within the Context of the Courts 1580-1700 165 by Krista De Jonge & Konrad Ottenheym Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the City 1580-1700 209 by Konrad Ottenheym & Krista De Jonge Chapter III: For the Greater Glory of God. Religious Architecture in the Low Countries 1560-1700 251 by Joris Snaet 299 Part Four. Building Materials and Trade Chapter I: Building Materials and Trade. Changes in the Organisation of the Building Industry between North and South 1500-1650 301 by Gabri van Tussenbroek Conclusions: Continuity and Change in the Architectural Relations between the Southern and 331 Northern Low Countries 1530-1700 by Konrad Ottenheym & Krista De Jonge 339 Epilogue: Acculturation, Transculturation, Cultural Difference and Diffusion by Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann Abbreviations 351 Bibliography 353 Index 411



Preface

This book is the result of almost ten years of research, carried out jointly since 1996 under the direction of Krista De Jonge at the Catholic University of Leuven and Konrad Ottenheym at the University of Utrecht. We have had one specific objective in mind: to close, at least partially, the gap that since 1830 has divided Belgian and Dutch historiography on the subject of architecture, and to bring current views into line with developments in the field of early modern art history. Surprising though it may seem, no joint architectural history of the Southern and Northern Low Countries, which roughly correspond to the present-day states of Belgium and The Netherlands, exists as yet for the early modern period. When, after a short period of unity under William I (1815-1830), the Belgian and Dutch Kingdoms went their separate ways, both developed their own architectural histories with a particular nationalistic bent. The architectural past was used to reinforce national identity and to give meaning to the new borders, and everything that the Northern and Southern Low Countries had once held in common was forgotten. The appreciation and, in particular, the standing of Netherlandish sixteenth and seventeenth-century architecture in European architectural history has suffered as a result, not least because most available literature is still firmly rooted in nineteenth-century clichés. This is the ‘Unity and Discontinuity’ referred to in the title of the book: a phrase coined by Charles van den Heuvel who, as a (then) researcher of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie voor Wetenschappen, greatly contributed to the genesis of this project in its earliest years. The architectural relations between the Northern and Southern Low Countries during the period 1530-1700 have been examined on four levels: the patronage of architecture by the court in the North and South, patronage by the civic authorities in the cities, patronage by religious entities and, underlying all this, the role of the principal professional network – the Van Neurenberg family – which linked Northern and South­ ern architectural practice at that time. Cutting across these levels, the following questions were also addressed: antique versus modern, or the role of Italy in the introduction of an architectural language based on Antiquity; Baroque versus Classicism, or the major stylistic dichotomy separating North and South in current literature, and architect versus engineer, or the contemporary development of the architectural profession. From 1997 to 2000 the project was financed by the Vlaams-Nederlands Comité (VNC), which is a joint initiative of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) and the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen (FWO). In December 2000 the first results were publicly presented in the homonymous international symposium at Leuven, also financially supported by the VNC. The authors greatly benefited from the comments of all the presenters and participants, and in particular from the summing-up by Uwe Albrecht and Piet Lombaerde. Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann’s insightful evaluation, which placed this research in a much broader, non-Netherlandish perspective, has been included in this book as an epilogue. Hopefully, it may point the way to future research. The subject matter of this book makes it a particularly fitting choice for the series Architectura Moderna, founded in the year 2000, since it is dedicated to Netherlandish architecture from the early modern period, set within a European context. The series intentionally carries a title that evokes the debate of antique versus modern, which is the focal point of Netherlandish architectural theory of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century and, not incidentally, also one of the major themes addressed in this book. The reader may catch the echo of well-known treatises, such as Hans Vredeman de Vries’ Architectura Oder Bauung der Antiquen auss dem Vitruvius (printed in Antwerp, 1577), Charles De Beste’s Architectura. Dat is constlicke Bouwijnghen huijt die Antijcken Ende Modernen (written in Bruges between 1596 and 1600), and Salomon de Bray and Cornelis Danckertsz.’s Architectura Moderna ofte

VII

Preface Bouwinge van onsen Tyt (published in Amsterdam, 1631). These works actually constitute the backbone of the second part of the present book, and in common with it, the series not only focuses on the origin and reception of the theoretical tenets that underlie contemporary Netherlandish architecture, (see the first volume on The Reception of P.P. Rubens’s Palazzi di Genova during the 17th century in Europe: Questions and Problems, 2001, edited by Piet Lombaerde), but also welcomes studies on architectural patronage within a European perspective (see the second volume on Trade in Good Taste. Relations in Architecture and Culture between the Dutch Republic and the Baltic World in the Seventeenth Century, 2004, by Badeloch Noldus), and studies which explore Netherlandish construction history in all its aspects (see the third volume on Hans Vredeman de Vries and the Artes Mechanicae revisited, 2005, edited by Piet Lombaerde, and the fourth volume on The Architectural Network of the Van Neurenberg Family in the Low Countries (1480-1640), 2006, by Gabri van Tussenbroek). Over the years, the authors have had the opportunity to discuss their findings with many colleagues from all over the world who have generously shared previously unknown material, visited build­ ings with them, corrected texts, or made it possible to present part of the work publicly. The authors particularly wish to thank: Uwe Albrecht, Frans Baudouin†, Inge Bertels, Lex Bosman, Philippe Bragard, Monique Chatenet, Fernando Checa Cremades, Georgia Clarke,Thomas Coomans de Brachène, Thérèse Cortembos,Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Maarten Delbeke, Guy Delmarcel, Annemie De Vos, Luc Duerloo, Xander van Eck, Peter Fuhring, Piet Geleyns, Elske Gerritsen, Jean Guillaume, Hubertus Günther, Peter Hecht, Charles van den Heuvel, Gordon Higgott, Stephan Hoppe, Deborah Howard, Maurice Howard, Christoph Jobst, Annemarie Jordan, Matt Kavaler, Bert Van de Kerckhove, Piet Lombaerde, Pieter Martens, Ruud Meischke, Walter Melion, Hans Van Miegroet, Claude Mignot, Jean-Luc Mousset, Badeloch Noldus, Norbert Nußbaum, Elizabeth Pilliod, Eva Roëll, Margit Thøfner, Dirk Van de Vijver, Pieter Vlaardingerbroek, Hans Vlieghe, Dirk-Jan de Vries, Petra Zimmermann, and the staff of all the research libraries, archives and institutions the authors visited while working on the book. Illustration material was provided by the following collections: Amsterdam, Amsterdams Historisch Museum, Gemeentearchief and Rijksprentenkabinet; Antwerp, Archives of the Belgian Capuchins and Stadsarchief; Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief, KIK-IRPA, Museum Broodhuis, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België and Stadsarchief; Dordrecht, Museum Mr. Simon van Gijn; Ecouen, Musée de la Renaissance; Gent, Stadsarchief; Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord Holland; ’s Hertogenbosch, Noord-Brabants Museum; Heverlee, Archief Vlaamse Jezuïeten; Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; Leiden, Gemeente Archief; Lille, Musée des Beaux-Arts; London, British Library; London, National Map Library; Lübeck, Denkmalambt Hansestadt Lübeck; Luxembourg, Musée national d’histoire et d’art; Madrid, Patrimonio Nacional de España; Mechelen, Stadsarchief; Munich, Alte Pinakothek; New York, Metropolitan Museum; Paris, Bibliothèque Doucet (INHA), Bibliothèque Nationale and Fondation Custodia; Purmerend, Archief Waterschap ‘de Beemster’;Turin, Archivio di Stato; Universiteit Gent; Universiteit Leiden; Universiteit Utrecht; Utrecht, Centraal Museum and Het Utrechts Archief;Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek;Vilvoorde, Archive of the convent of Discalced Carmelites;Vincennes, Service Historique de l’Armée de Terre;Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek; Zeist, Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumentenzorg. The authors are grateful for their help. Finally, the authors and editors also particularly want to thank the NWO for its generous financial support, which allowed the English text to be reviewed by P.G. Garvin, and the Universitaire Stichting van België for its subsidy for the illustrations. Krista De Jonge

VIII

Introduction Unity and Discontinuity in the Historiography of the Low Countries

The development of sixteenth and seventeenth-century architecture in the Low Countries is still all too readily seen as two distinct histories. Generally speaking, the architectonic development from this period onwards is recorded in separate texts describing either Belgian or Dutch architecture, as if the political division that took place of the end of the sixteenth century had more or less immediately led to a cultural division. This book, therefore, focuses on the nature of the development in architecture that took place in both parts of the Low Countries, what factors were predominant in this process, and to what extent the exchange of ideas between North and South continued in spite of differences in outward decorative forms. This introduction presents an historical overview of the subject, discusses the clichés that have arisen over the years, yet which have proven to be untenable, and suggests the direction in which a solution will be sought in the following chapters of the book.1 The Problem of Borders For more than a century architecture in the Low Countries has been studied according to the state boundaries established in the nineteenth century. The result is an artificial North-South divide, as if architecture in the Northern and Southern Low Countries during the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century had undergone two wholly independent, autonomous evolutions without interaction or exchange. In the 1930s the historian Pieter Geyl repeatedly warned his fellow art historians of this pitfall,2 in vain as it turned out in the case of the study of early modern architecture.3 However, in the case of studies of medieval architecture in the Low Countries, by the second half of the twentieth century, such a rigorous North-South divide along modern state boundaries no longer applied. Apart from the usual studies of local and regional groups of buildings, comparisons and relationships between medieval buildings in both parts of the Low Countries are self-evident and taken for granted, especially in the case of fifteenth and early sixteenth-century architecture. This 1

A first version of this introduction was presented in the session ‘Time and Place: The Geohistory of Art’ held at the Thirtieth International Congress of the History of Art in London, England, on September 4 and 5, 2000 and published in Ottenheym 2005. With thanks to chairpersons Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann and Elizabeth Pilliod. 2 Geyl (1930) 1946. 3 This problem had been incisively described with reference to painting by Blankert 1995. See also Vlieghe 1998. 1. Front lines in the Low Countries 1572-1609 (from: Blankert 1995).



Introduction is not surprising, since the Low Countries were actually a political unity under Burgundian rule. The Keldermans family’s architectural network extended as far as Brabant, Zeeland and Holland,4 while at the same time they were involved in elaborate church building projects in Mechelen, Antwerp, Zierikzee, Delft and Alkmaar. Although the Van Neurenberg family established a more or less similar type of family network in both parts of the Low Countries in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, the continuation of these international exchanges after the start of the Dutch Revolt has been completely neglected in general overviews so far. In the historiography of the last century and earlier, the cultural rift between the Northern and Southern provinces appears to have begun with the introduction of Italian Renaissance forms in the sixteenth century. In The Netherlands in particular, this development was regarded for a considerable time as occurring only within its own state borders. In fact, the most important examples of this new type of architecture, such as the castles at Breda and Buren and the tower at IJsselstein, cannot be considered separately from developments in the South,5 given that the Habsburg court of Charles V and his sister Mary of Hungary, regent of the Low Countries, formed the very epicentre of this new development. Patrons from Breda, IJsselstein and Buren ranked among the highest nobles of this court, and therefore the works they commissioned were closely related to the great architectural works in the South, such as those in Brussels, Binche and Boussu.6 The use of ‘antique’ architectural forms was closely linked with Charles V’s ideal of the restoration of the Roman Empire. The application of Italianate classical motifs in the first half of the sixteenth century can be interpreted as an attempt to create a suitable and appropriate ‘imperial’ architectural background for a united Netherlandish imperial court.7 A final, if isolated example of Southern influence on the Northern Low Countries mentioned in all historical accounts is the Antwerp Town Hall, built between 1561 and 1565, and generally considered to be more or less the blueprint for the small town hall in The Hague built shortly afterwards, and the one in Vlissingen built thirty years later. The only common source for architecture in the Northern and Southern Low Countries during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century mentioned in historical writings is the series of architectural prints that Hans Vredeman de Vries published in Antwerp from 1560 onwards. There is no mention whatsoever of any later exchanges in the field of architecture, as if the foundation of the Southern Union of Atrecht and the Northern Union of Utrecht in 1579 signalled the falling of an iron curtain between the Northern and Southern Low Countries. And as if two independent, disparate lines of development took place in the seventeenth century: ‘Dutch Classicism’ in the North and ‘Brabantine Baroque’ in the South. Meanwhile, in numerous studies on social and economical history, as well as on the history of Dutch painting in the seventeenth century, the important role of the Flemish immigrants has often been emphasized.8 The history of architecture seems to have been untouched by these ideas, and even in most contemporary studies that compare the architecture in both parts of the Low Countries, the almost ‘traditional’ differences are the point of departure.9 However, this historical picture is a creation of the second half of the nineteenth century, a time of growing European nationalism when cultural differences between Belgium and The Netherlands became strongly polarized.

4

Janse et al. 1987. Ozinga 1962; Vos & Leeman 1986. This unilateral view was modified for the first time in 1993 in the exhibition and companion catalogue Maria van Hongarije. Koningin tussen keizers en kunstenaars, 1505-1558 (Utrecht/’s-Hertogenbosch 1993). 6 De Jonge & Capouillez 1998. 7 van den Boogert 1998. 5



8

For example Briels 1985; Briels 1987; Briels 1997; Gelderblom 2000; O’Brien 2001. For an almost complete overview and extended bibliography on this subject see Asaert 2004. 9 Beheydt 2002. In recent studies comparing the urban planning and architecture of Antwerp and Amsterdam, both cities are presented in separate case studies underlining the differences more than the mutual developments. Taverne & Visser 1993; O’Brien 2001.

Introduction

2. Leiden, entrance of the Marekerk, 1659.

3. Bruges, Deanery of St. Donaas, 1665.

Land of Rembrandt and Land of Rubens During the reign of King William I (1815-1830), when his kingdom comprised present day Belgium and The Netherlands, the Ghent architect Goetghebuer compiled a lithograph collection, Choix des Monumens, of the greatest monumental buildings in the entire Low Countries.10 This 1827 Netherlandish version of the Vitruvius Brittannicus was a survey of the application of the classical language of form throughout the United Kingdom of the Netherlands during the previous three centuries, ranging from the sixteenth-century palace owned by Cardinal Granvelle in Brussels to the newly extended Soestdijk Palace. After Belgian independence in 1830 a number of publications appeared on historical architecture in both the Northern and Southern Low Countries, such as the collections by Colinet and Van IJsendijck.11 Remarkably, it is the Belgian publications of that time that continue to present a survey of Netherlandish architecture in its entirety. In contrast, after the Dutch fiasco in the Belgian War of Independence of 1830, the North focused exclusively on Dutch, ‘national’ architecture. At home, the failure of the 1815-1830 reign was seen as proof that neither province had ever had anything in common with the other in the first place, and that the sixteenth-century North-South rift was not due to any coincidental military circumstances, but was a natural necessity. All this resulted in the North’s 10

Goetghebuer 1827; Van de Vijver 2000.

11

Colinet 1874; Van IJsendijck 1880-1889; Ewerbeck & Neumeier 1883.



Introduction lack of interest in historical cultural ties with the South. As far as historical architecture was concerned, interest in the Northern Low Countries, or the Netherlands, was limited to examples within its national boundaries, such as a series of measurements of old buildings undertaken by the Maatschappij tot Be­vordering van de Bouwkunst (Society for the Promotion of Architecture).12 The notion of North and South existing as two separate cultural entities was further reinforced by Théophile Thoré’s important treatise, Musées de la Hollande, published between 1858-1860, which was the first to explicitly mention both a Flemish and Dutch school of painting in the seventeenth century.13 This perspective undoubtedly played a significant role in the approach to seventeenth-century architecture, later reinforced by the growing sense of nationalism that revived in all parts of Europe in the mid-nineteenth century. In striving for clear and distinct national identities, national histories focused increasingly on their illustrious epochs. In the case of the Northern Low Countries this was obviously the Eighty Years War which had resulted in the birth of the Dutch nation. Historic examples from this period in particular were emphasized in an attempt to establish a typical ‘national’ Dutch architecture from the 1860s onward. The first professor of architecture in Delft, Eugen Gugel, and his students, were among the first to set the tone.14 Since knowledge of historic buildings was essential for this new, historicizing type of architecture, the same group of architects also studied the history of architecture. Therefore, in his survey of architecture from 1869 (the first Dutch reference book in this field), Gugel investigated sixteenth and seventeenth-century architecture in the Low Countries.15 He had the highest opinion of Netherlandish architecture from the fifteenth and sixteenth century. In the great variety shown in the use of materials and the diversity and pictorial quality of its outline he saw the characteristics of the ‘national style’: “In spite of the great number of changes and modernizations, these mixed rows of extraordinary tall and narrow façades with their great variety of pointed and stepped gables determine to this day the typical national character of entire streets and towns”.16 Gugel illustrates this with examples from Mechelen, Antwerp, The Hague and Amsterdam. In his eyes, the Vleeshal (meat hall) in Haarlem and Bolsward Town Hall are absolute highlights. He establishes the separation between North and South as having occurred in the early seventeenth century, since by then many of the Northern Low Countries’ picturesque characteristics had already been lost: “due to the influence of the weighty and bombastic forms of the Baroque style” (door den invloed der zware en gezwollen vormen van den barokstijl). In his opinion this resulted in “strange decorative trivialities” (zonderlinge decoratieve beuzelarij).17 He saw the rise of Classicism in the North after this “age of corruption” (tijdvak van verbastering) as the complete destruction of national art: “The more pleasure people derived from the strict imitation of antique forms, the more the freshness and originality of fantasy got lost. Besides Baroque distortion and the over-embellishment of the typical national gable, now a rigid and tedious approach of soulless imitation of the ancient architrave structures is developed for brick buildings”.18

12

Oude Bestaande Gebouwen (loose-leaf series), published from 1854. 13 Hecht 1998. 14 Baalman 1991. See also Petra Brouwer’s Ph.D. dissertation (to be published shortly, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). 15 Gugel 1869. 16 Gugel 1869 (ed. 1903), p. 660 : “Deze bonte rijen der ongemeen smalle en rijzige ordonnantiën met hare groote verscheidenheid van punt- en trapgeveltjes bepaalt, ondanks



de vele veranderingen en verwoestingen, nog heden ten dage het typisch nationale karakter van geheel straten en steden”. 17 Ibidem, p. 669. 18 Ibidem, p. 670: “Naarmate men meer behagen schepte in eene strenge navolging van de antieke vormen, gingen ook de frischheid en oorspronkelijkheid der fantasie verloren. Naast de barokke vervorming en overlading van den ty­pischnationalen trapgevel ontwikkelt zich nu ook voor den baksteenbouw een stijf en vervelend schema van gezochte ziellooze navolging van den antieken architraafbouw”.

Introduction One example is Philip Vingboons’ Classicism, which Gugel considered as “the virtually total decline of national direction” (het bijna volkomen verval der nationale richting), devoid of any high artistic value.19 Architecture in the Southern Low Countries was spared this decline thanks to “Rubens’ unrivalled genius and all-embracing spirit” (weergaloos genie en allesomvattende geest). According to Gugel, Rubens had been responsible for the construction of his own house, for the Jesuit church and for the Scheldepoort at Antwerp, all three of which had served as models throughout the seventeenth century, as exemplified by the town hall and exchange at Lille (Rijsel), and the guild houses on the main town squares in Antwerp and Brussels.20 The legendary nature of Rubens’ influence as an architect, once voiced, would echo well into the twentieth century, as Anthony Blunt’s leading article demonstrates.21 In Belgium, too, the idea of a typically Belgian sixteenth and seventeenth-century architectural history emerged almost from the first decade of the new kingdom’s existence, first in A.G. B. Schayes’ many-volumed Histoire de l’architecture en Belgique (Brussels, first edition c. 1840), and subsequently in F. Stroobant’s collection of prints entitled Monuments d’architecture et sculpture en Belgique.22 Understandably, these works also strongly emphasize Rubens’ influence on the architecture of the Southern Low Countries (in retrospect, an exaggerated influence). Rubens was indeed one of the first official Belgian national heroes: already in the 1840s many statues were erected to him, such as the one on the Groenplaats in Antwerp, a work by William Geefs ordered by the Société royale des sciences, des lettres et des arts to celebrate the bicentenary of his death in 1840.23 Schayes added five illustrations (copied from the seventeenth-century Harrewijn engravings) of Rubens’ house to the second, 1853 edition of his Histoire de l’architecture en Belgique, but as a true Neoclassicist he roundly condemned its style. With the publication of his series Les grands architects de la Renaissance aux Pays Bas (1876-1878), Auguste Schoy was the first to study and write on the lives and works of individual Netherlandish architects. He published the concise lives of architects such as Lambert Lombard, Vredeman de Vries, Cobergher, Francart, Vingboons (the only architect from the Northern Low Countries) and, of course, Rubens. In the last volume, P. P. Rubens, architecte, ses oeuvres et son école, Schoy created around Rubens the image of a complete ‘school of architecture’. In addition, in 1879 he introduced the notion of ‘the Rubens style’ in architecture as a counterpart of Classicism.24 The veneration of Rubens as a national hero would culminate in the late 1930s in the over-historicizing reconstruction of the Rubens house in Antwerp by Emile Van Averbeke.25 In The Netherlands of the late nineteenth century the polarization in historiography culminated in two extensive cultural histories of the Northern and Southern Low Countries by Conrad Busken Huet, Het land van Rubens (1879) and Het land van Rembrandt (1882). In these two works the contrast between the two regions was greatly and artificially inflated, thus determining for generations the way in which seventeenth-century culture in the Low Countries was seen, as well as the history of architecture itself.26 Classicism, which became popular in Holland in Huygens’ and Van Campen’s circles from about 1625, was dismissed by Busken Huet as decadent, and a shallow imitation of French and Italian forms that represented a loss of national identity. He considered Jacob van Campen’s famous

19

Ibidem, p. 673. Ibidem, p. 674. 21 Blunt 1977. 22 Schayes 1853; Verpoest 2002. 23 With thanks to Dirk Van de Vijver. 24 Schoy 1879, p. 311. 25 Tijs 1983. 20

26 “Devant Rubens on s’exalte, devant Rembrandt on se recueille”. Quote from Emile Bayard when comparing architecture in Belgium and in the Netherlands. Bayard 1923, p. 60. According to the Delft professor Huib Luns, Rembrandt also surpassed Rubens as an architect. H. Luns, De verovering van de eenvoud (inaugural lecture, University of Delft 1931). With thanks to Xander van Eck.



Introduction town hall on the Dam in Amsterdam “a melancholic die with many eyes” (een zwaarmoedige dobbelsteen met vele oogen) and an imitation of the Italian palazzi on the banks of the rivers Tiber and Arno, bearing no relation to national history. In contrast, he saw sixteenth and early seventeenth-century architecture as far more graceful because of its “Dutch character” (nederlandsch karakter): “These buildings stem from a family living in Flanders and Brabant. They seem to have been brought forth from the very soil”.27 This was sharply in contrast with seventeenth-century developments in the Southern Low Countries, where national forms were believed preserved, not least due to the pre-eminence of Rubens’ genius. Baroque in Brabant and Flanders was regarded as a national characteristic, and thanks to Rubens’ creative force, the invasion of French and Italian influences had been warded off in all parts of the country. This notion of an elitist intellectual Classicism in the North and an unrestrained expression of true national character in the South was adopted again and again by later generations. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century German authors writing about the Low Countries indiscriminately embraced this idea of an existing contrast. In 1915 E. Lüthgen in his Belgische Baudenkmäler attributes the nature of Southern Netherlandish architecture to die letzten, geheimnisvollen Wurzeln der flämische Sinnlichkeit (the last, mysterious roots of Flemish sensuality).28 In 1915 Martin Wackernagel published his contribution on architecture in northern and central Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth century in the influential series Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft. Wackernagel takes as his starting point the sharp division between Classicism and the freiheitlicher Gegenströmung des Barock (free countermovement of the Baroque),29 which he ascribes to three causes: firstly, political (territorial) differences. Secondly, differences in national character – allegedly determined by climate, geography and race – and lastly, religious differences. This picture of a black-and-white contrast between North and South both deliberately and unintentionally prevailed for some time in the course of the subsequent evolution in Netherlandish architectural studies. From the last decades of the nineteenth century the study and description of Netherlandish architecture no longer lay exclusively in the hands of architects, but was also conducted by (art) historians. One group of archivists in particular, including Overvoorde (in Dordrecht and Leiden), Muller Fzn. (in Utrecht), Des Marez (in Brussels) and Roosens (in Antwerp), began to direct the focus of their studies more and more on the architectural history of their towns. Whereas nineteenth-century architects had been especially interested in the nature of historical architectural forms, now the history of both the buildings and the lives of architects from the past began to receive greater attention. Once again, these researchers limited their investigations to architecture within the state boundaries of the time. This idea of national schools of art, like the schools of painting that had developed in the nineteenth century, was adopted as a matter of course by a number of Dutch art historians such as Vermeulen, Ter Kuile and Ozinga, who had been educated in the universities’ new history of art departments, and who also worked for the Dutch Historic Buildings Council (Rijksbureau voor Monumentenzorg). Since it was their task to investigate and, if necessary, protect Dutch architecture, their survey of historical buildings did not extend beyond contemporary national boundaries. However, in contrast to Gugel or Busken Huet, Vermeulen held that seventeenth-century Classicism had highlighted the true Dutch character rather than representing a decline in national identity:

27 Busken Huet 1882, pp. 478, 480: “De familie uit welke zij stammen woont in Vlaanderen of in Brabant. De bodem zelf schijnt hen voortgebragt te hebben”.



28 29

Lüthgen 1915, p. 147. Wackernagel 1915, pp. 4, 5, 108, 109.

Introduction “It was this very French, academic, intellectual concept of the Baroque that appealed most to the down-to-earth northern Netherlandish national character, reworked with a shift in balance towards a cooler, more clean-cut, classical atmosphere, which resulted in an architecture with its own national characteristics”.30 Such a viewpoint reduced the apparent contrast between Northern and Southern seventeenthcentury architecture to a strictly black-and-white relationship. The division of North and South into two separate architectural histories seemed to have become fact. Worn-out Clichés In the light of the above it becomes evident that architectonic relations between the Northern and Southern Low Countries after the political separation in the sixteenth century have never been investigated. Instead of ascertaining the exact nature of the differences and finding an explanation for them, including the question of whether earlier intensive contacts had remained intact in spite of the political change, former studies such as those mentioned merely contain dusty clichés with their roots in the nineteenth century. The North-South divide has been reduced to a ‘Classicism versus Baroque’ issue, allegedly due to differences in religion (Protestantism versus Catholicism), forms of government (republicanism versus absolute rule) and culture, in this case an elitist foreign culture compared with the preservation of national character. However, none of these propositions, which Wackernagel defined in 1915, are actually tenable. The contrast between the Catholic Southern Baroque and the Calvinist Northern classical style may seem very appealing and is usually the first thing mentioned when North-South comparisons are under discussion. This notion of contrast was chiefly created by two leading studies dealing with church architecture in the two regions, published in the 1920s shortly after each other: Ozinga’s dissertation on Protestant church building in the Republic and an impressive study by Plantenga on seventeenthcentury religious architecture in the Southern Low Countries.31 Outward differences become especially clear in church architecture; in fact, in this field the difference in style actually coincides exactly with the difference in religion. However, in the sixteenth and seventeenth-century European context Catholicism cannot be exclusively related to the Baroque style, nor Protestantism exclusively to Classicism. For example, the most severe classical building of this period, the Escorial in Spain, was built on the orders of the most Catholic king of the time, Philip II. A further example is the west wing of the Louvre, completed by Perrault. Although considered one of the purest applications of the classical language of forms, its construction was ordered by the firmly Catholic Louis XIV. In fact, the rejection of the ­ Italian proposals for 4. Louvre, west façade by Perrault, 1672. the Louvre in 1665, including Bernini’s, clearly

30 “Het is juist deze Fransche, meer academische, meer cerebrale opvatting der barok, die voor den nuchteren Noordnederlandschen volksaard het meest aantrekkelijks had, en die hier met eene verschuiving naar nog zakelijker,

koeler klassicistische sfeer tot een architectuur van typisch nationaal karakter werd verwerkt”. Vermeulen 1941, p. 101. For Vermeulens’ views see Bosman 1998, pp. 74-76. 31 Plantenga 1926; Ozinga 1929.



Introduction

6. Greenwich, Queen’s House, by Inigo Jones, 1615-1636.

5. Bückeburg, Protestant Stadtkirche, 1610-1615.

shows the strong differences of opinion as to the correct form of architecture, even among Catholics.32 Then again, neither can the churches built by Scandinavian and German Protestant princes, such as the Count of Schaumburg in Bückeburg, or Christian IV of Denmark, be regarded as examples of stereotyped Protestant sobriety. Furthermore, there is no correlation between the Dutch architects’ religion and their style of architecture. Two of the most important exponents of Classicism in Holland, Jacob van Campen and Philips Vingboons, were actually Catholic. Equally, Classicism cannot be automatically regarded as an expression of a republican form of government or creed, nor the Baroque style inextricably tied to absolute rule. The first examples of Classicism in northern Europe in imitation of Palladio and Scamozzi were the works of Inigo Jones, who as court architect to James I of England worked chiefly for the royal family. Nor can the severe classical façade of the Louvre by Perrault be interpreted as an expression of ‘republican’ spirit. In Holland the Italian classical language of form was used by the same artists to express the ambitions of opposing political factions. The most republican faction, the government of Amsterdam, ordered the construction of a new town hall designed by Jacob van Campen, which was to be a monument to their ‘republican’ power and fame. The same artist was working on the completion of the most representative palaces of the Orange family: the Noordeinde Palace and Huis ten Bosch in The Hague, which were to express the Oranges’ dynastic and royal ambitions. Thirdly, there is the cliché of reason versus emotion. Classicism was held to be the invention of a small intellectual elite, whereas Southern ‘Baroque’ was regarded as an expression of national feeling, of a ‘flamboyant lifestyle’ such as Rubens seemingly propagated. For example, in his Belgische Kunstdenkmäler II from 1923, Martin Konrad sets in opposition Rubensgeist and Klassizismus.33 Further study 32

A case in point is the discussion of the rejection of the plans by Carlo Rainaldi, Pietro da Cortona and Francesco



Borromini. Chantelou 1972, pp. 288-290, October 1665. Petzet 2000, pp. 69-88. 33 Konrad 1923, pp. 227, 228 note 1.

Introduction

7. Bruges, chimneypiece at the court of Justice of the Vrije, designed by Lancelot Blondeel, 1528.

8. Kampen, chimneypiece at the court of Justice in the town hall, by Colijn de Nole, 1545.

of seventeenth-century architecture in the South demonstrates that there too, as everywhere else, the actual inspiration for innovative architecture came from a very small, rather elitist group of well-read patrons and their architects, centred around the court of Archduke Albert and the Infanta Isabella, and their architects Cobergher and Francart, and also around churchmen such as Aguilon, rector of the Jesuit college at Antwerp, and Hesius, rector of the Jesuit college at Leuven. In fact, Rubens’ activities in the field of architecture were only marginal: when he spoke on architecture he followed the principles of international Classicism, strongly emphasizing adherence to Vitruvius’ rules and encouraging a firm stand against the ‘barbaric’ tradition of architecture in his own country. This was why in 1622 he published a collection of prints, Palazzi di Genova, showing façades, plans and cross sections of city palaces and villas in and around Genoa, which were to serve as examples for the reconstruction of Antwerp.34 Unity Before defining more precisely the differences in the way architecture evolved in the Northern and Southern Low Countries, attention should first be paid to the similarities between these two regions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To begin with, it should be noted that although sixteenth and seventeenth-century critics mentioned a number of remarkable features in various provinces, no sharp contrasts were found between the North and the South either in architecture or in any other field. The tradition of simplicity, (which from the nineteenth century on was ascribed in particular to the Dutch bourgeoisie culture) was considered characteristic throughout the sixteenth century for the whole of the Low Countries. In 1567 the critically discerning Florentine merchant Lodovico 34

Rubens 1622-1626. See also Rott 2002 and Baudouin 2002.



Introduction Guicciardini, a long-time inhabitant of Antwerp, praised the public spirit as well as the tidiness of the houses in reference to both Holland and Brabant.35 The moral principles of simplicity and sobriety are most strongly expressed after 1550 in the work of Justus Lipsius (b. 1547 – d. 1606), founder of Stoicism in the Low Countries. He advocated the ancient and Early Christian simplicity of language and traditions. His influence was felt in both the North and the South. Between 1578 and 1591 he was professor of history and law at Leiden, and later he taught at Leuven University. His stoic principles greatly influenced intellectual development both in the North and at the Archdukes’ court, as well as in the circle around Peter Paul Rubens. In both parts of the Low Countries similar forms of architecture manifest themselves, not only during the Keldermans dynasty in the early sixteenth century, but also after the introduction of Italian Renaissance forms by the nobility of the Habsburg court, and later again, after the 1550s, during the ‘troubles’ (later called ‘The Revolt’). These similarities are found both in the details as well as in the three-dimensional aspects of architecture. From 1560 Hans Vredeman de Vries’ prints were considered the leitmotif for façade decoration both within the Low Countries as a whole and further afield. He perfected a system of ornamentation based on the characteristic decorative elements of the Five Orders, which could be used in the application of ornamentation on traditional building structures without having to change traditional methods of building and design. Most prints and books were published in Antwerp, where Vredeman de Vries lived almost continuously until 1585. They were used as a source of inspiration well into the seventeenth century in regions quite distant from Brabant, that is to say in Holland, and beyond the Netherlands in other parts of North-West Europe. The appreciation of this form of architecture stemmed directly from contemporary artistic beliefs that new finds or ‘inventions’ were signs of creativity and masterly skill. In 1567 Guicciardini praised Netherlandish artists for their “great mastery of the arts and inventions”.36 Already in Antiquity these new inventions, the nova reperta, were used to test progress in the arts, since it was not only the aim to imitate ancient forms, but above all to vary them freely. In the first decades of the seventeenth century, new examples were added to these series of inventions, such as the ones that had been developed in Italy at the end of the sixteenth century, in particular by Michelangelo’s followers in Rome. These imaginative, free combinations of architectural details, together with parts of the classical language of form, combined well with the decorative system that had been introduced in the Low Countries by Vredeman de Vries. This new, complex type of ornamentation (especially for portals) that had never appeared before was greatly appreciated in both the North and South during the first decades of the seventeenth century, as can be seen from the works of Hendrick de Keijser in Amsterdam as well as those of Cobergher and Francart in the South. Despite their political separation, the interest in particular three-dimensional concepts continued to exist in both North and South. The theme of a centralized structure, which had become popular as a theoretical ideal in the sixteenth century when interest in the Italian Renaissance developed in the Low Countries, retained its undiminished power of attraction in both regions. A monumental example of this is found in Willemstad, a heptagonal-shaped fortified town in the north-west of Brabant, the Protestant bastion against the approaching Spanish armies where, in 1595, Prince Maurits ordered the construction of an octagonal church. Ten years later its counterpart was built in the South: the heptagonal town of Scherpenheuvel, with the heptagonal church of Our Lady as a place of pilgrimage as its centre, was founded by Archduke Albert as a Catholic stronghold against the Protestant religion. Later, in the seventeenth century, we find other examples of centralized structures, although it remains unclear if these were direct copies or if they were influenced by another source, as was the case with the design of the 1620 Noorderkerk in Amsterdam by Hendrick de Keyser, and the 1661 design

35

Guicciardini 1567. See Jodogne 1990.

10

36

Guicciardini 1612, p. 79. Becker 1998, p. 38.

Introduction

10. Groningen, Goudwaag (excise office), 1635.

of the Norbertine Abbey in Averbode, which show striking similarities to one another. Despite a considerable difference between the elevations, 9. Alden Biezen, chapel at the castle of the Teutonic the Averbode plan appears to be based on the Order, 1634. Noorderkerk plan, which had been published with the addition of a long presbytery instead of one of the four transepts. Amongst building patrons, too, there were sufficient direct links between North and South to explain the exchange of ideas. For example, after his release from Spanish imprisonment, Filips Willem, Prince Maurits’ elder brother, lived at the Brussels court from 1596 until his death in 1618. It is certain that he was directly involved in the construction of Scherpenheuvel, since it was built in the seigniory of Diest, one of his properties. After 1618 John VIII of Nassau, Count Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen’s elder brother, had a flourishing career at the Archdukes’ court. As a Catholic he fought with Spinoza in 1625 during the capture of Breda. In 1630 he had a monumental castle built in Ronse/Renaix that not only could compete with any of those owned by the Southern Netherlandish nobility (see ill. 172), but also with those in the North, such as the castle of Honselaarsdijk owned by Frederik Hendrik. As can be inferred from the great number of passports issued to the people of Antwerp during the final decades of the war, connections between artists and other citizens of both provinces continued to exist in spite of the military operations on both sides.37 Separation However, the contrast evoked between Northern and Southern seventeenth-century architecture is not wholly unfounded. From the second quarter of the seventeenth century, marked differences in interpretation are, in fact, clearly visible in outward appearances as well as in the approach and application of the classical language of form. Until about 1630 architectonic forms in the North and South had been determined by common sources. These had emanated from a traditional system of decoration based on the Five Orders developed in the sixteenth century by Vredeman de Vries, and

37

Duverger 1968, pp. 336-373.

11

Introduction

11. Antwerp, Huis Roodenborch, 1644.

12. Amsterdam, Joan Poppen’s house (Kloveniersburg­wal 95), by Philips Vingboons, 1642.

complemented in the early seventeenth century by new Italian inventions from the final decades of the sixteenth century. The invention of new ornament and decorative patterns was regarded as an important quality in this architectural system. The licence to use this kind of freestyle Classicism was regulated by a sense of decorum: non-classical ‘novelties’ should be restricted to buildings that required a high degree of representation.38 This idea of using classical architectural elements in such a non-structural, decorative way to provide more possibilities, and underline the magnificence of the building and its patron, was further developed in the South in the following decades of the seventeenth century. Meanwhile in the North, from 1630 onwards there was a noticeable change in attitude towards a stricter, more primary use of the classical language in architecture, which adhered as closely as possible to the rules of Vitruvius as interpreted by Palladio and, above all, by Scamozzi.39 It is here, in the second quarter of the seventeenth century and not in 1579, that the Low Countries’ former unity in architecture seems to split into two different directions, as illustrated by the Roodenborch House at Antwerp from 1644, and Joan Poppen’s Amsterdam house, designed by Philips Vingboons in 1642. However, Vitruvian principles and classical ideals were also dominant in the minds of patrons and artists in the South. Stylistic differences hide analogous tendencies such as an interest in classicist theory and in models and treatises of contemporary Italians. Further on in this book the 1636-1640

38

Payne 1999.

12

39

Terwen 1980; Ottenheym 1999.

Introduction correspondence on architecture between Constantijn Huygens, secretary to the Prince of Orange, and Peter Paul Rubens, will clearly demonstrate their shared classical point of view. They both wanted to cleanse architecture of illogical, barbaric elements, and both pointed to the rules of Vitruvius, interpreted by sixteenth and seventeenth-century Italian architects, as the key to universal, ‘correct’ architecture. In fact, as we shall see, Peter Paul Rubens, who was regarded by nineteenth-century art historians and their followers in the twentieth century as the genius of the folkloristic Baroque, so akin to the ‘Burgundian joy of life’, applied Vitruvian principles more strictly than Huygens. Nevertheless Huygens and Rubens had completely different opinions concerning the amount of decoration and ornamentation that was appropriate. Discontinuity: magnificentia and modestia In spite of common basic theoretical principles, something had changed in Northern and Southern attitudes towards architecture by the second quarter of the seventeenth century. The issue concerned was how architectural ornament could and should be used to accord with a sense of decorum: ‘what is appropriate for which kind of building?’ The key to this issue lies in the differences between the types of buildings that dominated architecture in each region. Public and private buildings were the most important building categories in seventeenth-century Holland. The use of the classical orders was considered to be enough for these civic communities; no further additions to enrich these schemes were demanded, resulting in a certain degree of restraint in the use of ornamentation. In the southern part of the Low Countries the basic design of seventeenthcentury buildings depended as much on the correct use of proportions and other classical principles as in the North.40 But since churches, which were regarded as the foremost category in the hierarchy of building types, stood at the centre of all building activity, the architecture of the South needed a greater degree of magnificentia. Catholic churches were even required to exceed royal palaces in opulence. Various seventeenth-century sources in the South mention the need for more ‘dignity’ and ‘majesty’ in religious buildings, which could be obtained by the powerful dynamics of the façade, by building on a grand scale and by the use of precious materials. As a result, the sixteenth-century architectural ideal of ‘invention’ was continued in the seventeenth century, but became more or less restricted to portals, altars and church façades: former elements of classical architecture were used in a non-classical, i.e. a non-structural, decorative way to create possibilities for façades to express more rhetoric power. Seventeenth-century architecture in both parts of the Low Countries should not be seen as two opposing styles, but as two species of a common architectural system with a more ‘magnificent’ use for Church and court in the South, and a more ‘modest’ use for burghers and civic authorities in Holland. These two attitudes in the use of classical elements may be compared with the so-called modest ‘Attic’ and the more magnificent ‘Asian’ style in classical rhetoric.41 The ‘magnificent’ style was also used for the rare new civic buildings in the Southern cities, such as the Lille Exchange and the Brussels guild houses. To explain this, we can argue that the abundant use of this kind of architectural decoration on churches in the South gave rise to a certain degree of ‘inflation’ in the expression of decorum required for civic building projects when compared with the situation in the North.

40 For example Jacques Francart in the introduction of his Premier Livre d’Architecture (1617): “Et encores que la bonne proportion d’un edifice soit le principal ornement d’Architecture, avons neantmoins particuliers ornemens, dequoy nous ornons les edifices, assçavoir colonnes, bases, chapiteaux, architraves, frises, cornices, frontispices”. In his unpublished fourth book, Francart was to explain why

broken pediments might also be used (contrary to advice from Palladio and Scamozzi): “La raison pourquoy l’on peut rompre les frontispice, diray-je au livre IIII & ensemble leur hauteur” (text to figure II of his Livre). 41 For further examples of comparisons between rhetorical systems and architecture see Clarke & Crossley 2000.

13

Introduction

13. Deventer, town hall, façade by Jacob Roman, 1692.

14. Brussels, guild houses on the Grote Markt, 1697.

This book does not intend to offer a complete overview of the history of architecture in the Low Countries during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Instead we will focus on various aspects of it that seem to be crucial for a better understanding of what happened in that age. We will closely trace the introduction of new architectural forms and ideas in the North and South during these two centuries. We will see how the reception of the ‘antique’ vocabulary in its various forms went together with an appreciation of ‘modern’, non-classical architectural details and principles. But a history of style as such would not be a useful point of departure for this book. In order to be able to accurately define the situation outlined above, we need to investigate the various groups in society that acted as the driving force for the development of architecture: the court, the Church, the civic elite and the international network of stone traders. The following questions need to be addressed. What were the prevailing ambitions of the patrons in these circles during different periods and in different provinces of the Low Countries? What types of artists and architects were requested to fulfil them? What artistic ideas were alive in these circles? What types and categories of buildings were most requested by the various patrons in the different provinces? Directly linked to this last question is the issue of the social status of various types of buildings. In examining a period in which public life was determined by formality and hierarchies, the differentiation in status accorded to various types of buildings requires consideration when comparing and analysing applied architectural forms. At all times we will compare the situation in North and South in order to analyse their common architectural history in detail, and to detect when and to what extent differences between the two parts of the Low Countries did occur.

14

Part One The First Reception

of the

Antique

15. Pieter Coecke van Aelst/Sebastiano Serlio, Generale Reglen der Architectueren, Antwerp 1539, frontispiece.

Introduction: Italy as a Beacon?

The reign of Charles V (1500-1558) saw some fundamental changes in the art and architecture of the Low Countries.1 This complex process did not adopt the same speed or rhythm in each of the seventeen countries of the ‘Burgundian Federation’. The centres of gravity originally lay in the lands associated most closely with the thriving cosmopolitan urban centres, and with the most popular staging posts for the court itinerary, i.e. in the duchy of Brabant (Brussels), the counties of Flanders (Bruges), Zealand (Middelburg), and Holland (Amsterdam), the bishopric of Utrecht and, after the final expansion of 1542, in the eastern lands of Gueldres and the confederated duchy of Jülich, Kleve and Berg. A crucial event took place in 1539. In that year, the publication of Serlio’s Fourth Book by the “librarian to his Imperial Majesty” Pieter Coecke van Aelst, under the title Generale Reglen der Architectueren, and his publication of a Vitruvian-based, pocket-size manual called Die Inventie der Colommen, also in the native language, marked the end of a first period of change. As will be discussed in the second chapter, henceforth ‘Architecture’– a new-fangled term introduced into the Flemish language by Coecke – would be defined as an intellectual activity that a noble patron, such as regent Mary of Hungary ­­– in Coecke’s words, an “amateur” of architecture, a notable “lover of all things authentic and ancient” – could now be interested in without loss of status. From this moment on, architecture in the antique manner was subject to rules that clearly set down how to correctly construct the new forms in the antique repertory: capitals, bases, columns, pedestals, pediments, entablatures, cornices and architraves. According to this standard, however, most of the ‘antique works’ (anticse wercken) of the 1520s and 1530s – as the new art was commonly called in contemporary account books and contracts – had to be rejected as incorrect. Instead of antique, these works were, through the introduction of theoretical texts, revealed to be ‘modern’, on a par with den nyeweren aert, i.e. the latest manifestation of the ever-flourishing Gothic language, today called ‘Flamboyant’. The first and the third chapters will offer a closer look at that first period of creativity, coinciding with the first decades of the sixteenth century, which has all too often been undervalued in current literature on the Netherlandish Renaissance. Twentieth-century architectural historians of the period usually adopt the yardstick of Italianism to judge these works, and sometimes even a truly inappropriate Vasarian perspective. In this regard, it should be noted that this standard had already been disputed for the Netherlandish pictorial arts by Carel van Mander in his 1604 Schilderboeck.2 The question, however, is not whether these first experiments in the antique manner were correct according to the norms Serlio and Coecke set out, or even according to contemporary central-Italian practice, but whether the traditional concept of ‘Renaissance’ is capable of encompassing the whole of the architectural productivity and inventiveness in the Low Countries at that time. There the answer must be a categorical ‘no’. As the third chapter will show, renewal on the level of spatial organization, typology and disposition, especially in the court domain, started well before the first ‘antique’ repertory got a firm foothold, i.e. in the mid-fifteenth century. The new forms effortlessly merged with the brick-and-sandstone masonry, the square corner pavilions topped by high slate roofs with bulbous spires, stepped gables, courtside gallery façades with regularly spaced windows above arcades in blue stone, elaborate staircases and (increasingly) regular, symmetrical ground plans. These elements remain characteristic of ‘Renaissance’, and even so-called Netherlandish

1

For recent contributions to the question, see Amsterdam 1985; Brussels/Rome 1995; El Arte en las Cortes….1999; Ghent 1999-2000; Granada 2000; Sevilla 2000; Hernando Sánchez 2000; Toledo 2000-2001.

2 Melion 1991, pp. 80-91, and generally Part Two, p. 95 and following; Belozerskaya 2002, pp. 15-17.

17

Part One: The First Reception of the Antique ‘Baroque’ civil architecture well into the seventeenth century, and even enjoy a certain success as export products to other regions of Europe, most notably the North and Spain in the 1550s.3 This mode of construction was finally canonized as a national style both in Belgium and in The Netherlands in the second half of the nineteenth century.4 Nor does the label ‘Renaissance’ adequately cover the peaceful coexistence in church architecture, or indeed the conscious combination of the new-fangled antique repertory with the indigenous ‘Brabantine’ Gothic – a hugely successful, regional variant characterized by its highly abstract structural skeleton – and the latest, quite different fashion in Gothic, that is the Flamboyant with its elaborate geometric patterns and complex decorative forms. Still, by the midsixteenth century, the most important building site in most Netherlandish towns, in terms of investment and professional prestige, was the local collegiate church, not infrequently supported by the Emperor and his court. In 1550, for instance, Charles V gave the canons of St. Bavo (formerly St. John’s Church) in Ghent the enormous sum of 15.000 Italian crowns, partly through the intervention of Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, to enable them to finish the nave (started in 1533).5 With its soaring pillars, which lacked capitals, and its complex vaults, decorated with both star and net patterns, it is – like the contemporary chapel dedicated to Saint John and Saint Philip at the Coudenberg Palace, completed from 1548 to 1552; the chapel of the Holy Sacrament added to St. Michael and St. Gudule’s Church in Brussels from 1532 to 1537, and the famous mausoleum church at Brou, finished in 1532, all works within the context of the court – a perfect showpiece of modern Gothic architecture.6 A similar example of ‘late’, large-scale, 3

Concerning Netherlandish influence on sixteenth-century architecture and sculpture in Germany and Denmark, see for instance Skovgaard 1973, pp. 9-14; Hitchcock 1981, pp. 44-48; De Ren 1982; Stenvert 1990; Chipps Smith 1994, pp. 149-152; Albrecht 1995, pp. 221-225; Stenvert 1996; Wells-Cole 1997; Albrecht 1998; Amsterdam/Stockholm/ Los Angeles 1999-2000; Bartetzky 2000, I, pp. 138-168; DaCosta Kaufmann 2002; Albrecht 2003, p. 70. See also pages 60-61.

18

16. Brussels, Coudenberg Palace, court chapel, inte­ rior. Drawing by Jan Pieter Baurscheit the Elder.

4

For its particular ‘Vredeman de Vries’ variant, see Verpoest 2002 and the literature cited therein. van der Woud 1997, pp. 224 f. 5 Baelde 1968; BDEH 4na, pp. 428-432; Smidt & Dhanens 1980. 6 The court chapel was started in 1522 after a design by Rombout II Keldermans, subsequently simplified by Lodewijk van Boghem. In 1538 work ceased after completion of the cellars and kitchen levels, which provided a

Introduction: Italy as a Beacon? court-linked patronage of a Gothic enterprise can be found in St. John’s, Gouda. After the devastating fire of 1552, Philip II of Spain and important members of his court took the lead in financing rebuilding and in ordering new stained-glass windows from noted workshops such as Dirk Crabeth and Lambert van Noort’s (1555-1574). Here, the Revolt only caused a temporary halt in the restoration; the (re-) glazing campaign continued till 1604.7 Lastly, the antique forms were not perceived as particularly Italian but as universal in origin and value, and an integral part of the national past. From the earliest decades of the century, Netherlandish humanists started searching for archaeological evidence of their Roman roots: the Low Countries were seen as a former part of the Roman Empire. Only in the second half of the sixteenth century did Hans Vredeman de Vries firmly label the “antique manner of building” promoted by Vitruvius and Serlio as ‘Italian’ (de antiquiteyte Italiaense maniere), distinguishing it from the architecture of contemporary masters, who had assimilated the antique way of building into the local context and created a new, modern architecture. That was the turning point: Netherlandish architectural theorists and antiquarians would part company from then on. The fourth chapter will focus on one of the ‘model architects’ mentioned by Vredeman, Jacques Du Broeucq, and his particular position in the contemporary professional context.

platform for the chapel proper. From 1548 to 1552, the chapel proper was built by Pieter van Wyenhove and Jan van den Gheere. Saintenoy 1932-1935, II, pp. 235-267; Meischke & van Tyghem 1987, pp. 150-153; Celis 1998; Van Eenhooge, Delcommune & Celis 2000. For the chapel

of the Saint Sacrament, see Bral et al. 2000, pp. 100-102. For Brou, see Chapter I, note 12. 7 van Harten-Boers & van Ruyven-Zeman 1997; van Ruyven-Zeman 2000; Coebergh-Surie & van Eck 2002; Gouda 2002.

19

17. Los Honores, designed by Bernard van Orley, executed c. 1520-1525 by Pieter van Aelst. Detail of Infamia.

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530

The Netherlandish architecture that today we call ‘Renaissance’ was commonly labelled ‘ancient’ or ‘antique’ in the early sixteenth century. The court milieu constituted the context of some of the most successful experiments in the antique manner. Indeed, many references dating from the late 1520s and 1530s can be found in accounts relating to the residences of the new Burgundian-Habsburg nobility, which constituted the upper echelons at the imperial court. It would be a mistake to call these works homogenous, but the intricate network of relationships – both at the level of patronage and at the level of the artists – which characterize court art in the first decades of the sixteenth century, does make for a consistent whole. Other documents which mention anticse wercken (antique works) testify to the professional conflicts caused by the introduction of this new repertory of forms. In the sophisticated urban context of the Low Countries (Antwerp, Utrecht, Saint-Omer), this repertory was, in fact, mostly the province of sculptors and painters and not of the traditional building crafts; in due time, this gave rise to several court cases in which the process of designing architecture was discussed in modern terms for the first time. Antique and Modern In the first decades of the sixteenth century, the terms ‘antique’ and ‘modern’ were commonly used as labels to distinguish two different repertories of architectural ornament. Pauwels Ackerman, a sculptor who worked for Margaret of Savoy’s favourite, Antoine de Lalaing in his castle at Hoogstraten, is called antycksnyder in the accounts of 1529, as is the sculptor Joesen, whose work there was inspected by Rombout II Keldermans, architect to the Emperor, and by the sculptor Jean Mone the year before.8 The surviving account books that relate the construction of Mary of Hungary’s long gallery in the Coudenberg Palace, Brussels (1533-1537), mention six, antyke dueren (antique doors).9 The four chimneypieces were also decorated in the antique manner (1539-1540), according to designs by Pieter Coecke van Aelst, author and editor of the first Flemish-language treatises explaining the principles of antique architecture.10 Naked putti holding up the imperial coat of arms and crown, and “several antique figures” were to have decorated the faux marble hood. This decoration was painted, as was similar work at Grave. Between 1534 and 1536 Meister Alexander de Pascalin de Bolonia, or Alessandro Pasqualini from Bologna, inspected the renovation of a room in the castle of Grave for Floris van Egmond, Count of Buren, which was rontsome properlick op syn antiecke gescildert (painted all around properly in the antique fashion).11 The term ‘modern’ only rarely appears in the sources. The first instance concerns a payment on July 7, 1516, to the painter Jan van Roome, for the first projects for the tombs of Philibert of

8

Pauwels Ackerman is registered as antycksnyder in the Antwerp Liggeren in 1529. Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, pp. 24, 27, 31; van Wezel 1999, p. 111. 9 ARAB Rekenkamer 27400, fol. 16v: “Item noch vj antyke dueren aent nieu huys ende inde nieuwe gallerie”. De Jonge 1994b, pp. 110, 116-121. 10 ARAB Rekenkamer 4228, fols. 147v-148r: “… te wee­ tene die schyckels van marbren verwen, den scousteen met

zeekeren bequamen historien ende boven de lyste sal hy maken die wapenen ons heeren des keysers, den arent ende den keyser croone int opperste die gehouden zal wordden van diverssche naecte kinderkins ende voirts verchiert van diverssche anticque figuren”. Roggen 1953, p. 220 note 1; D’Hondt 1989, pp. 70-71, doc. 1. 11 van Wezel 1999, p. 119.

21

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

18. Anon. Fabriczy (Adriaen de Weerdt ?), garden façade of Coudenberg Palace, Brussels, c. 1580; Mary of ­Hungary’s gallery at left and the choir of the chapel at right.

Savoy, his mother, and his wife Margaret, at Brou. It seems that the style of some of these modelles was ‘modern’ whereas that of others was ‘antique’; both styles were equally preferred by van Roome at the time, as the tapestries of the series David and Bethsabe (Brussels, 1515), show (see ill. 28).12 The second example comes from Utrecht. In the documents relating to the change in design of the copper screen in front of St. Martin’s altar in the cathedral in 1519, the term is directly opposed to ‘antique’. The change in design was probably instigated by Bishop Philip of Burgundy, a notable lover of Antiquity; the designer was Hendrick die Zwart of Gouda. The contract dated September 19, 1519, ordered Gregorius Wellemans from Antwerp to sculpt a new wooden model “avoiding everything which is modern, and to correct and augment [the existing design] thoroughly in an antique [manner], rich and costly and above all, artful” (scuwende daer in all dat modern is; mer die te verbeteren ende te vermeerderen van geheelen antique na behooren des wercks, ryckelick ende costelick ende boven all kunstelick).13 The painter Jan Gossaert Mabuse from Maubeuge was called in as a consultant; he was a favourite of noted patrons such as Philip of Burgundy, Adolph of Burgundy (Admiral of Veere and patron of Erasmus), and Henry III of Nassau and his wife Mencía de Mendoza.14 The subsequent conflict between the carver Wellemans and the founder Jan van Eynde from Mechelen was arbitrated by Canon Willem Heda, an interesting personage. Author of an inventory of antique finds, he built one of the first houses in the antique style in Antwerp shortly before his death in 1525.15 This residence, known as the ‘House with the Diamonds’ because of its rusticated diamond-point base (removed in 1911), possesses a façade with superimposed pilaster Orders, whose shafts are decorated with arabesque ornaments taken from contemporary North-Italian engravings (see ill. 27).16

12

Duverger 1930; Roggen & Dhanens 1943; Dhanens 1945-1948; Dhanens 1976; Cahn 1979; Hörsch 1994, pp. 137, 141; Poiret 1994, pp. 67-75, 90-102; Kavaler 2000; Eichberger 2002, pp. 291-293. 13 Coster 1909; Amsterdam 1986b, pp. 11-23; Van Miegroet 2001; Ottenheym 2003, pp. 212-213.

22

14

Mensger 2002, pp. 79-90, 194-200. Langereis 2001, pp. 50-51, 97-104. The inventory remained unpublished, but circulated freely in manuscript form. 16 Van Langendonck 2002. 15

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530 Both in Brou and in ­Utrecht, ‘modern’ must mean the same as Vasari’s maniera vecchia in this context, or ‘Gothic’, but without the negative connotation Vasari’s term carries.17 More to the point, it indicates its latest, ‘Flamboyant’ variant, the main alternative to the antique manner.18 The most splendid Netherlandish manifestations of Flamboyant Gothic – the gables of SintHyppolitus (Oude Kerk) at Delft (1516), Ghent Town Hall (designed 1518-1519), the spire of the north tower of Antwerp Cathedral (completed 1521), the Palace of the Great Council at Mechelen (designed 1525) and the (unfinished) spire of Sint-Lieven at Zierikzee (designed 19. Brou, tomb of Margaret of Savoy, designed by Jan van Roome, 1516-1522, 1529) – are contemporary with the and Conrat Meyt, 1526-1530. first ‘antique works’ we have mentioned. The contract for the Tower of the Sacrament (sacramenthuys) in the Sint-Gummarus church at Lier (1536), now lost, defines the modern manner as follows: den nyeweren aert, te wetene van metselrijen zoe men du dagelijex useert (the new manner of architecture, which is used daily now). Its complex tracery decorations with bell-like forms, characteristic of the artists belonging to the Keldermans network, is described as bogen metten chambrant metten vullingen achter die bogen.19 Court artists such as Jan van Roome, Bernard van Orley, who was also a painter from Brussels, and Jan Gossaert, were proficient in both manners, which they used as the context demanded.20 Margaret of Savoy’s choice of the ‘modern’, Flamboyant design for the Brou tombs was not evidence of a traditionalist mindset.21 Only one example is currently known of an architect crossing over from one repertory to the other with the same ease as shown by the court painters. Lodewijk van Boghem from Brussels, who directed construction at Brou from 1513 onwards,

17 Still in 1577, ‘modern’ means ‘Gothic’ in Spain. Marías 1995, p. 133. The term is used in the same way by J. Paradin, Chronique de Savoye, Lyons 1561, when praising the tombs at Brou: “le plus superbe & trionfant bastiment & la plus plaisante structure pour une oeuvre à la Moderne, qui soit en Europe”. Cited by Duverger 1930, p. 8 note 1. 18 De Bruyn 1870, p. 238 is typical of the – sometimes overt, sometimes more subtly hidden – undervaluing of the Flamboyant with regard to the Renaissance in the literature of the last 150 years: “L’époque flamboyante est intéressante à étudier à cause de la lutte suprême et vitale, que l’art des maîtres-ès-pierres eut à soutenir contre la rénovation puissante de l’antiquité gréco-romaine, préparée par l’avènement des Médicis au trône ducal de Florence. La lutte fut surtout vive dans les Pays-Bas. Les bâtisseurs y restèrent longtemps fidèles

aux antiques traditions. Van Pede et Keldermans ciselaient encore des broderies flamboyantes, alors que l’on voyait déjà s’élever à Bruges l’hôtel des Biscayens, à Liège le portail de l’abbaye de Saint-Jacques.” The Flamboyant is seen as a tradition inexorably doomed to disappear. 19 Steppe 1952, pp. 100-104, 406-407; Kavaler 2000, p. 233. 20 Kavaler has convincingly shown that both systems carried their own meaning, and that one should not be seen as inferior to the other. Kavaler 2000. Gossaert was also greatly appreciated as an able imitator of fifteenth-century Flemish masters such as Jan van Eyck. Mensger 2002, pp. 33-55. 21 Kavaler 2000; Kavaler 2004. See also Duverger 1980; Tolley 1996; Eichberger 2002, pp. 277-344; Eichberger 2003.

23

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

20. Frans Hogenberg, events of 1566 in front of the Cou­denberg Palace (from M. Eyzinger, De leone Belgico, ­Cologne 1583).

21. Anon., ms. of Joyous Entry of Charles V into Bruges, 1515, The Age of Silver, ‘gothic’ structure with ogee arches.

mostly worked in the ‘modern’ manner, as he did for instance from 1515 to 1536 at the Broodhuis (Maison du Roi) at Brussels, which served as a model for Hendrik van Pede’s town hall at Oudenaarde. But from 1538-1539 he also built the first ‘antique’ addition to the old Coudenberg Palace: a staircase with an Ionic triumphal arch.22 The early ‘antique’ and the ‘modern’ repertory shared one characteristic that was greatly appreciated by the critics: complexity of formal invention and ingenuity of design; or, in court historiographer Remy Dupuys’ words, the quality of being moult artificiellement composez.23 Dupuys’ report on the Triumphal Entry of Charles V into Bruges in 1515 has been hailed as the first harbinger of the Renaissance in Netherlandish architecture, because its illustrations depict some of the earliest known ‘antique’ works in the country.24 The ephemeral arches and porticoes, erected by the foreign merchants in Bruges, were apparently decorated with pilasters with arabesque ornament, medallions and other motifs of an antique stamp, while the stages and galleries built by the guilds show the ogee arches and proliferating vegetal ornament of the Flamboyant. The sumptuously illuminated manuscript made for Margaret of Savoy, and the first edition published by Gilles de Gourmont in Paris around 1516, illus-

22 ARAB Rekenkamer 4227, fols. 130r-136r; 4228, fol. 266v. De Jonge 1994a, pp. 382-283 note 55. 23 Dupuys 1515, fol. D.vi.r. See also note 25.

24

24

von Roeder-Baumbach 1943, pp. 10-11; Landwehr 1971, p. 65, cat. 2; Anglo 1973, p. 18; Checa Cremades 1999, pp. 37-58; Brussels 1987, pp. 144-149. Manuscript in ÖNB, Ms. 2591.

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530 trated with fairly simple woodcuts, show that the author applied the term equally to works of both styles.25 Nevertheless, he expresses greater wonder upon contemplating the ‘antique’ inventions, “so old that they appear new and marvellous”.26 The antique repertory would win out in the end (see below). Professional Conflicts In the towns, the anticse wercken (antique works) were apparently at first the province of foreign craftsmen who did not always respect the rules of the traditional guilds or, above all, their mono­ 22. Colijn de Nole, chimneypiece in the town hall of Kampen, poly, as an Antwerp court case of 1538 shows.27 1545, detail. On March 29, 1539, Claudius Floris and Willem van der Borcht, master cleynstekers (sculptors), of Antwerp, were condemned because they had engaged craftsmen from outside the town who had not paid their dues to the masons’ guild. Seven masters in antycksnyden had been officially registered in the guild’s documents between 1529 and 1538.28 A similar case is known in Bruges. On July 6, 1547, Michiel Scherier, the master sculptor who had been working since 1540 on the ‘antique’ tomb of Jean Carondelet, chancellor of Flanders, was sentenced to pay a fine for every foreign assistant he had recruited.29 The realisation of the chimneypiece and aldermen’s benches in the renewed town hall at Kampen – respectively by Colijn de Nole of Utrecht (1543-1545) and “Master Frederick” of Kampen (1544-1545) – even led to a bloody fight between the out-of-towners and the local craftsmen.30 The structure of the building profession and building practice itself were changing: foreign expertise led to the breaking of the guild’s monopoly. None of the master sculptors who introduced the new, antique style architecture into court circles were subject to the rules of any particular guild. Jean Mone of Metz, favoured at court from 1524 onwards, and Jacques Du Broeucq of Mons, active at court after 1539-40, were both honoured with an appointment as artiste de l’empereur (artist to the Emperor), and consequently enjoyed a greater freedom.31

25

Dupuys 1515, fols. A.iv.v (“tresingenieux artifice”), B.ii.v (“belle forte et artificielle”), B.iv.v (“richement et tresartificiellement eslever”), C.iv.v (“bien artificiellement”), E.iii.v (“moult ingenieusement eslevez”), G.i.r (“ouvres… tresartificiellement”), G.ii.r (“moult ingenieusement divisee”). 26 Ibidem, fols. E.iii.v (on the triumphal arches erected by the Italians at the Exchange): “La place de la Bourse telle quelle est grande et large fut fermee de deux arches haultes et amples faisans portes aux passans (…) faictes chascune pour ung arc triumphal a lanticque et selon questoit coustume de faire aux Rommains pour honorer leurs princes victorieux. Les deux arcs furent moult ingenieusement eslevez tailles et painctz dor dazur et de touctes riches couleurs le tout seme detioles fusilz et personnages estranges sans nombre, et de si vielle façon questoit chose nouvelle et tresioyeuse a veoir”; E.v.v (on the antique fountain near the gallery at the Exchange, also erected by the Italians): “ung pilier destrange et tresnouvelle façon”. Van Miegroet 2001, p. 152.

27

Document from the Stadsarchief Antwerpen, cited by Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, pp. 68-69, doc. XV. Both his nephew, Cornelis II Floris, and the latter’s son, Cornelis III, would be condemned for the same transgression, in 1559 and 1595 respectively. Roggen & Withof 1942, p. 86. See also the next chapter, note 162. 28 Van Damme 1996, p. 13. 29 Parmentier 1948, pp. 13-15, doc. 9. Carondelet’s tomb (of which only the effigy remains) has been wrongly attributed in the past to Jean Mone (Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, p. 39) and to Lanceloot Blondeel. Vermeersch 1976, vol. III, p. 603, cat. 543. 30 Casteels 1961, pp. 70-71, 214-216; Amsterdam 1986, I, pp. 94-96; de Vries 2001. 31 In general Roggen 1953; Miedema 1980; De Jonge 1994a; Baudouin 2002.

25

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique This momentous change in building practice in the Low Countries was greatly facilitated by two factors. First of all, designing architecture came to be defined as an intellectual activity, much like Alberti’s notion of disegno, and was increasingly divorced both from the process of actual construction and from regulation by the guilds. Secondly, the Low Countries saw the influx of a new type of practitioner, the imperial military engineer, who worked at several sites under the direct orders of the Emperor’s military commanders and who consequently also escaped local guild control.32 The foremost – but neither the first nor the only one – of these was Donato de’ Boni Pellizuoli da Bergamo, a relative of the Lombard, Bartolomeo Bon and a disciple of Michele Sanmicheli. Donato designed the fortress at Ghent (1540), the Antwerp fortifications (1542) and the new fortified town of Mariembourg (1546).33 The new understanding of architecture can be found not only in the first Flemish Vitruvian treatise, Die Inventie der colommen, published by 23.  Donato de’ Boni, citadel at Gent, 1540. Anon. military Pieter Coecke van Aelst at Antwerp in 1539,34 but also engineer, 2nd half of the 16th century. in the depositions of Antwerp masters that figured in a court case at Utrecht in 1543 (about which more later).35 Cornelis De Schrijver, alias Scribonius or Grapheus, the town clerk of Antwerp who had taken down their testimony, had published Pomponius Gauricus’ treatise De Sculptura at his brother Jan Grapheus’ printing house in Antwerp in 1528.36 This text proclaims that the sculptor, seen as an intellectual, is superior to the stonecutter who practises a mere mechanical art. Vitruvius, and above all Alberti, both of whom are cited by Cornelis Grapheus in his introduction to De Sculptura, and in the Utrecht court depositions, stress the fundamental distinction between the disegno or concept and its practical realisation, which is characteristic of modern architectural theory.37 Henceforth, knowledge of the antique repertory of forms and its principles, and not membership of the guild and practical training under the guild’s masters, will make the ‘architect’. This neologism, the new alternative to boumeester, enters the Flemish language in 1539 through Pieter Coecke van Aelst’s work, as does the term ‘architecture’ (architectuer), which will slowly replace the traditional term metselrije.

32

Bragard 1997-1998, pp. 610, 618 and following; Roosens 1999; van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000. 33 On Donato, see Wauwermans 1896, p. 14 and following; Soly 1977, p. 198; Berckmans, 1977, 1979; Kiem 1987; van den Heuvel 1991, pp. 26, 46-48, 150; van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000, pp. 583-584. On other Italian military engineers active in the Low Countries in the 1530s, see Roosens 1999, pp. 155-159; Salamagne 2000. 34 Inventie der colommen 1539. UBG, Res. 1448 (facsimile in Rolf 1978); HAB, 40.5.1 Geom. (Wolfenbüttel 1994, pp. 29-30, cat. 1.10). Schéle 1962. 35 See Chapter II, note 152.

26

36

Gauricus-Grapheus 1528. Prims 1938; Roobaert 1960, p. 45. Copies conserved in Berlin, Leiden, London, Utrecht, Brussels (Nijhoff & Kronenberg 1923, I, p. 348, cat. 961), Leuven (CBIBL, BRES 7A808) and Ghent (UBG, NK961). For the other publications of Joannes Grapheus, see Brussels 1975b, p. 38, cat. 57-59 and 68; Cockx-Indestege & Glorieux 1968, pp. 583-584. 37 The painter’s and the sculptor’s status undergo a similar change in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. de Jongh 1983; Baudouin 2002. See pages 41, 80-81.

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530 Antiquity without Rules? The first ‘antique works’ existed, not without rules, but without the exact standards that Coecke, following Serlio, laid down from 1539 onwards in the form of a coherent system of five distinct Orders, each with its set of proportions. Theoretical texts, by Alberti and Vitruvius in particular, were circulating freely amongst the humanist elite before that date, as is shown, respectively, by the introduction to Cornelius Grapheus’ edition of Gauricus’ De Sculptura (1528) and by the correspondence between Frans Cranevelt and Petrus Curtius (1526). On November 5, 1526, Petrus Curtius wrote to Frans Cranevelt, a member of the Great Council at Mechelen and one of Erasmus’ correspondents: “I bought all the books you asked me to, insofar as they were available: Erasmus on marriage, his translation of Galenus and the rebuttal of Bede’s criticisms by the same author, as well as a small book against Bede and against Clichtoveus. All these books will be sent to you, together with a Vitruvius; I was able to buy them all for 27 shillings.”38 It is difficult, however, to gauge the impact of such texts, and especially of the illustrations in some of these treatises on contemporary practice, except perhaps with regard to Breda in the 1530s. The design by Tommaso Vincidor of Bologna for the residence of Henry III of Nassau (1536) seems to have been inspired by the reconstruction of the plan of an antique Roman house, published in Cesariano’s Vitruvius edition (Como 1521).39 The famous tomb in the antique manner that Henry erected to his uncle Englebert II and Cimburga van Baden in the Lady Chapel at the Grote Kerk, refers to another Cesariano illustration, i.e. the kneeling antique warriors on the Persian portico.40 Based on available evidence, it can be surmised that this Italian translation, like the earlier Latin one by Fra Giocondo (Venice, 1511), was known in the Breda court milieu.41 The 1543, Strasburg Latin edition by Walther Ryff, and his German translation of 1548, are based on the Cesariano one of 1521; whereas the 1523 Lyons one by Gabiano and Trot is a pirate edition that mixes together Cesariano and Fra Giocondo.42 There were many links between the Antwerp/Mechelen humanist milieu and the Breda court, not only in the case of Mencía de Mendoza, Henry III of Nassau’s third wife, but also Henry himself. Mencía protected the humanists Juan Luis Vives and Nicolaus Olah (Miklós Oláh), the latter a friend of both Grapheus and Cranevelt.43 A letter 24. Anon. Netherlandish sculptor, Breda, Grote Kerk, of Henry’s dated 1535, supporting the painter Jan van tomb of Engelbert II of Nassau, 1531-1534.

38 “Libros quos petijstj coemj quotquot inuenirj potuerunt: Erasmus ‘de Matrimonio’; jdem interpres Galenj; jtem ‘Elenchus in Censuras Bede’ per eundem Erasmum, & adversus eundem Bedam & Clichtoueum alter libellus. Veniunt ad te vna cum Vitruuio, cœmptj simul xxvij. stuferis”. The Vitruvius cost 18 shillings: “Dubitauj diu mecum num vellem mittere Vitruuium: nam & hic satis magno constat, & apud vnum tantum poterat pro xviij. stuferis, vt est compaginatus, emj”. De Vocht 1928, pp. 542-544 (CBIBL, Ms. 36, ep. 203, II, fol. 147r). For the collection of letters addressed to Cranevelt, see Leuven 2000, pp. 342-343, cat. 180. 39 van Wezel 1999, pp. 163-184.

40

Kavaler 1995, p. 31. In general, see van Luttervelt 1962; Kuyper 1994, I, pp. 95-97; Scholten 2003, pp. 178-182; van Wezel 2003; Koldeweij & van Wezel 2003, pp. 278-284. 41 van Wezel 1999, p. 176. About Ryff (Rivius), see Dann 1988 and the literature cited therein. See also in general Krinsky 1971; Ciapponi 1984. See also pages 62-64. 42 Kemp (forthcoming). One should not forget that one of the main routes from Flanders to Rome went by way of Lyons (Caracciolo 1997). 43 Vosters 1961, pp. 62-80; Vosters 1987, pp. 48-56, 63-67; Spruyt 1993, p. 102.

27

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

25. IJsselstein, church tower, 1532-1535, attr. to Alessandro Pasqualini.

26. Willem Heda,Genethliacum, a humanist gene­ alogy of the House of Habsburg, c. 1506.

28

Scorel’s right of candidature to the post of canon at the Utrecht chapter, confirms van Scorel’s close ties to the Breda court in the early 1530s.44 Van Scorel was one of the most famous painters of the antique manner in his day, and if we are to believe Carel van Mander, van Scorel served from 1521 to 1524 as keeper of the antique collections at the Vatican, partly as protégé of the Utrecht pope Hadrian VI.45 In 1533, the poet Janus Secundus asked van Scorel to recommend him to Henry, maybe in the hope of receiving a pension from him as Gossaert had done from Mencía until his death in 1532.46 Earlier still, Vitruvius must have been known – but not actually used – at the Souburg (Middelburg) court of Philip of Burgundy, Bishop of Utrecht, and at Wijk bij Duurstede near Utrecht. Philip’s biographer, Gerardus Geldenhouer Noviomagus, relates a learned dialogue about architecture, its proportions, symmetry and elements, e.g. pedestals, columns, architraves and cornices – in short, with a Vitruvian stamp worthy of Diego de Sagredo, (see below) – which took place in Rome in 1508-1509 between the envoy and Pope Julius II.47 The Utrecht context of the 1530s also offers the most explicit example of the use of Cesariano’s Vitruvius. On the church tower at nearby IJsselstein, probably built about 1532-1535 with the support of Floris of Egmond, Count of Buren, and his son Maximilian (about whom more later), Doric, Ionic and Corinthian pilasters are correctly stacked according to the antique rule.48 The result resembles nothing more than Cesariano’s depiction of the Tower of the Winds in ­Athens, and the details of the Orders closely follow his models. Other details of Netherlandish ‘antique works’ testify to the continuing use of Diego de Sagredo’s Medidas del romano, a Vitruvian dialogue published in Toledo in 1526,

44 Dekker 1986, pp. 39, 50, 60; van Wezel 1999, pp. 7475. 45 Amsterdam 1986b, I, pp. 23-38; Brussels/Rome 1995, pp. 318-323; Ottenheym 2003a, pp. 214-218. On van Scorel’s career after his Roman adventure, Faries 1997. His status as expert in the Antique, who had been to Rome, was also expressed in his (lost) epitaph. Defoer & Dirkse 1986. 46 Amsterdam 1986b, II, p. 179; van Wezel 1999, p. 75. 47 Cited by van Wezel 1999, p. 112 and Van Miegroet 2001, p. 153. 48 Commonly attributed to Alessandro Pasqualini from Bologna, about whom more later. Labouchère 1922; Har­ denberg 1959, pp. 386-387; Vos & Leeman 1986, pp. 4648; van Mierlo 1991, p. 159; Goossens & Vermeer 1992, pp. 178-179; Kuyper 1994, I, pp. 134-136; Icking 1999; van Wezel 1999, pp. 115-117.

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530 but available soon afterwards in a French translation by Simon de Colynes (Raison d’architecture antique).49 Interestingly enough, Sagredo may have been in Rome when Hadrian VI of Utrecht was installed as pope (1522), an occasion for many Spanish prelates – amongst them some of Sagredo’s protectors – to visit the city.50 Engravings also served as source material. The North-Italian engravings of arabesques used for the pilasters of the Karbonkelhuis, must have been part of patron Willem Heda’s extensive library.51 In his home town of Utrecht, Heda was one of the leading lights of the same erudite circle Jan van Scorel belonged to. The palace in the central tapestry of Jan van Roome’s famous David and Bethsabe series, tentatively dated between 1515 and 1525, closely resembles fantasy architecture in the antique manner in the so-called Codex Destailleur B and the Codex Santarelli. Both model books have been linked to the work of Fra Giocondo, Vitruvius’ editor, and probably follow an older, North-Italian model.52 Related sketchbooks must have been available in the North, as is witnessed by the copies made by Jacques Androuet I Du Cerceau, now in the Ecole des Beaux-Arts at Paris, and by an anon27. Antwerp, house of Willem Heda, Karbonkelhuis, ymous Netherlandish artist, now in the Kasseler 1520-1522, detail of pilasters (before restoration). Codex, property of the Frisian artist Hermannus Posthumus in the 1530s and 1540s.53 In the first half of the sixteenth century, many parts of Europe, from Spain to Normandy, show a similar appreciation for antique ornament of Lombardo-Venetian origin.54 Sagredo’s woodcuts of a Lombard baluster and candelabra even added a Vitruvian stamp of approval.55

49

Van Wezel 1999, pp. 215, 222, sees similarities in the Doric and Ionic Orders of Breda to Sagredo’s. Also, Sagredo’s pedestal with frieze, a popular element of the Spanish Early Renaissance, also appears in the Low Countries, e.g. on the triumphal arches erected for Philip of Spain’s Joyous Entry into Ghent, 1549, which were designed by Frans van de Velde. Gent 1999-2000, p. 176, cat. 17; Lemerle & Pauwels 2002, p. 5. 50 Llewellyn 1988, pp. 298-299. On the cultural milieu in Rome during Hadrian VI’s pontificate, see Altringer 19981999. 51 Van Langendonck 2002, pp. 103-104; Tournoy & Oosterbosch 2002. On Northern Italy and its peculiar rela-

tionship to the Antique, see Schofield 1992; Schofield 1993; Fortini Brown 1996. 52 von Geymüller 1882; von Geymüller 1891; Gukovskj 1963; Firenze 1967; Michailova 1969; Michailova 1970; Scaglia 1970. 53 Günther 1988, p. 359; Paris/Cambridge/New York 1994-1995, pp. 168-175, cat. 54 (“vol. J”). 54 See, for instance, Turcat 1994; Letérron & Gillot 1996; Pauwels 1999. 55 Llewellyn 1977, pp. 294-300; Medidas del Romano… 1986, fols. Cij.r-v; Granada 2000a, pp. 465-469, cat. 139141.

29

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

29. Netherlandish Anon. (Hermannus Posthumus?), fantasy antique building, from the Kasseler Codex.

28. Jan van Roome, central tapestry of the David and Bethsabé series, c. 1515-1525.

Antiquity was perceived as an integral part of the national past. From the earliest decades of the sixteenth century, Netherlandish humanists started searching for archaeological evidence of their Roman roots: the Low Countries were seen as a former part of the Roman Empire.56 In 1520, the foundations of the Brittenburg, the fortified base camp from which the Emperor Claudius began his conquest of Britain, were discovered on the North Sea shore near the mouth of the Rhine. Years later in 1552, Jan van Scorel would take some of its stones to the Coudenberg Palace in Brussels, to show them to Philip of Spain.57 Earlier still, the famous humanist Jean Lemaire de Belges tried to interest Margaret of Savoy in a Gallo-Roman tumulus near Zaventem (Brussels). His scrupulously detailed description of its structure and of the objects found during the excavation on May 14, 1507, was aptly incorpor­ ated in his treatise Des Anciennes pompes funeralles on ancient funerary rites.58 At the time, between 1507 and 1512, Lemaire was supervisor of the work at Brou, and unsuccessfully trying to advance the cause of his friend from Lyons, Jean Perréal, a well-known expert of the antique. The original report, which inspired Lemaire’s description, had originated in the circle of Gillis and Hieronymus Busleyden, who, like Willem Heda, were noted humanists and connoisseurs of the antique. Hieronymus was the founder of the famous Collegium Trilingue at Leuven, which was supported by Erasmus; his house at Mechelen was adorned with a remarkable ensemble of wall paintings up zijn antics ascribed to Jan van Roome and dated before 1515.59

56 In general, Langereis 2001, pp. 25-60 and Meganck 2003. 57 Meganck 1999. See also page 90.

30

58

Fontaine & Brown 2001, pp. VI-XXI. Foncke 1938; Roggen & Dhanens 1951, pp. 130-145; Terlinden 1978, pp. 62-64.

59

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530

30. Reconstruction of the Brittenburg (Frans Hogenberg? after Abraham Ortelius), from Lodo­vico Guicciardini, Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi, Antwerp 1581.

31. Pierre Sala after Jean Lemaire de Belges, tumulus at Zaventem, in Des Anciennes pompes funeralles, 1507.

The Mone Repertory Jean Mone of Metz (Lorraine), artist to the Emperor (b. 1485/1490? – d. 1548/1549), introduced a characteristic, antique-looking repertory into the architecture of the Netherlandish elite, for whom he mainly worked. On the most important construction sites of the time, he formed a triumvirate with Emperor Charles V’s werckman generaal (supervising architect) Rombout II Keldermans (d. 1531), and the representative of the Le Prince family, who were stonecutters and traders in the dark-grey carboniferous limestone (‘bluestone’) from Ecaussines-Feluy-Arquennes.60 On other occasions, the brothers Hubert and Andrieu Nonnon from Dinant, specialized in carving the black marble from the Meuse region, would take their place.61 Paradoxically, Rombout II Keldermans is most often designated as a late-Gothic, i.e. ‘traditionalist’ master, whereas Jean Mone is seen as the foremost representative of Netherlandish Early Renaissance sculpture; the Nonnon and Le Prince families have no clear-cut stylistic identity in current literature. In Hoogstraten, Keldermans directed the renovation of the ancient castle and designed the new collegiate church, which would serve as mausoleum for Antoine de Lalaing and his descendants. Mone carved Lalaing’s tomb from alabaster and black marble bought from the Nonnon brothers, and also designed the rich, ‘antique’ carvings with which the new living quarters at the castle were decorated.62 Another instance finds Rombout II Keldermans at Heverlee, where from 1522 to 1526 he erected the Celestin Priory Church for Mary of Hamal. Until the end of the eighteenth century, this church would house the tombs of the Croÿ family and their successors, 60

On the Keldermans family, see above all Janse 1987. On the Le Prince family, see Jous 1979, pp. 271-272; Baguet 1985, pp. 25-28; Van Belle 1990, p. 39; Van Belle 1994, pp. 775-776, 814-816. 61 For instance, Mone recommended them to the Bruges city

council for the marble supports of the chimneypiece in the Brugse Vrije in 1529, designed by Lanceloot Blondeel. Roggen & Casteels 1938, p. 35; Devliegher 1987, p. 47. 62 Lauwerys 1960; Lauwerys 1971; Lauwerys 1978-1979; Leys 1987, pp. 161-162; De Ceulaer 1988, pp. XII-XIII.

31

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique the Arenbergs, as Mary’s husband, William of Croÿ, Lord of Chièvres and Lord High Chamberlain to the Emperor Charles V had ordained in his last will and testament, made at Heverlee on October 20, 1520, and again at Worms on May 21, 1521. The patrons’ tomb, that of their nephew William of Croÿ, Archbishop of Toledo (died at Worms on January 6, 1521), the rood screen and the altarpiece all came from Mone’s workshop.63 Mone sculpted the alabaster effigies and the Virtues in the niches of the main tomb, while Andrieu Nonnon of Dinant delivered the black marble of the high dais.64 The components of the loggia next to the main staircase of Margaret of Austria’s palace at Mechelen, designed by Rombout II Keldermans, were delivered by Pie­ ter Le Prince (1518-1520), while the mark of Guillaume Le Prince and other members of the family can be found on the bluestone parts of the castles at Breda (from 1536) and Boussu (from 1540).65 The most popular forms used in Netherlandish ‘antique works’ of the 1520s and 1530s stem from Mone’s work.66 He preferred volutes in the form of an S or a C that merge into a winged lion’s foot, decorated with glyphs, and with acanthus leaves forming the wings; candelabra with a fluted vase form in the lower part of the shaft; finely 32. Jean Mone, tomb of William of Croÿ, ­Archbishop carved arabesques covering friezes, parapets, pilas- of Toledo, completed 1529, now in Enghien, Capu­ ters and all other flat surfaces; and finally, the typical chin church. ‘Mone’ column, the shaft of which is decorated with a ring, covered with arabesques in the lower third, and often fluted in the upper two thirds. The tomb of William of Croÿ, Bishop of Toledo at Heverlee, which is now in Enghien, displays such columns, with capitals of the Corinthian type distinguished by their rams-head corner volutes, combined with a frieze of Doric triglyphs, and metopes decorated with angel heads and other figures.67 Both the column and the characteristic Doric/Corinthian combination of ornament refer to Mone’s collaboration with Bartholomé Ordóñez in Barcelona. He worked there from 1516 till 1519, i.e. during the period when Ordóñez received his last and most important orders: the tombs in Granada Cathedral of Philip the Handsome and Joanna of Castile, parents of Charles V; the tomb of Cardinal Cisneros, Croÿ’s predecessor, at Alcalá de Henares, and the Fonseca tombs at Coca, all of which would remain unfinished at the sculptor’s death in December 1520.68 Mone must have left Barcelona soon afterwards, since he turned up in Antwerp in 1521. In Barcelona he worked on the choir benches for the first 63

Valvekens 1980; Valvekens 1983; Valvekens 1985; Valvekens 1987; Van Uytven 1974, pp. 174-176, 182-184; Minnen 1993, pp. 178-237. 64 Order dating from April 25, 1522; in 1525, the tomb was finished. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Arenberg Archief, B2, fol. 29r. Valvekens 1980, pp. 43, 184, appendix VI; Valvekens 1983, p. 8.

32

65

Meischke & van Tyghem 1987, p. 144; Eichberger 2002, p. 82. de Vries 1994, p. 59; van Wezel 1999, pp. 188-189, 244. De Jonge & Capouillez 1998, pp. 109-113. 66 Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, pp. 6-26; Roggen 1953. 67 Completed in 1529. Valvekens 1980, pp. 33-34, appendix X; Valvekens 1983, pp. 3-6; Pauwels 1999, pp. 89-90. 68 Gómez-Moreno 1941(1983), pp. 25-29; Marías 1989, pp. 278-281; Estella 1999, pp. 50-52.

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530

33. Jean Mone, ‘winged’ volute with lion’s foot, Barcelona, Old Cathedral, choir stalls, 1517-1519.

34. Jean Mone, ‘winged’ volute with lion’s foot, top of altarpiece formerly in Coudenberg palace chapel (now in the cathedral of Brussels), 1538-1541, first version 1536.

chapter of the Order of the Golden Fleece to be held outside the Low Countries (1519).69 The richly carved sidepieces show various motifs he would later re-use in his Netherlandish alabaster work. The column with a ringed shaft frequently crops up in Ordóñez’s work, as does the Doric frieze with angel heads, for instance in the Caracciolo di Vico Chapel at Naples (1516), and the rood screen in Barcelona Cathedral.70 Mone must have shared Ordóñez’s Italian experience, since Dürer – who met him in Antwerp in 1521 – describes him as der guten marmelstainhauer Maister Jan in Welschland gelert.71 Assimilation and Diffusion With elements such as these, the traditional stepped gable of the Low Countries could be modernized, as Mone shows in his altarpiece for the chapel at Coudenberg Palace in Brussels, dated 1541.72 For instance, ‘winged’ volutes with clawed feet, or maybe fully fledged sphinxes, were used in the gable of the great hall of the Nassau Castle at Breda, which must date from the late 1530s. Even more 69 Contract in Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, pp. 63-63, doc. V and Roggen 1953, p. 240, doc. VIII. Context in Checa Cremades 1999, pp. 58-76. 70 Pane 1977, II, pp. 177-178. 71 Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, pp. 9-10, 15; van Duinen 1997, p. 21. See Chapter III, note 193.

72

It replaced an older design, also by Mone but judged to be insufficient, and is now conserved in the main chapel at Brussels Cathedral. It was removed from the chapel at the Coudenberg Palace at the instigation of the Archdukes, Albert of Austria and the Infanta Isabella of Spain, in 1603. Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, p. 23. On the Netherlandish scrolled gable in general, see Hitchcock 1978, with many outdated elements however (Schellekens 1992).

33

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

35. Breda, entrance gallery of the Nassau palace, 1534-1535. Drawing attr. to Valentijn Klotz, 1692.

strikingly, the entrance gallery and main portal of the Breda Palace compound, now convincingly dated 1534-1535, and the upper parts of the courtyard façades of the main quadrangle itself, show the same vocabulary.73 Some of these motifs, like the baluster finials and the opposing dolphins with linked tails on the pediments, have their roots in 36. Brussels, palace of Maximilian Transsylvanus, the northern Italian Renaissance of the late fifteenth 1529-1532. Detail from (copy after) Antoon Sallaert, century. Mone does not appear, however, in the Archduchess Isabella visits the archers’ guild, 1615. Breda accounts. Andries Seron of Mechelen, whose origins were possibly Spanish, executed together with his workshop the stone carvings at Breda and also at Buren (about which more later).74 An earlier example of this original invention, the main gable of the Brussels house of Maximilian Transsylvanus, Counsellor to the Emperor, can be dated between 1529 and 1532 on the basis of tax documents.75 This showpiece, also adorned with a triumphal arch in the antique manner, was praised by Janus Secundus in a poem that must have been written at the start of 1532, and was published in 1541. The poet sings the mythical figures sculpted on the façade: Orpheus and his lyre in the central niche, flanked by Eurydice and Proserpina; Minerva jumping from Jupiter’s head in the frontispiece, assisted by Vulcanus, “and divine Philosophy crowns the whole”. This gable can probably be attributed, if not to Mone himself, to one of the artists at court, well versed in the Mone repertory of forms; perhaps Jean Wilho, or Guilgot who made the statues on top of the triumphal arch at the entrance to the court’s new staircase, and who is cited by Vredeman de Vries as one of the masters capable of adapting Antiquity to both modern and local needs.76 Also during the 1530s Mone, or artists influenced by him, successfully applied the classical Orders to the traditional Netherlandish town house façade with its closely serried ranks of cross-windows. In Bruges, Christiaan Sixdeniers, master mason to the town, executed a project by Jan Wallot for the Nieuwe Griffie, built to house the judiciary (1534-1537).77 Wallot, about whom nothing further is known, must have been a French-speaking ‘foreigner’, as his name indicates. He was obviously familiar with the Mone repertory, as the column and the gable decoration (in its original, pre-1878 state) show. Jean Mone, who may not be identified with Wallot, had acted as a consultant to the town’s

73

van Wezel 1999, pp. 140-144, 209-229. van Wezel 1999, pp. 116-127; van den Heuvel & van Wezel 1999. 75 De Jonge 1997c. 74

34

76 About Wilho, see Duverger, Onghena and van Daalen 1953, pp. 49-50; D’Hondt 1989, pp. 67-68; De Jonge 1994b, pp. 113-114. On Vredeman de Vries, see page 95. 77 Wittevrongel 1973.

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530 administration in the matter of the chimneypiece in the aldermen’s chamber.78 Executed between 1529 and 1531 after a design by the painter Lanceloot Blondeel, dated October 1528, this masterpiece, however, unlike the façade of the Nieuwe Griffie, shows no characteristic elements of the Mone repertory. Mone’s advice concerned the choice of Andrieu Nonnon of Dinant, who would carve the black marble supports, and several other matters (plusieurs avis) during execution.79 Around 1500, the Keldermans masters had developed a successful façade composition for town houses and town halls, in which blind, depressed or three-lobed arches on thin colonettes frame tall cross-windows. Both the wall surface above the arches and the recessed tympani underneath may be decorated with tracery. Examples of this are the (lost) De Lepelaar house at Mechelen, the Keulen house (Het Paviljoen) in the same town, and the town hall at Hoogstraten, designed in 1525.80 Between 1530 and 1535 or 1537, Willem van Werchtere, a local building master, built the so-called ‘Salmon’, the house of the fish merchants’ guild at Mechelen.81 The façade offers a perfect translation of the Keldermans model 37. Bruges, Nieuwe Griffie, 1534-1537, designed by into the antique language, with Mone columns and Jan Wallot. arabesques replacing Gothic or ‘modern’ ornament. Consoles decorated with acanthus bridge the distance between the capitals and the entablature, thus framing the arches. The same formula, but with a proto-Doric frieze with triglyphs inserted between the first row of consoles, was used in the house of the fullers’ guild at Antwerp, erected from 1541 in the same dark grey Ecaussines limestone as the Salmon.82 A narrow ring dividing the shaft in two refers to the Mone column, but the ring is without ornament. Thus it seems that the Mone repertory spread rapidly, not only amongst court artists working for the elite, but also in the towns where they acted as consultants. The choir stalls at Dordrecht were created between 1538 and 1541 by Jan Terwen Aartszoon, alias Jeannin, who came from Thérouanne, and who proved himself very familiar with the Mone repertory. The exact nature of the connection between the two artists is not clear, but Mone regularly acted as a consultant to the town from 1524 to 1547.83 The wooden portal on the upper floor of the Oudenaarde Town Hall was executed from 78 Devliegher 1987; Bruges 1998, 173 and the literature cited therein. 79 Roggen 1953, p. 225 thought that Mone had corrected Blondeel’s design, but this is far from sure. The only court artist mentioned as a sculptor in the accounts is Guyot de Beaugrant of Mechelen, who made some of the almost lifesize wooden statues on the hood, and who invented and sculpted the alabaster frieze with the story of Susan on the lintel, and probably also the four alabaster putti mentoned in 1530. Devliegher 1987, pp. 47-49, 90-91. 80 They may have followed the basic scheme of the Tafelrond, a series of three houses with one common façade realized by Matheus de Layens for the town council of Leuven

between 1480 and 1487. Van Tyghem 1987, pp. 97-99. 81 Fontaine 1968; Vandevivere & Périer-d’Ieteren 1973, pp. 76-77; BDEH 9n, pp. 511-514. 82 BDEH 3n, pp. 68-69; Van Aerschot 1993, pp. 29-30. See the washed drawing by J. Linnig, 1857, showing its state before the restorations of 1921 and 1962 (Antwerp, Stadsarchief). Tijs 1993, p. 139. The same solution, but with the Doric frieze in its proper place, was used in the courtyard of the Oude Vierschaar (court house) at Antwerp (1539-1540). De Jonge 2002b, pp. 39-40. 83 Bierens de Haan 1921, 119-126; van Duinen 1997, especially pp. 17-26, and the literature cited therein.

35

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

38. Mechelen, The Salmon, by Willem van Werchtere, between 1530-1535/37, detail of façade.

40. Anon., façade with Charles V’s arms, emblem and mottoes.

39. Dordrecht, Grote Kerk, choir stalls, 1538-1541. Sculptor Jan Terwen Aartszoon.

36

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530

41. Pieter Marlier and Pauwels van der Schelden, Oudenaarde, town hall, portal, 1531-1534.

42. Rombout II Keldermans and Staessen Le Prince, quadrifoil column, Mechelen, palace of the Great Council, 1526.

1531 to 1534-1535 by the Pieter Marlier, carpenter, and Pauwels van der Schelden, wood carver, after a design by an unknown artist.84 There is a connection to the artistic elite at court since Oudenaarde belonged to the military district for which Philip of Lalaing, nephew of Antoine de Lalaing, was responsible as bailli; as a consequence, a connection to Hoogstraten, and to Jean Mone’s work there, cannot be excluded.85 The portal shows a particular form of column. Three candelabra with a fluted vase form below, topped by a ring, merge into a composite pier with trefoil section; they stand on a double pedestal, square below and cylindrical above. This type of candelabra can also be found, together with the Mone column, in a tomb design attributed to Gossaert and dated before 1532, now identified as an unexecuted project for the tomb of William II, Count of Holland († 1256), and his wife Elisabeth of Brunswick-Luneburg († 1266) at the Abbey of Middelburg.86 This composite candelabra column was, in fact, only partially of antique origin, as was the baluster.87 It can also be seen as the adaptation, in the antique manner, of a Keldermans invention. Between 1526 and 1532, Staessen (Eustache) Le Prince delivered several composite pillars in dark grey Ecaussines limestone for the Palace of the Great Council at Mechelen, which remained unfinished until the late nineteenth century.88 Rombout II Keldermans’ design can be interpreted as four juxtaposed 84

Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, pp. 47-48; De­vliegher 1987, pp. 91-92. 85 Kavaler 1994, p. 374; Devliegher 1987, pp. 91-92. 86 Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. KdZ 4646. Sometimes identified as a project for the tomb of Isabel of Austria, sister of Charles V and queen of Denmark (Rotterdam/Brugge 1965, pp. 329330, cat. 66; Utrecht/’s Hertogenbosch 1993, 241, cat. 178),

sometimes as a project for William II, Count of Holland and King of the Romans, and Elisabeth of Brunswick-Luneburg in the Abbey of Middelburg (Meischke 1952(1988), p. 179; Dhanens 1985, pp. 125 and following; Amsterdam 1986b, I, p. 49). On Isabel’s tomb as executed, see Mensger 2002, pp. 104-106. 87 Davies & Hemsoll 1983. 88 van Tyghem 1987, p. 123.

37

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

43. Netherl. Anon. (attr. to Jacques Du Broeucq), project for rood screen, Sainte-Waudru, Mons, dated 1535.

columns merging to form a free-standing pillar with quadrifoil section, placed on a high octagonal pedestal. The same columns were used by Rombout (or a member of his family, maybe Matthijs III) in the courtyard façade of the castle of William of Croÿ and Mary of Hamal at Heverlee (before 15191520).89 As at Mechelen, they support Tudor arches. Another type of composite pillar in the antique manner can also be linked with the Keldermans model. In 1534, the canonesses of Sainte-Waudru at Mons signed a contract with Hubert and Andrieu Nonnon for the marble of a sumptuous new rood screen.90 There were other close links to court society, as exemplified by the history of the stained glass windows, donated by the highest nobility of the country.91 Since the nineteenth century, a drawing on parchment, which closely corresponds to the known descriptions of this lost work, has been identified as the first design for the rood screen, not least because it bears the date 1535 in the lower frieze. It is currently (and probably wrongfully) attributed to Jacques Du Broeucq, who carved the alabaster reliefs and statues in the upper register between 1539-1540 and 1544-1545.92 The drawing shows arches supported by pillars, which are flanked on all four sides by a column on a pedestal. If one were to separate the four columns of the Keldermans ‘quadrifoil’ column, inserting a square pillar at the core, one would obtain the composite pillar shown in the drawing. The choir benches, carved by Jean Fourmanoir in 1544, were also decorated with a pillier quairet bien ouvret a l’anticque avoecq son rond pillier.93 Such a combination was again pioneered by Rombout II Keldermans in the north wing of Margaret of Savoy’s palace in

89

De Jonge 2004. Hedicke 1911, pp. 19-165, 362-373; Steppe 1952, pp. 214-233; Sonkes 1970; Didier 1985, pp. 35-85; Didier 2000, pp. 127-200. 91 Van den Bemden 1985; Kavaler 1994, p. 374. 90

38

92

AEM Cartes et plans 412, 700 x 1000 mm. Utrecht/ ’s Hertogenbosch 1993, pp. 254-255, cat. 195. Against this assumption are Steppe 1952, Sonkes 1970 and De Jonge 1998b. 93 Hedicke 1911, pp. 166-178, 374-393; Kavaler 1994, p. 373.

Chapter I: Anticse wercken: Architecture in the Antique Manner 1500-1530 Mechelen, which was probably executed after the patron’s death in 1531. In the portico, a column and a pilaster fuse to a composite shape.94 The rood screen design of 1535 is closely related to another large-scale presentation drawing on vellum, showing a gabled façade with the date of 1534,95 and to a series of engravings showing altarpieces, choir benches, tombs, portals, chimney pieces, tabernacles, and façades.96 As with the drawing, some of them are dated – 1531, 1534, 1535 – and have Latin inscriptions in their frieze. For the most part wrongfully attributed to Jacques Androuet Du Cerceau the Elder, who indeed seems to have re-used them often for micro-architecture designs in later years, these engravings were used as illustrations by Charles De Beste, master mason of Bruges, in his treatise De Architectura, written between 1596 and 1599-1600.97 The close similarity between the two presentation drawings (in material, drawing technique and style, and formal language) leaves no doubt as to their common origin. Like the drawings, the engravings show consistent use of the same ‘antique’ repertory. Details such as fluted column shafts with a double ring, the lower one with 44. Netherlandish Anon., triumphal arch with balusarabesques, the upper one with rams’ heads; volutes ter columns, dated 1534, etching. with glyphs that end in clawed feet; candelabra with fluted vases at the bottom; spidery looking arabesques in the frieze, and medallions with profiles, are very characteristic and are shared by all of them. These designs probably represent ideal models or idealized versions of existing works. There are obvious parallels with the Mone altarpieces, the choir stalls at Dordrecht, the portal at Oudenaarde, and also with the baptismal font in the Grote Kerk at Breda (Saint Anne’s Chapel), a masterpiece of the founder’s art bought in Antwerp from Joes de Backer in 1540.98 The style of engraving and the idiosyncratic forms point in the direction of the (unknown) artist who designed and executed the genealogy of Charles V in the upper register of Nicolas Hogenberg’s Coronation cortège of Charles V in Bologna, second edition (after 1532).99 Altogether, these paper models offer an excellent synthesis of the antique repertory used by the Netherlandish artistic elite of the 1530s. This was the closest it would come to standardization before 1539. 94 Meischke & Van Tyghem 1987, p. 146; Eichberger 2002, pp. 135-141. 95 London, Sir John Soane’s Museum, Margaret Chinnery Album, 920 x 470 mm, ascribed to Du Broeucq, on the basis of the similarity to the Mons rood screen drawing, by David Thomson; but Fairbarn 1998, I, p. 262, cat. 369 thinks this cannot be so, because the columns are proportioned differently (!). The argument is quite irrelevant in view of the different subjects of these drawings, and uses the postSerlio standard of the Five-Order proportional system, not applicable to early 1530s Northern Europe. 96 Amongst others, the so-called petites pièces au trait formerly in the Foulc Collection and now in Paris, Bibliothèque Doucet, Fol. Rés. 65. 97 For the most part (wrongfully) attributed to Jacques Androuet Du Cerceau I, première manière, after von Gey-

müller 1887, pp. 287-288; Du Cerceau turns out to be born c. 1520 and not earlier (Thomson 1988, p. 5). Some were included as illustrations into the manuscript of Charles De Beste, KBB Ms. II 7617, fols. 363r-366r, 374r. van den Heuvel 1994a; van den Heuvel 1995. K. De Jonge and P. Fuhring are preparing a comprehensive study of these engravings. These motifs are systematically used in the goldsmith’s designs attributed to Du Cerceau, see, for instance, Byrne 1973; Byrne 1977; Paris/Cambridge/New York 1994-1995, pp. 180-185, cat. 56. 98 Kalf 1912, p. 96; Amsterdam 1986b, II, pp. 95-96, cat. 169. 99 Hollstein (1953), IX, p. 64; Mitchell 1979, pp. 19-25, cat. III; Dekker 1986, pp. 191-196; Bonn 1998-1999, p. 472, cat. 130; Urbania 1999. von Heusinger 2001 ignores the Netherlandish connection and attributes the genealogy to Du Cerceau.

39

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

45. Diego de Sagredo, candelaber column, from Medidas del romano, 2nd ed., Toledo 1549.

40

46. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Die Inventie der colommen, 1539, Doric Order.

Chapter II: Standardizing ‘Antique’ Architecture 1539-1543

During the first decades of the sixteenth century, the two-fold search for Antiquity – the search for the Low Countries’ Roman past on the one hand, and the search for texts which could explain the theoretical tenets underlying the new vocabulary of forms on the other – remained almost exclusively confined to the intellectual elite. The impact on practice was therefore very limited. Also, texts like the various Vitruvius editions available to the well-informed (and wealthy) book-lover were hardly of much use to the practitioner, especially if he, like most building masters and sculptors, were ignorant of Latin. The publication of Diego de Sagredo’s Vitruvian dialogue in Toledo in 1526 did not change matters at first. This text, the first modern treatise addressing the problem of building a lo romano, was not Italian, but of Spanish origin, and although initially published in a language not generally known in the Low Countries, by the early 1530s it was available in an augmented French translation by Simon de Colynes of Paris.100 In this form, it decisively influenced Pieter Coecke van Aelst’s (b. 1502 – d. 1550) first venture into the field of architectural theory, Die Inventie der colommen, which appeared in Antwerp in 1539.101 Together with Coecke’s unauthorized translations of Sebastiano Serlio’s Book IV, also published at Antwerp by Gillis Coppens van Diest from 1539 to 1543, the Inventie constitutes a landmark in the history of architectural publishing in Northern Europe. Numerous editions of Serlio’s Books I, II, III and V in several languages soon followed those of Book IV, bearing witness to Coecke’s role as the chief popularizer of Serlio’s work north of the Alps.102 These texts clearly set out what the rules governing the design of architecture in the ‘antique’ manner were, and how its individual components were to be constructed correctly: capitals, bases, columns, pedestals, pediments, entablatures, cornices and architraves. Also central to understanding Coecke’s publishing enterprise is his quest, and that of the artistic elite in general, for social emancipation.103 Henceforth, the architect would not be confused with a mere artisan, and architecture would be understood as a scientific subject.104 Sagredo’s dialogue, Cesariano’s lengthy commentary on the architect’s character, and Gauricus’ claim regarding the sculptor’s independence would firmly place architecture in the intellectual domain, and thus it would become a worthy subject of interest for a noble patron.105 Nevertheless, Coecke’s publications – especially the more affordable Inventie – also offered the Netherlandish craftsman the first useful guide for fashioning correct, antique forms, or as Coecke puts it, “the best guide to understanding Vitruvius”. Indeed, Vitruvius remains the key word in the contemporary architectural debate. A rare report concerning a Utrecht court case of 1543, which implicated several members of the Antwerp humanist

100 Llewellyn 1977; Medidas del romano… 1986; Llewellyn 1988; Llewellyn 1998; Granada 2000a, pp. 465-469, cat. 139-141. 101 Born in 1502; Master of Saint-Luke’s Guild, Antwerp, 1527; died on December 6, 1550. Corbet 1950, pp. 7-15; archival documents in Marlier 1966, pp. 35-45. For Inventie der colommen 1539, see Chapter I, note 34. 102 Delen 1941; Corbet 1950, pp. 7-18; Forssman 1956, pp. 59-60; Marlier 1966, pp. 21-31, 45-46, 379-390; De la Fontaine Verwey 1975; De la Fontaine Verwey 1976; Rolf 1978; Offerhaus 1988; Bury 1989; Miedema 1994-1999, III, pp. 72-83; De Jonge 1998e.

103

Jacopo de’ Barbari, Margaret of Austria’s court artist, sent an unsuccessful request to Frederick the Wise and the Reichs­ tag to make the practice of painting an aristocratic privilege, i.e. painting should be seen as work of the intellect, not a mechanical skill. Quoted by Van Miegroet 2001, p. 153 note 3 after J. Servolini, Jacopo de’ Barbari, Padua 1944, pp. 105-107. 104 Miedema 1980, pp. 72-74. In the Introduction to his German Vitruvius of 1548, addressed to the mayors and aldermen of Nuremberg, Rivius expresses the same sentiment (Forssman 1956, pp. 59-60). 105 Llewellyn 1998, pp. 135-136.

41

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique elite who were also linked to Coecke’s publishing project, can serve to illustrate this. Moreover, the Netherlandish vision of Antiquity would, thanks to Coecke, bear a pseudo-Vitruvian – in fact Serlian – stamp well into the seventeenth century. Pieter Coecke van Aelst and the First Vitruvian Canon Coecke’s 1539 Die Inventie der colommen, a pocket-book Vitruvian excerpt, was not only heavily dependent on Sagredo’s Medidas del Romano, but also on Cesare Cesariano’s 1521 Como translation of Vitruvius, an edition which Sagredo had already drawn upon.106 Together with a number of travel reports published in the 1530s, these are sources explicitly mentioned by the Flemish author.107 On the basis of these texts, however, Coecke created a manual that could actually be used by a craftsman, even if the Roman font and the rather Latinate terminology must have presented significant stumbling blocks. Tellingly, Coecke’s summary starts with the definition of ‘architecture’ as an intellectual activity based on scientific principles (chapters I-II), and then concentrates on the Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Tuscan Orders (chapters III-VII). Thus, the book contains the essence of a Säulenbuch or Book of the Orders, comparable to Serlio’s Book IV, a reduction, in fact, of Vitruvius’ treatise, which treats a far broader field. However the last chapters – on temples and proportion (VIII-X) – are uncompromisingly Vitruvian in their terminology and tenpart structure, while the illustrations, drawn by Coecke himself, do not have anything to do with Serlio, but seem to have been inspired by the woodcuts in Cesariano’s and Sagredo’s Vitruvian treatises. Only one part, albeit an original one, possibly shows some influence of Serlio’s work: the addition of the Tuscan Order to the trias of Vitruvian Orders. Taken all in all, Die Inventie was probably completed somewhat earlier than Coecke’s first Flemish translation of Book IV.108 This work, entitled Generale Reglen der architecturen, was also published in 1539, i.e. only two years after the first Venetian edition, yet it does not mention Serlio on the title page but only in the Introduction.109 The first French translation – for which Coecke had similarly not asked permission – came out in 1542, effectively pulling the rug from under the author’s feet and causing the bitter complaint included in the Notice to Readers in Serlio’s own Italian-French edition of 47. Cornelis Bos (?), frontispiece of the 2nd French Books I and II published in Paris (with the French transla- edition of Coecke’s Règles générales, 1545.

106

De la Fontaine Verwey 1976, pp. 175-176; Rolf 1978, pp. 21-26; Llewellyn 1988, p. 299; Llewellyn 1998, pp. 130-135. 107 For instance, Novus Orbis (Basle and Paris 1532) and Historiarum et Chronicorum totius mundi Epitome (Antwerp 1536). 108 The Flemish version of Book IV, fol. Ei.r shows an illustration borrowed from Inventie der colommen 1539, fol. b8.r, as shown by Rolf 1978, pp. 40-41: Coecke has combined Serlio’s elevation of the Doric capital with the elevation and

42

plan published in Inventie der colommen 1539, distinguished by the use of egg-and-dart moulding on the echinus. There are also several references to the “little book” (kleyn boexken) in the translation of Book IV (Rolf 1978, p. 14). 109 Generale Reglen 1539, in quarto. Attributed to the printer Gillis Coppens van Diest, on the basis of the similarity to Coecke’s last publications, which have the printer’s name in the colophon (see note 140). Valkema Blouw 1988.

Chapter II: Standardizing ‘Antique’ Architecture 1539-1543 tion by Jean Martin), dated 1545.110 The first German edition by Coecke is also dated 1542 on the title page, but the date of its dedication to Ferdinand I, King of the Romans and brother to Charles V (March 3, 1542), should, in fact, be read as 1543, since Antwerp used the Easter chronology.111 The translator, a certain Jakob Rechlinger who was “knowledgeable in architecture”, can be identified as an Augsburg merchant active in Venice and Istanbul in 1533, at the time of Coecke’s sojourn there. Both were involved in negotiations with Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent about a tapestry series showing Turkish scenes, the design of which would later be transformed into the woodcut series Les Moeurs et fachon de faire des Turcz, published posthumously in Antwerp in 1533 by Coecke’s widow.112 According to Coecke, Jacob Seisenegger, court painter to Ferdinand I of Austria, had encouraged him to publish this version of Serlio, the first book on architecture available in High German. As Coecke himself says in the Introduction, Albrecht Dürer’s well-known book Ettliche underricht, zur befestigung der Stett, Schloss und Flecken (Nuremberg, 1527) only deals with fortification, and not with architecture and antique ornament.113 How exactly Coecke gained access to Book IV so quickly is not clear, since his recorded trips to Italy predate its publication. Seisenegger, who travelled through Italy, Spain and the Low Countries from 1535 to 1542, and who may have had direct contact with Serlio in Venice, could have brought a copy to Coecke.114 However, as a result of his years spent in Venice, Coecke himself had strong personal connections with the milieu that supported Serlio, and there is no reason to suppose he did not maintain them. During the affair of the Turkish tapestries, the middleman in Istanbul had been Alvise Gritti, the illegitimate son of Doge Andrea Gritti, who was a patron of the artistic circle Serlio was part of, and whose more famous members were Jacopo Sansovino and Titian.115 Coecke worked several times for the Dermoyen firm of Brussels, which had sponsored the 1533 enterprise, and Rechlinger had an agent, Pieter van der Walle, in place in Antwerp where Coecke lived.116 In spite of the fact that both the layout and typography of Coecke’s editions closely follow the Italian original, Coecke edited the text on several points; for instance, the Italian coats of arms were replaced by an alphabet of Roman capitals after Dürer, Pacioli and Tory, judged to be of more practical value.117 Like the cuts he made in the chapters on interior finishing (ceilings and wall painting), and the omission in the chapter on the Doric Order of the famous passage concerning the ‘Venetian window’ with a Serlian motif, these changes reflect the distance between Serlio’s treatise and contemporary Netherlandish building practice.118 Instead of emphasizing these differences, as Hans Vredeman de Vries would do with his Architectura of 1577, Coecke preferred to gloss over them, simply stating that the changes were necessary so as to better explain this foreign repertory of forms to the local architect.119 The woodcuts are straight copies, not without errors sometimes, from the original

110 Reigles generales 1542, in quarto. Schéle 1962, p. 239; Marlier 1966, p. 381; De la Fontaine Verwey 1976, pp. 186-187. 111 Gemaynen reglen 1542 [1543 ?], in quarto. March 3 falls before Easter, when the new year would officially begin. Soly 1977, p. 43; see also the literature cited in Prevenier 1995, pp. 124-125. 112 Schéle 1965, p. 73; Marlier 1966, pp. 55-72; Necipoğlu 1989, pp. 419-20 (documents cited after Kellenbenz 1965). 113 De la Fontaine Verwey 1976, p. 183. Dürer’s treatise was probably written at the behest of Ferdinand I, as Martens has argued. Martens (forthcoming). See also Fara 2000. 114 Thieme & Becker 1907-1950, XXX, cc. 465-467; Schéle 1962, p. 238.

115

Olivato 1971; Howard 1987, pp. 2-6; Tafuri 1985, pp. 3-23; Olivato 1988; Necipoğlu 1989, pp. 419-420; Frommel 1998, pp. 15-27; Necipoğlu 2000, pp. 45-46. 116 On Coecke’s activities as a tapestry designer, see Delmarcel 1999, pp. 121, 127-128; New York 2002, pp. 379389. 117 Schéle 1962, p. 239; De la Fontaine Verwey 1976, pp. 182-185; Rolf 1978, pp. 38-41; Bury 1989, p. 95. See also Delen 1931. On the innovative aspect of Serlio’s layout, see Rosenfeld 1989. One year later, Gerard Mercator would publish the first work on Latin calligraphy in the Low Countries: Literarum latinarum, quas Italicas, cursoriasque vocant, scribendarum ratio, Leuven, Rutgerus Rescius, 1540. Brussels/Antwerp/Sint-Niklaas 1994, pp. 108-111. 118 Generale Reglen 1539, fol. Hiii.v. 119 Introduction Aenden liefhebbers der Architecturen.

43

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique illustrations, and were possibly made by Cornelis Bos.120 For the French and German versions, Coecke designed a new title page with Italianate grotesques instead of copying the original one.121 The translator also had to invent a new terminology, since the Flemish language at that time did not have words for the elements of the Orders. Just as he had done for Die Inventie, Coecke in most cases preferred the Vitruvian, Graeco-Latin vocabulary to more Flemish-sounding neologisms based on Serlio’s Italian vocabulary, or to technical terms from the vernacular in a new definition.122 It is significant that the second Flemish edition of Book IV (Antwerp, 1549) – contrary to the later editions of the French version, for instance – returns to the Gothic font, whereas the use of the Roman font in the 1539 edition (and in Die Inventie) had been an explicit mark of modernism.123 At the same time the neologism architecture was replaced in the title page by metselrije (mason’s work), supposedly easier to understand; nevertheless, documents show that by the end of the century, the new term had been accepted into everyday language.124 A close comparison between these two 48. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Generale Reglen, 1539, Flemish editions and the Serlian original reveals Doric Order with comments added between astethat Coecke saw Serlio primarily as a guide and risks. complement to Vitruvius, as he indeed states in his Introduction to the 1539 translation, and that his numerous revisions of the Serlian source text constitute an independent commentary in an almost exclusively Vitruvian key.125 The same Vitruvian purism has, in fact, determined his choice of terminology: “since we have received this manner of building from Vitruvius,” he writes in the Introduction,

120

Schéle 1962. These elegant grotesques were attributed to Cornelis Bos by Schéle 1962; Schéle 1965, p. 42. 122 Clearly explained by Coecke in his Introduction Aenden liefhebbers der Architecturen: “Oock is my leet dat ick de namen van alle de porcelen/der Basen/Capitellen ende Cornicen/ niet en heb connen in duyts setten. Weles waer dat onse Aucteur [Serlio] byde vocablen Vitruuij de gheuseerde moderne vocablen van Italien sedt, der welcker ghy sommighe so qualick kennen soudet als die Latijnsche: datmen oock andwoerden mochte datse de Franchoisen in haer sprake noemen, en is soo niet, sij sijn wt Vitruuio eensdeels gevalscht, ende en sijn niet alleen Latijns maer meer Griex, ghelijck sij trochille dat de Griecken trochilon heeten, ende dier meer. Also dat ick/aengehesien wij dese maniere van Vitruuio ontfanghen hebben, souden prysen datmen hem der vocablen Vitruuij ghewendde, op dat de gheleerde vanden werckman, ende de werckman vanden gheleerden verstaen wordde: want oft ghy muresille/bosel/boyeau oft 121

44

thorus segt, altijt moet ghy dier een onthouden, stilobate, oft pedestal, plinthe, schotie oft trochille, base, spire, co­lonne, diametre, capitel, epistilie oft architrabe, zophore oft phrise, cimatie, corone, scime, fastigie oft frontsipicie, dese alle laten sij de namen Vitruuij houden, wtghenomen datse ghelijck der tonghen aert is, van Petrus Pierre, van Paulus Pol maken, alsoo dat ickse om v te belieuen/in dier manieren oock corrumperen sal.” Philibert de L’Orme made the same choice, see Carpo 1998, pp. 81-84. 123 Reglen van Metselrijen 1549, in quarto. Rolf 1978, pp. 42-45; Offerhaus 1988, p. 451. 124 See, for instance, the documents cited by Rylant & Casteels 1940, and the title of Charles De Beste’s manuscript (van den Heuvel 1995). In general Miedema 1980, pp. 72-74 and De Jonge 1994a. 125 See the commentary added between asterisks to Generale Reglen 1539, fols. Bi.v, Biiii.v, Diiii.r, Diiii.v, Ei.r, Eiiii.v, Iii.v, Iiii., Iiii.v, Ki.r and Riiii.r. See also De Jonge 2004a.

Chapter II: Standardizing ‘Antique’ Architecture 1539-1543 “it is more fitting to fall back upon the antique treatise for the proper terms, even if they have to be slightly adapted to Netherlandish usage”; after all, Vitruvius had ‘Latinized’ the original Greek terms. Upon careful reading, the 1549 translation shows itself to be even more Vitruvian than the first, 1539 version, in spite of having been printed in the traditional font. In his Introduction, Coecke insists more than ever upon the necessity of applying the proper rules to avoid errors in architecture, and on the difficulties presented by the obscure written style of the Vitruvian original – already evoked in the Introductory poem to the 1539 edition – and by the fact that Vitruvius’ text has lost its original illustrations. Coecke now explicitly credits Serlio, a “disciple of Vitruvius”, with this synthesis of the Vitruvian code of rules, some of them interpreted “after studying numerous texts and after long dispute”, and illustrated by “examples of good Antiquity”. The additional comments from the 1539 version have mostly disappeared, but others have been introduced in the 1549 edition to explain difficult points, such as the moulding on the Doric door and the spacing of Ionic columns, and as with the comments accompanying the 1539 edition, these show in-depth knowledge of the Vitruvian treatise and its commentators, e.g. Cesariano.126 It is interesting to note that the 1542 French translation of Book IV presents a lesser number of cuts and has no added commentary, although its terminology remains far closer to the Vitruvian one used in the 1539 Flemish translation and in Die Inventie than to the contemporary French technical vocabulary.127 These three translations thus show a clear Coeckian stamp, contrary to the German translation of 1542/1543. The Rechlinger translation closely adheres to the Italian original and only shows Coecke’s hand in its terminology, which is almost identical to that used in the Flemish 1539 translation, with some Italian terms mixed in where there is no available Flemish or German equivalent.128 The ‘Librarian to His Imperial Majesty’ and his Public Die Inventie was, according to the title page, destined for “painters, sculptors, stonecutters and all who derive pleasure from antique edifices”, and indeed offered a quick way to acquire the necessary antique repertory and its basic rules without actually going to Italy.129 This handy little pocket-size manual was very reasonably priced at only one stuiver, according to the documents relating to the bankruptcy of the engraver Cornelis Bos, a fact that might explain why, despite its original print run of over 650 copies, only two – one of them incomplete – are still extant.130 The title of Coecke’s Introduction to the Generale Reglen on the other hand – Aenden liefhebbers der Architecturen (To all Lovers of ­Architecture) – seems to indicate that the translation of Serlio’s Book IV was meant to educate the emerging ­clientele, in spite of some nods to the craftsman’s specific interests.131 The far higher price: running from 14 to 20 stuivers or one florin, and its bigger, quarto format, confirm its different status.132 In the early 1530s, as we have seen, the use of the antique repertory had been primarily – though not exclusively – a court 126

See for instance Reglen van Metselrijen 1549, fol.xix.v (proportions of the cymatium and Lesbian astragal), fol. xxxiiij.v (Ionic volute) and fol. xxxvj.v (proportions of the Vitruvian door). This commentary can be distinguished from the original text by its italics. 127 Coecke cut some passages that were present in the 1539 Flemish translation, so that in some instances illustration and commentary are no longer on facing pages. The additions to the Doric chapter (the capital with the egg and dart moulding and the supplementary text) and the additions to the Ionic chapter (the passage on the Ionic volute) have now been omitted. At the end, all Serlio’s designs for garden parterres have been kept, contrary to the 1539 version, but the Roman alphabet remains. There are several new legends added to the illustration, most of them in the “Vitruvian”

terminology of 1539; whereas in the text there are, on the contrary, contemporary French technical terms. 128 Gemaynen reglen 1542 [1543 ?]. There are neither cuts nor new additions. This is the longest version of the three. 129 Actually a difficult feat without a patron, even for painters. De Jonge 1997a. 130 Inventie der colommen 1539. Schéle 1962. The copy in UBG (Res. 1448) is incomplete: fols. c.viij.r-v are missing. The copy in HAB (40.5.1. Geom.) is complete. See Chapter I, note 34. 131 Rolf 1978, pp. 46-47; van den Heuvel 1995, pp. 19-21. 132 Schéle 1962. According to these documents, the first printing of the Generale Reglen 1539 must have numbered over 300 copies; only three are currently known to this author (Brussels, Royal Library of Belgium; Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit; Montréal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture).

45

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique phenomenon that still had to gain credibility with the urban bourgeoisie, except for, of course, the intellectual elite in important cultural centres like Antwerp and Utrecht.133 In 1539, Coecke obtained the coveted position of artiste de l’empereur, which probably explains why he published two theoretical texts on architecture that very same year, and indeed could account for the haste with which the translation of Book IV must have been prepared.134 The first documents that mention his new title are linked to Coecke’s activities as a consultant to Mary of Hungary for the renovation of the Coudenberg Palace at Brussels, the Emperor’s most important residence in the Low Countries, and in particular with the new staircase in front of the main wing of the palace, which has been mentioned before (see ill. 20). In 1539, Coecke appears to have assessed the quality of the sculptures on top, executed by Jean Wilho or Guilgot.135 The middle sculpture showed the Emperor seated on an eagle, holding a sword and a sceptre in his hands, with “Carolus Quintus Imperator Romanus” inscribed on the 49. Ugo da Carpi after Raphaël, Hercules strangling pedestal. To the right of this statue was Hercules Antaeus, c. 1516, chiaroscuro woodcut. with one of his columns (“Plus Ultra”); and to the left, Hercules strangling Antaeus (“Victoria”).136 The latter group was most probably inspired by the Ugo da Carpi chiaroscuro woodcut of the same subject by Raphael (ca. 1516), who had followed an antique model then in the Vatican collection.137 Coecke, of course, was an expert in antique lettering, as shown by the Flemish translation of Book IV he published that same year; he also had first-hand experience of antique statuary, thanks to his experiences in Constantinople.138 The following year, Coecke was also involved in the decoration in the antique manner of the long gallery, which had been completed in 1537.139 By at least January 1548, Coecke could style himself “painter to the Queen Dowager of Hungary” and in his last publications, dated in the year he died (1550), libraire juré de l’Emperialle Maieste.140 These honours must all be linked to his publishing activities; the Court saw him primarily as an expert theorist. 133

Amsterdam 1986b, I, pp. 11-48; De Jonge 2002b; De Jonge 2003; Ottenheym 2003a. 134 He mentions this haste in his Preface to the Flemish 1539 translation (Generale Reglen 1539), but stresses that he has taken the time to verify difficult points in Vitruvius, correcting Serlio where necessary. On the status of the court artist, see Duverger 1982. 135 D’Hondt 1989, pp. 66-67, 71, cat. 96,101. Till its demolition in 1599, the staircase remained the most antique element of the Coudenberg Palace. At this point, the statues were recuperated and placed on pedestals in the Labyrinth (Feuillée) of the Warande Park in 1604-1605. After restoration by Hieronymus Duquesnoy in 1613, they were finally placed in front of a new rustic grotto near the palace in 1629. Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 228-229, cat. 317; De Jonge 20002001, p. 98.

46

136

Calvete de Estrella 1552, see Petit 1873-1884, II, p. 33. New York, Metropolitan Museum, Rogers Fund, 22.67.80. New York 2004, p. 84. 138 Necipoğlu 1989, p. 419. 139 See Chapter I, note 10. On the long gallery, see De Jonge 1994b, pp. 116-121. 140 More particularly, the French translation of Book III and the report on the Triumphal Entry of Charles V and Philip of Spain into Antwerp in 1549, published separately in three languages (Flemish, French and Latin), with text by Cornelis Grapheus and illustrations redrawn by Coecke. As the colophon indicates, both these books, and the Flemish translation of Book III (1546), were printed by Gillis Coppens van Diest. 137

Chapter II: Standardizing ‘Antique’ Architecture 1539-1543 The 1542 French translation of Book IV unequivocally shows Coecke using Vitruvius, the true gateway to Antiquity, as a selling argument, and many would follow him down this road. The painter Lambert van Noort from Amersfoort, who worked in Antwerp, praised his own (ultimately rejected) design for the new Antwerp Town Hall (1560) with a formula that has a truly Coeckian ring to it: his design, he says, is made with “the measurements and the beauty [proportions] the architects of Antiquity used to apply to their buildings”.141 Van Mander puts it this way in his Schilder-Boeck (1604): “thanks to Coecke’s books, all the things that have been described in such an obscure manner by Vitruvius are now easy to understand, so that Vitruvius hardly needs to be read any more on the subject of the different Orders”.142 It seems that in the 1540s Vitruvius was already accepted as a label of quality by a certain clientele. Coecke takes care to present his Reigles generales as a Vitruvian treatise, which will reveal the true principles of antique architecture.143 Coecke must have feared that the essentially modern character of Serlio’s Book IV – the system of the Five Orders is after all a new construct144 – would not interest the imperial court, the focus of his ambitions at the close of his career. Mary of Hungary, to whom the French translation is dedicated, is a patron interested in works qui rememorent choses anticques & authenthicques (which remember antique and authentic things), as Coecke’s Preface has it; her library inventory conserved at Simancas indeed mentions several editions of Vitruvius in Latin, French and Italian, an edition of Alberti in French and Latin, as well as several versions of Serlio’s books (including those of Coecke).145 Coecke’s enterprise, however, could count on a broader base of support. We have already shown that the Vitruvian source-texts for Die Inventie (Cesariano and Sagredo) must have been readily available in the court milieu at Breda, and also in humanist circles in Antwerp, the printing capital of Northern Europe at that time. There is also important evidence that other members of the Netherlandish artistic avant-garde of the 1530s showed an interest in Vitruvian theory, in particular the Frisian painter Hermannus Posthumus (Herman Postma). Part of the so-called Kasseler Codex is a copy of a Vitruvian excerpt in French, dependent on the first, Spanish edition of Sagredo’s Medidas del Romano, made by Postma.146 It is not known who wrote the original excerpt, but textual links have been discovered with the works of both Guillaume Philandrier and Serlio, and it seems that the anonymous author also consulted the editions of Vitruvius by Fra Giocondo and Cesariano.147 From 1535 to 1539, Posthumus’ travels had brought him from Rome to Mantua (where he made the drawings of the so-called Mantuan Sketchbook now in Berlin, formerly attributed to Maarten van Heemskerck) and then, possibly by way of Venice, to Landshut, and from there back to the Northern Low Countries.148 During that period, he apparently had access to the most advanced material in the field.

141

“... met den maten ende schoonheyt gelyck de Antycken plaghen haer edificien te maken”. Document dated March 8, 1561, SAA, Pk 2197, fols. 25r-v, cited by Bevers 1985, pp. 15, 161-162, doc. IX. 142 Van Mander 1604, fol. 218v. Miedema 1994-1999, I, pp. 132-133. 143 Reigles generales 1542, dedication: “ce present livre, tra­ duict d’Italien en Franchois, contenant les Reigles generales d’Architecture, concordant a la plus part avecq les escriptz de Vitruvius … translate au prouffilt de ceulx, qui en leurs Edifices veullent ensuyvre l’Anticquite Romaine: car par ce pouront cougnoistre toutz ordres d’edifices, & aussi avoir elucidation des plusieurs secretz dudict Vitruvius” (this book, translated from Italian into French, which contains the general rules of architecture, mostly in accordance with Vitruvius’ writings… translated for the profit of those, who in their buildings want to follow Roman Antiquity; because

thus they will be able to know all manners [Orders] of buildings, and also have several secrets of the aforesaid Vitruvius explained). 144 See, for instance, Günther 1985; Thoenes 1985; Onians 1988. In the annexe to the 1547 French translation of Vitruvius by Jean Martin, Jean Goujon also presents the system of the Five Orders as truly Vitruvian. Carpo 1998, p. 80. 145 ARAB, Ms divers 391, nineteenth century copy and translation of the inventory conserved in the archive at Simancas. Lemaire 1993; Lemaire 1996; Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero 2002; Gonzalo Sánchez Molero s.d., I, pp. 339-446. 146 The Kasseler Codex is a compilation now in the Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen at Kassel, Fol. A 45. Günther 1988a. 147 Günther 1988a, 205, 358-359; Günther 1988b. 148 Günther 1988b; Dacos 1989; Dacos 1995, pp. 43-51, 75-76.

47

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique Pieter Coecke must have had at his disposal the library of noted Antwerp humanists such as Petrus Aegidius (Gillis), or even Canon Willem Heda, whom we discussed earlier.149 The city of Antwerp apparently took a direct interest in his publishing activities, since it subsidized his rent in the years 1542 and 1543, when he was busy with the costly French and German translations of Book IV.150 Most probably, Coecke was recommended by the town clerk Cornelis Grapheus, alias Scribonius, (De Schrijver), who wrote the introductory poem for the Flemish translation of Serlio’s Book IV. This poem reveals his familiarity with the problems every reader of the Vitruvian treatise must face. Apparently Grapheus was also familiar with Alberti, as is shown by the Introduction to his edition of Pompeus Gauricus’, De Sculptura, published in 1528 at Antwerp.151 Vitruvius and Alberti are also cited as authorities in a court case of 1542-1543, for which he, as secretary to the city council, took the deposition of the Antwerp witnesses; he probably added these translated excerpts on his own initiative.152 In the correspondence held between Cornelis Floris and Joos Facuez, secretary to the Chancellor in the years 1553-1554, concerning the Merode tomb at Geel, it is said that Grapheus knows the “antique manner of the Romans” (die antixze maniere van de Romaijnen) very well.153 It cannot be excluded that it was Grapheus who introduced Coecke to the subject of Vitruvian studies. Moreover, Grapheus, who had been suspected of Lutheran sympathies in 1522 but had escaped the worst consequences, had connections with Mary of Hungary: he had enjoyed her patronage from the mid-1530s, thanks to Miklos Oláh’s introduction.154 Grapheus and Coecke’s close relationship is also reflected in their joint work: the account of the Triumphal Entry of Charles V and Philip of Spain into Antwerp in 1549, published separately in Latin, French and Flemish the following year at the same printing house as Coecke’s last publications (Gillis Coppens van Diest). This book shows the decisive influence of Serlio’s Books III and IV: the layout strikingly resembles Serlio’s Book IV in its systematic juxtaposition of text and woodcut on facing pages and in its manner of rendering architecture in plan and (perspective) elevation.155 The Utrecht court case deserves a closer look because it mirrors the professional context of the early 1540s, in which Coecke found both a support and a fertile market. The Utrecht master-builder Willem van Noort, who in 1546 executed the new town hall with its ‘antique’ façade, had been accused by his former business partner, the stonecutter and sculptor Jacob van der Borch, of withholding the latter’s rightful share in the profit Van Noort had made by designing architecture. Oddly enough, these profits were made after their partnership had been dissolved. Van der Borch felt entitled to them because he had always had the responsibility of designing the work; indeed, according to the Utrecht guild rules, a mason like Van Noort could not design architecture. Van der Borch naturally looked for support within the world of the traditional building corporations; it is telling that his expert witnesses came from Kampen, a smaller town within the Utrecht sphere of influence.156 Van Noort, on the contrary, drew his witnesses from Antwerp; six experts – the stonecutters and sculptors Rombout van den Loocke, Rombout de Drijvere and Philip Lammekens, the master carpenter Peter Theels (or Thiels), the masons Peter Frans and Peter de Bruijne – stated that in their experience, architectural

149

Tournoy & Oosterbosch 2002. Van der Stock 1998-1999, p. 65. 151 See Chapter I, note 36. 152 Muller Fz. 1881-1882; Beelaerts van Blokland 1931, pp. 155-157; Miedema 1980; Meischke 1952 (1988), pp. 178-200; Offerhaus 1988, pp. 443-5; Ottenheym 2003a, pp. 223-225. 153 The passage refers to the epitaph inscription. “Cornelis Grapheus die dagelyxs anders niet en doet dan epitafiums te ordineren, hij weet die antixze maniere van de ­Romaijnen, hij maeckt zijn werkck daer af”. Cosemans 1935, p. 260, doc. 11. 150

48

154

Spruyt 1993, pp. 101-102. Triumphelijcke Incompst 1550. Triumphante entrée 1550. Spectaculorum… 1550. All three versions published Antwerp, Gillis Coppens van Diest, 1550. Prims 1938; von Roeder-Baumbach 1943, pp. 12-14; Corbet 1950, pp. 31-45; Roobaert 1960; Schéle 1965, pp. 43, 54-59; 74-76; Marlier 1966, pp. 386-390; Landwehr 1971, pp. 67-68, 70, 73-75; Eisler 1990; Kuyper 1994, I, pp. 7-78; Van Mulders 1996; Meadow 1998; Becker 2002. 156 Nevertheless, Kampen had also its share of conflicts between old and new, and insiders and outsiders. de Vries 2001. 155

Chapter II: Standardizing ‘Antique’ Architecture 1539-1543 designs could be, and frequently were made by persons not belonging to the stonecutters and sculptors’ guild. Among the examples cited by them, the goldsmith Jan van Nijmegen seems the least surprising if one takes into account that goldsmiths, who designed complex micro-architecture, and building masters of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, shared the same drawing technique.157 But there are also three Italian names: the painter Tommaso Vincidor da Bologna, “who had designed the castle at Breda”, “Master Alexander”, possibly Alessandro Pasqualini, “who had made the project for the renovation of the castle at Buren”, and Donato de’ Boni, “who had designed the citadel at Ghent”.158 Moreover, de Bruijne explicitly declared that Theels and Frans, both carpenters by trade, had also made designs for masons and stonecutters several times (tot metselrijen en steenhouwers werck dienende). All witnesses affirmed that only people who were capable of making designs could aspire to the master’s title. Design was an independent, free art, a geometrical art – de consten van der geometrien ende architecturen – superior to mere manual labour; this was of course borne out by the paraphrases from Alberti and Vitruvius that Grapheus added to the testimony. From these documents it can be inferred that the new definition of building as ‘architecture’, as explained by Coecke in Die Inventie, had become current among so-called traditional Antwerp master-builders such as Peter Frans, for instance, who at that time was working on the new fortifications together with Donato de’ Boni, Peter Theels, master carpenter of the city of Antwerp and of Antwerp’s collegiate church of Our Lady, and Philip Lammekens, supervisor of Our Lady. The importance of the latter’s professional position should not be underestimated. Although the building site had lost some of its importance with the completion of the north tower after the design of Domien de Waghemakere and Rombout II Keldermans in 1521, it remained active until 1534, when construction on the monumental new ambulatory, the Nieuwerck, was started at the instigation of Charles V.159 Both Philip Lammekens and Peter Theels must have enjoyed a very solid professional reputation since they were also called in to assess the masonry and carpentry work on Mary of Hungary’s palace at Binche (Hainaut), begun in 1545 after a design by the sculptor Jacques Du Broeucq.160 The Utrecht-Antwerp debates, but also the accounts of the Binche Palace, conclusively show that whilst traditional building techniques persisted in practice, a new type of designer had gradually come into his own: this was the ‘architect’ as defined by Coecke following Vitruvius, in other words someone who was both a technician and a theoretician, and who knew the true principles of antique architecture.161 But until the end of the sixteenth century, not even the Antwerp milieu would be free from conflicts like the 1542-1543 one in Utrecht. In 1595, the masons’ guild cited the Antwerp Town Hall (1561-1565) as the perfect example of the lack of practical knowledge on the part of sculptors who would be architects: it seems that the sculptors Cornelis Floris II and Willem Paludanus (van den Broecke), whose façade design had won the 1560 competition, had ultimately been forced to leave the foundations, ground plan and staircase to the master masons. Raphael Paludanus, the defendant in the case, could only counter by reaffirming that the design of special buildings and micro-architecture was the sculptor and architect’s business, and that the masons were mere executors of forms conceived by others.162 157

See, for instance, the rare drawings by the hand of Alart Duhameel, amongst others his reliquary design (perspective elevation and plan) conserved in the Edmond de Rothschild Collection at the Louvre (Paris 1987, pp. 49-50, cat. 62; Meischke 1952(1988), p. 148. 158 For Tommaso Vincidor, see Chapter III, note 203. For Donato de’ Boni, see Chapter I, note 33. For Alessandro Pasqualini, Chapter III, see note 223. For Philip Lammekens, see Duverger 1964. 159 See in general Vroom 1983; Aerts & Van Langendonck 1989; Van Damme & Aerts 1993; Van Damme 1994. 160 ARAB Rekenkamer 27302, fols. 196r-v (Hedicke 1911, pp. 403-404). De Jonge 1997a, p. 221.

161

On traditional practice, see Meischke 1952 (1988); Philipp 1989; De Jonge 1997a; de Vries 1994. 162 “Dat ter contrarien notoor is, bij alle persoonen van verstande, dat alle sunderlinghe ende excellente edificien ende wercken, als kerken, torrens, theatren, coliseen, palaijsen, stadthuijsen, tomben, ocsalen, affsluijtinghen ende ciraten van kercken, bij de beeltsnijders ende architecten geprojecteert, geordonneert ende tot perfectie gebracht moeten wordden, dewelcke de metsers moeten leeren ende de forme prescriberen, die sij moeten naevolghen.” Rylant & Casteels 1940; Duverger & Onghena 1942, p. 202; Casteels 1961, pp. 51-52.

49

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

50. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Antique edificien, 1546. Porta dei Borsari,Verona, added after Torello Sarayna/Giovanni Caroto.

51. Hermannus Posthumus, Kasseler Codex, Arch of Constantine.

Vitruvian Antiquity Coecke’s pseudo-Vitruvian vision of Antiquity, discreetly offered in his gloss-like comments on Serlio’s text, would never be seriously challenged by other Netherlandish authors in the sixteenth century. Contrary to Coecke, later authors such as Hans Vredeman de Vries or Charles De Beste (about whom more later) did not address the contradictions between Serlio’s Book IV and Vitruvius; it can be doubted whether they were even aware of them, as Coecke so obviously was. Likewise, the first scientifically accurate studies of antique buildings to appear in the Low Countries, Coecke’s translations of Serlio’s Book III On Antiquity into Flemish (1546) and into French (1550), were to have practically no contemporary following.163 Both editions, which again serve as a showcase for Coecke’s unparalleled knowledge of Antiquity, were dedicated to Mary of Hungary, who is again cited as being particularly interested in this type of publication. As could be expected of him, Coecke used other publications of this type, like Torello Sarayna’s De origine et amplitudine civitatis Veronae (Verona 1540), to complete Serlio’s work where he judged necessary. Thus, in spite of Serlio’s explicit rejection of the example as “barbarous and confused”, he added a woodcut by Giovanni Caroto from Sarayna’s book to illustrate

163 Antique edificien 1546, printed by Gillis Coppens van Diest, in quarto. Des antiquités 1550, in quarto. Rouzet 1975, pp. 45-46.

50

Chapter II: Standardizing ‘Antique’ Architecture 1539-1543

52. Sebastiaan van Noyen, Baths of Diocletian, detail of section, ed. Hieronymus Cock, Antwerp 1558.

the Porta dei Borsari.164 This interest was shared by Posthumus, who carefully copied the same antique Roman examples Serlio used for Books III and IV into a part of the Kasseler Codex known as the Kasseler Sketchbook. However, the juxtaposition in the Kasseler Codex of the Vitruvian excerpt mentioned above, the studies of Roman Antiquity and, lastly, copies of the engraved details of the Orders that Serlio and Agostino Veneziano published in 1528, does not necessarily date back to Posthumus, but could be attributed to one of the later owners, amongst whom we find the painters Maarten van Heemskerck and Pieter Saenredam.165 It would be wrong, therefore, to interpret Posthumus’ studies, which were never published in spite of circulating from workshop to workshop, as an equivalent to the popularizing work of Coecke. The one contemporary exception to Coecke’s monopoly in antique studies represents, in fact, a major contribution to the scientific study of antique Roman buildings in the sixteenth century: the Baths of Diocletian, drawn by the military engineer Sebastiaan van Noyen from Utrecht (b. 1523 – d. 1557) for Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle and published by Hieronymus Cock at the Sign of the Four Winds in Antwerp in 1558.166 It consists of twenty-seven engravings showing the building in plan, section (combined with perspective) and elevation, according to the principles Raphael set out in the second

164

Rosenfeld 1989, p. 103. This is omitted in the French translation, Des antiquités 1550, which was published in the year Coecke died; this edition generally follows the layout of the 1546 Flemish one, but is different at many points.

165

Günther 1988a, p. 362. Riggs 1977, pp. 47-49, 353-354; van den Heuvel 1994c, 77; The New Hollstein/Van Doetecum I, 44-47, cat. 54-80; Granada 2000a, 473-475, cat. 145.

166

51

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

53. Jacques Du Broeucq, garden portal from Binche, 1547-1549.

54. Jacopo Mazzocchi, Epigrammata antiquae urbis, Rome 1521, Porta Maggiore.

version of the letter on the reconstruction of ancient buildings, written for Leo X (1519-1520); thus this work differs fundamentally from the series of picturesque views of Roman ruins which Antwerp editors like Hieronymus Cock and Philip Galle published from the middle of the century onwards.167 Granvelle, who employed the noted antiquary Stephanus Pighius as secretary and librarian from 1555, was also very interested in local antiquities.168 A silver vase discovered during excavations in 15571558 at Arras where his bishop’s see was located, was studied by Pighius and ultimately published in his Mythologia. Later Netherlandish studies of antique architecture, such as Justus Lipsius’ study of the Roman amphitheatre (1585), would all stem from the antiquarian milieu favoured by patrons such as Granvelle.169 The market for the translations of Book III, and similarly for the Baths of Diocletian, was apparently very limited; sponsors of Granvelle’s ilk were indeed sorely needed. In his Introduction to the 1546 Flemish translation, Coecke says he fears he will be unable to recover the costs he has incurred, because the “lovers of antique architecture” are very limited in number; nevertheless, he decided to

167

See, for instance, Cock’s Praecipua Aliquot Romanae Anti­ quitatis Ruinarum Monimenta (Antwerp, 1551). Riggs 1977, pp. 30, 296-303; The New Hollstein/Van Doetecum I, pp. 41-49, cat. 204-215. 168 Banz 2000a, pp. 62, 66-73; Banz 2000b, pp. 399-402. After his banishment from the Low Countries (1564), he was free to indulge that interest in Rome. According to Justus Lipsius, who was his Latin Secretary from 1568 to

52

1570, he “spent all his free time in examining antique stones and sites, and everything which could be seen in Rome and its surroundings” (quoted in Nativel 1998, p. 39). 169 Lipsius 1585. Antwerp 1997-1998, pp. 170-173, cat. 33-34. Lipsius generally favoured text, not images, for his visualisations of ancient Rome, but this book is illustrated by foldouts showing a perspective plan and section of major amphitheatres such as the Colosseum. Papy 2004.

Chapter II: Standardizing ‘Antique’ Architecture 1539-1543 publish this work that illustrates the monumental achievements of the Romans, so as to justify the enormous investment made at the time by the city of Antwerp in its new bastioned fortifications.170 Indeed, the Romans had been obliged to protect their obelisks, pyramids, bath complexes, theatres, amphitheatres, triumphal arches and other monuments erected to their glory, with even greater fortifications. As before, Coecke struggled with the problem of terminology, and in the end came up with the same solution as in his preceding works: the Latinate neologisms obeliscen, piramiden, thermen, theatres, amphitheatren, archen triumphal, were thus added to the Netherlandish language. It remains to be seen whether these books on Antiquity ever had the direct impact on Netherlandish building practice that the translations of Book IV demonstrably did, as can be seen, for instance, in the details on the façade of the Antwerp Town Hall (1561-1565).171 A rare example may be court architect Jacques Du Broeucq’s garden portal from 1547-1549, now at Mons but originally part of Mary of Hungary’s palace at Binche. Since the artist’s Italian experiences are a matter of conjecture, it cannot be excluded that the vase-like rustic blocks composing its column shafts were inspired not by the real Porta Maggiore at Rome, but by the woodcut in Jacopo Mazzocchi’s Epigrammata antiquae urbis (Rome 1521).172 But like Coecke’s translations of Book III, this was hardly a work to be found outside the library of the most specialized “lover of the Antique.” For most Netherlandish artists and patrons of the time, Coecke’s serviceable little manual, Die Inventie, and the more expensive Generale Reglen would be largely sufficient as guides to Antiquity. In that sense, the praise lavished upon him by his first biographers – Lodovico Guicciardini (1567), Giorgio Vasari (1568), Dominicus Lampson (1572), Georg Braun (1572) and Carel van Mander (1604) – is appropriate; he indeed had: “the honour of bringing from Italy the mastery of architecture, having also translated the excellent work of Sebastiano Serlio of Bologna in this Teutonic language, thus rendering a great service to the country”.173 But it would be going too far to credit Coecke with being the first to introduce the Renaissance, by way of Vitruvius, into the Low Countries.174 He was, strictly speaking, not even the first disseminator of a coherent ‘antique’ repertory: this honour must on the contrary be rendered to the unknown artist who created the series of models inspired by Mone’s vocabulary in the early 1530’s, and who publicized them through engravings, the mass media of the period (see the preceding chapter).

170

See Chapter I, note 33. On the façade of the Antwerp Town Hall, designed by Cornelis Floris and Willem van den Broecke in 1560, we find a clear-cut reference to Coecke/Serlio in the window cornice in the bays flanking the central frontispiece (ill. 108). It consists of an elongated Ionic capital inspired by a Serlian chimneypiece, and there is another of the Corinthian type above. The elongated Ionic capital also appears in trompel’oeil above the windows of the painter Frans Floris’ town 171

house, now lost. Van de Velde 1975, I, pp. 35-38; Bevers 1985, pp. 16-30; De Jonge 2002b, pp. 46-47. 172 Wolfenbüttel 1994, p. 86, cat. 4.6; De Jonge 1998b, pp. 170-171. 173 Guicciardini 1567, p. 98. Marlier 1966, pp. 21-29; Rolf 1978, pp. 14-15. A very similar note is sounded by van Mander 1604, fol. 218v. Miedema 1994-1999, I, p. 133; III, p. 80. 174 As done by de la Fontaine Verwey 1976, p. 174. Another case in point: Tijs 1997, p. 74 and following.

53

55. Lille, Palais Rihour, 1453-1473. J. Harrewyn, Palatium Insulense... (from F. Butkens, Trophées tant sacrés que profanes du duché de Brabant... Supplément, The Hague 1726).

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 15301560

In most overviews of the Renaissance in the Low Countries, the only criterion used is the degree to which the new repertory imported from Italy was assimilated into the ‘traditional’ fabric and – with the help of pattern books and treatises – ‘correctly’ applied.175 The yardstick most commonly used is the one introduced by Pieter Coecke van Aelst from 1539 onwards through his translations of Serlio’s books, i.e. the standards and rules set out for Roman architecture of the High Renaissance, which Coecke consistently calls “correct antique” in his comments. This narrow focus must, of necessity, lead to a biased interpretation of the architecture of the court circles or upper nobility, which quickly absorbed these ‘antique’ elements in the 1530s and the 1540s.176 To reduce all non-antique aspects of this architecture to a survival of ‘Gothic’ tradition is to misunderstand its true position.177 The Netherlandish architecture of the court of Charles V can be called ‘traditionalist’, but only in the sense that it consciously refers to a model established before the advent of the so-called Renaissance. It had its origins in a very recent Burgundian past, still glorified during Triumphal Entries and court festivals at the court of Charles V,178 and its spatial structure was determined by the requirements of Burgundian court ceremony, adopted and only slightly transformed by Habsburg rulers.179 First, we will explore this image of tradition and secondly, its success in antique guise at the courts of Charles V and Philip II. During the middle decades of the sixteenth century, Netherlandish patrons and architects contributed to the development of what Ozinga called the “severe style”.180 This particular manner of building was indebted not only to Genoese imports, but also to exchanges with the court of Francis I at Fontainebleau, and it ultimately led to the first architectural ventures of Philip of Spain in Castile, as the last part of the chapter will show. Its significance can only be understood within an international network of exchanges between Italy, France, and Spain, at the heart of which stood the Southern Netherlands. Image of Tradition: The Burgundian Model The architectural legacy underlying court architecture of the early sixteenth century was of rather recent date, and of a particular, regional origin. In 1462, Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, had tried to force a specific manner of building 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.181 He wanted them to use the white sandy limestone of the duchy of Brabant, instead of the brickwork masonry more

175

Schoy 1879; van Balen 1930; Horst 1930; Vandevivere & Périer-d’Ieteren; Amsterdam 1986b; Kuyper 1994; Tijs 1997. 176 As Henri Zerner has shown in his perspicacious analysis of the contemporary French château, a subject which has often suffered from the same short-sighted treatment. He aptly remarked that neither the term Gothic nor the term Renaissance (in their accepted, strictly stylistic definition) adequately cover this architecture, a statement which can also be extended to the Low Countries. Zerner 1996, pp. 56-61. On the longue durée of tradition in the French château of the sixteenth century, see also the exemplary Prinz & Kecks 1985.

177

Pluralist visions on ‘the’ Renaissance in Farago 1995; Gent 1995; Günther 2000; Guillaume 2000; Kavaler 2000; Belozerskaya 2002; Günther 2003a; Günther 2003b; Guillaume 2003. 178 See in general Jacquot 1960; Soly 1984. Overviews in De Jonge 2000b and Domínguez Casas 2000. 179 De Ridder 1889; Hofmann 1985; Domínguez Casas 1993; De Jonge 1994b; De Jonge 1999d. 180 Ozinga 1962. 181 Bruchet 1922; Salet 1962; Paravicini 1991, p. 241; De Jonge 2000a.

55

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique prevalent in this Flemish town. The town fathers would have none of it, complaining that the stone did not resist frost and humidity very well (not altogether untrue); perhaps, in fact, they feared the high cost of transport. The model the Duke obviously had in mind was the Coudenberg Palace in Brussels, his principal residence at the time, where he had first rebuilt the main wing (1431-1436).182 Surviving accounts and numerous depictions from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries show, however, that this wing was built of brick above a stone plinth, judiciously strengthened by cut stone at the corners. Stone was also used for window surrounds, door frames, cornices, and coping stones on the stepped gables. Its seems likely, then, that the Duke referred, in fact, to the great new hall he had persuaded the town of Brussels to build for his convenience, and which had just been completed (1451-1461). The documents pertaining to its construction and the surviving images testify to the great care taken with its outer facing, entirely executed in white limestone from the Brussels region.183 Apparently, the Duke did not entirely prevail at Lille, as can be concluded from the surviving chapel complex and the main staircase (as it was before the last restoration), and from the rare images showing the main quadrangle. As in the main wing at Brussels, these show brick-and-stone masonry above a plinth-like ground floor faced with stone.184 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 manier van Brabant).185 For instance, brick-and-stone masonry was not common in the county of Hainaut until the middle of the sixteenth century, as the Albums of Croÿ conclusively show.186 The court must be credited to a large extent with the successful migration of brick-and-stone masonry through the Low Countries. The Palais Rihour and the Brussels palace, which had inspired it, set a new standard for the town residences of the Burgundian elite. The most ‘modern’ architecture of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries was built for the Brimeu, Lannoy, Croÿ, Lalaing, Glymes, and Berlaimont families, whose rise at the Burgundian and Habsburg Court in the Low Countries has been so convincingly charted of late.187 Canny acquisition tactics and well thought out marriage strategies enabled these foreign upstarts to build true empires, which extended across the different lands of the Burgundian federation. Philip the Good’s favour was responsible for the rapid supplanting of the local nobility in the duchy of Brabant, the centre of gravity in the ducal peregrinations from 1455 onwards.188 The first decades of the sixteenth century were characterized by a true building mania on

182

Analysis of the accounts in De Jonge 1991b. In general, see Saintenoy 1932-1935; Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991; Smolar-Meynart 1998. 183 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. SAB Perquement bocek metten taetsen (Inventaris Pergameni, Oud Archief, IX), fols. 165r158r, 180r-v, 181v-183v, 185r-186r, 190v-192v, 196v201v (new folio numbers). 184 A combination not that evident, in spite of what is commonly thought. Great confusion reigns on this point (see for instance Sartre 1981, pp. 91-98). 185 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 Nor-

56

bertine 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 January 14, 1542; the patron was Abbess Mechtildis de Léchy (1519-1548). Also cited in Meischke 2000, p. 75; this author is the only one to have stressed that this new fashion only later becomes generally accepted in the other regions of the Low Countries. 186 Duvosquel 1991, p. 37 (observation made by G. Bavay). These parchment albums, painted by Adrien de Montigny for Charles II de Croÿ, duke of Aerschot, not only show the extensive Croÿ holdings but also related lands, and thus present an overview of a large part of the Low Countries at the end of the sixteenth century. 187 Cools 2001b. 188 De Win 1980; Paravicini 1980; De Win 1986; Cools 2001a. See also note 207.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560

56. Andries I Keldermans , Bergen op Zoom, palace of Jan II of Glymes, gallery wing, 1503-1508.

57. Heverlee, castle of William of Croÿ, before 1519, west tower.

the part of the new nobility, which was an integral part of the ostentation and conspicuous spending expected from them. Later ordinances (Utrecht, 1512 and 1536) clearly explain that to live nobly (vivre noblement), one has to possess a fitting place of residence.189 Already by 1500, this extravagant lifestyle led the nobles to address a request to the States of Brabant for a financial subsidy to maintain their status (tot onderhouden van hueren state).190 The towns of the duchy were expected to help maintain the nobles’ lifestyle by giving them precious gifts; in 1531, the Town Council of ’s-Hertogenbosch aptly remarks about Henry III of Nassau that “such a personage [has] a great daily need of luxury”.191 Around 1500, the new elite’s favoured building masters were mostly members of the Keldermans family of Brabantine origin (Brussels and Mechelen), who exported their style with its characteristic ‘streaky’ effect from the decorative use of stone courses alternating with brick, throughout the Low Countries.192 To even greater colourful effect, this brick was covered by a thin layer of bloodred plaster, which strongly contrasted with the off-white rendering of the stone layers, as reported by ­Albrecht Dürer in 1520.193 An early example of the ‘export’ of this very idiosyncratic masonry outside the Habsburg territory (as it then was) can be found in Utrecht, in the residence built by Adrian ­Boeyens, the Utrecht bishop who rose to fame as tutor to Charles V and as Pope Hadrian VI.194

189 De Win 2001. The regulations for the huysgeld tax, introduced into the bishopric of Utrecht at the beginning of the sixteenth century (1512 and 1536), define a manor as a house defended by a moat (veste) and a drawbridge (opgetogen brugge). Olde Meierink 1995, pp. 30-31, 41-43; Janssen 1996, pp. 95-105. 190 Van Uytven 1976, p. 114; Van Uytven 1985.

191

Van Uytven 1976, pp. 116-117. Janse 1987. 193 In his diary, while staying in Antwerp in 1520-1521 (Plard 1990, p. 247). In general, see Brussels 1977a. 194 Dated 1517-1522. Kromme Nieuwegracht 49. Dolfin, Kylstra & Penders 1989, I, p. 401, II, p. 55; Ottenheym 2003a, p. 214. 192

57

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

58. Breda, Nassau palace, bird’s eye view. Engraving by J. Harrewijn after J. van Croes, 1706.

59. Gaasbeek, castle of Maximilian of Hornes, c. 1545, main staircase.

Apart from a particular type of masonry, this manner of building the 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.195 Inspired by the long gallery façade – a feature of Burgundian residential architecture from the middle of the fifteenth century196 –, uniform courtyard elevations with open porticoes on the ground floor, and regularly spaced, tall cross-windows above, were soon seen everywhere, from Bergen op Zoom, a residence of the Glymes family,197 and Mechelen, where Margaret of Savoy, regent of the Low Countries had elected to live,198 to Diest199 and Breda,200 which belonged to the Nassau, and the castle at Boussu, built for Jean de Hennin-Liétard.201 The arcades usually had columns sculpted in ‘blue’ stone imported from the Namur or Hainaut regions, exactly according to the definition of the “Brabantine manner of building” in the

195

De Jonge 1999b. De Jonge 1994b, pp. 116-121. 197 In the gallery in the “great court”, started 1503 under Anthonis I Keldermans. Meischke & Van Tyghem 1987, pp. 135-141; Meischke 1987. 198 Meischke & Van Tyghem 1987, pp. 142-146; Eichberger & Beaven 1995; Eichberger 2002, pp. 93-115. 199 Roosens 1983. The building specifications are in Flemish, not Brabantine, dialect. Nevertheless, this does not exclude that the unknown architect was one of the many 196

58

Brabantine building masters active in Diest on the building site of the church of Saint Sulpitius at that time: Willem de Vissere, master mason of Brussels, who built part of the Nassau residence in that town; Matthijs III Keldermans, city architect of Leuven; Hendrik van Pede from Brussels; Laureys Keldermans, active in Antwerp and Brussels. 200 Kalf 1912, pp. 27-55; van Luttervelt 1963; Kuyper 1994, I, pp. 79-130; van Wezel 1999. 201 Hedicke 1911, pp. 288-293; De Jonge & Capouillez 1998.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560

61. Rombout II Keldermans and Pieter Le Prince, Me­chelen, palace of Margaret of Austria, main staircase, 1519-1520.

60. Rombout II Keldermans, Mechelen, palace of Margaret of Austria, courtyard, staircase volume with loggia, 1517-1518.

202 “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, p. 6). 203 It is not known whether this type of spire first originated in a civilian context or in a religious one. A drawing from the Paul Saintenoy collection, now lost but known through photographs, with a design for the tower of the church of Our Lady (Grote Kerk) at Breda, shows an octagonal structure crowned with a bulb; the Flamboyant ornament, however, suggests a date c. 1510-1520 (see dated examples in Kavaler 2000). Meischke 1952 (1988), pp. 148,151-156. The first known civilian examples are contemporary: the towers of the Arenberg Castle (see note 204); the staircase tower of the Nassau residence at Brussels (see note 206); the cöstlich gezierten thurn of the Hof van Liere, residence of Arnold van Liere, Mayor of Antwerp, sketched by Dürer in 1520 (Antwerpen 1993, p. 169, cat. 21). Another, dated,

contract for Mathildis de Léchy’s house of refuge (1542).202 A marvellous invention, which can also be ascribed to the Keldermans masters, is the square, pavilion-like tower with a fantastic, bulbous, slatecovered spire,203 used to great advantage at Heverlee in 1519-1520 at the residence of the Lord High Chamberlain (premier et grand chambellan) William of Croÿ, Lord of Chièvres (b. 1458 – d. 1521) (see ill. 57).204 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.205 example is the spire designed by Jacob van Collen and Goert Tymmerman for the tower of Our Lady in Zwolle, September 3, 1538 (de Vries 1992, pp. 79-80): in the contract, the bulb is called the “apple”. 204 Possible candidates are Matthijs III Keldermans, master builder of the city of Leuven, who, according to surviving receipts, was often called in as a consultant for stoves etc. by Mary of Hamal, Chièvres’ wife; or Rombout II Keldermans, who designed the Celestin Priory near the castle as a family mausoleum (1522-1526). Van Uytven 1974, pp. 174-177. Iconography in Minnen 1993. 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. 205 Hoppe has suggested the same in relation to the central-German castle of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century. Hoppe 2000, pp. 143-144, as have Prinz & Kecks 1985, pp. 19-58.

59

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique Furthermore, this manner of building places great emphasis on the staircase, which serves as the main entrance and leads to the principal reception rooms on the upper floor. In Lille, Heverlee, Bergen op Zoom, as well as in the Nassau residence at Brussels; in the residence of Floris van Egmond, Count of Buren at IJsselstein; in the chamber of accounts in the southeast wing of the residence at Breda, and in the castle of Gaasbeek (see ill. 59), which then belonged to the Hornes family, it is prominently placed in a separate tower in the courtyard, and is of the square, turning type, with complex rib vaults; sometimes it is also profusely decorated or crowned with an elaborate spire, as at Brussels.206 However, in other examples it is fused with the canopied perron associated with the medieval great hall, and moves to a central position on the main axis of the courtyard. This disposition can first be noted in the (never realized) project for the Nassau residence at Diest, which has been variously dated on the basis of external evidence to between 1516 and 1522 or ca. 1530, and subsequently can be found in the new residences at Breda and Boussu. At Breda, Italian-type staircases hidden in the corners of the main courtyard go together with an elaborate double staircase placed on the main axis in an open portico, and at Boussu, a double, symmetrical staircase, also on the main axis, is incorporated into the colonnade around the courtyard. In spite of its position in the corner of the main quadrangle, the principal staircase realized by Rombout II Keldermans in Margaret of Austria’s palace at Mechelen (1519-1520) can be considered as a precedent of sorts, since it is associated with an arcaded perron topped by a viewing loggia (see ill. 60-61). 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, must have been a decisive factor. The most telling sources which alert us to the way this architecture was viewed, date from the close of Charles V’s reign and from the late sixteenth century, and relate to the imperial palace on the Coudenberg at Brussels. The Coudenberg Palace, of course, held a special position within the architecture of the court, since it had served, at least since 1455, as the main residence of the Burgundian and Habsburg rulers in the Low Countries.207 Philip II of Spain had already baulked at changing it. Although in 1559 he had commissioned a new palace design worthy of a king of the modern era from Francesco Paciotto, the well-known military engineer from Urbino who would work for him at the Escorial, and had even charged Antoine Perrenot, better known as Cardinal Granvelle, with supervising its realization, he did not persist with his plans, probably due to the political situation at the time.208 Nevertheless, the question is whether he would have built something completely different from the earlier palace if he had had the chance. Philip 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 (of which more later). He strongly appreciated its particular technical characteristics and the comfortable living conditions it provided. His first architectural works – at the Pardo Hunting Lodge to the north of Madrid, at Valsaín near Segovia, and at the Alcázar in Madrid, built upon his return – carry an unmistakable Netherlandish stamp.209 Court

206 Laureys Keldermans worked on the Brussels residence in 1503, together with Hendrik van Pede and Lodewijk van Boghem. Henne & Wauters 1855(1975), III, pp. 418420. Iconography in Brussels 2000. The IJsselstein staircase is dated 1531-1532 from the accounts. Hardenberg 1959, p. 386; Meischke & Van Tyghem 1987, pp. 133-134. The Breda staircase dates from 1510-1520. van Wezel 1999, pp. 53-55. The staircase at Gaasbeek is probably younger (after 1543). Van Dormael 1988, p. 15. The Bergen op Zoom staircase, on the other hand, dates from 1494 according to the accounts. Meischke & Van Tyghem 1987, p. 137.

60

207 Paravicini 1991, p. 242. Sources in Gachard & Piot 1874, 1876, 1881. It also symbolized the continuity of Habsburg rule in the Southern Low Countries. De Jonge 1999d. 208 Letter of Francesco Paciotto sent from Ghent on August 4, 1559, cited by Adorni 1982, pp. 256-257 after A. Ronchini, “Francesco Paciotti”, Atti e Memorie delle R. Deputazioni di Storia Patria per le provincie modenesi e parmensi 3(1865), pp. 305-306. Kubler 1964, p. 179. 209 Martínez Tercero 1985; Barbeito 1998; Rivera Blanco 2000.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560

62. Juan Bautista Martínez del Mazo, view of Valsaín, beginning of 17th century.

architect Gaspar de Vega was sent on a study trip to France, the Low Countries and England, and on May 16, 1556, dutifully reported on the most splendid representative of the Netherlandish manner of building, the castle at Boussu, where in spite of its unfinished and war-damaged state, the design and work were the best he had seen.210 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, 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 the eighteenth century211. At first, this meant importing Netherlandish specialists capable of firing the new type of brick, of working 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.212

210

“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 (AGS Obras y Bosques : Segovia, Leg. 1). Iñiguez Almech 1952, p. 165.

211

Chueca Goitia 1986; De Jonge 1998d, pp. 347-348. For instance, Jean Lhermite explicitly describes the Pardo as built in the Flemish way. Ruelens 1890, p. 98; Bustamante García 1998, p. 495. 212 Kubler 1982b, pp. 103-105; Gérard 1984, pp. 81-83; Barbeito 1992, pp. 37-38.

61

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique The Coudenberg Palace could be said to embody this ‘Burgundian’ style, as sources from the court milieu, dating from the last years of the sixteenth century, suggest. During the first years of Archduke Albert of Austria’s reign as a regent of the Southern Low Countries (1598-1621), the palace underwent a renovation campaign, which left intact the fifteenth and early sixteenth-century core. Documents from the first phase (1598-1599), directed by the French ingeniaire and chevalier Hieronymus Hardouin, suggest that the officials of the State Council, who objected to Hardouin’s drastic modernization, 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.213 An interesting parallel can be found in the field of court ceremony. The local nobility protested against the changes introduced by the Archduke, following Spanish custom, as a betrayal of ancient, ‘Brabantine’ usage, by which the protesters meant the transformed Burgundian ceremony, as used by Charles V.214 The waves of protest caused by these reforms, both on the ceremonial and architectural level, suggest that the palace and the customs it embodied held a deep-seated, symbolic value as representatives of a glorious, ducal and imperial past. Indeed, most seventeenth-century views of the palace – and a great many were created for the court milieu – show the irregular, patchwork-like, brick-and-stone façade facing the gardens and the old hunting park (Warande), and not the new, uniform court façade, thus displaying an unequivocal preference for the image of a complex layering of history.215 Dressing up in the Antique Mode From the late 1520s onwards, this architecture absorbed the antique repertory of forms without difficulty. As discussed previously, early sixteenth-century patrons of the upper nobility frequently used the talents of imperial building master, Rombout II Keldermans, and of the specialist in the antique, Jean Mone, artiste de l’empereur, who had arrived in the Low Countries from Barcelona probably in 1521; and finally, those of the marble traders from Dinant, Hubert and Andrieu Nonnon, and the traders in blue stone from Ecaussines, the Le Prince family. At sites such as the Hoogstraten Castle, which belonged to Antoine de Lalaing, Margaret of Savoy’s favourite and her chef de Finances (1528), and at the Celestin Priory at Heverlee, built for Mary of Hamal, the widow of Lalaing’s chief rival, William of Croÿ, Lord of Chièvres (1522-1526/1528), these artists effectively created an original Netherlandish variant of the Renaissance. In later examples, well-travelled patrons with international connections, such as Henry III of Nassau and Jean de Hennin-Liétard, took this phenomenon one step further by recruiting artists who had been trained in the most up to date, antique repertory. Some of them were Italians, others were not. The result was always profoundly original. Breda The new Nassau ‘palace’ at Breda, erected from April 5, 1536, onwards, but planned probably a few years earlier,216 is seen as a pivotal step in the development of this new architectural style in the Low Countries, and its most classicizing elements have been explicitly linked with the use of Vitruvian treatises. It thus seems necessary to determine its position within this movement. The designer, as is known from several sources, was Tommaso di Andrea Vincidor of Bologna (b. c. 1495? – d. shortly

213

ARAB Audiëntie 197, fols. 108v-121v (different missives). Saintenoy 1932-1935, III, p. 13-16; De Maeyer 1955, p. 200; De Jonge 1998a, p. 192. 214 See pages 166-169. 215 See in general Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991 and Brussels 2000.

62

216

In 1527 Henry III of Nassau forbade, by letter from Valladolid, all repairs to the great hall other than the most essential, obviously because he was planning a new building campaign. Also, the Brussels residence started by his uncle Engelbert II, had just been finished (1526). van Wezel 1999, pp. 95-96.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560 before 1556), former painter-assistant to Raphael. Vincidor had come to Brussels in 1520 to oversee the production of several tapestry series (Childrens’ Games, Adoration of the Shepherds); by 1530 he went by the title of seigneur Boulloigne paintre de l’empereur, which meant that he had become official artist to the court.217 But it is obvious that the patrons, Henry III of Nassau (b. 1483 – d. 1538), and his third wife Mencía de Mendoza (b. 1508 – d. 1544), the rich, well-connected heiress and learned protector of the arts whom he had married in 1524, played a pivotal role in the conception of the whole. By the time of Mencía’s Triumphal Entry into Breda on September 30, 1530, Henry had returned to the Low Countries by way of Italy in the wake of the Emperor. As the successor to the Lord High Chamberlain William of Croÿ (who died on May 28, 1521), Henry was one of the most important exponents of the upper nobility, and one of the most powerful people at the court.218 He was also the last to bear this title: the Emperor would avoid naming a successor at his death in 1538. Indeed, the Spanish mayordomo mayor, who did not enjoy such 63. Tommaso Vincidor of Bologna and Andries a great concentration of power in both the perSeron, Breda, palace of Henry III of Nassau, main sonal household of the monarch and in the broader quadrangle, from 1536. political sphere, would take over most of his functions.219 Nevertheless, the title and the power that went with it were but a sop to Henry’s ambitions. In 1531, when Margaret of Austria died, Charles V had considered transferring her powers to Henry, who, to a large extent, had been instrumental in getting him elected as Emperor at the Reichstag in 1520, and who had always played a pivotal role in his affairs, just as his uncle Engelbert had served Maximilian I and Philip the Handsome.220 But Charles V finally chose his sister, Mary of Hungary, who accepted this honour with reluctance.221 The trend towards making regular plans with a courtyard surrounded on all sides by an open portico, became fully established not only with Breda (1536) but also with the residences of Diest (1516-1522 or later?) and Boussu (1540), and may indeed have benefited from the fact that illustrated editions of Vitruvius, foremost among them Cesariano’s of 1521, circulated freely among the elite from 1526, if not earlier, and were probably used at the Breda Court, as we have seen.222 At Breda there would have been a second courtyard surrounding the (lost) chapel, following the proportions used in Cesariano’s reconstruction of the Roman house; the position of the chapel – in itself a traditional component – attached as it was to the middle of the intermediary wing separating both courtyards

217 Cerutti 1961, pp. 26-28; van Luttervelt 1963; Dacos 1980; van Wezel 1999, pp. 83-93, 151-161. 218 van Wezel 1999, pp. 33-34; Cools 2001b, pp. 200-201, 272-273. 219 As commented upon by Bernardo Navagero. Albèri 1839-1863, I, pp. 294-296; Hoffmann 1985, pp. 34, 5773.

220

Cools 2001b, pp. 269-272. Dorren 1993, p. 208. 222 The close analysis carried out by Gerard van Wezel highlights many features at Breda that show a direct familiarity with Vitruvian theory: van Wezel 1999, pp. 173-176, 213225, 336-343, 359-370. See also pages 27-28. 221

63

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique like a tablinum, reflects Fra Giocondo’s reconstruction in his Vitruvius edition of 1511. Although the main composition of the palace, as built, fits in very well with the ‘Brabantine’ manner, there are unusual new features, some with Spanish connotations, other ones with a distinct Italian stamp. The Italian-type staircases hidden in the corners of the courtyard have barrel vaults and are decorated with columns in the canonical Order (Doric, Ionic and Corinthian as they ascend). The Orders used here, and in the open loggias on the lower levels, are more classicizing than the ones used by Jean Mone: the Ionic Order has the proper Albertian base with double astragal, as used in Raphael’s circle and as published by Diego de Sagredo in his Vitruvian dialogue, Medidas del romano (Toledo 1526), while the Doric Order with its rosettes obviously derives from the Basilica Aemilia, again popular in the Roman context. On the contrary, the double consoles above the Ionic Order in the second tier evoke Spanish zapatas, but it must also be noted that they appear in Cesariano’s Vitruvius, like the Doric variant, and thus carry a Vitruvian stamp of approval. More antique ornament is scattered throughout the building, some of it astounding in its purity, like the frieze with swags and bucrania above the portals in the end façades of the main wing. These very classicizing details, among the first of their kind in the Low Countries, indeed announce a turning point in the development of the antique style, one which is paralleled by the publication, in 1539, of the first, indigenous, theoretical texts on the antique by Pieter Coecke van Aelst.

64. Breda, the Italian-type staircase in the angle of the courtyard, from 1536.

Buren The castle of the Counts of Buren not only exemplifies the influence of the Breda workshop, but also shows how a patron of more limited means might modernize his residence in a fairly simple way. At Rombout II Keldermans’ death in 1531, Floris of Egmond (b. 1469 – d. 1539) engaged Alessandro Pasqualini (b. 1493 – d. 1559) from Bologna as his architect; the second phase in the ­renovation took place from 1532 until 1545.223 A surviving contract shows that Pasqualini designed the roof truss above the new, one-storied portico or ‘gallery’, which was constructed along two sides of the existing courtyard; there is no documentary evidence for his other activities on the site, except for a wardrobe.224 The 223 About Pasqualini, see in general Labouchère 1922; Beelaerts van Blokland 1931; Labouchère 1938; Hardenberg 1959; Graf Wolff Metternich 1974; van Mierlo 1991; Goossens & Vermeer 1992; Bers & Doose 1994; v. Büren 1995; Jülich 1996-1997; Bers & Doose 1999; Bers 1999; Küffner & Spohr 1999, pp. 45-50. Floris died in 1539; the work was taken over by his son Maximilian.

64

224

Labouchère 1938, pp. 7-9; Hardenberg 1959, pp. 7-9; von Büren, Kupka, Perse 1994, pp. 167-174; Janssen 1996, pp. 122-123. Only later (between 1575 and 1630), the gallery was extended along the third side of the courtyard. van den Heuvel 1996; van den Heuvel & van Wezel 1999, pp. 499-503, 507-509.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560 gallery is now lost, except for some fragments of the arcades.225 Cut from ‘black’ dolomite stone from Hessen or Thüringen (pierre noire), rarely used in the Low Countries, the arcades were the work of the Breda workshop led by Andries Seron or Serroen, who had come there from Malines (Mechelen); they can be dated to before 1539 on the basis of the accounts. Round-headed arches, with cof65. Fragments of the portico of the castle of Buren, 1539, fered soffits decorated by rosettes and with by Andries Seron (reconstruction by Y. Siegelaar and roundels in the spandrels, were supported by B.D.M. Hiddema). eight columns and two half-columns of the Corinthian and Composite type, with perfectly composed entablature blocks above: of very high quality, these components unmistakably show the Breda imprint.226 Two monumental (and very expensive) chimneypieces were also delivered by Seron; according to the receipts (1539-1540), these had been executed in his Mechelen workshop.227 Surviving fragments in ‘black’ stone again show carving of very 66. Buren, general view of the castle in the second half of fine quality: the consoles take the form of the 17th century, drawing by J. Beerstraten. finely profiled volutes with delicately carved vines and flowers on the sides, while the jambs are decorated with beautiful all’antica trophies, alternating with bunches of fruit. The first phase of the renovation, however, which can reasonably be attributed to Rombout II Keldermans, shows that non-antique status symbols played an equally important role. The entrance wing and the left wing of the residence, with their square corner pavilions, had been executed in the ‘streaky’ brick-and-stone masonry of the ‘Brabantine manner’, upon which the antique ‘gallery’ was grafted as a front. The new fortifications surrounding the main building took the form of a rectangle with a polygonal artillery tower at each corner (1526-1531), which can be compared to the contemporary ones at Breda, also a Keldermans work.228 Within this structure, a monumental gatehouse situated on the main axis preceded the residence proper. The gatehouse – consisting of two low square towers flanking the gate, extended by two lower wings into a U-shaped plan open towards the drawbridge leading to the main lodgings – consciously evoked the past: not only the traditional, medieval castle gate, but also fifteenth-century defence works, such as the boulevard in particular.229 It must be remembered that at the time, Floris of Egmond played a decisive role in the defence of the Utrecht territory, and the neighbouring parts of the Habsburg state, against the depredations of Gelre.230

225

The castle was demolished from 1806 to 1815 and the components of the gallery dispersed. Ibidem, pp. 503-506. 226 Documents cited in Beelaerts van Blokland 1931, pp. 162-163; van Wezel 1999, pp. 120-125. The latter ascribes the design of the Buren gallery to Vincidor and not to Pasqualini. 227 Documents cited in Beelaerts van Blokland 1931, p. 164; Labouchère 1938, p. 9; van Wezel 1999, p. 123. 228 Leys 1987, pp. 162-163. 229 See the plan of 1630 (The Hague, Koninklijke Verzamelingen H.K.H. Prinses Juliana, inv. 1476=ALP II L6) and

Beerstraeten’s washed drawing, third quarter of the seventeenth century, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, inv. 1888 A 1770. On the boulevard, see Salamagne 1992a; Martens 1999. 230 As such, they were also involved in the discussions concerning the fortification of Utrecht and neighbouring castles such as Schoonhoven. Leys 1987, pp. 163-170; Janssen 1996, pp. 106-111; Janssen, Hoekstra, Olde Meierink 2000; Cools 2001b, pp. 202-204; Klück, Hemmes & de Kam 2004; Martens & Hemmes (forthcoming).

65

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

67. Adrien de Montigny, main façade of Boussu castle, c. 1600.

Boussu Also in the following example, one of the highest-ranking nobles at the court of regent Mary of Hungary expressed his status and aspirations not only through the use of Antiquity, but also through the ‘Brabantine’ manner of building and the medieval past. During the Ancien Régime, when an ancestral castle was rebuilt, a lone tower – not infrequently used as a dovecote – was often expressly conserved as a symbol of ancient lineage. In Boussu, however, not only was an isolated remnant of the medieval predecessor conserved, the new building – started officially on March 24, 1540231 – also explicitly refers to the defence works of the old residence, old-fashioned though these had become in the meantime. At the death of his father Philip in 1511, Jean de Hennin-Liétard, premier et grand écuyer (Lord First Marshall) to the Emperor since 1538 (b. 1499 – d. 1562), had inherited the severely damaged castle of Boussu together with the title of grand bailly des bois de Hainault et prevost le conte de Vallenciennes, a position which, like the former one, implied that he was well versed in military matters, and indeed was partially responsible for the defence against France of this exposed border region.232 Jean de Hennin was an extremely well connected member of the ‘supra-national’ nobility; the unpublished genealogical manuscript by Jacques Le Boucq, Recueille des antiquites de la noble maison de Hennin Lietart (Valenciennes 231

De Jonge & Capouillez 1998, pp. 70-71. Like his father Philip, and his grandfather Pierre de Hennin-Liétard before him. See report addressed by the Venetian ambassador Bernardo Navagero to the Venetian Sen-

232

66

ate in 1546. Albèri 1839-1863, I, pp. 294-296; Salamagne 1992b, pp. 36-37; Cools 2001b, pp. 232-233. There is also some slight information on Jean de Hennin in the biography of his son Maximilian. Lefèvre 1964.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560 1571) shows ties to the Croÿ, Merode, Montmorency, Lannoy, Barbançon, and other families.233 His wife, Anne of Burgundy (d. 1551), whom he married in 1532, was the eldest daughter of Adolph of Burgundy, Lord of Veere, a descendant, on the illegitimate side, of the Grand Duc d’Occident Philip the Good.234 Like Henry III of Nassau and William of Croÿ, he was a member of the Order of the Golden Fleece (since 1531).235 Recent excavations at Boussu have led to the discovery of an enormous bulwark or boulevard, which preceded the monumental gatehouse with its triumphal arch. It is something of an anomaly as far as its defensive function goes, given that by 1540, the Italianate bastioned fortification system had been introduced into the Low Countries, and no one better than the well-travelled grand écuyer would have been aware of the fact that the old-fashioned boulevard, which had been invented in the beginning of the fifteenth century, would not have withstood the new, heavy artillery. The boulevard, together with the two drawbridges, the squat, completely vaulted towers of the gatehouse, and the colonnaded entrance gallery with its elevated archers’ walkway on both sides, afforded some defence against a small-arms attack, but that was not their primary function. These elements were meant to express the idea of fortification and its connotations of nobility, and to refer to the prestigious examples from past generations that still abounded in the border region.236 The medieval predecessor of the residence at Boussu, ruined in 1478, also possessed such a defence work.237 The main building, however, like the gatehouse, was built of brick strengthened by cut stone at the corners, while window surrounds, cornices, doorframes, and string courses in stone decorated the brick façades according to the ‘Brabantine’ manner.238 Some features – like the tall pavilion-like towers crowned by bulbous spires

233

BNP, Ms. fr. 31836, first part. Sicking & Fagel 1999; Granada 2000a, pp. 340-341; Cools 2001b, pp. 163-165. 235 Confirmed by the court ordinance of Nicolas Mameranus of Luxemburg, dated 1546-1547 and printed at Cologne, 1550; republished in Status Aulicus 1660, p. 18. 236 Salamagne 1992a; De Jonge (forthcoming). 234

68. Anonymous French military engineer, plan of Boussu castle, 1690.

69. Jacques Du Broeucq and Guillaume Le Prince, entrance gate of Boussu castle, 1540s.

237 AEM Cartes et plans 32. De Jonge & Capouillez 1998, p. 45. 238 The main source are the elevations from the Albums of Croÿ, ÖNB, Cod. min. 50, vol. V, fols. 59r, 59v, 61r, 61v. Duvosquel 1990, pp. 262-269; De Jonge & Capouillez 1998, pp. 72-77.

67

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

70. Jacques Du Broeucq and Guillaume Le Prince, window of main story, Boussu castle, 1540s.

71. Jacques Du Broeucq and Guillaume Le Prince, Doric entablature of main story, Boussu castle, 1540s.

and, indeed, the idea of a symmetrical, colonnaded quadrangle with complex staircases placed upon the main axis – referred to the residences of the principal members of the elite, in particular the castle at Heverlee and the one at Breda.239 Thus, Boussu Castle offered a synthesis of extremely precise references to the architecture of the highest nobility in the Burgundian-Habsburg realm. Not only the residence’s large size, but also the ‘antique’ repertory of forms that the sculptor-architect Jacques Du Broeucq (b. 1505/1510 – d. 1584) used throughout, its marble fountains, chimneypieces and doorways imported from Genoa (about which more later), and its sumptuous finishing, made it into a prodigy admired by professionals – such as in 1556, Philip II’s architect Gaspar de Vega, mentioned earlier – and casual visitors alike, despite the fact that it was left unfinished and in a damaged state at Jean de Hennin’s death in 1563. The architectural fragments of Ecaussines stone found in abundant numbers on the site of the main quadrangle, which had been lost since the early eighteenth century, together with the triumphal arch of the gatehouse and other remnants from Boussu and Binche, suggest that Du Broeucq’s repertory had its roots in Rome’s High Renaissance. He seems to have known all five Orders and used them in inventive ways.240 The Tuscan Order is ably combined with truly Roman, high-relief rustication in the triumphal arch at Boussu; the absence of errors indicates familiarity with three-dimensional examples, of which there were hardly any in the Low Countries at the time.241 The ground floor at Boussu must have been crowned with a full Doric entablature. The chapel of the Recollet Convent at Binche still has a series of Ionic columns, complete with Ionic bases and entablature with a pulvinated frieze, which came from the palace chapel (now destroyed except for its foundations).242 Part of an Ionic capital in red marble from Rance, once part of the interior decoration at Boussu, was found there during excavations. The four white marble columns with their beautiful black-and-white marble pedestals decorated with antique

239

These square pavilions were hardly usual in Hainaut at the time. See Valenciennes 1995. 240 De Jonge 1998b; De Jonge 1999a, pp. 65-68. 241 The rustication at Jülich, for instance, although executed under the supervision of Alessandro Pasqualini, shows numerous errors in the stereotomy (see the lower plinth of the chapel apse). Donato de’ Boni had shown how to

68

combine the Doric Order and rustication in his 1545 Imperial Gate at Antwerp, but the Doric Order is the Greek one without a base, used by Sanmicheli and other Veneto artists, and the rustication is very flat according to the Venetian manner. There is no comparison possible with the work at Boussu. 242 Glotz & Milet 1958-1961.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560 trophies, now in Sainte-Waudru in Mons but originally part of Boussu Castle (they were sold in 1626), show many variations on the Corinthian figurative capital. An original variant on the Composite Order appears in the tomb of Jean de Hennin-Liétard and Anne of Burgundy in the Hennin burial chapel at the local church (started between 1551 and 1562). To these must be added other ‘Roman’ features, such as flat window and door surrounds with ‘ears’ in the Raphaelesque manner: although the windows are subdivided by a stone cross, necessary because the technology of its wooden frame and glass infill had not changed, the crowning pedi- 72. Mariemont, 1547-1549, digital reconstruction by Simon ments (at Boussu), or Corinthian-type entab- Meersmans, Krista De Jonge and Herman Neuckermans, lature with consoles (at Binche), made them view from the southeast. truly antique. Apart from Breda and Buren, only one other parallel to Du Broeucq’s very Roman-looking Antiquity could be found in the early 1540s: the paper version of the Roman High Renaissance popularized by Serlio, and from 1539, by Pieter Coecke van Aelst in the Low Countries.243 Mariemont The most richly layered example of this interplay between ‘traditional’ Burgundian court architecture and imported Antiquity is Mariemont, built mostly between 1545 and 1549 for the regent Mary of Hungary (b. 1505 – d. 1558) as a hunting lodge or maison de plaisance, and as a kind of annexe to the palace at Binche, also by Jacques Du Broeucq.244 Work on the new wing at Binche progressed contemporaneously with the construction at Mariemont, some miles distant.245 In François de Rabutin’s words, Mariemont was an original creation that carried the personal stamp of its patron, a lover of the hunt who was famous even in a period and in a milieu known for its hunting excesses.246 Situated in a private hunting park, this palagio a guisa di castello (as Guicciardini puts it in 1567) was not meant to be an official court residence, lacking as it was in sufficient kitchen space, the usual dormitories for the young ladies of the court, and even a chapel large enough to accommodate the whole entourage.247 It took the form of a cube placed in the exact centre of a square-shaped artificial pond, and was only accessible by means of a rusticated bridge. Its richly decorated flat roof offered a marvellous view of the terraced gardens that sloped down to the river on the south and west sides.248 The main structure was in brick,

243

But Serlio/Coecke can hardly be the source, since the woodcuts from Book IV only give scant information on the three-dimensionality of rustication, and other details. 244 Hedicke 1911, pp. 293-297, 425-428; Wellens 19581961; Donnay 1970; Demeester 1978-1981; Lemoine-Isabeau 1979-1980; Jottrand 1979-1980; Morlanwelz 1987, pp. 52-75; De Jonge 2005b. 245 Both are lost. Hedicke 1911, pp. 252-273, 398-428; Meurisse 1924; Devreux 1935-1936; De Jonge 1994b, pp. 114-116; De Jonge 1997a.

246

de Rabutin 1555, cited by Glotz 1995, p. 123: “la magnifique maison de Mariemont, construite curieusement pour le singulier plaisir et delectation de la reine Marie, appropriée de tant de singularités qu’il est possible de penser”. Mary of Hungary personally took over the position of Grand Master of the Hunt (grand veneur) in Brabant. Kerkhoff 1993, pp. 173-174. 247 Guicciardini 1567, p. 267. 248 De Jonge 1998c, pp. 198-206; De Jonge 1999c, pp. 192-193.

69

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique but Du Broeucq used rustication extensively throughout the main building: at the corners, around the windows, in the crowning balustrade and on the chimney stacks. There were also two rusticated portals: one at the main entrance to the park, and the second, flanked by two turrets, at the edge of the pond.249 Seen from afar, the isolated cube rising above its platform – or so the reinforced brick walls of the pond must have appeared to the spectator250 – and with its fanciful chimneys and balustrade, must have recalled not only an Italian villa, but also the fairy-tale castle surrounded by water 73. Jan I Brueghel,View of Mariemont from the northwest, 1612. of chivalric romances, such as the Palace The roof was added in 1605. of Apolidon on the Isle Ferme in Amadis de Gaule by Nicolas Herberay, Baron des Essars.251 This romantic tale was very popular at the court of Mary of Hungary, as is shown by the fact that it constituted the script of the festivities organized here and at Binche on August 28-30, 1549, when the regent received Philip of Spain and the Emperor.252 The effect must have been even further enhanced by the enchanting garden full of marvels in the best Burgundian-Habsburg tradition.253 Antiquity Showcased The Burgundian ancestors had set a standard that Charles V and Mary of Hungary’s court strove to emulate, most notably in its festivities.254 Burgundian themes abounded even in the Triumphal Entries, meant to celebrate the privileged relationship between the prince and the loyal citizenry. The mythical hero Hercules, a favourite at Philip the Good’s court since the famous Feast of the Pheasant at Lille (1454), ultimately inspired the Emperor’s columnar device (Plus Ultra) in 1516.255 Even in

249

As confirmed by the accounts, which have been conserved in ARAB. Overview of the sources in Wellens 19581961, pp. 79-83. For the main period of construction (15471550), see ARAB Rekenkamer 27305, 2nd account, fol. 285r and following; 27306, vol. II, 2nd account, fol. 441r and following; 27307. The authors of the accounts are discussed in Wellens, 1958-1961, pp. 95-98. 250 Contemporary iconographical sources are missing, but the views painted by Jan Brueghel I, Jan Brueghel II and Denijs van Alsloot make it possible to distinguish the different phases of the restoration by Pierre Le Poivre, Loys Patte and Wensel Cobergher for the Archdukes Albrecht and Isabella (1598-1621). Demeester 1978-1981, pp. 274281; Ertz 1979, pp. 157-163. 251 The original Spanish romance was translated by Herberay in twelve volumes, published by Denys Janot in Paris between 1540 and 1546; see in particular Book IV (1543). Rawles 1981; Chastel 1986; Chatelain 2000. On fictional architecture of the time, see Thomson 1993, pp. 51-96.

70

252

Marquet & Glotz 1991, pp. 32, 97-98; Glotz 2000, p. 30. On these festivities, see Wellens 1949; Devoto 1960; Heartz 1960; Glotz 1995; Kendall Frieder 1997, pp. 90143; Peters 1998. 253 See, for instance, the park of the Warande next to the Coudenberg Palace at Brussels and the park at Hesdin (Artois), created by Robert II of Artois and his daughter Mahaut (c. 1300), called “un des somptueux ouvrages de la terre” by Georges Chastellain in 1457. Its pavilions, galeries des engins and fountains were restored by Philip the Good. See the literature cited by Paravicini 1991, pp. 218-220 and De Jonge 1999c, pp. 189-191. About Hesdin, see also Franke 1997. On the novel aspects of this terraced garden, see De Jonge 1998c, pp. 198-206; De Jonge 1999c, pp. 192-194; De Jonge 2002c, pp. 53-55. 254 See note 178. On chivalry at the imperial court, see Checa Cremades 1999, pp. 58-76; Cátedra 2000; Carrillo & Pereda 2000; Prieto 2000. 255 Rosenthal 1971; Rosenthal 1973; Tanner 1993; Caron & Clauzel 1997.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560

74. View of La Fontaine, Clausen (Luxemburg), built between 1563 and 1590. Drawing attr. to Tobias Verhaeght, late 16th century.

1565, the best compliment Francesco de’ Marchi could pay his protector Margaret of Parma, daughter of Charles V and at the time regent of the Low Countries, apropos the nuptials of her son Alexander Farnese and Mary of Portugal, was that “these celebrations had recalled to the minds of the people the solemn splendour and greatness (pompa, fasto et grandezza) that the ancient Dukes of Burgundy used to display at such weddings and on such magnificent occasions (magnificenze)”. 256 The four emblematic case-studies presented above, however, clearly indicate that by the end of the 1530s, the Burgundian model had to be dressed up in the correct antique manner. It can be surmised that Antiquity in itself constituted a clear reference to the Empire, especially after work started on the new imperial palace a lo romano at Granada (1526). Charles V now presented himself in antique guise, showing himself to his subjects, both in the North and in the South, as an Emperor of Antiquity, and a victorious one at that.257 His court gradually followed his lead. The concentration of antique imagery at Breda – so obvious in the famous tomb of Engelbert II and Cimburga of Baden, created at the instigation of Henry III between 1525 and 1534, and in the palace courtyard, where medallions of Greek and Roman heroes and authors adorn the arcades – is not unique for that time.258

256

De’ Marchi 1566, fol. 14v. About this marriage, see De Jonge 1991, pp. 88-91 and Bertini 1997. 257 Most recently, van den Boogert 1992; van den Boogert 1993a; Checa Cremades 1999, p. 113 and following; Checa Cremades 2000, pp. 29-31; Madonna 2000. On Granada,

see Tafuri 1988; Rosenthal 1988; Tafuri 1992, pp. 255-304; Granada 2000b; Marías 2000a; Marías 2000b; Rodríguez Ruiz 2000. 258 For the tomb, see Chapter I, note 40. van Luttervelt 1963, pp. 38-54; van Wezel 1999, pp. 343-359.

71

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique In the case of Boussu, evidence is scarce, but the account books relating to Binche offer some indication of the presence of antique and pseudo-antique artefacts in the castle at Boussu. At the end of the year 1552, the molleur en plattre (stucco worker) Luc Lange or Luca Lancia di San Germano made stucco copies for Jean de Hennin of several testes desdits anticquaiges belonging to Mary of Hungary.259 Also, Constantin Huygens the Younger mentions the sale in Mons on May 24, 1676, of several bustes modernes faits en Italie, which allegedly had belonged to Jean de Hennin.260 Indeed, not every patron had abundant sources of genuine antique material at his or her disposal. An exception was Pierre Ernest of Mansfeld, Governor of Luxemburg and a prominent member at the court since the late 1540s. The terraced gardens, sunken fountain court, cryptoporticus and grotto of his manor house ‘La Fontaine’ at Clausen near Luxemburg (from 1564 onwards) served as a backdrop for his rich collection of antique epigraphs and statuary fragments from Arlon and Trier, and were renowned amongst antiquaries such as Ortelius and Vivianus, who had visited the site in 1575.261 Influence from Fontainebleau The best showpiece of assimilated Antiquity, however, was offered by the great hall on the upper floor of the Binche palace; at the same time, it clearly shows the international reference system underlying the architecture at Mary of Hungary’s court. For the decoration of the wall opposite the entrance, Du Broeucq used the system invented only a short time before by Rosso and Primaticcio for Francis I’s private gallery at Fontainebleau (1533-1540),262 but now its theme is a celebration of imperial power, in keeping with Mary’s status as regent and as a representative of Habsburg imperial rule.263 Titian’s and Coxcie’s Damned (Titius or Prometheus, Sisyphus, Tantalus and Ixion), were placed between the windows and framed by figures sculpted in the round, i.e. herms bearing antique weaponry; underneath ran panelling carved with antique trophies and subdivided by pilasters topped by lions’ heads.264 Du Broeucq used the traditional, easily worked white Avesnes stone for the herms, instead of the Italian stucco duro. In addition, the monumental chimneypieces, one at each end of the room, followed the model of the so-called cheminées de Castille in Francis I’s Château de Madrid in the Bois de Boulogne (1541-1545); they were the only examples of this type to be found outside France.265 Obviously, Mary of Hungary closely followed the artistic developments at the French court.266 At the time, she was indeed still trying to obtain the use of the moulds Primaticcio had made of the famous Cleopatra/Ariadne and the Nile in the Vatican, so that Leone Leoni could also provide her with bronze copies of these antiques.267 She finally had to be content with stucco copies made by Luca Lancia di San Germano between 1550 and 1553, and placed in the garden grotto at Binche.268 The court of Fontainebleau served, as it were, as a mediator in her quest for antique or antique-looking artefacts.

259 ARAB Rekenkamer 27309, fol. 37v (Hedicke 1911, p. 414). Debergh 1990. 260 Amsterdam/Gent 1982-1983, p. 151. 261 Massarette 1930, II, pp. 171-179; Scholer 1991; Scholer 1996; Martens, Mousset & Röder 2006. 262 La galerie François Ier… 1972; Zerner 1975; Prinz 1977, pp. 9-10; van den Boogert 1993b, p. 337; De Jonge 1998b, pp. 180-185. 263 See in general van den Boogert 1993b. 264 The antique sources of these herms have been discussed by Mezzatesta 1985. An important source is the bearded male herm with turban engraved by Cornelis Bos in the early 1540s after Agostino Veneziano (1536), but since the Binche herms carry arms, they must be considered an original variant of these. Many of Bos’ herms, including the

72

turbaned herm, were included in Rivius’ German Vitruvius (1548). Other parallels can be found in Coecke’s Turkish herms for Moeurs et fachons de faire de Turcz and in his rendering of the triumphal arch of the Peace, erected for the Triumphal Entry of Philip of Spain into Antwerp in 1549. For a more extensive analysis, see De Jonge 1998b, pp. 182-183. 265 Chatenet 1987, pp. 117-118; Chatenet 1991. 266 Duverger 1972, p. 722. On the Flemish artists working at Fontainebleau, see Dacos 1996a; Dacos 1996b; Béguin 1997. 267 Van Durme 1949; Lettere di artisti italiani… 1979, pp. 57-62; Estella 1994, p. 36. 268 Hedicke 1911, pp. 413-414; Pressouyre 1969; Debergh 1990; Debergh 1994; De Jonge 1998, p. 197.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560

75. Netherlandish Anon., view of upper great hall at Binche, August 29, 1549.

73

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

77. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Triumphe d’Anvers, 1550, The Arch of Peace.

76. Jacques Du Broeucq, Karyatid’s head from Boussu, 1540s, Avesnes stone.

In Mariemont, the sallette or dining room on the first floor was decorated with thirteen, stucco statues by Luca Lancia, one of them a Venus in the antique manner.269 This decoration seems to have been closer in spirit to the gentle nymphs of Fontainebleau. Du Broeucq’s chimneypieces in the great hall at Binche served to display the antique busts of Hadrian and Julius Cæsar, placed in the central tondo; Mary of Hungary had acquired these antiques in Rome, and for far too much money Cabanillas reports she was wont to complain.270 The Fontainebleau repertory must also have influenced the work at Boussu, as one of the finds of 1998 seems to suggest. The two caryatids’ heads, which must have decorated the back door, follow Fontainebleau models, which were, of course, based on antique ones: this is shown by their elongated eyes and large, low-set ears, which evoke Rosso’s Egyptian herms at the Pavillon des Armes, and by the baskets of fruit and flowers on their heads, which are similar to the caryatids in the Chambre du Roi.271 This repertory was finally made known to the broader public, not by a treatise, but by the account of the Triumphal Entry of Philip of Spain into Antwerp in 1549, published by Cornelis Grapheus and Pieter Coecke van Aelst in 1550.272 The illustrations have been taken only too often to be accurate versions of the real-life structures erected in the Antwerp streets in 1549, despite the many indications to the contrary in the text, and the many discrepancies which can be noted between the depicted arches and the dimensions cited by Grapheus and other eye-witnesses to the event.273 Grapheus explicitly states that most of the arches were redrawn by Coecke in altered 269

Wellens 1958-1961, pp. 106-107; Debergh 1990. Hedicke 1911, pp. 409-410; Petit 1873-1884 , III, p. 85. Cabanillas 1549, originally published by Juan Rodríguez, Medina del Campo 1549, and republished by Pérez Pastor 1895, p. 57.

270

74

271

De Jonge & Capouillez 1998, pp. 133, 185. The caryatids in the Chambre du Roi date from 1534-1535, as does the Porte Egyptienne of the Pavillon des Armes. Béguin 1975; Boudon & Blécon 1998, pp. 38-39. 272 See Chapter II, note 155. 273 Eisler 1990.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560

78. Giacomo della Porta, Genoa, Palazzo Salvago in Piazza San Bernardo, portal, started December 1532.

79. Gaasbeek, fountain in Carrara marble bearing the arms of Boussu.

proportions to fit the format of the book.274 Taken by themselves, Coecke’s woodcuts – especially those depicting the decorations paid for by the town of Antwerp itself – not only constitute one of the earliest manifestos of grotesque scrollwork, but also the first model-book of Mannerist architectural invention in the Low Countries, many elements of which are indebted to the art of Fontainebleau.275 The Genoese Network Apart from real or fake antique statuary, the best way for the elite to dress up their residences in the antique manner was actually to import marble artefacts from Genoa, the main hub in the all’antica luxury trade. Even before demolishing the ancestral keep, Jean de Hennin-Liétard had ordered several of these to embellish the new building he planned to raise on the same site. From March 28 to April 8, 1533, he visited Andrea Doria’s suburban villa at Genoa as a member of the Emperor’s retinue.276 On April 7, he ordered two marble chimneypieces in the style of the one in the Sala del Naufragio from the workshop of Giovanni Maria da Passallo and Antonio di Nova da Lancio277, while a second contract of the same date with the well-known Genoese workshop of Gian Giacomo della Porta and Niccoló da Corte concerns a marble doorframe, twelve palmi by eight.278 All orders were placed through an 274

Schéle 1965, pp. 43, 74-76. See in particular Schéle 1965, pp. 54-59; De Jonge 1998b, p. 183. For chimneypieces painted in the manner of Fontainebleau at “Palazzo Ducci” (van de Werve) at Antwerp, c. 1547, see Maclot & Grieten 2002. 276 Gorse 1985; Gorse 1986; Gorse 1990. 275

277

Eisler 1983, pp. 85, 301-302; Parma Armani 1987, p. 280. 278 It was probably similar to the one at Palazzo Selvaggi, as Eisler has supposed. Eisler 1983, pp. 85, 303-304. Pesenti 1987, p. 347.

75

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique intermediary, Gregorio Pallavicino. It is possible that as a talented sculptor, Du Broeucq was asked to inspect the pieces upon delivery in Boussu, or in Antwerp, the main port of transit, or even in Genoa itself, before they started the arduous journey to the North; such a procedure would have been consistent with contemporary practice. The confrontation with these pieces must have left a lasting impression on the sculptor. Du Broeucq’s formal repertory is not without elements that are typical of the standard Genoese export product of the time.279 For instance, the chimneypiece crowned with a pyramidal hood flanked by figures and supported by claw-footed male herms, must be counted among the sources for the herms carrying antique weaponry that Du Broeucq sculpted for the great hall in the palace of Binche.280 On a European scale, more examples of this luxury trade are known. The Genoese selling network of sculptured elements of all kinds, comprising columns and capitals, fountains, chimneypieces and tombs, extended to the whole of Spain, and French examples also exist. One of the more popular items in the catalogue was the white marble tazza fountain (or candelabra-type). In 1535, Jean de Hennin had ordered one from Niccoló da Corte’s workshop. Its basin measured twelve palmi across, after the one in Martino Centurione’s garden,281 and it was possibly crowned by the three Graces Vasari mentions as Niccoló’s work: le tre Grazie con quattro putti di marmo, che furono mandati in Fiandra al gran scudiero di Carlo Quinto Imperatore, insieme con un’altra Cerere grande quanto il vivo.282 Vasari reports that this life-size Ceres, and also four putti, were the work of Guglielmo della Porta. The fountain of the Three Graces stood in a place of honour in the centre of the main courtyard at Boussu until the late seventeenth century.283 It was by no means the only one of its kind to travel north. Another one made from Carrara marble was presumably sold by de Hennin’s heirs and now survives in an altered form at Gaasbeek.284 An older example, made famous by its depiction in Les plus excellents bastimens de France (1576-1579) by Jacques Androuet du Cerceau the Elder, stood in the courtyard of the castle at Gaillon, ordered by Cardinal Georges d’Amboise from an older generation of Genoese sculptors (Pace Gagini, Antonio della Porta also called ‘Tamagnino’, and Agostino Solari) in 1506.285 Martino Centurione, mentioned earlier and Spain’s ambassador to Genoa in the 1530s, had helped don Rodrigo de Vivar y Mendoza, first Marquis of Zenete and father of Mencía de Mendoza, the wife of Henry III of Nassau, to order one from Pietro d’Aprile and Antonio Caronesi in 1512.286 The first Marquis of Santa Cruz, don Álvaro de Bazán, had ordered a marble fountain from Gian Giacomo della Porta and Giovanni Pietro Passallo for his family palace at Granada in April 1536, with precise instructions: it had to be exactly like the ones in the Villa Doria.287 One of the most splendid ones known, the famous Eagle’s Fountain (fuente del Águila), which was over 5 metres high and had four superimposed basins supported by dolphins, sea gods and putti, was probably sculpted around 1533 by Silvio Cosini for this villa and later given by Andrea Doria to Philip II. First located in Aranjuez, it was later moved to the Casa del Campo near Madrid and has recently been put together again.288

279

About this export phenomenon, see Kruft 1972; López Torrijos 1987; Parma Armani 1987; Pesenti 1987; Tejero Villareal 1998; López Torrijos 1999. About Du Broeucq’s putative sojourn in Italy, see page 80. 280 De Jonge 1998b, pp. 182-185. 281 Eisler 1983, pp. 85-86, 305-306. 282 “the Three Graces with four putti of marble, which were sent to Flanders to the Master of Horse of Emperor Charles V, together with another life-size Ceres”. Vasari-Milanesi 1906, VII, p. 545; Eisler 1983, p. 86. 283 Amsterdam/Ghent 1982-1983, p. 150. The different components of the fountain have been represented by

76

Adrien de Montigny in one of his Albums de Croÿ (view of the courtyard from the north). ÖNB, Cod. min. 50, V, fol. 61v (Duvosquel 1990, plate 103). Reconstruction in De Jonge & Capouillez 1998, pp. 138-40. 284 De Jonge 1998c, pp. 212-13. 285 Shown in Thomson 1988, pp. 150, 152. Kruft 1970, pp. 403-404; Miller 1977, pp. 64-76. 286 F. Alizeri, Notizie dei Professori del Disegno in Liguria dalla fondazione dell’Academia, Genoa 1864-1866, p. 79, quoted by Tejero Villareal 1998, p. 411. 287 López Torrijos 1987, pp. 377-80. 288 Tejero Villarreal 1998, pp. 401-414.

Chapter III: Antiquity Assimilated: Court Architecture 1530-1560 Martino Centurione also served as the agent in the following deal. Between 1509 and 1512, Genoese marble traders, stonemasons and sculptors (Michele Carlone, Antonio di Pilacurte da Carona, Baldassare de Canevale de Lancio, Pietro de Gandria della Verda and others) delivered the components for the arcades in the courtyard of the castle at La Calahorra in southern Spain, residence of the first Marquis of Zenete, who was Henry III of Nassau’s father-in-law (see also ill. 340).289 Don Álvaro de Bazán had also ordered marble for the renovation of the patio in his palace at Granada in 80. La Calahorra, courtyard, c. 1510, capital imported 1536, and it seems that Niccoló da Corte, who had from Genoa. worked at this in Genoa together with Guglielmo della Porta in August 1536, finished the work on site. The balusters, for example, had to conform precisely to well-known Genoese models, as the documents show.290 The Genoese banker Niccoló Grimaldi served as intermediary in many of these deals. The Genoese workshop catalogue also comprised tombs, some of which count amongst the most splendid of the Early Spanish Renaissance; for instance, the tombs of Don Pedro Enriquez de Ribera and Doña Catalina de Ribera, made by Antonio Maria Aprile and Pace Gagini in 1521 (formerly in the Certosa de las Cuevas and now in the University chapel at Seville), which had been ordered in Genoa in 1520 by their son, Don Fadrique Enriquez de Ribera, first Marquis of Tarifa.291 He also adorned his family home at Seville with columns, two fountains and a portal in marble, dated 1533, ordered from Antonio Maria di Aprile.292 Not only did the Emperor’s most important courtiers belong to the clientele of the Genoese workshops, but also Emperor Charles V himself, and in the second half of the sixteenth century, his son Philip II as well. In the 1530s, one of the most important building sites in southern Spain was the new imperial palace near the Alhambra, designed by Pedro Machuca and Diego de Siloë. The palace, with its circular courtyard inspired by Raphael and Giulio Romano’s reconstructions of antique imperial palaces and villas, soon offered Genoese sculptors additional opportunities for work.293 For instance, it is known that Niccoló da Corte moved to Granada and worked there from 1537 on. One of his pieces, ‘Leda’s Chimney’, a typical Genoese chimneypiece which was placed in the imperial apartment, was probably bought from the family of the first Marquis of Santa Cruz in 1546, after their house in Granada was sold (1538?).294 In a later period, Philip II would continue to order Genoese marble to decorate his apartments, for instance at the Alcázar in Madrid in 1562.295 The case of Boussu represents one of the very few instances where the importance of Genoese imports in changing architectural taste in the Low Countries can be documented, but it should not be seen as an isolated example of courtly patronage in imperial circles. The Genoese merchants’ community in Bruges, and from 1516 onwards, in Antwerp, was a very active one.296 The most remark-

289

March 1951; Kruft 1972; Marías 1990-1992 (with bibliography). 290 López Torrijos 1987, p. 377; López Torrijos 1999, p. 411. 291 López Torrijos 1987, pp. 370-371. 292 López Torrijos 1987, p. 380; Lleó Cañal 1994, p. 184. 293 Eisler 1983, p. 86; Tafuri 1988, p. 8; Rosenthal 1988, pp. 69-76, 82-92; Tafuri 1992, p. 263.

294

López Torrijos 1987, p. 378; López Torrijos 1999, p. 412. 295 Gérard 1984, pp. 89-92. 296 Known names from the transition period between Bruges and Antwerp around 1516 are, for instance: Pallavicino Damiano, Grégoire Lommelin, Agostino Centurione; also, several members of the Balbi family resided in Antwerp in the 1560s. Marechal 1951 (1985); Grendi 1997, pp. 9, 13,

77

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique able example of its patronage of the local artistic avant-garde of the time is the arch erected for the Triumphal Entry of Philip of Spain in 1549, with paintings by Frans Floris and with Latin inscriptions by Stefano Ambrogio Schiappalaria, a Genoese merchant and poet living in Antwerp.297 It cannot be excluded that the Genoese merchants in Antwerp facilitated other imports of the same kind, which involved the better-known Genoese sculptors and the main dignitaries at the imperial court in Brussels. For instance, no sources have been conserved to indicate that Henry III of Nassau and Mencía de Mendoza participated in this network of patronage, but as a working hypothesis, it does not stretch credulity too far. At the request of Charles V, Henry and Mencía, returned to Spain in 1533-1534, and again in 1535, travelling by way of France (Paris).298 At the time, as we have shown, the Genoese trade in marble artefacts reached a new high point. Moreover, as we have seen, the Breda documents for 1534 mention a master Andrien de Seron Italiaen, who worked there with his assistants until the late 1540s, and who also created the very Italianate arcades exported to Buren in 1539.299 It has been suggested that Andrien (Andries) came from Serón in Almería, not too far from La Calahorra, but other interpretations – for instance, a Genoese origin – also seem possible. La Calahorra, as a showcase for Genoese marble work, could have played an important role. Henry had visited this schones haus in July 1526, which was (in the words of his secretary Alexander Schweis) reich von mermelsteynen, seulen, stiegen und anderm und sunderlich von so guten ordonantien.300 Ultimately, the ‘nationality’ of the architects and sculptors who created this particular Netherlandish Renaissance is of less importance than their capacity for responding to their noble patrons’ complex needs in an inventive manner, and their knowledge of the antique language. By the middle of the sixteenth century, the cultural elite was sufficiently versed in the latest antique mode to exact high standards of design and workmanship; the residences of Breda, Buren, Boussu, Binche and Mariemont consequently served as models for less well-read and well-travelled patrons. In the professional world, their architects became the stuff of legend, as the documents related to the Utrecht court case of 15421543 also clearly show; but none more so than Jacques Du Broeucq, architect of the last three.

18 and following. See Petti Balbi 1996 for an overview of the situation until the end of the fifteenth century. 297 Eisler 1990. 298 Vosters 1987, pp. 34-36.

78

299

Cerutti 1961, pp. 25-26; van Wezel 1999, pp. 123125. 300 Cited by van Wezel 1999, pp. 63-64.

Chapter IV: A Model Architect: Jacques Du Broeucq (1540-1555)

The court milieu seems to have offered untold career possibilities to the new type of designerarchitect. No one could better serve as a model for the ambitious new practitioners than the famoso architettore Jacques Du Broeucq (b. 1505/10 – d. 1584), who had worked for Mary of Hungary, regent of the Low Countries.301 In 1593 the architect, surveyor and military engineer Pierre Le Poivre petitioned Pierre Ernest, Count of Mansfeld and governor of the Low Countries, to receive the same pension (200 pounds) Du Broeucq had been paid “for his good service in assisting His Majesty’s engineers in making the models of Philippeville, Mariembourg and Charlemont”.302 This document suggests that at the close of the century, years after his death, Du Broeucq’s pension and the position it was related to at court, served as a reference for the artist’s successors in the service of the King and his representatives. Already by the 1560s, Du Broeucq’s renown had spread throughout the whole of the Low Countries; manifested by his role as a member of the committee judging the competition entries for the Antwerp Town Hall in 1560, and his activities there as a consultant (1560-1564).303 His contemporary and acquaintance, Lodovico Guicciardini, the well-known Florentine chronicler who was living in Antwerp, sums up his œuvre by referring to Boussu and Mariemont,304 two buildings which demonstrate Du Broeucq’s most important connections with the court milieu and which, as we have seen, perfectly represent the close interaction between the architect and his patron. In this, the closing chapter of Part I, we will explore different aspects of the court architect’s relationship to his patron, as evidenced by contemporary sources. Artistic Freedom in Design

81. Sebastiaan van Noyen, Philippeville, founded 1552, concept drawing.

Very probably, Du Broeucq had received his first entrée into the network of court patronage at Boussu, where work on the new castle started officially on March 24, 1540. Jean de Hennin-Liétard

301

“Et di presente vivono Jacopo Bruecq nato vicono a S. Omero gentilhuomo grande scultore, & famoso architettore; ordinò Bossu & poi Marimont, & altri superbi edifitij alla Regina d’Ungheria Reggente del paese…”. Guicciardini 1567, p. 101. 302 “A Son excellence, remonstre en toute humilité maistre Pierre le Poyvre, architecte et géographe de Sa Majesté, comme ayant continué ès l’espace de treize ans à l’exerce de Sadicte majesté et de Vostre Excellence…; ores comme le suppliant at entendu que ung nommé maistre Jacques de Breucque ayant servy du mesme estat d’architecte feu Marie, royne d’Hongerie, duquel ledict maistre Jacques fut pourveu d’une pension de IJC livres de xl groz, monnoye de Flandres, en recompense de ses bonnes services qu’il avoyt faict assistant les ingénieurs de Sadicte majesté en faysant les

modelles de Philippeville, Marienbourch et Charlemont, lequel pension luy fut assignee sur le recepveur es domains de Mons, lequel il at tire jusques l’an iiijxxv qu’il trespassoit, prie partant ledict suppliant qu’il plaise à Vostre Excellence luy colloquer en recompense de ses bonnes et longues services en la place dudict maistre Jacques de Breucque(…)”. ARAB, Audiëntie, document dated August 4, 1593, cited after Pinchart 1860-1881, I, pp. 181-182; Hedicke 1911, pp. 433-434. On Le Poivre, see van den Heuvel 1998. 303 Corbet 1936, pp. 232-233; Roggen & Withof 1942, p. 132; Adriaenssens 1980, p. 125. 304 See note 301. In the 2nd edition of Vasari’s Vite, Jacopo Bruca appears chiefly as the master of Giovanni Bologna. Vasari-Milanesi 1906, VII, pp. 643-648. D’Hanens 1956, pp. 32, 91-92.

79

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique may already have employed the young sculptor from Saint-Omer in the mid 1530s, i.e. before he established his workshop in Mons (1539-1540), when he obtained the commission to create the alabaster sculptures for the rood screen of Sainte-Waudru.305 Du Broeucq’s task as designer and executive architect had been to find a suitable architectural expression for his patron’s ambitions and, as we have seen, there is no doubt that he succeeded very well. More precisely, he is styled maistre des ouvrages a Boussut in the building accounts of Mary of Hungary’s new palace at Binche, a town that she received as a personal gift from her brother in 1545.306 This indeed suggests that his work at Boussu brought him to the attention of the regent. The accounts also testify to the close relationship between Boussu, which was still under construction at the time, and the new construction site at Binche, where work on the nouveau et riche logis started in 1546.307 The building fragments in Ecaussines stone found at both sites closely resemble each other, not only with regard to their form, but also in their workmanship.308 It seems the Le Prince family was responsible for the stonework at both sites, true to the privileged role they had played for at least a generation on the most important building sites in the Southern Low Countries.309 Mary of Hungary also borrowed the grand écuyer’s prized German woodworkers and their tools: between 1548 and 1552, Hans and Michel Wisrutter joined Balthasar Bruye’s team to work on carved wood panelling, inlaid window shutters and parquet floors in precious bois de bresil, bois de barbarin, oliviers, and bois dalmarche or Baltic oak.310 Work on the new wing at Binche progressed in parallel with the construction of Mary’s hunting lodge at Mariemont, some miles distant; indeed, master Balthasar Bruye can be found there too, as can the master mason of Binche, Guillaume Le Naing.311 Throughout the account books, Jacques Du Broeucq is consistently called maistre Jacques lartiste, ‘the artist’.312 This must be understood as a specific reference to the title created for Jean Mone, the sculptor from Metz, who can be credited with having been the first to emancipate himself from the constraints of the guild system by virtue of his position as court artist. As we have seen, the second to carry the title was Pieter Coecke van Aelst, painter, entrepreneur and the first to publish theoretical texts on the new ‘antique’ architecture in the Low Countries. The title ‘artist’ was apparently used to single out the major specialists in ‘antique works’ (anticse wercken) active in court circles. Thus it also serves as a measure of Jacques Du Broeucq’s position and renown as ‘model court architect’ from 1545 onwards. Nevertheless, the surviving patent letter nominating him as maistre artiste de lempereur is dated May 16, 1555, which means that he was only confirmed in his position at a relatively late stage.313 It is not known whether first-hand experience in Italy was a requirement. Du Broeucq may have visited Italy, as his disciple Giambologna professed, but this is far from certain; Mone and Coecke, in any case, had done so.314 Documents from a later period seem to contradict the privileged status suggested by this title. Du Broeucq did not enjoy the complete independence that we would nowadays associate with his position: artistic freedom in design apparently went hand in hand with complete submission to the comptroller’s approval of the choice of materials, workmen, and remuneration. At some point between 1622 and 1627, the comptroller of finance Cornelis De Backer found himself forced to reject a request

305

See Chapter I, note 90. He is defined as such in the account books pertaining to Binche (1545-1549), e.g. ARAB Rekenkamer 27302, fol. 200v (Hedicke 1911, p. 404). 307 ARAB Rekenkamer 27302, 27305, 27306 vol. I-II. Hedicke 1911, pp. 252-293, 398-424; De Jonge 1994b, pp. 114-116. 308 De Jonge & Capouillez 1998, pp. 109-113, 145-158. 309 See Chapter I, notes 60 and 88. 310 ARAB Rekenkamer 27306, vol. II, fols. 435v, fol. 438v. 311 ARAB Rekenkamer 27306, vol. II, 2nd account, fol. 597v. 306

80

312

ARAB Rekenkamer 27305, fol. 157v; 27306, vol. I, fol. 275r (Hedicke 1911, pp. 406, 409). Comments in De Jonge 1994a and De Jonge 1997a. 313 In fact, when his patron left the Low Countries for ever, and after getting a very high wage for ten years (see below, note 317). Hedicke 1911, p. 422. 314 According to Giambologna’s biographer Raffaello Borghini (Il Riposo, 1584). Dhanens 1956, pp. 16, 376-377. Guicciardini 1567, p. 101, does not specifically say that Du Broeucq had gone to Italy. See also pages 33, 43.

Chapter IV: A Model Architect: Jacques Du Broeucq (1540-1555) for a raise from the painter and court architect Jacques Francart, which he felt overstepped the bounds by no small degree.315 He indignantly pointed out that the court architect only had to faire desseigns, plans reliefs et aultres choses depandans de l’architecture (drawings, models and other things pertaining to architecture), but that all other matters relating to the construction site and its management were the responsibility of the comptroller and of the supervisors nominated by the finance administration. Francart wanted to take too much upon himself, contrary to “the famous architect Jacques Du Broeucq at the time of Mary of Hungary”. The building accounts for Binche and Mariemont bear this out, but only to a certain degree. Du Broeucq is paid for designs and works of sculpture he carries out personally, e.g. the design for the coffered ceiling and the panelling executed by Philippe de Nivelles, and the famous arm-bearing herms and the marble chimneypieces in the great hall at Binche, which he himself carved.316 On the other hand, he drew his famous wage of 200 pounds right from the start, i.e. from May 12, 1545, when clearance work on the site at Binche had only just begun.317 Nevertheless, taken all in all, De Backer is guilty only of a slight exaggeration. The administration of all construction work executed for the Duke of Burgundy, especially in Brabant, had evolved by Du Broeucq’s time into a strictly regulated, hierarchical and centrally managed service, but the fragmented governmental system of the Low Countries made it impossible to extend this procedure to the rest of the territory.318 In Spain, however, no such impediment existed; the centralized Junta de Obras de casas y bosques, created after the Brabantine model in 1536, would serve Charles V, and especially Philip II, well. Within this system, the designer was indeed relegated to a relatively subordinate position. Only on one level did the artist reign supreme. In matters of design, patron and architect were able to discuss mesures et ornemens d’architecture (De Backer’s words) on an equal footing. ‘Architecture’ – this new-fangled term that should rightly be translated as ‘architectural design’ rather than as ‘the art of construction’ – interested both the patron and the architect, and this is borne out by the theoretical texts current in the court milieu that we have discussed before. The architecture that Jacques Du Broeucq created for the grand écuyer and for the regent was truly modern, as was recognized by Hans Vredeman de Vries in his treatise Architectura (1577).319 It could accommodate both the personal preferences of the patron, and the local manner of building, while appearing ‘antique’. Architect and patron created in symbiosis, as the course of Du Broeucq’s career illustrates. After the devastation wrought by the French army upon Binche, the regent briefly toyed with the idea of a grandiose restoration, which would have meant demolishing part of the town houses surrounding the palace. Du Broeucq visited Mary several times in September 1554 and March 1555 to discuss these plans, travelling to Antwerp, Turnhout and Arras to do so.320 However, in 1556, when the first restoration work in Binche and Mariemont was under way, Du Broeucq’s pension was reduced by half to 100 pounds a year, and his patron left the Low Countries for Spain, to retire from public life.321 She no longer needed a court architect, since, as she put it, noz plus grans ouvrages sont achevez (our greatest works are finished), and that meant that Du Broeucq’s status was greatly diminished. Architect and Engineer In his request, Le Poivre took care to refer to Du Broeucq’s activities in the military domain, the better to present his own case in a favourable light, for by the time Albert of Austria and the Infanta Isabella assumed the regency, the King’s military engineers in fact dominated architectural practice at the

315

ARAB Hofwerken 192, Correspondance, dossier 7, document 2. See De Vos 1999, pp. 203-204 and pages 181182. 316 De Jonge 1997a, pp. 220-222. 317 ARAB Rekenkamer 27302, fol. 204v (Hedicke 1911, p. 421).

318

Ordinances of Philip the Good, February 28, 1431 and September 17, 1463. Domínguez Casas 2001. See also Gérard 1991. 319 See Part Two, Chapter I, note 30. 320 Hedicke 1911, pp. 419-421. 321 Ibidem, pp. 421-422.

81

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique court.322 Du Broeucq had helped the royal engineers to draw up the necessary plans, and to make models for the fortifications of Charlemont, Mariembourg and Philippeville. This effectively means that he must have had close contacts with Donato de’ Boni who had made the original design for Mariembourg (1546), and also with Sebastiaan van Noyen, alias Sebastiano d’Oya, who had designed Philippeville in 1554.323 This raises the interesting question of the exchanges between the military and civil domain in architecture. In his Introduction to Die gemaynen reglen von der Architectur, the German translation of Serlio’s Book IV (1543), Pieter Coecke stated that for the German-language public, his book would complement Albrecht Dürer’s work on fortification, the Ettliche underricht, zur Befestigung der Stett, Schloss und Flecken, by dealing with “architecture and ornament”, but this statement did not in fact draw a true dividing line between the two fields.324 In his imposing, 578-folio compilation Architectura (1596-1599), now conserved in the Royal Library at Brussels, Charles De Beste, master mason from Bruges, included the art of fortification; for him, the terms fortresasseur (military engineer) and ‘architect’ were almost synonymous.325 The term ‘engineer’, contrary to the neologism ‘architect’, was 82. Charles De Beste, Architectura, 1596-1600, draw­ not very clearly defined in the sixteenth century, ing of a bastion. although by the 1550s it usually meant a qualified professional, primarily versed in the technical art of building, and most often in the military field.326 In contemporary Italian theory, it was no longer usual to treat the civil and the military aspect of building under the same heading. With regard to the situation of the Low Countries, which was the conflict zone between the Habsburg and Valois powers in Northern Europe, this distinction is, however, artificial, since most of the new breed of ‘architects’ were also active in the field of fortification design, in the same way their predecessors, the building masters in the service of the cities, had been.327 For instance, Hans Vredeman de Vries’ Thuscana (1578) and the chapter on the Tuscan Order in his Architectura (1577) – which includes designs for fortified gates, bridges and a port ­– are directly linked to his activities as supervisor of the Antwerp fortifications in the years 1577-1578 under Hans (von) Schille, “engineer and geographer to his Majesty”.328 Both the civil and the military are 322

De Jonge 1998a; Bragard 1997-1998, pp. 610-612, 618, 659-660, 662-664, 717-730; Bragard 1998. On the engineers in the service of Charles V in Spain and Sicily, see Cámara 2000, pp. 131-135; in the service of Philip II, see Cámara 1998, pp. 38-57, 84 and following; on the engineers in Portugal, see Moreira 1991; on the engineers active in the Low Countries at the time of Charles V and Philip II, see in general Muller 1959; van den Heuvel 1991; Bragard 1997-1998; Roosens 1999 and van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000. 323 See Chapter I, note 33. 324 See Chapter II, note 111.

82

325 van den Heuvel 1994a; van den Heuvel 1995. See pages 98-100. 326 For Spain, see Cámara 1998, pp. 85-88. On technical innovation in sixteenth-century Netherlandish architecture, see Geleyns & De Jonge 2003. 327 Cheyns 1979; Leys 1987; Salamagne 1986; Salamagne 1992b; Salamagne 1997; Bragard 1997-1998, pp. 482-486; Martens 1999; Salamagne 2000. 328 Mielke 1967, pp. 53-54; The New Hollstein XLVIII, pp. 94-102, cat. 442-453; Zimmermann 2002b, pp. 37-38, 97, 132-133.

Chapter IV: A Model Architect: Jacques Du Broeucq (1540-1555)

83. Hans Vredeman de Vries, ARCHITECTURA, 1577, Tuscan fortification works for Antwerp.

83

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

85. Antwerp, Imperial Gate, Donato de’ Boni, 1545 (photograph by Florent Joostens from the 1860s).

covered by the title he gives himself in Thuscana, i.e. Architector, and his application for a teaching post at Leiden University in 1604 mentions perspective, engineering and architecture in one breath.329 Conversely, the Italian military engineer Donato de’ Boni, “engineer to His Majesty”, was also consulted in civil matters,330 and he might have been involved in the design of the new town hall at 84. Unknown clerk after Pieter van Wyenhove (?), Utrecht (1540-1546).331 In 1550, his critique of the correction for the design of the parapets, Coudenparapet design for the new court chapel ­­– originally berg palace chapel. decorated with a Flamboyant openwork motif – led to its being abandoned in favour of a more antique-looking balustrade.332 The (demolished) city gates of Antwerp, e.g. the Imperial, or St. George’s Gate (1545), and the (still extant) gate of Fort Rammekens in Zealand (1547) (ill. 222), show him to be well versed in the art of rustication, while like Sanmicheli, his Doric Order has no base. Similarly, as we have seen, Francesco Paciotto of Urbino, who had been called from Savoy to the Low Countries mainly because of his talents as a military engineer, was asked to design a new palace for Brussels in 1559, and it cannot be excluded that he was consulted by Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle in the matter of the new wing of the so-called Granvelle Palace at Brussels.333 When Du Broeucq lets himself be styled ‘engineer’ as well as ‘architect’ in documents dating from the mid-1550s relating to his work for the court, he follows a trend, which will be firmly established by the end of the century.334 The military engineer in the service of the central authorities occupied the peak of the professional pyramid in the field of architecture at that time. To a certain extent, this not only reflects the almost continuous state of conflict between Valois France and the Habsburg Empire, but also a nobleman’s general scale of values in terms of culture, and more particularly the specific interests of Charles V.335 The Emperor, so contemporary chroniclers relate, 329

van den Heuvel 1994b, p. 12. ARAB Rekenkamer 26647, fol. 47v: “messire Donaes Diboni, ingeniaire de Sa Majesté”, cited after Alexandre Pinchart’s Notes by Hedicke 1911, pp. 428-429. 331 Ottenheym 2003a, pp. 218-222, and the literature cited therein. 332 The hapless sculptors had to pay for the change out of their own pockets. ARAB Kaarten en plannen in handschrift 1727-1728. Saintenoy 1932-1935, II, pp. 258-261; 330

84

­ eischke & Van Tyghem 1987, p. 152; Utrecht/’s HertoM genbosch, p. 303, cat. 207a-b. 333 Not to be confused with the new long gallery Granvelle added to his palace between 1551 and 1553, commonly attributed to Sebastiaan van Noyen. De Jonge 2000d, pp. 364-365. See Chapter III, note 208. On Paciotto, see also van den Heuvel 1991, pp. 108-119. 334 Hedicke 1911, pp. 430-431. 335 Bouza álvarez 2000. Military atlases thus become part of noble culture. van den Heuvel 1996.

Chapter IV: A Model Architect: Jacques Du Broeucq (1540-1555) used to spend time in private drawing plans of a fortress or similar building, and many sources stress his interest in military science and its contributory arts (mathematics, geometry and drawing).336 To judge by her library, Mary of Hungary shared some of his interest in military matters – for instance, she possessed several copies of Robertus Valturius’ treatise (De re militari, 1472 and 1482), Niccolò Macchiavelli’s Libro della arte della guerra (Florence 1521), and maybe even Dürer’s treatise – and, of course, as regent she had to take an active interest in the fortification of the borders.337 Also in this field, patron and architect each had a voice in the debate, though maybe not an equal one, as the following – perhaps apocryphal? – example illustrates. Peter Frans allegedly told Daniel Specklin of Strasbourg that in 1540 his own design for the new Antwerp fortifications had been rejected by the Emperor upon the advice of the Duke of Alva, the Duke of Mantua and the Count of Buren, in favour of the one by messer Donati. He had then been forced by the Emperor and his warlords to build the old-fashioned, very 86. Unknown Italian architect?, posterior wing of long curtain walls Specklin was so surprised about.338 Granvelle palace, Brussels, after 1561? Specklin’s story reflects the fact that because of its nature, military architecture was designed by means of a convoluted, committee-held dialogue, in which the Emperor (or his representative) had the last word. This was, in fact, the usual state of affairs, as is borne out by the complex chronicle of the Utrecht fortifications (1528-1558).339 Imperial Architecture? Apart from the great hall at Mary of Hungary’s palace in Binche, the only truly ‘imperial’ architecture in the Low Countries was indeed to be found in the military domain, the foremost example being the fortress at Ghent, designed by Donato de’ Boni and built under the direction of Adrien de Croÿ, Count of Roeulx, from 1540 onwards.340 Explicitly meant as a symbol of the Emperor’s irrefutable power over his rebellious birthplace, the enormous structure proved so costly that an important part of it could not be built, that is the palazzo in fortezza or imperial residence, which would have stood at its heart. Nothing remains of the drawings that were made between 1540 and 1542 by Jan

336 Francesco Sansovino, Detti e Fatti di Carlo Quinto Imperatore, Venice 1567, cited with other sources by Eisler 1993. To compare with Francis I’s passion for civil architecture: Chatenet 2002. 337 See Chapter II, note 145. Bragard 1997-1998, pp. 612, 614. In general, van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000. 338 Story related by Specklin in his treatise Architectura von vestungen, Strasbourg 1589, chapter X. Specklin met the aged Peter Frans (“Frantzen”) twice, in 1560 and in 1577. Wauwermans 1896, pp. 15-16, 26-28; Kabza 1911, p. 169; Fischer 1996, p. 138. The long curtain walls and relative-

ly small, polygonal bastions are, in fact, characteristic of Donato de’ Boni’s fortifications, contrary to the new fashion for short curtain walls and huge, leaf- or heart-shaped bastions which was introduced into the Low Countries in the early 1550s. van den Heuvel 1982. 339 Martens & Hemmes (forthcoming). 340 Fris 1922; van den Heuvel 1991, pp. 26 and following, 150 and following; Salamagne 1997; Lombaerde 1999, pp. 320-323; Gent 1999-2000, p. 187, cat. 35; van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000, pp. 593-599. A new study, by M.-Ch. Laleman and L. Charles, is in preparation.

85

Part One: The first Reception of the Antique

87. Jülich, citadel, designed 1546-1549 by Alessandro Pasqualini; surviving wing of the palace.

88. Alessandro Pasqualini, Jülich, citadel, fortifications.

de Heere (or Mynheere) of Ghent and Virgilio of Bologna, nor of the ones by Jacques Du Broeucq from 1549.341 This palazzo in fortezza would have counted as one of the very first examples of this type, which appeared in that period almost contemporaneously in Italy (the Farnesian territory) and in the Low Countries. Between 1546 and 1549, Alessandro Pasqualini designed the new town of Jülich, with a citadel and palace for William V the Wealthy, Duke of Jülich-Kleve-Berg, who had recently allied himself to the Emperor and whose territory consequently became an outpost of the Empire.342 In all probability, like the Ghent palazzo in fortezza, and like the citadel on the Lastage at Amsterdam, also designed by Pasqualini but never realized (c. 1545), the palace in Jülich was built at the centre of a square fortress with bastions at the angles.343 In 1553, the Milanese engineer, Bartolommeo Olgiati, would draw a more modern version of this type for Renty, which was situated on the southern border of the Low Countries, giving it a square, central castle flanked by round towers and, at the angles, huge bastions in the form of a heart; in this case, however, we are confronted with the modernisation of an existing fortress.344 Because of their far more monumental scale and the modern character of both their disposition (axiality, symmetry) and fortifications, the palazzi in fortezza at Ghent and Jülich greatly surpass most contemporary noble residences in the Low Countries. The latter sometimes have important defence works on their outer perimeter, but only very rarely can it be said that these were designed as part of the overall composition.345 The quest for the ‘correct antique’ did not enter into these debates, or so it would seem. Again, Pieter Coecke van Aelst was the only one who tried to connect Antiquity to these undeniably modern structures, most notably in his Introduction to the Flemish translation of Serlio’s Book III On Antiquity (1546). As we have seen, he relates the grandeur that was Rome to the greatest contemporary enterprise in the field of architecture known to him: the construction of the new bastioned town wall around his home city of Antwerp, started in 1542.346

341

Hedicke 1911, pp. 296-297, 430-432. See Chapter III, note 223 and also Neumann 1986; Eberhardt 1993. 343 Meischke 1995; Lombaerde 1999, pp. 327-329. 344 Turin, Archivio di Stato, vol. IV, fol. 18, by Giovanni Maria Olgiati, dated September 12, 1553, and Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, q.II.57, fol. 79. van den Heuvel 1991, pp. 342

86

53-56, 75-77; Roosens 1999, p. 161. 345 Not even at Breda, where the fortifications almost organically ‘grow’ around the palace, and where the entrance gallery with terraced roof and ornate gallery only has a fortified appearance and stands at an angle to the axis of the palace. Roosens 1980; van Wezel 1999, pp. 129-149. 346 See pages 52-53.

Part Two Architectural Theory, Antique 1560-1640

and

Modern

89. Roman amphitheatre, from J. Lipsius, Amphitheatro Liber, Antwerp 1584.

Introduction: Antique vs. Modern?

During the late 1560s in the Low Countries, a remarkable change can be noticed in the handling of antique architectural elements. As was discussed in Part One, from 1539 Pieter Coecke van Aelst, through his translations of Serlio’s treatise, had introduced a clear-cut system of rules for the antique repertory of forms. As a consequence, it lost much of its initial exuberance and freedom of invention. Columns were henceforth used according to Serlio’s system of the Five Orders. Nevertheless, Coecke’s illustrations for the Triumphelijcke Incompst, the official publication on the Triumphal Entry of Charles V and Philip of Spain into Antwerp in 1549, offered an antidote to the sober or ‘severe’ Classicism1 of this system by showcasing a new type of ornament with antique roots: richly carved cartouches and complicated strap work, ultimately derived from antique Roman decorative wall and ceiling patterns, were combined with the most inventive plays on the column Coecke could devise from Serlio’s examples (e.g. the chimneypieces in Book IV). In particular, we should note the use of the human figure as a variant of the classical herm, either merged into the column or pillar as a vertical support, or imprisoned by riotously growing rusticated blocks; and leather-like scrolls teeming with grotesque figures, inspired by the art of Fontainebleau.2 As shown in Part One, Chapter I, from the 1520s and 1530s onwards, ‘antique’ columns, pediments, arabesques and volutes had been used to bring the gable – the traditional showcase for residential and civic architecture since the fifteenth century – up to date: the end gable of the main wing of the Nassau Castle at Breda and the main façade of the new Court of Justice (Nieuwe Griffie) at Bruges count among the richest examples known. With the uniquely Antwerpian mix offered in Coecke’s Triumphelijcke Incompst (1550), the gable could be modernized again. The façade of the new Antwerp Town Hall, dating from 1561-1565, and especially its central projecting bays, may be regarded as the first monumental masterpiece of this kind of architecture. Here, the antique Orders are used strictly according to the Serlian model, but they are crowned by a grand gable that is not at all antique nor Italian.3 The Serlian superposition of the Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite orders is augmented by a sixth, new order of herms in the gable, itself further enhanced by writhing sea monsters merging into the scrollwork and volutes that flank the narrower topmost bays. From this point onwards, the classical Orders would be integrated into a decorative system that no longer emphasized their strictly Vitruvian proportions, but favoured the character of their appearance, with the ornament becoming uncompromisingly modern, based on the ‘Netherlandish’ scrollwork developed in the Antwerp milieu. One of the leading figures in this development towards a less orthodox, more flexible interpretation of classical architecture was Hans Vredeman de Vries, who started his career as a designer of architecture on paper in the early 1560s. Through leading Antwerp editors such as Hieronymus Cock, Vredeman published various series of architectural and ornamental engravings based on his own and, most probably, also his colleagues’ inventions. A constant factor found in them is the influence of the Antwerp Town Hall, i.e. the successful combination of Serlian and Fontainebleauesque elements used by Cornelis Floris II and Guilelmus Paludanus (Willem vanden Broecke) in their winning 1560 design. Vredeman’s aim was not just to enrich the bare columns with new decorative patterns but, moreover, to

1

The term “Severe Classicism” (streng classicisme) was coined by M.D. Ozinga. Ozinga 1962. On the Antwerp 1549 Triumphal Entry, see Part One, Chapter II, note 155. 2 On the role of Cornelis Bos in the genesis of this repertory, see Schéle 1965.

3

The central part of the façade is directly connected to the Triumphal Entry ceremony by Holm Bevers, both in its figure programme and its composition and placing. Bevers 1985. On the ‘Netherlandish scrolled gable’, see Hitchcock 1978 and Schellekens 1992. On its Vredeman de Vries variant, see Bartetzky 2005.

89

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 adapt the Italian system to the customs of the local building traditions of the Low Countries. Vredeman de Vries refused the ‘Vitruvian quality label’ so frequently used by his contemporaries to praise their work. Indeed, he was the first in the Low Countries to firmly put Vitruvius and Serlio in their place: their way was the Italian way and not always suited to Netherlandish usage. Although Vredeman’s text is far from technical, he implicitly values traditional technical knowledge, and thus showed the way towards a new ‘modern’ architecture in Northern Europe. His suggestion in his 1577 Architectura (see below), that the proportions of a façade may be adapted to the particular conditions of a town or country, announces the relativism of Simon Stevin, who in his treatise Huysbou rejects the system of the Five Orders and its universally valid proportions as the foundation of architecture.4 It should not surprise us, therefore, that Vredeman de Vries’ abundant production of ‘paper architecture’ does not comprise a chapter on Antiquity. He does not stand alone in this at the close of the sixteenth century. Antiquity as a subject remains absent from the unpublished treatise compiled by Charles De Beste, master mason in Bruges from 1596 to 1599, which is now conserved in the Royal Library at Brussels.5 The imposing manuscript combines traditional lore with excerpts from Vitruvius, Serlio/Coecke, Hans Blum and Vredeman de Vries (on the Five Orders), mathematical science (as applied to surveying methods), perspective, fortification theory and instrument building (astronomical instruments, clocks, the sundial), and thus aims to cover the whole field of architecture and all related scientific issues, including the art of fortification as we have seen, but excluding the antique. All examples are chosen from contemporary practice, e.g. the Imperial Gate at Antwerp by Donato de’ Boni (1545). The single illustration borrowed from Cesariano’s Vitruvius tellingly shows Milan Cathedral and its proportional system. During the late sixteenth century, archaeology of the antique as a field of enquiry was apparently left to humanists from Leuven, Bruges and Antwerp. The most ambitious undertaking in the field was the reconstruction, on paper, of the Arx Britannica, the fortified camp erected by Emperor Claudius on the Dutch shore, already mentioned in Part One, Chapter I (ill. 30). It was studied from 1566-1568 by the famous cartographer Abraham Ortelius, together with Guido Laurinus, the noted antiquary from Bruges, and Hubert Goltzius, whose engraved works on antiquities and Roman history had led the city of Rome to proclaim him an honorary citizen (Civis romanus) in 1566.6 This is not to say that Coecke’s (and Serlio’s) monopoly of the antique was to remain unchallenged. As mentioned in Part One, in 1584 Justus Lipsius published his history of the antique amphitheatres: the first part dealt with those in Rome, the second, those outside Rome, including the ones in Verona, Pula and Nimes.7 Writing in 1606, Claude-Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc claimed that Wensel Cobergher, architectgeneral to Albrecht of Habsburg and Isabella of Spain, planned a treatise on the arts in four books, the first of which would discuss architecture.8 The initial section was to be on ancient building techniques

4

Huysbou (On Dwelling) was started in 1605 but remained unpublished. A part of this treatise, Vande oirdeningh der steden (On City-Planning) was published posthumously by Stevin’s son Hendrick in his Materiæ Politicæ, Leiden 1649. van den Heuvel 1994b; van den Heuvel 1995-1996; van den Heuvel 2005. 5 KBB Ms. II 7617: Architectura. Dat is Constelicke Bouwijnghen huijt die Antijcken Ende Modernen. Waer op dat wij desen Tegenwoordghen Boeck decideren. Ende hebben dien ghedeelt in Acht Onderscheijden Boecken Naemlicken den Eersten van Arithmetica. Den Tweeden van Geometria. Den Derden van Astronomische Instrumenten. Den Vierden van Horologien ofte Zonnenwijsers. Den vijfften van Architectura. Den sesten van perspectiva; Den se­vensten van fortificatien. Den Achtsten van Artillerie. Den welchen Beschribenn ist durch C.D. beste, Steijnmetselrnn und

90

Mauwrrer z.w. Bruek Liebhaver der Const, unpublished ms., Bruges 1596-1600. van den Heuvel 1994a; van den Heuvel 1995. 6 Ortelius had been interested in the subject since 1562; his engraving, dated probably between 1566 and 1568, was published in Lodovico Guicciardini’s Descrittione di tutti I Paesi Bassi, more precisely the Plantin edition of 1581. Meganck 1999. See also Nativel 1998 and Abraham Ortelius… 1998. 7 Justus Lipsius, De Amphitheatro Liber. De Amphitheatris quae extra Romam Libellus, Antwerp 1584. See also Part One, Chapter II, note 169. 8 Van de Gheyn 1905. On the interest this circle had in local antiquities as a basis for the appreciation of ‘Northern’ art, see also Melion 1991, pp. 129-159.

Introduction: Antique vs. Modern? while the second would provide measured scale plans of antique ruins: temples, thermal complexes and mausolea from Rome, Pozzuoli and elsewhere in Italy and Europe, in which he would correct “all the errors found in Palladio, Serlio and others”. Cobergher planned to include many of the antique buildings in Cuma and other sites near Naples that had never been shown before, for instance the theatre at Capua, which he judged to be made with more “science of architecture than anything that had ever been written by Vitruvius and the others”. The plans for his treatise were unfortunately never realized, with the exception of the manuscript for the fourth book on antique medallions.9 Only at the beginning of the seventeenth century would the successful, modern assimilation of the “building customs of the country” with the antique ornament Vredeman de Vries valued so much, be gradually rejected by more purist critics. Two leading figures from the Antwerp intellectual and artistic milieu serve to illustrate this. In his laudatory description of the ars architectonica in Antwerp (1610), Carolus Scribanius, rector of the Jesuit College, still concentrates on the characteristic rel90. Anon., richly ornamented door with scrollwork ics of the past Golden Age, i.e. the Church of Our design in the Antwerp manner, late 16th century. Lady, The Exchange (1531), the Tapestry Traders’ Hall (Tapissierspand) (1551-1552), the Town Hall (1561-1565), the Hanza house (1562-1565) and Paciotto’s citadel (1567).10 The Exchange is recogn­ ized as an opus goticum, but its three-lobed arches and richly decorated columns are appreciated as a testimony to the savoir-faire of the master builders of the past.11 A decade later, however, Peter Paul Rubens would firmly reject this past in the famous Introduction to his Palazzi di Genova (1622), and hail the advent of “the true symmetry of that which conforms to the rules of the Ancient Greeks and Romans”, introduced by bellissimi ingegni, the marvellous, ingenious masters of the new art.12 By the 1640s, learned painter-architects like himself and Jacob van Campen, would have condemned most of the past as Gothic excess (’t Gothse krulligh mal), and found more rigorous guides to Antiquity in Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola, and especially Vincenzo Scamozzi.13

9

KBB Ms. 5579. Its manner of presentation is very close to Hubert Goltzius’ Imperatorum Imperatricum et Caesarum Romanorum numismata aurea, argentea, aerea a Iulio Caesare ad Justinianum (manuscript, The Hague, Rijksmuseum Meermanno-Westreenianum, 10 C 25, c. 1560-1565) (Bruges 1998, 287, cat. 191). Both seem indebted to Enea Vico and Antonio Zantano, whose collections were known to Goltzius at least. Wolfenbüttel 1994, pp. 101-106. 10 C. Scribanius, Antverpia and Origines Antverpiensis, Antwerp, Johannes Moretus, 1610. Held 1996. See also Brouwers 1961.

11 de Jongh 1973, p. 93 after Scribanius, Antverpia (as in the preceding note), p. 51. 12 P.P. Rubens, Palazzi di Genova, Antwerp, J. Meurs, I, 1622 (henceforth abbreviated as Rubens 1622-1626, I), Al benigno lettore: text quoted in full on page 147. English translation from Rott 2002, p. 255. On the architectural impact of the Palazzi di Genova, see Lombaerde 2002b. 13 On the notion of painter-architect, see Baudouin 2002. The expression is attributed to Jacob van Campen by Constantijn Huygens in a 1658 poem (de Jongh 1973, p. 85).

91

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 The debate on Netherlandish architecture and its relation to the correct antique form was continued during the first half of the seventeenth century in many different ways: from the uncompromisingly ‘modern’ stance of Stevin to the erudite dialogue on Vitruvius between Peter Paul Rubens and Constantijn Huygens, and from the modern ornament in the model books of De Keyser and Francart to the complex debate on the new church of the Counter Reformation, which also had to come to terms with the Vitruvian model. These phenomena cut across what was, at the time, the ever-changing frontier between the North and the South; the great divide that would separate the Northern and the Southern Low Countries after 1648 was not yet apparent. The following chapters attempt to paint an image of this diversity.

92

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles. The Foundations of Architectural Theory in the Low Countries 1560-1625

The Vitruvian legacy in the Low Countries was not restricted to the theory and models of the Five Orders. Various authors of modern architectural treatises, some surviving in manuscript only, also dealt with technical aspects of building, with mathematics, and with fortifications, all regarded as parts of the broader Vitruvian concept of architecture.14 By including the technical arts in architecture, various new solutions for typical Netherlandish problems, such as building in wet soil or even under water, became the main focus points for those who were interested in adapting the principles of ‘true (antique) architecture’ to the specific needs and possibilities of the Low Countries.15 This chapter concentrates on the contribution of the three most outstanding scholars in the field: Hans Vredeman de Vries, Charles De Beste and Simon Stevin. However, in their quest for a specifically Netherlandish implementation of the classic models, they were not alone. In other Northern European countries, such as Northern Germany, France and Great Britain, we may find comparable aims, as illustrated by the words of poet Samuel Daniel in 1603:

“Me thinkes we should not soone yeeld our consent captive to the authoritie of Antiquitie, unlesse we saw more reason: all our understandings are not to be built by the square of Greece and Italie. We are children of nature as well as they, we are not so placed out the way of judgement (...)”.16

Nationalistic overtones within this new consciousness may be noted, for instance, in mid-sixteenth-century France, home of the Pléiade with its defence of the French language and of French culture in general. Philibert de L’Orme was one of the most vociferous advocates in asserting the equal status, and even supremacy, of French architects over Italian ones, but he was no exception. While his attempt to develop a sixth, French Order (in his Premier Tome de l’Architecture, 1567) fit within the narrower Vitruvian tradition, his extolling of stereotomy, the art of designing and cutting complex stone vaults, as a specifically French art, was meant to counterbalance the cult of Antiquity and the Italian way.17 Hans Vredeman de Vries Hans Vredeman de Vries (b. 1526 – d. 1609), born in Leeuwarden (Frisia), was originally trained as a joiner and painter.18 During his long career he also acted as engineer, fortification specialist and architect, as well as a designer and publisher of numerous inventions for ornaments. In 1548 he went to Antwerp, and a year later he assisted Pieter Coecke van Aelst with the decorations for the famous Triumphal Entry of Philip of Spain. Around 1560 he started his successful publication of a series of prints on various architecturally related inventions, such as cartouches, columns, fountains, joinery patterns, gardens, and caryatids.19 His architectural fantasies of 1560-1562, dedicated to important patrons such as Antoine Per14

Rowland 2002. On new Netherlandish construction techniques of the sixteenth century, see Geleyns & De Jonge 2003. 16 Daniel 1603 (1925), pp. 17-18; Anderson 2000, p. 156. For a similar, and contemporary (1575) perception of the “Italian manner” (Welsche Manier), as opposed to local traditions in church architecture, in the Baltic, see Wisłocki 2003, pp. 89-91. 17 Pérouse de Montclos 1982, pp. 70-71, 93-95; Guillaume 1992; Pauwels 1992; Pauwels 1996; Guillaume 2000. Con15

struction techniques have pride of place in De l’Orme’s publications, such as the Nouvelles Inventions pour bien bastir et à petits fraiz (1561) and the 1567 treatise mentioned above. Guillaume 1988; Pérouse de Montclos 2000, pp. 107-121. 18 For a complete biographical overview, see Antwerp 2002; Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005. 19 Critical catalogue of the complete works by Peter Fuhring in The New Hollstein XLVII-XLVIII.

93

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 renot de Granvelle and Peter Ernst von Mansfeld, not only reflect the Antwerp architectural milieu but also the avant-garde court context.20 He left Antwerp for good after the surrender of the Calvinist regime to Alexander Farnese in 1585. In the following decades he stayed in various places, such as Wolfenbüttel, Prague, Gdansk, The Hague and Hamburg, where he worked as a painter, engineer and architect on a wide range of projects, but without ever succeeding in developing a durable career. Through editing Serlio’s source text for his 1539 Flemish translation of Book IV, Pieter Coecke van Aelst had become aware of the fact that several Serlian design proposals – for coffered ceilings, for instance – were difficult, if not impossible, to re­concile with traditional building customs in the Low Countries. Although he mentioned the problem in the introduction to his book, his particular bias towards Vitruvius led him to obscure this contradiction. In 1577, Vredeman de Vries went much further in his treatise Architectura Oder Bauung der Antiquen auss dem Vitruvius, woellches sein funff 91. Tuscan Order, from Hans Vredeman de Vries, Colummen orden, which was published first in GerArchitectura, Antwerp 1577. man, and then republished several times in different languages before the end of the century.21 Architectura is usually classified within the same category as Serlio’s Book IV, i.e. as a book on the Orders illustrated with examples that, in Vredeman de Vries’ case, are closely linked to the most advanced architecture of the time, namely the Antwerp Town Hall (1561-1565). He had in fact competed to design its façade, which was ultimately the work of two sculptors, Cornelis II Floris and Willem van den Broeck, alias Paludanus.22 The chapters on the Orders in Architectura closely follow the Five Order system developed by Serlio. Each column is presented in five different ways: the ‘clean’ shaft in the middle is flanked by two variations in a rougher manner on the left, and two that are more refined on the right. Vredeman slightly changed Serlio’s mathematical proportions, thus creating his own, more refined system.23 For each Order he added various designs for façades as well as interior elements like chimneypieces.24 Every new ornament is also related to the system of the Five Orders, as will be explained in detail in the next chapter. This new abundance of architectural ornament offered original ways for enhancing the specific character of the chosen Order, so that all attention could be focused the aspects of decorum linked with the use of the Orders.25 The wide range of decorative variants indeed offered the possibility to mark various levels of decorum, even within one Order. Two series of engravings, Dorica Ionica and Corinthia Composita, published in Antwerp in 1565 at Hieronymus Cock’s printing house, At the Sign of the Four Winds, served as preparation for the 1577 treatise. Together with Thuscana, which only appeared in 1578, they constitute an alternative version of the Säulenbuch’s core, but with different illustrations.26 The 1577 Architectura also differs in

20

De Jonge 2005c. Mielke 1967, pp. 48-51; The New Hollstein XLVIII, pp. 56-85; Zimmermann 2002a; Zimmermann 2002b. 22 Duverger 1941. 23 Zimmermann 2002b, pp. 90-114. 21

94

24

De Jonge 2005a. On the gender of the Orders (and their related character), see the classic Forssman 1956. 26 Mielke 1967, pp. 31-35, 82-84; The New Hollstein XLVIII, pp. 164-202. 25

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles that it has a text accompanying the illustrations, and the plates illustrating the elements of a particular Order are followed each time by examples of whole buildings and not merely of relatively small-scale building components such as gables, as was the case in the earlier series. In 1606 Hans and his son Paul Vredeman de Vries compiled another treatise, also called Architectura. This book, printed in The Hague by Hendrik Hondius, is not a mere copy of the 1577 treatise of the same name. In the 1606 Architectura, various old and new inventions of Hans and Paul Vredeman de Vries were combined with a presentation of the Five Orders, and with a number of architectural scenes in perspective, illustrating the use of columns.27 At first glance these prints seem to be merely helpful to painters, but in fact they were also used in architecture. Since the details of the Orders presented in this volume are much closer to the classical examples by Coecke and Blum than the inventions from 1577, they may have had a longer shelf life. They indeed served as a welcome source for stone carvers and master carpenters even after 1630, i.e. in the first decades of the new classical movement, since the 1606 Architectura remained available throughout the seventeenth century in fifteen reprints in various languages, the last one dating from 1662.28 Hans Vredeman de Vries was obviously influenced by Coecke. Carel van Mander’s story that Vredeman carefully copied the Flemish translation of Book IV and Die Inventie der colommen while he was an apprentice in Kollum (Frisia) around 1545 may not be apocryphal.29 But his professional background led him to emphasize the great distance that lay between true, antique architecture and architecture in the antique manner as practised in the Low Countries, which he saw as resolutely modern because it had to adapt itself to local conditions and to local building practice. In the chapter on the Doric Order in his 1577 Architectura, Vredeman says that “famous Vitruvius, Sebastian Serlio and expert Jacques Androuet Du Cerceau” have designed different façade types according to the “antique Italian manner” (naer de antiquiteyte Italiaense maniere), in other words without cross windows, with low ceilings, broad proportions and a limited number of storeys, but notes that this type is not at all suitable for conditions in the Low Countries, especially not in the “great mercantile cities where building plots are small and expensive”. There, one must build tall, and seek the light in inventive ways, as has been shown by “strong and ingenious masters and architects of great experience” like Cornelis I Floris (father of Cornelis II Floris), Jacques Du Broeucq, Jean Guilgot, Jan de Heere, Cornelis II Floris himself and Willem Paludanus (van den Broecke), masters who have been able to “accommodate [this antique architecture] to the necessities and customs of this country, more than was necessary in Antiquity” (t’accomoderen naer ghelegentheyt deses landes ghebruycinghe en dienst, meer dan optde Antiquen van noode is gheweest).30

27 The New Hollstein XLVIII, pp. 228-254; Zimmermann 2002b, pp. 76-81. 28 Last editions dated 1638, 1647, 1651 and 1662. The New Hollstein XLVIII, p. 233. 29 As related by Carel van Mander in his 1604 Schilder-boeck, fol. 266r. Miedema 1994-1999, I, pp. 322-323; V, p. 50. 30 “Hoe wel dat den vermaerden Vitruvius, Sebastiaen Serlio, ende den experten Iacobus Androuetus Cerseau, ende meer andere diversche sorten der facien, edeficien, fronten oft gevels, naer de antiquiteyte Italiaense maniere en gebruyc haerder architecturen en bouwinghen ghestelt hebben, alsoomen in haerlieden en meer anderen meesters, baecken en patroonen bevindt, naer dien s’ landts aert, wesen en ghebruyc, sonder cruys-vensters, en sonderlinghen groot licht soeckende, noch hooge verdiepinghen, dan breet en weynich verdiepens: maer in dese Nederlanden heeftmen een ander conditie, namelijck in steden van grooter negotien, daer de plaetsen cleyn en dier sijn, moetmen al in de hoochde tot veel gheriefs, met veel lichts te crijgen,

inventeren en soecken, elck na sijn gheleghentheyt en plaet­ se, tsy groot oft cleijn, de meeste commodite ende dienst der edificien oft logamenten der architecturen soecken ende ghebruycken op sijn ghelegen plaetse, sulcx wel ghebruyct en gheobserveert hebben dese naergenoemde en meer andere cloecke ende ingenieuse meesters ende vervaren architecteurs deser Nederlanden ter eeren, als meester A. Floris, de vader van Cornelis Floris, meester Jacques van Berghen, meester Jan Gilgho, meester Anthonis Mockaert, M. Jan de Heere, superalij Cornelis Floris, tot Luyck M. Thomas voor Guilliame Paludani, ende noch meer andere die ick niet en kenne, dan haer wercken wel betoonen, hun ingenie int bewijs der architecturen, te weten t’ accomoderen naer gheleghentheyt deses landes ghebruycinghe en dienst, meer dan opt de Antiquen van noode is gheweest, sulcx men in elck deel oft partije bevinden mach, en ondersoecken t’ mijne om een beter”. Text to ill. 6 (Dorica) in the Dutch edition of ArchitecturA, published 1581. Zimmermann 2002b, p. 237.

95

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 Elsewhere, Vredeman clearly refers to local building materials typical of the “Brabantine manner” discussed in Part One, materials such as white sandy limestone from Brabant, blue carboniferous limestone from Namur, and brick, as well as to local construction techniques. For example, in his description of a façade design for the Ionic Order he mentions classical details executed in traditional brick-and-stone masonry “like we have seen in Holland and Flanders, more precisely in Bruges, in noteworthy modern buildings constructed in brick without centring, as well as on beautiful façades designed according to antique models, executed with excellent craftsmanship”.31 Other passages are less explicit – for instance, the ones concerning the chimneypiece in the chapter on the Ionic Order – but the title of the 1577 treatise clearly proclaims that “accommodating Vitruvius’ antique manner of building to the building customs of the country” is, in fact, the author’s main goal.32 Vredeman de Vries does not seem to grasp the considerable difference between, on the one hand, modern authors like Serlio, and especially Jacques Androuet I Du Cerceau – whose model books, Livre d’architecture (Paris 1559) on dwellings and Second livre (Paris 1561) on architectural elements such as doors and chimneypieces seem to have inspired him – and, on the other hand, Vitruvius and the archaeological reality of Antiquity. Having never visited Italy, Antiquity is, of necessity, only known to him in its Serlian and Coeckian guise. Nevertheless, his evaluation of the work of the architects from whom he borrowed the examples illustrated in his treatise is correct: for instance, Jacques Du Broeucq’s architecture, however much inspired by Antiquity it may seem to be, and Cornelis II Floris’ work above all is not antique, it is ‘modern’.33 It should therefore not surprise us that Vredeman de Vries’ abundant production of ‘paper architecture’ does not comprise a chapter on Antiquity. In the title page he addresses his work first of all to building masters, masons, stonecutters, carpenters and sculptors: not only the “lovers of architecture” he mentions last were meant to benefit from his work. His prints offer a ‘modern’ way to use the classical formulas, flexibly adapted to suit local customs and needs. Indeed, the result is well-known: we can trace the influence of his printed decorative patterns on stonecutters, woodcarvers, cabinetmakers and painters all over Northern Europe between approximately 1560 and 1640.34 Although Vredeman does not initiate a proper architectural theory, he presents his inventions within a fixed system of façades and ground plans as Palladio did in his Quattro Libri some years before (1570). Vredeman’s Architectura, however, offers more than just his particular interpretation of the system of the Five Orders and a catalogue of architectural ornament. The treatise also includes some technical innovations of both a mechanical and constructive nature.35 One plate in the chapter on the

31

“(...) en dan voorts de hoofden, Spacien en Phrysen ghevult met schoonen brijcke oft Careelen, d’welck seer cierlijck en lustich staet, alsoo wij in Hollant, ende in Vlaenderen, namelijck te Brugge gesien hebben de curieusheyt, moderne der fabrijcken wt der handt ghemetst, ende ooc sommige Frontis oft gevels ghemaect naer de Antique oorden der fabrijcken, seer lustich staende en reyn gewracht”. Text to ill. 15 (Ionica) in the Dutch edition of Architectura, published 1581. Zimmermann 2002b, p. 239. 32 The full title is: Architectura Oder Bauung der Antiquen auss dem Vitruuius, woellches sein funff Collummen orden, daer auss mann alle Landts gebreuch vonn Bauuen zu accomodieren dienstlich fur alle Bawmaystren Maurer, Stainmetzlen, Schreineren Bildtschneidren, un dalle Liebhabernn der Architecturen… This is also clearly expressed in the introductory text to the townscape, which the author added to the French translation of his treatise (1578) (with thanks to Peter Fuhring).

96

33

Most of the masters cited by Vredeman de Vries also appear in the documents relating to the competition for the Antwerp Town Hall, 1560 (see Part One, Chapter III, note 279). On Du Broeucq as an architect, see Hedicke 1911; De Jonge 1997a; De Jonge 1998b and De Jonge 1999a in particular. On Cornelis II Floris as an architect, see Corbet 1936; Rylant & Casteels 1940; Duverger 1941; Roggen & Withof 1942; Bevers 1985; Van Damme 1996. On Willem van den Broecke, see Duverger & Onghena 1938; Rylant & Casteels 1940; Duverger & Onghena 1942. On Jean Guilgot or Wilho, see Roggen, Onghena & van Daalen 1953, 49-50 and D’Hondt 1989, 67-68. Jan De Heere or Mijnheere was involved in the planning of the palazzo in fortezza in Ghent (see Part One, Chapter IV, note 314). 34 To quote only the most recent addition to an already extensive bibliography: Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005. 35 On his interest in the technical arts in general, see Lombaerde 2005b.

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles Tuscan Order (folio 4) shows the construction of a pier below water level with a drainage pump, as well as an invention that makes it possible to open a bridge in the middle only, so that ships can pass swiftly through without taking down their masts.36 It is unclear whether he himself is the inventor or just the publisher. However, the fact that he incorporated these elements in his book illustrates his continuing interest in these matters. In his series of engravings on twenty-four water pumps and wells from 1574, to name another example, he shows two images of hydraulic machinery in a fashionably designed, classical interior adorned with columns, pilasters and so on.37 There is nothing fantastical about these water-powered mechanisms, 92. Hans Vredeman de Vries, Series of small wells, Antwerp, as is demonstrated by a contemporary example c. 1573-1574, no. 14 (The New Hollstein XLVIII, cat. 397). from the park of the Brussels ducal palace. Jacob Jonghelinck’s famous bronze Cupid, cast anew in 1597, could rotate on its vertical axis while shooting a water stream from its bow and arrow; a complex system of narrow copper and silver pipes connected it with the four bronze snails on its pedestal (ill. 165).38 In his earlier architectural series from 1562, republished later in the 1601 Variae architecturae formae, Vredeman included several flat terraced roofs, for which a contemporary equivalent can also be found.39 In the Low Countries, terraced roofs were made watertight with a mortar based on volcanic trass from the Eiffel region, a technique said to be “of recent invention” still by Vredeman’s colleague Charles De Beste (see below). Mid-sixteenth century examples include the northern wing of Boussu castle, the courtyard gallery at Binche and the hunting pavilion at Mariemont, in other words, Du Broeucq’s most eye-catching buildings.40 It should be no surprise to find such inventions included in his publications, since it is well known that Vredeman was also seriously engaged in various technical aspects of construction. In Antwerp from 1577-1585, in Wolfenbüttel between 1587 and 1590, and in Gdansk from 1592-1593, he not only created representational architecture such as the palace for William of Orange (in the former citadel of Antwerp) and a city gate (Wolfenbüttel), but also acted as a military engineer, designing fortifications, hydraulic constructions, and a canal with locks.41 Because of the quality of his analyses of complex problems and his very practical solutions, Vredeman de Vries may be regarded as one of the new, scientifically oriented craftsmen, who were the precursors of the modern-day engineer. These Vernuftelingen (ingenious men), as they were called, are typical of the era, working between the academic world and mere crafts, and using scientific knowledge for solving daily problems.42 His talents in this field are further demonstrated in his treatise on perspective from 1604, Perspective.43 In the same year he applied (in vain) for the job of professor in mathematics at Leiden University. Vredeman, in common with many contemporaries, considered architecture as a part of applied mathematics. Notwithstanding the inherently decorative character of his architectural prints, he felt quite qualified for the job – as was mentioned in the preceding chapter, his application mentions perspective, engineer-

36

40

37

41

Lombaerde 2005a. The New Hollstein XLVIII, p. 49 (cat. 397-398). 38 Saintenoy 1932-1935, I, pp. 85, 96, 100; Smolderen 1996a, pp. 95-98. On the hydraulical system, see the sources cited in De Jonge 2000-2001, pp. 96-97. 39 Small perspective views, plates 23 and 25.The New Hollstein XLVII, p. 92 (cat. 95 and 97).

Geleyns & De Jonge 2003, pp. 989-992. Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2002; Lombaerde 2005a. 42 Struik 1966, pp. 43-70; van Berkel 1985, pp. 13-34; Westra 1992. See Bragard 1997-1998 for a comprehensive list of military and civil engineers in the Southern Low Countries, 1504-1713 (over 400 individuals listed). 43 Van Cleempoel 2005.

97

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 ing and architecture in one breath.44 Indeed the prints cited above may be regarded as icons of current ideas on ‘modern’ architecture in the Low Countries around 1600, where high-tech solutions and classical elements went hand in hand. Combining mathematical instruction, building technology, fortification, architecture and surveying into one practice became rather common in the early decades of the seventeenth century, as will become clear below. Charles De Beste The manuscript written by the Bruges mason and bricklayer Charles De Beste (dates unknown) between 1596 and 1600, entitled Architectura. Dat is Constelicke Bouwijnghen huijt die Antijcken Ende Modernen, represents a significant addition to our knowledge of Vitruvianism and architectural theory in general in the late sixteenth century.45 The author was an important member of the Bruges guild of stonemasons and bricklayers, who took responsible positions on its board from 1585 onwards. The text is not a translation of Vitruvius’ De Architectura Libri Decem, in spite of its suggestive title, although it refers to various sixteenth-century commentaries on the ancient treatise. It deals with a diversity of themes ranging from the antique to the modern, in which all main subjects relating to architecture and construction are discussed; as such, its scope can be called truly Vitruvian in the broader sense of the term. The treatise consists of 93. Charles De Beste, Architectura, 1596-1600, details of the eight books devoted to, respectively, arithmetic, geomTuscan Order after Pieter Coecke and Hans Blum. etry, astronomical instruments, sundials, architecture, perspective, fortifications and artillery. Occasionally, the text is supplemented with De Beste’s own, sometimes critical, observations and references to the situation in the Low Countries in general and in Bruges in particular. In these cases, De Beste’s treatise faithfully mirrors contemporary Northern building practice, whereas in others his examples (and illustrations) seem rather theoretical in character and based on outdated sources. De Beste’s sources nevertheless seem impressively diverse and constitute a fine testimonial to the dynamic Netherlandish book market of the sixteenth century. The first two books, on mathematics, are chiefly based on Dürer’s Unterweysung der Messung (1525) and Serlio’s Book I (in the Antwerp edition of 1553). Arithmetic is followed by Geometry, as in the contemporary treatise by architect and military engineer Pierre Le Poivre from Mons (1546-1626), who also used the Unterweysung. In his Livre (c. 1610-1614), Le Poivre favours arithmetic over geometry, however, drawing upon Dürer’s posthumous book on the human proportions (Vier Bücher von Menschlicher Proportion, 1528) to illustrate

44

See Part One, Chapter IV, note 329. Full title and reference above, Part Two, Introduction, note 5. Unless indicated otherwise, the following is based 45

98

on the seminal studies by Charles van den Heuvel (van den Heuvel 1994a; van den Heuvel 1995).

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles the importance of the use of correct proportions in architecture (as in sculpture and painting).46 Another telling difference between the two works concerns the use of geometry. While Le Poivre demonstrates the proper application of geometry through designs of fortifications, De Beste illustrates his chapter with several designs of ‘Gothic’ window tracery of a type found in many sixteenth-century ‘modern’ churches. He nevertheless does not stand alone in this: similar designs, reminiscent of the flamboyant Keldermans vocabulary of the early sixteenth century, also abound in the sketchbook of Jesuit architect Hendrik Hoeymaker (1559-1626).47 This clearly underlines the fact that these ‘modern’ details were to be considered as strictly rational in conception as the antique Orders: they are founded on the mastery of geometry, the scientia underlying all good architecture, whether antique or modern.48 Books Three and Four are mainly based on Sebastian Münster’s Composition Horologiorum from 1531, also available in a German edition from 1538, and thus do not seem very original. Nevertheless, Book Three contains ingenious paper mock-ups of astrolabia, which remind us that the University of Leuven was a leading centre for the study of mathematics and astronomy in the 1530s, and that Leuven instrument makers such as Gemma Frisius, Gerard Mercator and Gualterus Arsenius supplied Philip II and the Spanish court, decisively influencing Juan de Herrera’s Royal Academy of Mathematics (established in Madrid in 1584) in the process.49 Book Five of De Beste’s Architectura deals with civic and religious architecture. Here he starts with some general statements about architecture in a Vitruvian vein, taken from Coecke’s Die inventie der colommen (1539). He continues with information on building materials, as well as technical details such as bridge foundations.50 His presentation of the Five Orders is

46

Madrid, Biblioteca del Palacio Real, Ms. II 523: Des cixe livr, composes de l’architecte Pierre Le Poivre, en son temps entretenu de S.M. Catholique, pour avoir asiste: aux ingenieurs de Sa Ma.te, comme ad’aioudante… . van den Heuvel 1998; Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 89-90, cat. 110. Le Poivre’s copy of Dürer’s treatise on the human body has been conserved, see Martens 2004, p. 495 n. 56. 47 Lost since the 1970s; (partial?) photocopy in UBG, Handschriften en kostbare werken G 6075 (Daelemans 2000, pp. 193197). Attribution to Hoeymaker by Braun 1907, p. 16. 48 Rombout II Keldermans and Domien de Waghemakere, masters of sixteenth-century ‘modern’ Gothic, are said to possess “industrie, scientie, experientie, verstant ende goed advys” (industry, science, experience, intelligence and wise

94. Charles De Beste, Architectura, 1596-1600, Gothic window tracery.

council) in the 1518 contract for the Ghent Town Hall: as in the famous Milan discussions from around 1400, ‘science’ means the science of geometry. Ackerman 1949; Van Tyghem 1978, II, p. 388; Philipp 1989, pp. 74-75. Similar compliments were addressed to the master of the Brou mausoleum church, rood screen and tombs, Lodewijk van Boghem, by Antoine de Saix: “præstantissimo illi geometræ nec inferiori architecto Ludovico”. Hörsch 1994, pp. 121123; Poiret 1994, pp. 67-75, 90-102. 49 Madrid 1997-1998; Leuven 2000, cat. 119-130, pp. 225239. On the instruments used by architects and painters at that time, see in general Van Cleempoel 2005. 50 Geleyns & De Jonge 2003, pp. 987-989.

99

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 again copied from Serlio/Coecke, but at the same time echoes Hans Blum’s way of representing the proportions by means of circles.51 Religious architecture is represented by fragments and illustrations copied from the Coecke edition of Serlio’s Book V, posthumously published by his widow Mayken Verhulst in 1553. De Beste enriched this part of his treatise with various etchings of funeral monuments, altars, choir benches, sacrament towers, and other religious furniture inspired by the Mone ‘antique’ repertory from the 1530s.52 The main source for Book Six, on perspective, was Serlio’s Book II, as translated and published by Coecke, and Jean Cousin’s much more complicated Livre de perspective from 1560. De Beste’s last two books, on military sciences, combine various examples of military architecture, such as the city gates from Serlio’s Book IV and Vredeman’s Architectura, with drawings of existing buildings; for example, the Imperial Gate at Antwerp and the medieval castle of Sluis. Illustrations were also taken from Dürer’s 1527 Etliche underricht, zur Befestigung der Stett, Schloss, und Flecken, as well as from a much more contemporary source: Marco Aurelio de Pasino’s Discours sur plusieurs poincts de l’architecture, published in Antwerp in 1579. From the point of view of fortification, Dürer’s Etliche underricht must be considered rather outdated at the end of the sixteenth century, but it may still have had some relevance as a treatise on the art of construction, as suggested by the date of its last edition in the early modern period: 1603.53 As has been recently demonstrated, Dürer’s masonry techniques echo construction methods he had seen in Antwerp during his sojourn there in 1520-1521.54 The variety in content of the themes, and the size of the manuscript, comprising a total of 578 folios, clearly indicate that sixteenth-century architectural theory in the Low Countries did not restrict itself to a mere application of the Five Orders (the genre of the Säulenbuch or column book) and to pattern books on ornament, as the printed treatises of Coecke and Vredeman de Vries might suggest when analysed only superficially. As we have shown, traces of the other architectural subjects dealt with by Vitruvius and his modern followers, covering more than simply the Five Orders, are also to be recognised in their work; even the scantily preserved Vitruvian material from Hermannus Posthumus’ workshop points this way. De Beste’s manuscript therefore does not represent a break with tradition but must be considered as the continuation of a broader Vitruvian line of theoretical inquiry in the Low Countries. Neither was the audience these authors tried to reach restricted to the craftsmen in the urban milieu. Echoing Coecke’s and Vredeman’s dedications, De Beste’s treatise is addressed to all interested devotees of architecture and thus – as can be surmised, in spite of the fact that it was never published – it was destined for a broader public than the members of his guild alone. It was addressed to the group of art-loving enthusiasts and commissioners explicitly cited by his predecessors. Simon Stevin Simon Stevin (b. 1548 – d. 1620) started his career as a clerk and bookkeeper in Antwerp and Bruges.55 In 1581 he went to Leiden, and two years later he became a student at the recently founded (1575) university in this Dutch town. His fame as a scientist and expert in logistics was settled with his publications on the decimal system, De Thiende, in 1585, and on the principles of balances, De Beghinselen der Weegconst, in 1586.56 Around 1593 he entered the service of Maurits of Nassau, Stadholder of Holland, who was eagerly interested in all applications of mathematics that could improve daily life at

51 The 1550 Zürich Säulenbuch was available in Antwerp in a Flemish edition by Hans Liefrinck since 1572. Forssman 1956, p. 239. 52 Formerly attributed to Jacques Androuet I Du Cerceau, they are probably the work of a Southern Netherlandish master. See Part One, Chapter I, note 97.

100

53 Koch 1988; Schütte 1994, pp. 141-146; Fara 1999; Fara 2000. With thanks to Pieter Martens. 54 Martens (forthcoming). 55 The most recent publications on Stevin’s life and work include Vanden Berghe 2004 and van den Heuvel 2005, especially pp. 5-38. 56 See for Stevin’s mathematics Bos 2004.

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles home, in the army, and, in particular, on the battlefield. Stevin became Maurits’ private mathematics teacher; his lessons were published in 1608 in Wisconstige Gedachtenissen. In the 1590s, inspired by antique sources on the Roman legions, Maurits had started to reorganise the Dutch army on a more regular basis, emphasizing discipline and exercise. Here also, Stevin’s sense for the practical application of knowledge as well as his talent for solving complex, logistic problems made him a useful adviser. In 1594 Stevin published De Sterctenbouwing on fortification, adapting geometric principles taken from various Italian treatises on the subject to the situation in the Low Countries. This book has the character of a manual, teaching the reader step-by-step, from the first principles and easy models to complicated situations. He wrote several other texts on warfare, some of which remained in manuscript form during his lifetime: for instance, a treatise on the art of the siege (Vant belegeren der Steden en Stercten), and another on the geometrical formation of troops in battle, modelled on the Roman army (Van de pyckschansen). Some of his military books were published: one on the organisation and formation of army camps according to Roman models (Castrametation. Dat is Legermeting, 1617), and another on the use of water to defend a fortified city (Nieuwe Maniere van Sterctebou door Spilsluysen, 1617). The former subject had evidently been of general interest in the Low Countries since at least the middle of the sixteenth century, in particular at Mary of Hungary’s court, as shown by the inventory of her library, but to Stevin’s merit, until he wrote his book, no easily accessible textbook had been available in the Netherlandish language.57 In 1605 Stevin started his writings on the principles of civic architecture, De Huysbou, which remained unfinished at his death in 1620.58 His son Hendrick Stevin published some parts in 1649 in Materiae politicae. Burgherlicke Stoffen, a compilation of various of his father’s texts.59 In his Huysbou Stevin disputes the importance of the Five Orders and concentrates on the rational principles of good architecture and urban design. He rejects the universal value of the system of the Orders as well as the idea of fixed proportions. He even ridicules the use of columns outside their original (i.e. the antique or Italian) building construction, “as we are not forced to wear a foreign dress”. He also denies the need for complete harmonic proportions within a building, in strong contrast to Alberti and all Italian writers after Alberti who had tried to define the universal beauty of true architecture in terms of mathematical relationships. This is an error, Stevin explains, caused by a wrong interpretation of the classic idea of symmetria as formulated by Vitruvius. According to Stevin, symmetria is not the coherent system of related measures within a building but only what we also call ‘symmetry’ today, i.e. the equal division of a building in two reflected parts (lycksydicheyt). This is the divine principle of all creatures in Nature, and therefore the only basic principle in architecture: “since Nature, Creator of animals, gave them symmetry, architects too should follow this and design buildings symmetrically”.60 His ideas are illustrated by the design of a citizen’s town house with a strictly symmetrical ground plan: the main hall (voorsael) in the centre is flanked by stairs and by two rooms on each side, a dining room and a private chamber on the left (eetcamer, slaepcamer), a kitchen and office on the right (keucken, vertreccamer). These rooms are surrounded by various small spaces for special services like toilets, cupboards, cupboard-beds and a water supply. Not only the building as a whole, but even all the rooms inside it are symmetrical. The strict rationality of this design is also reflected in its façade, an otherwise completely bare wall, three stories high, with continuous rows of windows on all three floors. The only addition to this undecorated façade was a portico running in front of the ground floor to keep pedestrians dry or protected from the sun. This is not a proper design, of course, but merely a visualization of his theory, a starting point for further elaboration. In his text Stevin explains that those who would like

57

See Part One, Chapter II, note 145 and Chapter III, note 337. 58 An extensive analysis can be found in van den Heuvel 2005. 59 Taverne 1978, pp. 35-48; van den Heuvel 1995-1996.

60

“…gelyck de Natuer of Schepper der gedierten, de selve Lyckseydicheyt geeft, alsoo moet oock de Bouwmeester dat navolgen, en de gestichten met Lyckseydicheyt veroir­ denen”. Stevin 1649, p. 13.

101

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 to embellish their house could do this anyhow, “using antique or modern models or whatsoever, from those that are now abundantly available”.61 Apparently Stevin meant decorations like those published by Vredeman de Vries, which he actually did not like at all.62 Stevin creates rectangular units, arranged on a chess-board pattern into square building sites, suitable for rationally ordered houses like the ones discussed above. He is very keen to ensure direct daylight in all rooms, as well as safeguarding the privacy of each house. This explains why he favours what is to him a typically Antwerpian disposition: a principal wing that faces the street, separated from the back wing by a courtyard that allows light to enter the back rooms; a suspended, glazed corridor (loofken) running along the side of the courtyard connects the two parts.63 And of course, symmetry is everywhere, also on the exterior, in order that the row of private house façades united in one building would make them seem like a single princely palace.64 This is a very early example of the idea to subdue the individuality of private houses in favour of a collective grand effect, which at the time was completely contrary to the current architectural taste. However, the next generation would turn this idea into a real95. Simon Stevin, design of an urban dwelling, from De ity, especially in the late 1660s, as will be shown Huysbou c. 1610 (published in Burgerlicke Stoffen 1649). in Part Three. In a related text, called Vande oirdeningh der steden (also published posthumously in 1649), Stevin presents the layout of a complete new city. Designs like this were no mere utopian idea in early seventeenth-century Holland. In those years several new fortified towns were founded along the battlefront with the South, and some major cities had started vast enlargements, as will be discussed further in Part Three. Stevin shows a rectangular city, composed of blocks like those we have just described. His city is surrounded by fortifications and a moat, but it is by no means meant to be ‘an ideal fortified city’. The plan of the city is not dictated by the aims of a perfect fortification system, but ordered according to the principles of an optimal civic life, with wide, straight streets and canals, a system of market squares, and fixed spots for various public buildings such as trade halls, churches

61 “…waer op den genen, die dat niet en bevalt, sulcke cieraet van antique, moderne of yet anders, brengen mach, als hem best behaecht, tot hulp nemende de constighe verschauwingen van dies nu der tijdt overvloedich in druck uytgaende”. Ibidem, pp. 106-107. 62 See his disaproval of such decorations, quoted on page 137. 63 van den Heuvel 2005, p. 43. See, for instance, the wooden corridor from the house of Mayor De Moelnere, called

102

Den grooten sot (mid-sixteenth century), now conserved in the collection of the Vleeshuis (MAS). Antwerp 1993, cat. 95, p. 248. 64 “…sulcx dat soodanich block mette selve cost beter een Vorstelick gesticht soude gelijcken dan versamelingh van gemeene burgerlicke huysen”. Stevin 1649, Onderscheyt van de Oirdeningh der Steden, p. 24.

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles

96. Simon Stevin, city plan from De Huysbou c. 1610 (published in Burgerlicke Stoffen 1649).

and a university, as well as buildings for the civic authority in the central square. The entire plan is a demonstration of his logical design principles, using a grid of square city blocks. Public buildings, such as parish churches and market squares, occupy just one square of the grid, while more important buildings, for example, the main city church, the town hall and the university, are each allocated two squares. Stevin reserves as many as twelve squares for the Prince’s palace. The whole plan is dominated by his basic principle: symmetry, not only in its formal layout but also in the distribution of public services within the city. Buildings or public spaces with more or less equal functions, such as the parish churches, the meat hall and fish market, the corn hall and cattle market, are placed mirror-wise on either side of the central axis. The ‘ideal’ aspect of this city design does not lie in its formal layout. It does not show a centralized radial plan like the various sixteenth-century Italian models for ‘ideal cities’, but ‘just’ a symmetrically arranged rectangle. Its ideal character lies in its functionalist system and in the grid pattern, the disposition of public functions, traffic routes and the use of water systems. Moreover, the rectangular system anticipates easy future enlargements of the city on the left and right sides (in order to keep the routes from the main gates to the city centre as short as they were before), a rather topical point in early seventeenth-century Holland. As with all his writings, Stevin’s texts on architecture offer rational solutions for contemporary practical problems, rather than a repetition of existing theories. He is most radical in dismissing the antique paradigms and most consequent in creating another, ‘modern’ system suitable for the situation in the Low Countries. He deals with problems such as the refreshment of the water in canals, dikes and locks, just as he pays attention to particular functional details like the building of wells, the construction of staircases, ceilings, chimneys and solutions for smoke evacuation, as well as to technical problems of bricklaying and carpentry. He was not interested in applying any system of ‘divine’ mathematical proportions to architecture, nor in theories on the columns or other aspects of Vitruvian thinking in the narrowest sense. His aim was to create a theoretical foundation for the art and science of architecture in all its functional and technical aspects, while incorporating practical knowledge. As we have seen, symmetry is the only principle he uses to create order in his design. In his view, this is

103

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 not just a matter of aesthetics but rather of logic, since symmetry is the main principle in Nature. Thus Stevin adopts at least one aspect of the Vitruvian idea on the origin of true architecture. Duytsche Mathematique In accordance with Stevin’s thinking, in 1600 Prince Maurits of Nassau initiated a new curriculum for surveyors and military engineers at Leiden University: the famous Duytsche Mathematique.65 Here, lessons were taught in the native language (in Dutch: Duytsch) twice a week. Instruction came from Stevin, while the surveyor Frans van der Merwen, and the mathematician Ludolf van Ceulen, were actually the first teachers. Both died in 1610. Van Ceulen’s assistant Frans van Schooten the Elder continued the lessons, and in 1615 he was formally appointed professor at the Duytsche Mathematique. He 97. Simon Stevin, De Stercktenbouwing, Leiden 1594. and his sons Frans the Younger (from 1646 onwards) and Petrus (from 1660) would dominate the school until 1680. Various manuscripts from Van Schooten and his sons show us what was actually taught in those decades.66 The lessons on the decimal system and on fortification principles illustrate in particular the great influence of Simon Stevin’s ideas and writings, even long after the latter’s decease. The course was not focused on academic theories but rather on useful solutions for serious practical tasks. Lessons in arithmetic and geometry were essential, of course, but only to the degree necessary for surveyors and engineers.67 This was probably the principal difference compared to the advanced school for mathematics established by the Jesuits at Antwerp in 1617, where François Agui­ lon, Grégoire de Saint-Vincent and other famous mathematicians taught: the military arts eventually became a part of the curriculum there, but training engineers was never the primary purpose. Moreover, Leuven University only fully integrated the military arts into its programme between 1635 and 1660.68 Instruction in 1600 describes the teaching program of the Duytsche Mathematique, starting with the first essentials in arithmetic followed by geometry, the measurement of three-dimensional bodies and exercises in surveying and fortification. Students also received a practical training in the use of various instruments, both those for drawing and measuring on a small scale, and those for work in the field, which they used in outdoor exercises. In summertime students were sent to military camps for further practical training. The Duytsche Mathematique may be regarded as a prime source for the diffusion of Stevin’s ideas all over Northern Europe. Dutch engineers and surveyors as well as foreign students who had come to Holland especially for this course were taught Stevin’s mathematical techniques and his principles for planning fortifications and new towns. Alumni of the Duytsche Mathematique were invited to every

65 Taverne 1978, pp. 49-109; Westra 1992, pp. 82-89; van Winter 1998, pp. 14-36; van den Heuvel 2004, pp. 109113. 66 Collection University Library, Leiden. van den Heuvel 2004, p. 112. 67 “Hyer toe sal men leeren die arithmetique oft het tellen ende het landmeten maer alleenlyck van elck soe veel, als

104

tottet dadelyck gemeene ingenieurscap nodich is”. Instruction 1600, quote from van den Heuvel 2004, p. 110. 68 At Antwerp, the introductions to arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, geography and optics were public, but advanced training was only available in private lessons for Jesuit students. Van de Vyver 1980; Ziggelaar 1983; Meskens 1994; Bragard 1998, p. 215; Brussels 1998-1999, cat. 265, pp. 188-189.

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles country around the Baltic Sea as far north as Russia, while others became active in the African and Asian settlements of the Dutch West and East India Companies. In Stevin’s Footsteps: Mathematics and Architecture Although Stevin seems most extreme in his ideas on the practical use of mathematics and science in daily life, in his own time he was not an isolated figure. There were more people like him who intermediated between the world of academe and the crafts. A thorough training in mathematics had become indispensable in many professions. Merchants and accountants used it in their international banking affairs, sea captains and sailing masters needed it to navigate in open sea, military officers applied it to fortification and ballistics. And, of course, surveyors, cartographers, tax collectors, servants at the public weigh-houses etc. had daily practice in counting and measuring using the latest instruments and methods. In 1637, during his long sojourn in the Dutch Republic, René Descartes wrote: (...) les mathématiques ont des inventions très subtiles, et qui peuvent beaucoup servir tant à contenter les curieux qu’à faciliter tous les arts et diminuer le travail des hommes.69 With these words he was not, in fact, describing an ideal future but the actual circumstances in the Low Countries. In the sixteenth century the Low Countries saw the publication of various books and booklets on mathematics that were mainly concerned with teaching basic arithmetical skills.70 As we might expect, until the late 1560s most of these books were printed in Antwerp, but from then onwards, comparable booklets were also published in Amsterdam. An Antwerp example that was of great use to merchants was Willem Raets’ Arithmetica (1567), reviewed by Michiel Coignet in 1576, and reprinted in 1580 and 1597. Another influential example that appeared in 1573 was Coignet’s augmented edition (with solutions) of Mennher’s 1561 Livre d’Arithmétique.71 The most popular Dutch example in the seventeenth century was Willem Bartjes’ Cijfferinghe from 1608, probably because it offered an efficient method of calculation; in any case, it remained in use and was reprinted countless times until the nineteenth century. Even more important for future architects was Jan Pietersz. Dou’s 1606 translation of the first six books of Euclid’s Elements, with four later editions issued during the same century.72 Dou was surveyor to the city of Leiden and most probably also did some private teaching in mathematics. His booklet offered basic instruction in all mathematical exercises for every profession. Books One to Four deal with the basic principles of lines, angles and geometric figures. Books Five and Six discuss proportion ­­­– useful in both geometry and arithmetic. The main calculator of the time was the sector, a combination of the proportional and the reduction compass which, in fact, relied on the same principles: it could be used for calculations involving lengths, surfaces, volumes, geometrical figures, trigonometry etc..73 Dou was very keen to illustrate Euclid’s abstract propositions with easy numerical examples. Students of Euclid’s six books were ready to graduate to the works of Stevin and his colleagues, as for example Adriaen Metius’ Manuale Arithmeticæ et Geometricæ Practica (1634), a mathematical handbook for surveyors and designers of fortifications. Books like these, as well as the various architectural treatises on the market, must be regarded as supplementary volumes to a basis of Euclid and Dou.

69

Descartes 1637 (1943), pp. 65-66. Kool 1999. 71 Antwerp 1998, pp. 53-54, 71-73. According to Ad Meskens, the classic sixteenth-century arithmetic book comprises the four basic operations, the rule of three and any number of set problems, and in many cases also series and square roots; at the time, only a few mathematicians were able to solve complex equations and trigonometric problems. 70

72

Jan Pietersz. Dou, De ses eerste Boucken Euclidis van de beginselen en fondamenten der geometrie, Amsterdam 1606. 73 Example in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. K.O.G. 1692), probably dating from the early seventeenth century; a similar example is drawn in manuscript by Michiel Coignet in the Stadsbibliotheek, Antwerp (1618). Antwerp 1993, cat. 152, p. 299; Antwerp 1998, pp. 119-131.

105

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

98. Samuel Marolois, Opera Mathematica, Amsterdam 1617, frontispiece.

The close connection between the disciplines of mathematics, architecture, surveying and engineering becomes particularly clear from the main theoretical publications of the era. In Amsterdam in 1617, Samuel Marolois published an impressive volume called Opera mathematica ou Oeuvres Mathéma­ tiques, traictans de Géometrie, Perspective, Architecture et Fortification. For Marolois, too, mathematics offered the starting point from which he could teach the other subjects. On the frontispiece, architecture is presented among the sciences: it shows Vitruvius (architecture) accompanied by Euclid (mathematics), Vitellius (representing surveying) and Archimedes (fortification and other martial sciences). Ten years later parts of this book were translated into Dutch and published in two separate volumes by the well-known publisher Hondius: Fortificatie, dat is sterckte Bouwing in 1627, and Architectuur, dat is Bouw­ kunde in 1628. To the latter, Hondius added information on the Five Orders taken from Vredeman de Vries’ 1606 Architectura.74 The prologue of the 1628 Marolois/Hondius edition tells the history of architecture from the earliest times in Mesopotamia, to the pyramids in Egypt, to Roman Antiquity – borrowed wholesale from Coecke’s Inventie der colommen, or from similar sources – with references to contemporary architecture and to the designs of Vredeman de Vries. This confirms that Vredeman’s contemporaries regarded his publications as treatises founded on rational thought, demonstrating the proper mathematical basis, and not just as pattern books filled with fanciful ornament. Hondius’ brief message on architectural theory presents a summary of Vitruvius’ statement on the superior position of this profession, underlining the importance of mathematics as the foundation for an architect, essential both for calculating prices and building materials, and for designing with correct proportions. Like

74

The New Hollstein XLVIII, p. 231.

106

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles Stevin, Hondius/Marolois presented architecture as a scientifically grounded profession, but in contrast to Stevin, and more in line with Vredeman de Vries, the classic Five Orders are incorporated. Rational order and mathematics on the one hand, with flexible interpretations of the antique grammar on the other, became prime sources for ‘modern’ architecture in the Low Countries, especially in the North, where, apparently paradoxically, the tendency towards a more rational system of architecture would, in the 1630s, become the breeding ground for a new desire for strictly applied ‘antique’ architecture, as Chapter III will show. Men of Many Talents Mirroring the theoretical mindset discussed above, in the early decades of the seventeenth century the practice of architecture went hand in hand with surveying,75 hydraulics and fortification, not only in the South where the royal corps of engineers, led by ‘architect-general’ to the court Wensel Cobergher, was expected to master all three fields (discussed in Part Three, Chapter I), but in particular in the Dutch urban milieu in the North, which was characterized at the time by rapid expansion (discussed in Part Three, Chapter II). In the South the chequered careers of Michiel Coignet, Hendrick Meerte and Michael-Floris van Langren may serve to illustrate the frequent cross-over from mathematics to architecture and engineering. Apart from being a correspondent of Galilei and Kepler, the fame attributed to Coignet (b. 1549 – d. 1623) resides principally in his Nieuwe Onderwijsinghe op de principaleste puncten der Zeeuaert, a treatise on navigation which was published in 1580 and then again in 1589, 1592 and 1598.76 Son of an instrument maker, this gifted mathematician served the city of Antwerp as a wine gauger – another practical application of mathematics – until 1596, when he asked to be relieved of his position because he had been charged with “many great works for the Spanish court”.77 He had, in fact, become an engineering consultant, mainly for ballistics, at the siege of Hulst (concluded on August 17, 1596), and subsequently at the siege of Ostend, “the ultimate engineering war” of the time (1601-1604). His high remuneration and the pension awarded by the Infanta Isabella shortly before his death, testify to the esteem in which he was held.78 Coignet’s many activities also included that of cartographer, cosmographer and surveyor, and from 1616 he was active as a designer of fortifications (amongst others, of the Isabella Fort on the left bank of the Schelde, meant to defend Antwerp against an attack from the North).79 Similarly, his colleague Hendrick Meerte (?-?), described as mathematicq et architecte in the accounts, was appointed general supervisor of works at the archducal palace in Brussels in 1604, and he also worked on the new church in the fortified pilgrimage town of Scherpenheuvel, about which more later (see Part Three, Chapter I).80 He demonstrated his mechanical prowess by rediscovering the ‘secret’ of Jonghelinck’s fountain of Cupid in the Warande Park (see ill. 165): the intricate and delicate hydraulic system that made Cupid turn upon his axis was eventually repaired by specialized metalworkers under the supervision of Salomon de Caus (see Part Three, Chapter I).81 In 1629 Michael-Floris van Langren (b.? – d. 1669/70?) succeeded his father Arnold as royal mathematician and cosmographer, which meant he was also active as a cartographer and engineer. Although chiefly known to historians of science for his well-publicized attempt to determine geographical longitude (1625-1631), his activities

75 This profession had just started down the road towards independence, but there were very close ties with painting. Brussels 1976a; Brussels 2000. See also Part Two, Chapter II. 76 The later editions appeared in Amsterdam. The Nieuwe Onderwijsinghe constituted the appendix to the Dutch translation of Pedro de Medina’s Arte de navegar by Hendrik Hendriksen. Antwerp 1998, p. 76.

77

Ibidem, p. 97. See also Bragard 1997-1998, III, pp. 31-32. Antwerp 1998, pp. 101-107, 139. On the siege of Ostend, see Oostende 2004. 79 Antwerp 1998, pp. 131-133. 80 De Jonge 1998a, p. 193; Bragard 1997-1998, III, p. 81; Bragard 1998, p. 215. Meerte is said to have practised as a sculptor in Antwerp in 1594. 81 De Jonge 2000-2001, pp. 96-97. 78

107

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

99. Jan Adriaensz. Leeghwater, design for three stepped waterwheels draining the Beemster Polder, 1633. 100. Jan Adriaensz. Leeghwater, drawing of a wind mill.

in the field of hydraulic engineering are equally important.82 These include projects for canals such as the Fossa Eugeniana between the Rhine and the Meuse, and the canal linking Brussels and Mechelen (1626), maritime defence (Ostend, Gravelines, Nieuport), a project for straightening the Zenne river bed in order to stop the frequent inundations in the centre of Brussels, and ingenious inventions for crossing rivers and destroying enemy ships, all highly relevant at the time. In the North, Jan Adriaenszoon Leeghwater (b. 1575 – d. 1650) represents the perfect example of the typical Dutch engineer of the first half of the seventeenth century. We will conclude this chapter with his biography, as a case in point. Leeghwater’s many activities encompassed utilitarian structures such as mills and pumps, dikes, locks and canals, as well as civic architectural projects.83 He was not an innovator within the technical sciences like Stevin, nor an inventor of architectural ornament like Vredeman, nor a brilliant mathematician who could turn his hand to practical affairs like Coignet. Leeghwater was an engineer, contractor and architect like many others of his time. But unlike them, his life and oeuvre are well documented due to a number of publications he wrote. In his Kleine Chronycke (...) van de dorpen van Graft en De Rijp, a chronicle of his home village published in 1649, he proudly enumerates several of his own projects. His most ambitious idea to reclaim the Haarlemmermeer is described in his Haarlemmermeerboeck of 1641. This extended lake was only reclaimed in the mid-nineteenth century with the help of huge, steam powered pumps, and at that time the fame of Leeghwater’s prophetic eye and the myth of his technical courage became firmly established in the national Dutch historiography, mainly on the basis of his own book. Leeghwater was born in the village of De Rijp in the northern part of Holland, originally situated on an island between the Beemster and Schermer Lakes. In his lifetime both lakes were reclaimed: the Beemster between 1608-1612 and the Schermer from 1633-1635, so that, henceforth, De Rijp was surrounded by polders. In 1605 Leeghwater demonstrated a kind of diving bell to Prince Maurits, who was highly interested in this invention, which could be used for working underwater.84 Leeghwater must have been trained as a carpenter and constructor of mills since he is called ingenieur ende molen-maecker in official documents. He participated in several of the great reclaiming projects of the first half of the seventeenth century, such as the construction of the dike around the Beemster

82

Bragard 1997-1998, III, pp. 70-72; Brussels 1998-1999, cat. 264, pp. 187-188.

108

83 84

de Roever 1944. Ibidem, p. 34.

Chapter I: Of Columns and Wooden Piles

101. De Rijp, town hall, by Leeghwater, 1630.

102. Jan Adriaensz. Leeghwater, (unexecuted) design for the tower of the Nieuwe Kerk of Amsterdam, 1645.

Lake and the series of windmills on this dike. In 1620 he was one of the building contractors for the mills that would create the Purmer Polder. In 1624 he built the Wormer polder windmills, and from 1633-1635, those of the Schermer. In none of these cases was he responsible for the reclamation project as such, but in the course of his work he must have gained some fame as a water drainage expert. In 1619, during the Twelve Years’ Truce, he was invited to inspect the moors in western Flanders, the Grote en Kleine Moeren of Hondschoote, where, together with the surveyor Bruno van Kuyck, he made a map of the actual situation and a plan to drain the area.85 The draining of the Moeren, led by the archducal architect-general Wensel Cobergher, represented one of the most famous hydraulic enterprises in the South at the time. During his stay in the Southern Low Countries Leeghwater also visited Ostend, Brussels and Antwerp, where he could not resist inspecting the famous citadel and taking detailed measurements. In 1629 he was commissioned by Prince Frederik Hendrik to repair the mills around ’s-Hertogenbosch while the city was under siege. These mills, driven by horsepower, drained the lands outside the city walls, thus enabling the Dutch army to capture the city in the same year. In 1633 he went to the moors of Hogersmilde in Drenthe, with the surveyor Pieter Vingboons (a brother of the architect Philips Vingboons), to investigate the possibilities of peat digging. For this project he designed a system of water drainage canals. He was asked to carry out similar commissions in Holstein (Northern Germany) as well as in the surroundings of Bordeaux. 85

Ibidem, p. 212. See also Part III, Chapter I, note 71.

109

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 His activities in the field of architecture are limited. In 1630 he designed the new town hall for his home village of De Rijp. According to his Chronycke of 1649, he made the drawings, a model, and wrote the specifications. The result is charming, very much in the style of De Keyser though lacking the latter’s refinement. Apparently, the neighbouring small town hall of Graft (1613) was his first source of inspiration.86 While the latter example is built on an almost square ground plan, the De Rijp Town Hall is a rectangular volume with a double staircase in front. As in Graft, the building is embellished with three elegant gables, one at each end of the roof and a third in the centre of the building, above the main entrance. The ground floor served as the public weigh-house, while the first floor is divided in three areas: a central vestibule with the council chamber to the right and the chamber of justice to the left. By 1637 he had moved to Amsterdam, where we find him active in constructing the clockwork and carillon in several of the recently erected city towers, such as the Zuiderkerk and Westerkerk towers and the Jan Rodenpoortstoren.87 Since he was a specialist in gear mechanisms, it was apparently not too difficult for him to cross over into this field as well. He used his technical skills further in planning an alteration to the church tower in the city of Kampen. His last architectural adventure was in 1645: a design for a new Gothic tower for Amsterdam’s Nieuwe Kerk. After a devastating fire in January of that year, the reconstruction of the Gothic church had taken almost exactly its former shape, with only a slight modernization in its details. The most important alteration was the addition of a huge tower at the west end of the church. Several designs for this project were made by various architects, amongst whom Jacob van Campen.88 It is interesting to note that all the competitors tried to adapt their design to the Gothic architecture of the church. Leeghwater also submitted a drawing to the burgomasters of Amsterdam. His design is rather traditional, with a huge square tower in brick and a tall wooden spire consisting of four octagonal lanterns.89 Leeghwater apparently regarded himself as a specialist in tower architecture. In the accompanying text he explains that he had measured the church towers of Utrecht, Mechelen, Antwerp and Cologne, and proudly announced that his Amsterdam tower project, 365 feet high, would surpass all of them. Leeghwater’s proposal illustrates that he was a poor designer but most probably a gifted engineer and constructor. It comes as no surprise that Leeghwater’s project was not chosen. In 1647 the foundations were laid for Van Campen’s winning design, but only the ground floor was actually built (see ill. 298).

86 87

Boschma-Aarnoudse 1992, pp. 59-61, 80-83. de Roever 1944, p. 254.

110

88 89

von der Dunk 1993b. GAA Historisch topografische atlas, cat. 116G.

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna. The systemization of Architectural Ornament Around 1600

In 1631 an entirely new book on architecture was published in Amsterdam, entitled Archi­ tectura Moderna ofte Bouwinge van onsen tyt.90 It contained forty-four engravings of the most important buildings erected in Amsterdam and elsewhere in the previous decades: churches, towers, gates, and a number of façades of private buildings. According to the title page, the buildings illustrated had all been designed by Hendrick de Keyser, “Sculptor and Master Builder of the Town of Amsterdam” (b. 1565 – d. 1621) and his colleague Cornelis Danckertsz., “Master Mason and Master Builder of the aforementioned Town” (b. 1561 – d. 1634). Together they ran the town’s building company, with De Keyser as sculptor and Danckertsz. as master builder (see also Part Three, Chapter II). The third person in the team was the master carpenter Hendrik Staets (b. 1558 – d. 1630?), who a few years earlier, in 1628, had claimed his own contribution to the great town works in the form of an ode, which may have been the reason why he was completely ignored in the 1631 book.91 For the most part tasks among the trio had been divided as follows.92 The master carpenter could properly be considered as the constructor of the buildings, since he was responsible for the wood constructions that were essential to the structures of churches and large public buildings. The master mason, Danckertsz., was responsible for the masonry work, the major part of the work carried out by the building company. Since building quays and bridges in the new parts of town were included, this work was not particularly creative. The artistic part of the building activities was carried out by De Keyser in his role as town stonemason and sculp- 103. Cornelis Danckertsz., Salomon de Bray, Architectura tor. He was the artist within the building company ­Moderna, Amsterdam 1631, frontispiece. and, as such, responsible for sculptural ornamentation. In all likelihood, he was also largely responsible for the entire architectural design of various new town buildings. In those days the quality of representative architecture depended on the quality of the

90

Salomon de Bray, Architectura Moderna ofte Bouwinge van onsen tyt bestaende in verscheyde soorten van gebouwen ... staen­ de soo binnen dese stat Amsteldam als elders alle gedaen by ... Hendrick de Keyser beelthouwer en boumeester der stat Amsterdam en in weesen gebracht by ... Cornelis Danckerts mr. metselaer en boumeester der voorss stadt : met een byvoegsell van eenige wercken

en gestichten van verscheyde andere meesters deses tegenwoordigen tyts, Amsterdam 1631, henceforth quoted as Architectura Moderna 1631. 91 The so-called Kroniek van Staets from 1628. de Roever 1886. 92 Meischke 1994; van Essen 2000.

111

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 sculpture on the façade. Elsewhere in the Low Countries too, it was the sculptor in particular who set the tone in the process of architectural development.93 The book was published by Cornelis Danckertsz. van Sevenhove, a nephew of master mason Danckertsz..94 An elaborate introduction to this publication was written by the Haarlem architect and painter Salomon de Bray,95 which included a survey of the history of architecture, starting with the biblical origins of the art. According to De Bray, the foundation of true ‘classical’ architecture, including the Corinthian capital, began with the construction of King Solomon’s Temple of Jerusalem, whose design had been received from God Himself. De Bray also follows the Vitruvian tradition in viewing architecture as the highest of all arts, and the architect’s role as being that of an artist who transcends the level of craftsman. The governing principle of the Five Orders established in Greek and Roman times provided for an entire architecture based on fixed measurement and rules, and therefore fixed mathematical principles. The ‘true nature’ of these principles did not permit contradiction or modification, as this would result in the lawlessness of the barbarians and Goths. The reader was to learn to distinguish with taste and judgement between “correct” (schikkelijke) and “barbaric” (barbarische) buildings. According to De Bray, this barbaric form of architecture practised by the “Goths and Vandals” had remained popular for much of the previous (sixteenth) century in the Netherlands, and only recently had the “true principles of mathematical architecture” (ware redenen der wis-konstigh Bouwinge) been revived. Nevertheless it would be a mistake to regard this development as a novelty, since it marks a return to “the old manner of Building…from which the mistaken idea originated that the oldest manner of building was a novelty” (…waaruyt oock de dolinghe en het ghemeen gevoelen is ontstaen, de outste wyse van Bouwen, rechts als een nieuwheydt te houden). De Bray claims that the works presented in this book were only the first examples of the movement towards a pure and ancient architecture. De Bray wrote the text around 1630, ten years after Hendrick de Keyser’s death at a time when De Bray and his friend Jacob van Campen were busily experimenting in Holland with Scamozzi’s principles of classical architecture, a subject that will be dealt with in the next chapter. For this reason De Bray’s introduction to Architectura Moderna is more focused on developments around 1630 than on the work of the previous generation, as represented by De Keyser and his followers. De Bray’s firm stance in the text regarding the age, truth and dignity of true architecture is in sharp contrast with the explanatory texts accompanying the engravings that follow. Whereas De Bray preaches the true and eternal validity of the classical principles, the engravings receive praise for the novelty of the ornament and the designers’ ingenuity. “Decorative and rare finds full of unusual interruptions” were a pleasure to “the eye that is ever keen on new things” (Verzierlicke en seltsame vindinghe vol van onghemeene breeckinghe… het veranderingh-begheerigh-oogh).96 A broken pediment is praised as an absolute delight (seer aenghename heerlijckheydt),97 as are the “rare, decorative interruptions” (seltsame verzierlijcke breeckingen),98 the “decorative changes” (verzierlijcken veranderingh) and the “excellent rarity of inventions by our Master Builder” (uytnemende seltsaemheydt van vindinghen van onsen Bouw-meester).99 While De Bray attempts to explain these works as precursors of Classicism, the descriptions of the illustrations mark a direct turn to the previous generation’s high ideals of innovation and invention: the ability to enrich the repertoire of classical Orders with new, authentic inventions. It is obvious that these texts were written by someone who was closer in his thinking to De Keyser and his generation than De Bray: most likely the publisher Cornelis Danckertsz. himself, who had witnessed the construction of

93

We refer to the great sculptor-architects of the sixteenth century, e.g. Jean Mone, Colijn de Nole, and Jacques Du Broeucq (see Part One). 94 Kruimel 1939. 95 Taverne 1971.

112

96

Architectura Moderna 1631, text to engravings XVIII and XXIII. 97 Ibidem, engraving XXV. 98 Ibidem, engraving XXIX. 99 Ibidem, engraving XVI.

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna

104. Hoorn, Sint Janshospitaal (Saint John’s hospital), 1563.

105. Amsterdam, former entrance to the municipal stonemason’s yard, 1571 (1631 reused at the Kloveniersburgwal for the Atheneum Illustre).

these buildings in his youth. Danckertsz. continued to demonstrate a very close involvement in his later publications too.100 Thus the dichotomy between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ had its seventeenth-century sequel. It was, however, only after 1630 that the debate became more polemical in character, as will be discussed in Chapter III. Hendrick de Keyser and Late Sixteenth-Century ‘Modern’ Architecture The inventiveness shown by Hendrick de Keyser and his contemporaries in architectural sculpture around 1600 was part of a tradition that had begun earlier in the North, during the second half of the sixteenth century. Its source lay in Antwerp, and Vredeman de Vries’ numerous prints in particular had a great influence in its dissemination. De Keyser’s predecessor, Joost Jansz. ‘Bilhamer’ (b. 1521/41 – d. 1590), had been a leading Amsterdam sculptor and architect. In some documents he is described as a sculptor (beeldsnijder) (1566, 1577) and in others as an architect (1579), although he also worked as a land surveyor, cartographer and fortress builder (1583-1589).101 Holland’s response to Antwerp’s ornamentation can be seen in the façade ornamentation of the St. Janshospitaal in Hoorn, dating from 1563, which is said to be the work of Joost Jansz..102 The gable steps have been embellished with sculptured human and animal figures half entangled in strapwork volutes: a monumental development of the examples on paper by Cornelis Bos and Cornelis Floris. Fifteen years later, in 1578, Joost Jansz. designed Hoorn’s new east city gate (see ill. 223), making direct use of a recent publication 100

The publisher of the translation of Scamozzi’s Book VI in 1640, and of Palladio’s Book I in 1646.

101 102

Staring 1964. Boschma-Aarnoudse et al. 1998.

113

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 from Antwerp for the pedestal decoration: Vredeman de Vries’ Dorica from 1565. Nowadays we have only a sketchy picture of Joost Jansz.’ work, but in his own day he must have been quite well known in Amsterdam. When he died in 1590, finding a competent successor required considerable effort. In 1591 the Utrecht artist Cornelis Bloemaert, father of the painter Abraham Bloemaert, was summoned to Amsterdam. Van Mander called him “an ingenious sculptor, architect and engineer”.103 In his wake, his former pupil Hendrick de Keyser also moved from Utrecht to Amsterdam. It appears that Bloemaert worked for the town of Amsterdam for only a short period, and in 1595 Hendrick de Keyser was appointed “master sculptor and stonecutter for the works of this town” (Mr. Beeltsnijder ende steenhouwer over deser stede wercken).104 Together with Staets and Danckertsz. he led the Amsterdam building yard at a time of enormous expansion and numerous building projects, such as the construction of the new ring of canals, three new city churches in the new suburban areas, the new exchange building and various trade halls (see Part Three, chapter II). In a document from 1613 De Keyser was described as “the city’s master for antique design” (stads antyc meester).105 Apparently, he was considered to have expert knowledge of the repertoire of classical forms (anticse wercken). However, purely ancient forms are not to be found in his work; rather, he repeatedly devised new ‘finds’ that had never been seen before. In the 1631 edition of Architectura Moderna, his works do not receive praise for their successful imitation of ancient architecture; on the contrary, the comments accompanying the illustrations express great awe for his ‘original’ and ‘modern’ inventions. This publication dealt specifically with Architectura Moderna, rather than Architectura Antica, and therefore its subtitle was “Buildings of Our Time”. The difference between ancient and modern architecture is set out in the text that accompanies the engravings of De Keyser’s work, which, as mentioned earlier, was presumably written by the publisher himself. It emphasizes the fact that the book does not contain ancient Italian buildings such as the Mausoleum, Roman theatres or Nero’s Circus, but solely local, contemporary examples of churches, towers, town halls, gates, houses, monuments for tombs and so forth. The buildings were designed in accordance with “our national character and customs and traditions” (naer onse Lands-wyse en gelegentheydt in ghewoonte en ghebruyck), and thus not wholly consistent with ancient building practices but “somewhat altered, and adorned like important ancient buildings” (eenigsins verformt, en als overtrocken met eenderhandte aert en ghelijkenisse der oude Gestichten), which means in an adapted form, and with decorations in classical style to achieve some similarity to those from ancient times. The author gives an exceptionally clear explanation of the meaning of ‘modern’ in his day: no indiscriminative imitation but original variations based on ancient examples. These variations were necessary in view of a number of fundamental differences between the Netherlands at that time and ancient Italy. Firstly, the author mentions national character and religion: “the simplicity of our Christian doctrine” (d’eenvoudigheydt van onse Christelijcke Leere) and the “frugal diligence of our people” (suynighe arbeytsaemheydt van ons Lands-volck). He then refers to the differences in climate, terrain and available building materials that make it impossible to copy ancient buildings indiscriminately. However, if ancient types of buildings were impracticable in a modern context, ancient forms of decoration certainly were not. They could be used to give new buildings the desired appearance: “We are well acquainted with the forms the Ancients used to create dignity and beauty, and could most certainly apply them, but to use them in all types of buildings is, as has been said earlier, impossible for us (…)” (Voor ons, wy konnen de Formen der Ouden tot çieraet en welstandt recht ende wel, en oock met goede redenen ghebruycken, maer haer in alle soorten van ghebouwen te volgen is, als geseijdt is, voor ons ondoenlijck…).

103

“constigh Beeldtsnijder, Architect, en Ingenieur” (van Mander 1604, fol. 297r). Miedema 1994-1999, I, pp. 446447, VI, pp. 85-86. 104 He was officially appointed on July 19, 1595. GAA, 2nd Groot Memoriaal, fol. 170 f., 145.

114

105

This is what he was called at the wedding of his daughter Maria to Nicolas Stone on April 25, 1613. GAA, Puiboek. Weissman 1920.

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna Therefore the architect has to find a suitable application for ancient architectural styles by using his own ingenuity as his most important tool. For many people both in the North and South, Vredeman de Vries’ prints and other examples served as guidelines until well into the seventeenth century. As we discussed in the preceding chapter, in his Architectura from 1577 Vredeman de Vries declared that the ancient examples of town house façades in particular were virtually useless, since towns in the Low Countries had different requirements. For instance, in merchants’ houses on narrow, deep sites, tall windows were necessary in order to provide enough light. Consequently, these narrow houses have very high façades where the classical Orders cannot be accommodated in accordance with the rules of Italian and French treatises. The “antique Italian manner” (antiquiteyte Italiaense maniere) could not be casually imitated; it had to be adapted to “the custom and service of this country” (deses Landt gebruyckinghe en dienst).106 With his models, Vredeman de Vries showed how the classical treasure trove of architectural styles could be applied to narrow, high town house façades. Moreover, these new inventions he presents are contained within the system of the five classical Orders. The Five Orders and their Ornament In spite of the influence of De Vries’ prints, in practice their indiscriminate imitation was rare. They were examples within which the architect could place his own inventions, and thus devise an authentic, original solution. However, within the rich gamut of these imaginative architectural ideas that prevailed from the final decades of the sixteenth century in the Low Countries and along the Baltic coast, there also existed a clear architectonic system based on the five classical Orders. According to a strict, classical interpretation of the column Orders, their individual essence lies in their different proportions, notably the fixed proportional measurements between the diameter of the column and its length, but also among the various interdependent parts, the profiles, the layers of beams and so forth. Among the sixteenth-century books on columns that were published outside Italy, especially in Germany, the focus was not on the refinement and adaptation of these proportional measurements, but rather on the invention of new elements of decoration that would enrich the Orders. In this way an appropriate ‘decorum’ could be created to suit the requirements of each commission. These new ‘decorative elements’ are different for each Order.107 The difference in character between the various columns, varying from the robust Doric to the refined Corinthian, were first set forth by Sebastiano Serlio in 1537 in his address to the reader. The distinct nature of each of these five types of columns is expressed in its proportions, but in the same book Serlio also explained how to create differences in character when there were no columns. In his Fourth Book from 1537, known in the Low Countries through Pieter Coecke’s Flemish translation (Antwerp 1539, see Part One, Chapter II), Serlio also supplied a number of variations for classical doorways with which he hoped to satisfy the desire to embellish a building to a greater or lesser degree, according to requirements: de variate maniere, per arrichir una fabrica & per satisfare a diversi voleri, or according to Coecke: veelderhande manieren, om een werck te vercieren, ende diversche gheesten te payene.108 He mentions licentia, a sort of formal approval to deviate from Vitruvius’ rules when actual buildings from Antiquity, in particular those from the period after Vitruvius, offered an example of new, more complex compositions.109 This greater freedom was applied to triumphal arches in particular, in order to

106

Architectura 1577 and 1581, commentary on Dorica. Zimmerman 2002b, p. 116. See note 30 of the preceding chapter for the full quotation. 107 Forssman 1956.

108

Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura, Venice, Francesco Marcolini, 1537, chapter VI on the Doric Order. Generale Reglen 1539, chapter VI Vande Dorica, fol. Fii.v. 109 Payne 1999, pp. 113-143 (chapter 6).

115

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

106. Pieter Coecke van Aelst/Sebastiano Serlio 1539 (ed. Amsterdam 1606), Doric chimneypiece.

107. Pieter Coecke van Aelst/Sebastiano Serlio 1539 (ed. Amsterdam 1606), Ionic chimneypiece.

achieve the highest degree of splendour. Serlio transferred new forms found in these ancient triumphal arches to the design of contemporary portals. However, in his book Extraordinario Libro di architettura from 1551, he states in the commentary to one of his complex designs of portals that, if so desired, this new, elaborate ornamentation could also be left out, thus creating a more perfect but less splendid solution.110 In this way Serlio suggested the possibility of richer variations as a deliberate choice. In his Fourth Book he also presents a matching fireplace for every Order: a Doric fireplace for a Doric hall, an Ionic fireplace for an Ionic hall, and so forth. There are no columns or pilasters on these fireplaces; the specific Doric or Ionic characteristics are contained within the architectural ornament. Serlio devised a specific and distinctive type of ornamentation derived from the column, capital or entablature of each of the Orders. The Doric ornament is recognizable by the triglyphs and guttae of the Doric frieze. The striking fluting of the triglyphs appears on other parts as well, such as on the consoles supporting the chimney breast. The most characteristic feature of the Ionic Order is its capital volutes. Serlio uses an elongated or ‘stretched’ Ionic capital as a cornice over the fireplace, an invention he might have seen in Raphael’s Villa Madama near Rome. The Corinthian fireplace is given herms in the shape of water nymphs, and the Composite fireplace is literally a composition 110

Serlio 1551, published at Lyons by Jean de Tournes in a bilingual Italian/French edition, text accompanying gate no. 13 of the porte delicate: “le dua mezze colonne dalli lati la arrichiscono assai, nondimeno si puote fare senza esse. Et

116

chi non vorra quelle tabelle disopra, lassara correre l’opera, & sara piu perfetta”. This book was only available in French and/or Italian editions, see Bury 1989, p. 101.

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna

108. Antwerp, city hall, design by Cornelis II Floris and Willem Paludanus, 1561-1565. ‘Serlian’ window detail.

109. Pieter Coecke van Aelst/Sebastiano Serlio 1539 (ed. Amsterdam 1606), Composite chimneypiece.

of decorative elements taken from various Orders, among them the abundant acanthus leaf of the Corinthian capital. Serlio provides no fireplace design for the simplest of all Orders, the Tuscan, as it would never have been allowed in any interior. He identified the rugged, earthy character of the Tuscan Order as best suited to rustication. In his own publications Vredeman de Vries follows Serlio’s lead. His Dorica-Ionica and Corinthia-Composita from 1565 and his Architectura from 1577 both contain a wide range of new ‘Order-related’ ornamentation. Again, like Serlio before him, he derives his new ornaments from typical features of the Five Orders, such as Tuscan rustication, Doric triglyphs, Ionic volutes and the Corinthian acanthus. These elements have been detached, as it were, from their original position and function within the Order and remodelled as new and independent plastic forms for pedestals, consoles, friezes, profiles, door and window cornices etc. His Composite form, like Serlio’s, is a rich and unrestrained combination of various elements and even offers an updated version of the ‘Mone column’ with its ringed shaft; the arabesques have been replaced by scrollwork. In the series of gables in Dorica-Ionica for example, gables and dormer windows appear with half Doric and half Ionic ornaments set side by side. In certain cases the difference between the Orders is apparent in their pilasters, while in others the difference is only visible in the details, such as consoles with triglyphs, and the use of more rustic blocks on the Doric side, whereas the Ionic side shows volutes as façade crowning, as bases for pinnacles, or as lintels for windows. The strapwork, which dominates the compositions on both sides and connects all loose ornaments, was also regarded as a derivative of the ancient repertoire of forms, since it had been developed in the 1530s by the artists at the Fontainebleau court, who had taken their inspiration from the ancient grotesques: the fantastic wall decorations in the Domus Aurea in Rome.111 Therefore grotesques and strapwork were considered part of the ancient heritage that had been used for imperial decoration, and thus there was no obstacle to connecting them with the classical Orders, even on front façades, as can be seen throughout Northern Europe from the 1530s on. In his book Architectura from 1577, Vredeman de Vries not only shows inventions for gables but also designs for the façades below them. It was not the rules of proportion of the Orders that determined the design of a

111

Dacos 1969; Chastel 1988.

117

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

110. Vredeman de Vries, Ionic ornaments from Dorica-Ionica, 1565.

111. Vredeman de Vries, Doric and Ionic scrolled gables from Dorica-Ionica, 1565.

112

For the long tradition of this ‘decorative function’ see Hipp 1979.

118

113

building, but regional building traditions that took into account the northern climate and available building materials. The structure of the façade is always determined by the arrangement and measurements of the windows. The piers between the windows are the places for ornamentation, specifically defined as façade ‘decoration’, an addition that is subordinate to the basic principles of construction.112 To support the entablature De Vries not only uses the ‘pure’ Orders, such as half columns and pilasters, but also new inventions in the form of imaginative consoles, decorative niches, herms, or small, double columns with niches or cartouches between them. All of these display features of one of the Five Orders, and likewise, the various ornaments superimposed on the different storeys still maintain the classical hierarchy of the Orders. Such inventive, ‘modern’ façade decorations were applied in the Low Countries from the final years of the 1570s. Important projects were the new guild houses built on Antwerp’s Grote Markt in 1579, at the time of the town’s reconstruction after the Spanish Fury of 1576. In 1579 Antwerp joined the Protestant Union of Utrecht and was William of Orange’s main residence. Vredeman de Vries rebuilt the old governor’s house in the fortress into a princely palace.113 The town hall was restored, and the reconstructed guild houses, which were the Establishment’s most representative buildings, reflected the hope of a renewed prosperity. The appearance today of the mixed row of façades around the market square is the result of a radical reconstruction and restoration around 1900. The large house that belonged to the Old Guild of the Arbalest, Spaengien, on the north side of the Markt, is one of the most reliable remaining examples, although

Lombaerde 1999b.

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna not in every detail.114 The tall façade fronts high floors and a high roof. A continuous row of five windows on each floor dominates the house front, and the narrow stanchions between the windows on each floor have new inventions: rusticated half pilasters on the two lower floors, figurative herms on the third, and an imaginative collection of various ornaments set one above the other on the upper storeys and between the windows in the gables, all bordered by strapwork. In the Northern Low Countries, which usually followed close behind the latest developments from Antwerp, the first convincing examples of these new inventions date from the early 1590s. During the 1570s and 1580s the focus had been on the fortification of the towns and the construction of new defences as a result of the violent opposition to the Habsburg regime.115 After 1590 the most critical danger was over and occasionally new representative building projects could be realized, such as a new façade for Leiden’s town hall in 1592, and a completely new town hall in Franeker in 1594.116 In this latter building the application of 112. Antwerp, house ‘Spanje’ at the Grote Markt, 1579. new architectural ornaments was limited to a few representative parts, such as the front doorframe and the decoration of the ‘speaker’s chair’, the oriel on the north façade from where official communications were made. In contrast, the new sandstone façade in Leiden shows a whole range of inventions in the manner of Vredeman de Vries. As in his architectural drawings, there is a relationship between various ornaments and the ancient Orders. The tall staircase that leads from the street to the main entrance on the first floor has Doric herms of a special type, with lion claws instead of a base and, like triglyphs, three deep channels. The three central bays of the main floor have purely classical Ionic columns and pilasters, and the tall gable is ornamented with the original invention of a succession of small Corinthian pilasters on Ionic herms. Here, too, we find the ‘stretched’ Ionic capital as the upper part of the Ionic cornice. The top itself is crowned by the invention of two Composite herms, bearing a small pediment with an obelisk. The design for the Leiden façade was the work of Haarlem’s city stonemason Lieven de Key (b. 1557/60 – d. 1627).117 De Key was from Ghent, where his father also worked as a mason and deacon of the mason’s guild. The Bollaertskamer in the Ghent Town Hall (1580-1581), commissioned by the Calvinist town government, is considered to be his masterpiece.118 After the fall of Ghent in 1584 the family moved to England and, in 1590, Lieven de Key found himself in Haarlem. His knowledge of classical forms, acquired in the South, and his skills in handling them in the ‘modern’ way soon made him the town’s most important stonemason-cum-architect. The works he carried out in Haarlem included 114

In 1893 the house was restored by H. F. van Dijk and later crowned with St George’s statue and the dragon of Jef Lambeaux. Historical pictures and photographs from before the restoration show that this intervention was far less imaginative than those of the neighbouring houses where the gable had sometimes completely disappeared. Tijs 1993, ill. on pp. 138-142; Lampo 1993, pp. 87-113.

115

Westra 1992. Leiden: Meischke 1989. Franeker: Prins-Schimmel 1981. 117 van der Blom 1995. 118 Van Tyghem 1978, I, pp. 134-141. 116

119

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

113. Leiden, town hall, façade designed by Lieven de Key, 1593.

114. Franeker, town hall, 1592.

original inventions in a manner similar to those by Vredeman de Vries, and again, still related to the traditional system of the Five Orders. In his monumental Vleeshal (meat hall) from 1601-1603 on the Grote Markt in Haarlem, his inventions are not restricted to façade decoration: the entire ground floor can be interpreted as a wide and weighty Tuscan volume, with heavy horizontal bands on the corners and at the entrances (ills. 245, 246). The Doric and Ionic Orders are found along the upper levels of the side façades in combination with rustic bands, strapwork and obelisks. The Vleeshal interior is divided into two parallel naves by a row of six heavy stone Tuscan columns along the central axis. The vaults that rest on them are also supported along the side walls by consoles of the same Order. The transverse arches between the columns seem to receive some extra support by a system of ‘roots’ that appear to be ‘nailed’ on both sides of the capital, whereas in reality it is one block of stone. Most of these inventions are variations on the examples found in Vredeman de Vries’ prints.119 The architectural language Hendrick de Keyser used in Amsterdam stems from the ‘modern’ tradition described above. As was said earlier, in Architectura Moderna De Keyser is praised as the master of invention. Much to the deserved admiration and awe of his contemporaries, he excelled in repeatedly inventing variations on classical themes that had never been seen before. However, as with Serlio

119

van Beek-Mulder & Polman 1993, pp. 55-59.

120

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna

115. Haarlem, Sint Jorisdoelen, 1592.

116. Amsterdam, entrance gate on the Hoogstraat to the Walloon church, Hendrick de Keyser, 1616.

and Vredeman de Vries, these new inventions still had their origins in the Five Orders. Two examples follow. Illustration XXV of Architectura Moderna shows the gate on the Hoogstraat, designed by De Keyser in 1616, as an entrance to the alley leading to the Walloon church. This composition shows numerous remarkable details such as the ‘stepped’ architrave, a sarcophagus-like frieze and a broken pediment. The capitals over the pilasters, too, are free improvisations. The text to this print reads “an elegant and solid appearance, full of decorative and rare inventions, which demonstrate the extraordinary ingenuity of the Master” (een çierlijkcken en vasten stant, vol verzierlijcke en seldsame vindingh, waerin de sonderlinghe vindelijckheydt des Meesters te mercken is). Nevertheless the gate can be read as an Ionic composition due to the elegant curves on the capitals: “…very new decorative capitals, yet their curves display certain Ionic characteristics” (… heel nieuwe verzierlijcke Capiteelen, nochtans also dat de selve met hare krollen eenighsins de maniere van Ionische wercken verthoonen). The Westerkerk is a more complex example. Its construction, begun shortly before Hendrick de Keyser’s death in 1620, faithfully adhered to De Keyser’s design, with the exception of the tower. Its architectonic volume will be discussed in another chapter (Part Three, Chapter III); here the focus is on its architectural ornament. Both its interior and exterior can be interpreted as a succession of Orders: the Doric on the ground floor and the Ionic at the height of the clerestory. On the exterior of the church, the Ionic Order can be clearly recognized from the Ionic columns high up on the transept façades and on the east façade, while the half columns of the three gates on the east and south façades are the clearest examples of the ground floor Doric Order. However, the crownings on the lower windows of the transept façades are recognizably Doric because of their triglyphs, (purists would call them ‘monoglyphs’) and the guttae on the frieze supporting the pediment. The difference in character between the two storeys is also expressed by the various decorations that crown the buttresses between the transepts. The ornament on the ground floor buttress is decorated with two heavy scrolls separated by a gutta, a minor Doric reference. This particular ‘droplet’ is missing on the crowning of the buttress scrolls between the windows of the clerestory, where the reference to the Ionic Order is apparent in the more graceful curve of its volutes, which recall De Keyser’s version of Ionic volutes on the Hoogstraat gate mentioned earlier. In the Westerkerk interior the Orders are determined by heavy Doric columns on the ground floor and Ionic pilasters between the windows of the clerestory. The cross rib vaulting of the aisles appears to belong to the higher Ionic Order, and an Ionic orna-

121

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

117. Amsterdam, exterior details of the Westerkerk, designed by Hendrick de Keyser, 1620.

118. Amsterdam, interior detail of the Westerkerk, built 1620-1632.

ment, a sort of root with an Ionic capital, has been placed above the capitals of the Doric columns as a preliminary to the ribs of these vaults. Nova reperta from Italy in North and South Although Hendrick de Keyser was rightly considered one of the most ‘inventive’ and creative architects of his time, not all of his inventions were original. He updated the existing design repertoire that Vredeman de Vries in particular had compiled, with a number of remarkable new features that came straight from Italy. This new freedom was regarded as an opportunity to broaden the range of expression, an argument that Serlio had already put forward with his licentia: the freedom to depart from classical models. The prime example had been set by Michelangelo, whom Vasari had praised for freeing contemporary art from the tight strictures of Antiquity, and demonstrating how these new inventions could even surpass classical art.120 The nova reperta, ingenious new innovations, were admired even in ancient times as a way of raising art to a higher level, and in Vasari’s day this argument was used again. As for architecture in the Netherlands, the new inventions took the form of specific architectural details introduced by Michelangelo and applied widely in the late sixteenth century by the subsequent generation’s leading architects, such as Vignola, Della Porta, Fontana and Maderno.

120

In particular, see his remarks on Michelangelo’s designs for the Medici chapel and for the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence. Vasari-Milanesi 1886, VII, p. 193. According to

122

Vasari, Michelangelo had said that the compasses should be in the eye, rather than in the hand. Ibidem, VII, p. 270.

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna Examples of some new details were the geniculated arch, the broken pediment with curving ends, heavy blocks or triglyphs used as consoles, heavy keystones extended upwards, and stepped architraves above a window or door. It is the application of these new, Michelangelo-style designs in particular that distinguish De Keyser’s work from that of other architects in the Northern Low Countries during the first two decades of the seventeenth century. During the same period, these specific designs also occur in the Southern Low Countries, namely in the work of the two court architects Cobergher and Francart. Both had spent a great part of their lives in Rome before entering the Archdukes’ service in Brussels, and therefore it is no surprise to find the latest Roman ornamentation in their work. What remains uncertain is how this development of the language of form had reached Hendrick de Keyser in Amsterdam at the same time. He may have seen the latest 1602 issue of Vignola’s publication, which included a number of influential designs, such as Vignola’s main entrance at Caprarola, Michelangelo’s Porta Pia, and details of his Palazzo dei Conservatori on the Capitoline Hill.121 In the years after 1609, during the Twelve Years’ Truce, De Keyser also had connections with the Southern Low Countries.122 In those days he may have become acquainted with the work of the Brussels court architects. Cobergher’s and Francart’s architecture and their position at court will be discussed extensively in Part Three, Chapter I. Here the focus is on their contribution to innovations in architectural ornamentation. Between 1580 and 1603 Cobergher worked in Italy as a painter and architect, initially in Naples, and later, from the mid-1590s, in Rome. In 1604 he went to live in Brussels, having been invited by the Archdukes to become their court architect three years earlier.123 The prestigious commissions he carried out as court architect heralded the introduction of the latest Italian architectural details into the Southern Low Countries. The window mouldings on the church at Scherpenheuvel, which he worked on from 1609, and the details of the façade of the Augustine church in Antwerp from 1615, presented a range of new possibilities. Francart, Cobergher’s brotherin-law, was almost twenty years his junior and had lived for years in Cobergher’s house in Rome; only in 1608 did he follow his brother-in-law to the Southern Low Countries.124 Thanks to Cobergher’s prominent position, Francart too made a career as a court painter and architect. The new Italian architectural details introduced by Cobergher were elaborated on with great enthusiasm by Francart, who published some of his own inventions – some designs for gates in 1617, and in 1622 a series of cartouches. The eighteen designs for gates that Francart 119. Scherpenheuvel, window of the church published in Brussels in 1617 entitled Premier Livre tower, by Wensel Cobergher.

121

Reference is made to the twelve prints with designs by Vignola and Michelangelo, Nuova e ultima aggiunta delle porte d’architettura di Michelangelo Buonarotti, supplement to the publication of Vignola’s Regole Generali, Rome 1602, by Giovanni Orlandi .

122

At that time he was involved in the creation of the sculptures of the new screen of St. John’s Cathedral in ­’s-Hertogenbosch. Avery 1969; Westermann 1994; van Tussenbroek 2001, pp. 193-197. 123 Megank 1998b, p. 25. 124 De Vos 1998b, p. 19.

123

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 d’Architecture,125 serve as an important source of information on his new inventions. Besides a short introduction, the small volume contains captions in Latin, French and Dutch to accompany each illustration. The book is a collection of distinctly new inventions rather than an architectural treatise, a sort of modern addition to Vredeman de Vries’ work, in which Francart demonstrates “how and in what way house gates can be decorated” (hoe ende in wat manieren men die Poorten van huysen chireren kan).126 Entirely in line with the sixteenth-century tradition of new architectural ornamentation, the designs follow the classical hierarchy, in this case Doric-Ionic-Composite, with some ‘rustic’ examples at the end. Indeed, in his introduction, Francart names the classical Orders with their attendant mouldings as the most important decorations. However, he also uses other ornaments such as cartouches, scrolls, festoons, tendrils, “and many other things both from the sea as well from the earth, which can be used in noteworthy places” (ende veel andere dinghen soo uyter zee als aerde, dewelcke men ghebruycken sal in ydele plaetsen). These ‘noteworthy’ places are the tympanums, spandrels and other places that need a special accent. At times the Italian origin of certain details is explicitly referred to in the captions accompanying the engravings, such as the reference to “Michael Angelo Buonarota” with the motif of a column in a wall niche127. A gate in the shape of a rustic arch receives the sole comment: “much used in Rome” (te Roome veel gebruyckt).128 He mentions an ancient capital “on Mount Aventine in the Church of St. Alexis” as the source for the idea of having volutes of the Ionic capital curl out forwards like corkscrews.129 This reference to Antiquity is characteristic of the way inventions were interpreted at that time: to label these new architectural details as non-classical or even ‘anti-classical’ would be a mistake.130 These new forms, like the aforementioned strapwork, were regarded as variations on ancient models. The most important source of information on Antiquity was Roman imperial architecture, but it was not so much the great, monumental buildings that were used as a source. In Architectura Moderna it is stated that buildings themselves could not be directly used as models; it was rather the inventive architectural details of altars, triumphal arches and gates – those from the second and third centuries in particular – that showed how to enrich standard forms. Moreover, it was not the exact imitation of the ancient form that was important, but a new interpretation and variation of the example given. The most important works to demonstrate Francart’s talent in interpreting Italian-style inventions are the 1616 façades for the Jesuit Church in Brussels (demolished in 1812), the Augustine Church in Brussels from 1620 (reconstructed at the end of the nineteenth century in front of the Heilige Drievuldigheidskerk in Elsene, Brussels), and the Begijnhofkerk in Mechelen from 1629. In spite of the fact that these works were specifically Catholic, the Northern Low Countries was also interested in the new architectural details they showcased. In 1642 an illegal copy of Francart’s Premier Livre was published in Holland.131 That same year, the Amsterdam publisher Crispijn de Passe included two of Francart’s designs for memorials in his Schrijnwerckers-winkel/Oficina arcularia, an edition often included as a supplement with the Amsterdam edition of Vignola of that year.132 It was not only through Francart that the North was kept informed of new developments, there were also the new Italian series of prints. In 1617, at the same time as Francart’s Premier Livre appeared in Brussels, a five-language edition of

125

Francart 1617. De Vos 1994; De Vos 1998b. In addition, Francart also published a series of 100 cartouches in 1622, Cent tablettes et escusson d’armes pour sculpteurs, peintres et orfevres, pour s’en servir aux ornemens d’inscriptions ensembles et armes, Brussels 1622. 126 Francart 1617, Totten Leser. 127 Francart 1617, ill. 3. 128 Ibidem, ill. 15. 129 Ibidem, ill. 4. De Vos 1998b, p. 95.

124

130

This is in fact an anachronism, since our interpretation of what is ‘classical’ is still dominated by Winkelmann’s Edele Einfalt und stille Grosse. Before Greek Antiquity was studied in the mid-eighteenth century, the view on ‘classical Antiquity’ was richer and more varied. For the study of Roman Antiquity in the sixteenth century, see Günther 1994. 131 Utrecht, University Library. De Vos 1998b, p. 26. 132 Ed. Jan Jansz. end Jan Jansz. van Hilten, ill. 27 (signed “J. Frankardo pictori Bruxel”’) and ill. 28 (signed “Frankardo pictori brux. Inventor”) .

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna Vignola’s Regole Generali was published in Amsterdam.133 It included the supplement from 1602 with twelve prints of Michelangelo’s and Vignola’s designs for gates. This meant that Hendrick de Keyser’s source for his latest inventions became available to all stonecutters and sculptors, and thus, from 1620, innovative ornamentation is found in ever-widening circles. More recent foreign examples that attracted attention both in the Northern and the Southern Low Countries from 1620 onwards were the series of cartouches, memorials and altar designs by Bernardo Radi, Alessandro Francini’s gates from 1631, and Jean Barbet’s mantelpieces from 1633.134 Some of these designs were later reprinted in Amsterdam,135 and De Passe included some prints from the series in his collection just mentioned. The first editions of Radi’s series of prints postdate Francart’s Premier Livre and the greater part of De Keyser’s designs. Although Radi had no influence on their work, his inventions demonstrate a similar artistic interest, largely based on the same sixteenth-century, Michelangelesque examples. The Promptuarium Pictorum, a collection of designs from the Jesuit context that was most probably compiled in the mid-eighteenth century, but which mirrors mid-seventeenth century Jesuit architectural practice, shows that such new architectural details by Radi et al. indeed served as an actual source for contemporary design practices (see ill. 177).136 Characteristic Detailing A close study of the distribution of the new, Michelangelo-inspired designs in the Northern and Southern Low Countries shows that it is not always possible to determine in which of the two provinces they were first used. Apparently a simultaneous, parallel development took place. The Geniculated Arch One of the most remarkable new forms within this new repertoire is the ‘geniculated arch’. The origin of this three-sided span is Michelangelo’s Porta Pia in Rome, designed in 1563 as a gate to the new Strada Pia, the road crossing Quirinal Hill. An engraving of this design was made as early as 1567. The most important source for the distribution of Porta Pia’s various unusual motifs in the seventeenth century was its reproduction in the supplement of the 1602 Vignola edition mentioned earlier; it was subsequently included in the five-language Amsterdam edition of 1617. In 1615 Cobergher applied this arch form on the central window in the façade of the Augustine Church in Antwerp. In his Premier Livre of 1617, Francart shows a selection of variations on the Porta Pia composition. It was at this time that the monumental gate in the interior courtyard of Rubens’ new house in Antwerp was constructed (see ill. 133); its central doorway also derived from this Porta Pia motif. Concurrently, this motif was taken up by Hendrick de Keyser in Amsterdam, most notably at the cemetery gates of the Zuiderkerk and the Westerkerk.137 The resemblance of these gates to the Porta Pia is even more marked, since De Keyser placed a semi-circular tympanum over the polygonal doorway. He also applied the motif in a simpler version, in the form of polygon arches above the windows, in various designs of private houses in Amsterdam.138 This motif was used by many of De Keyser’s followers well into the 1630s. The last project in the Architectura Moderna is the design for a Doric triumphal arch by Hendrick de Keyser’s second son, Thomas.139 Here, too, a geniculated arch is used for the central passageway.

133

136

134

137

Vignola 1617. Radi 1618. Radi 1619. Francini 1631. Barbet 1633 (1972). 135 Dutch reprints of Radi’s engravings can be found in the Amsterdam Vignola editions of 1642 and 1647. Barbet was reprinted in Amsterdam in 1641.

Daelemans 2000. Architectura Moderna 1631, ills. VI-VII and XX-XXI. 138 Meischke 1994. 139 Architectura Moderna 1631, ill. XLIIII (not executed).

125

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

120. Rome, Porta Pia, designed by Michel­ angelo, 1563, as published in the Vignola edition of 1602 (illustration from the Amster­ dam edition of 1617).

121. Jacques Francart, Livre d’architecture, Brussels 1617, pl. II.

122. Amsterdam, cemetery gate at the Zuiderkerk, designed by Hendrick de Keyser, c. 1615 (Architectura Moderna 1631).

123. Amsterdam, cemetery gate at the Zuiderkerk, designed by Hendrick de Keyser, c. 1615 (Architectura Moderna 1631).

126

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna

124. Jacques Francart, Livre d’architecture 1617, pl. III.

125. Roman funeral monument at the Via Appia, c. 2nd century AD.

In the Northern Low Countries this motif does not appear after c. 1630, but in the Southern Low Countries it remained a popular solution for enhancing the appearance of a building, especially when combined with rusticated bands on the ground floor. It was a design used by Rubens in Antwerp in 1635 for a number of the temporary triumphal arches made to mark the entrance of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand, the new governor of the Spanish Low Countries (see ill. 157). Two striking later examples are the new façade of Jordaens’ studio from 1641 and the brewers’ guild house in Antwerp, Huis Roodenburg, from 1644, where the windows on the ground and first floors were designed as a series of polygonal arches (see ill. 11). The Column in the Niche

126. Detail of the Haarlemmerpoort, designed by Hendrick de Keyser, 1615 (Architectura Moderna 1631).

A second original and noteworthy motif from the second decade of the seventeenth century is the column set in its own semicircular niche. Francart shows such a composition in his third design for a gate from 1617. In the description he names Michelangelo as his source of inspiration, who in his turn is said to have derived this motif from an ancient mausoleum on the Via Appia: “Michel-Angel Buonarota used set-in

127

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 c­ olumns, having seen them in an old sepulchre near Rome’s Via Appia” (Die colonnen innewaerts gaende heeft gebruyckt Michel-Angelo Buonarota, die ghesien hebbende in een oude sepulture by Roome via Appia). Francart is apparently referring to the Mausoleum of Quintus Verranius, between milestone 8 and 9 of the Via Appia. Michelangelo first used columns in niches in the front hall of the Laurentine Library; in this case paired columns were set in a rectangular niche. A more direct source for Francart can found in Michelangelo’s columns begun in 1546 on the rear wall of the loggia on the ground floor of the Palazzo dei Conservatori on the Capitol in Rome. In 1615 Hendrick de Keyser designed the Haarlemmerpoort (city gate) on the west side of Amsterdam. The outer side facing the open country had paired Tuscan columns reinforced with rusticated bands. On the inner side free-standing columns, also with horizontal bands, were set in niches on both sides of the passageway, similar to Francart’s design two years later. A variation on the motif of the column in a semicircular niche was the idea of placing a freestanding column at the end of a façade, with a quarter-circular niche behind it to form the end of the wall. This design may have been taken from Vignola’s (rejected) design for the main entrance of the Cancelleria, as published in the 1602 edition mentioned earlier. As far as we know it was first used in 1615 on the front of the Jesuit church in Antwerp, designed by Pieter Huyssens and François Aguilon, the rector of the Jesuit College. Later, in 1621, Huyssens also used this motif for the front façade of the Jesuit church in Namur. Perhaps Don Giovanni de’ Medici played the role of intermediary here. This illegitimate son of Grand Duke Cosimo I was a gifted amateur architect as well as a military man. In 1593 he was responsible for the design of the façade of the Chiesa dei Cavalieri in Pisa, which also had free-standing columns at the corners. From 1602 to 1606 he was in the Low Countries where he served under Archduke Albert at the siege of Ostend, and in those years he might very well have shown his architectural inventions to others.140 The motif was copied in 1662 by the Rotterdam architect Jacob Lois, who was also a merchant with various business contacts in Antwerp. He used it for the façade of the Schielandshuis he designed in Rotterdam. He also relied on Southern examples for another noteworthy detail: the broken pediment above the portico, which was intended to add further stateliness and dignity to the Schielandshuis façade. The Broken Pediment The idea to split a pediment in the middle and use only both ends as a gate or window crowning derives from ancient examples, such as the window crownings on the curving façade of Trajan’s market halls in Rome. Again, it was Michelangelo who first used this motif in modern architecture. He applied it as decorative sculpture on the tombstone of the two Medici princes’ sarcophagi in San Lorenzo’s New Sacristy in Florence. The curving inner ends of the pediment cornice are connected by a festoon. Some decades later Michelangelo used this design again, this time in a large, triangular pediment on the Porta Pia. It greatly contributed to the design’s popularity and subsequently migrated throughout Italy and abroad. However, this motif was also rejected as early as the sixteenth century by a number of architects and theoreticians as a totally illogical structure, since pediments were derived from the front parts of roofs, which naturally could never be split.141 140

Borsi 1974, pp. 352-358; Karwacka Codini 1989, pp. 197-253. 141 Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, Venice 1570, Libro I, Degli abusi, p. 52: “Ma quello, che à mio parere importa molto, è l’abuso del fare i frontespici delle porte, delle finestre, e delle loggie spezzati nel mezzo: conciosiache essendo essi fatti per dimostrare, & accusare il piovere delle fabriche, il quale cosi colmo nel mezzo fecero i primi edificatori ammaestrati dalla neccessità istessa; non

128

se che cosa più contraria alla ragion naturale si possa fare, che spezzar quella parte, che è finta difendere gli habitanti, & quelli, ch’entrano in casa, dalle pioggie, dale nevi, & dalla grandine: e benche il variare, & le cose nuove à tutti debbano piacere; non si deve però far ciò contra i precetti dell’arte, e contra quello, che la ragione ci dimostra: onde si vede che ancho gli Antichi variarono: nè però si partirono mai da alcune regole universali, & necessarie dell’Arte, come si vederà ne’ miei libri dell’Antichità”.

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna

127. Vignola’s (unexecuted) design for a new entrance gate of the Cancelleria Palace, Rome, as published in the Vignola edition of 1602 (engraving from the Amsterdam edition of 1617).

129. Antwerp, detail of the Jesuit church façade, 1616 and later.

128. Pisa, detail of Santo Stefano dei Cavalieri, designed by Giovanni de’ Medici, 1593-1596.

130. Rotterdam, Schielandshuis (detail), designed by Jacob Lois, 1662-1665.

129

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

131. Amsterdam, entrance to the Municipal Orphan­ age (Burgerweeshuis), attr. to Joost Jansz. Bilhamer, 1581.

In spite of this, the broken pediment proved to be a powerful visual means to transcend ‘ordinary’ classical architecture and enrich decorum. It represented power and prestige since, as Serlio wrote, only the highest in rank could afford such liberties – a view that was shared by others. For instance, the French architect Philibert de L’Orme, in his 132. Antwerp, high altar of the Jesuit treatise from 1567, used this motif as part of a mantelpiece Church, attr. to Rubens, 1621. decoration in royal or princely halls, solely to express the prince’s ‘magnificence’.142 In contrast with the details discussed earlier, the broken pediment was known in the Low Countries as early as the sixteenth century. It very rarely occurred in Vredeman de Vries’ façade designs: he, too, felt that this motif was intended for a special rank only. In his Architectura he saved it for the most luxurious Corinthian and Composite façade designs.143 In 1581 this motif occurred for the first time on a monumental building in the Northern Low Counties: the entrance crowning of the Burgerweeshuis (orphanage) on the Kalverstraat in Amsterdam, attributed to Joost Jansz. Bilhamer.144 Other examples from the final decades of the sixteenth century are very rare, both in the North and South. In most cases we find a broken pediment with a coat-of-arms in its centre. It is clearly an unusual motif, intended for special occasions, such as church buildings and (temporary) triumphal gates, for example the ones erected in Antwerp in 1599 for the Archdukes’ Triumphal Entry.145 The broken pediment gained importance in the early seventeenth century when architectural ornament was modernized. It appears in the work of both Cobergher and Francart in their most prominent compositions for windows, gates and altars. A rather successful invention was the addition of an aedicula with a statue in the centre of the broken pediment. This composition was used in 142

Philibert de L’Orme, Le Premier Tome de l’Architecture, Paris 1567, Book VIII, Chapters 3 and 5 (ed. 1648, pp. 263-265). 143 Architectura 1577, fols. 23 and 29.

130

144

Originally this gate only served to close the alley. The superstructure with the town’s coat-of-arms and broad pediment were added during the renovation of 1642. Meisch­ke 1975, pp. 136-139, 162-163. 145 See Bochius 1602. An example is the gate called Pegma Veneris Victricis.

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna the new monumental high altars erected in the Southern Low Countries at that time, such as the 1615 main altar of St. Bavo’s in Ghent (replaced 1707), the original altar of the Kapellekerk in Brussels from 1618, (today in Sint-Joost-ten-Node, Brussels) and that of the Antwerp Jesuit Church (1621).146 In addition, Rubens is known to have played a prominent role in the distribution in Antwerp of this new Roman way of altar building, since he also provided the accompanying architecture for a number of his great altarpieces.147 This combination of a broken pediment with an aedicula and a saint’s statue in the central niche not only proved quite suitable as an altar crowning, but also as a 133. Antwerp, Rubenshuis, gate between courtyard and garden, decoration on ceremonial entrance gates. c. 1616-1620. An early example is the main entrance of Cobergher’s Augustine Church in Antwerp (1615). During the subsequent decades the broken pediment and central aedicula merged into one decorative pattern, making the original architectural parts less and less recognisable. In the seventeenth-century Southern Low Countries the broken pediment was not only used on church façades and altars, but also on prominent private buildings. In some of Francart’s designs in the Premier Livre that are obviously destined for private houses, the open space between the two parts of the pediment is taken up by a coat-of-arms, a cartouche or a fan light. It appears that Francart was familiar with the theoretical objections against this motif, since he indicates that he will explain in a later publication “why these frontispieces may be broken”.148 Unfortunately this book was never published, leaving the issue unexplained. The oldest, best-known example of a broken pediment on a private house is the gate to the interior courtyard of the Rubens House in Antwerp, designed by Rubens himself (1616-1620) at approximately the same time as the high altar of the Antwerp Jesuit Church. In his design Rubens not only used the pediment’s ends but also its centre top, an idea probably derived from the façade crowning of the Villa Aldobrandini near Rome. A most prominent example of a broken pediment crowning a façade, and one that closely resembles that of the Villa Aldobrandini, was created some decades later, in 1654, at Beaulieu, north of Brussels, a summer residence of the Turn und Taxis family, which is ascribed to the sculptor-architect Lucas Faydherbe (see ill. 173). In the Northern Low Countries, too, the broken pediment was appreciated as an expression of stateliness in the early seventeenth century, although not for private houses. Hendrick de Keyser used it a number of times for cemetery gates, and also on various entrances, setting the town’s coatof-arms or some other sign of a public office in its centre. In the first decades of the seventeenth cen­ tury it was also used elsewhere in the Republic, again usually with a coat-of-arms in its centre; one example is the funeral plaque from 1634 for sea captain Cornelis Jansz. de Haen on one of the pillars of the Amsterdam Oude Kerk. From the mid-1630s onwards this motif was used less frequently in the North (undoubtedly due to increasing interest in strict classical rules, as will be discussed later), although it was still applied in towns in the south and east of the Republic where the doctrine of clas­sical architecture was less binding. Here, these unusual pediments with coats-of-arms in the centre, remained within the

146 147

Becker 1990, ills. 9, 35, 40. Becker 1990, pp. 65-83.

148

Francart 1617, caption on print 2.

131

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

134. Utrecht, main entrance to the assembly room of the States of Utrecht, by Adrian van Lobbrecht, 1646.

architectural repertoire as an instrument to express the stateliness of government buildings. Examples are the 1646 entrance gate to the States of Utrecht designed by Antoni van Lobbrecht, the aforementioned crowning on the Schielandshuis’ portico in Rotterdam (Jacob Lois, 1662), and the new gate to the Assembly Hall of the States of Zeeland on the Abdijplein in Middelburg, designed by Jacob der Kinderen from Middelburg and delivered in 1679 by the Antwerp stonecutters Jan Van den Eynde and Martijn de Heer. An unusual variation of the broken pediment has its ends turned towards each other in a ‘back to back’ position, an invention by the Florentine court artist Buontalenti, who had used it as a crowning on the Uffizi’s Porta delle Suppliche in 1577. In the Low Countries it was used in only a few isolated instances. Architectura Moderna contains one of Hendrick de Keyser’s gate designs with this type of crowning. The caption refers to “a quite rare, curious and decorative invention”.149 This type of decoration was considered appropriate only in privileged cases. One such example is William of Orange’s memorial monument in Delft. The captions to these illustrations describe the superlative quality of every aspect, essential in expressing the decorum of the memorial. Costly materials such as coloured marble and bronze were used for the statues, and the accompanying decorative architecture – “ingenious and decorative works” (konstige en verçoerlijcken wercke) – was carried out in various precious stones. The unusual reversed broken pediment was also contained within this extraordinary wealth of form and material. In Francart’s Premier Livre an invention of this type is absent, although the author may have planned to use it in his second (unpublished) volume, which he had intended for more lavish models, as he states in his introduction.150 However, Bernardo Radi’s prints, available both in the North and South and considered a valuable addition to the latest contemporary repertoire, contained a small number of examples of this unusual motif, in the form of a crowning on a gate, an

149

Architectura Moderna 1631, text with ill. XXXI. “Men maeckt oock Poorten die Rijckerlijcker verchiert zijn, die welcke met vleugels oft feretten beseth zijn, die buyten dese proportie seer gaen. Waer af ick inden tweeden boeck spreken sal” (More richly ornamented gates are also made, such as with wings, which exceed these proportions by far. This will be discussed in Book Two).

150

135. Rotterdam, Schielandshuis, by Jacob Lois, 1662.

132

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna

136. Florence, Porta delle Suppliche of the Uffizi, by Bernardo Buontalenti, 1577.

138. Delft, tomb of Willem van Oranje, by Hendrick de Keyser, 1614-1621.

137. Architectura Moderna 1631, pl. XXXI, ceremonial gate, unexecuted design by Hendrick de Keyser.

139. Antwerp, Saint Anna altar in Saint Jacob’s church, 1643, by Andries Colijn de Nole.

133

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

140. Amsterdam, house of Hans van Wely, jeweler of Maurits van Nassau, designed by Hendrick de Keyser 1616 (Architectura Moderna 1631).

134

Chapter II: Architectura Moderna altar or a funerary monument. Thus it was also used, if only quite seldom, in the Southern Low Countries, for example as the crowning on the St. Anna altar from 1643 in Antwerp’s St. Jacob’s Church, and again in 1668 on the St. Barbara altar in the church of Our Lady in Dendermonde.151 Conclusion The term Architectura Moderna referred to modern architecture that applied ancient architectural forms according to modern ideas. It was not the imitation of ancient types of buildings that was emphasized, but rather the application of ancient details or their derivations on what were basically traditional buildings, plus the actual innovation of the repertory of forms, which became common both in the North and the South on the publication of Vredeman de Vries’ prints. The inventions by Michelangelo and his successors created new possibilities for the enrichment of the range of ornament, a development that started simultaneously in both parts of the Low Countries during the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621) most certainly led to a renewed exchange of inventions, fuelled by the new building boom (about which more in Part Three). Since these rich new decorations reinforced architecture’s power of expression, they could not be applied randomly, but required discernment. It was Serlio who pointed out that deviation from the classical norm was only acceptable if it conformed to the decorum required by the location. The new designs were not so much intended as exemplars of the designer’s artistic talent, but first and foremost as an appropriate instrument to express stateliness. According to Serlio, the correct use of standard forms (secondo il commune uso) would be applauded by spectators, whereas new inventions (cose che sono inusate) would evoke admiration only if they had the proper proportions.152 These new designs were only suitable for the stateliest buildings and therefore only qualified for the most prestigious building commissions. In Architectura Moderna a similar view prevails, in particular with regard to public buildings. Thus the caption to the design for the entrance gate of the Amsterdam Prinsenhof, which was used as headquarters for the Admiralty, reads: “…a delightful appearance, appropriate for a Prince’s Court, with numerous rare decorative interruptions, and adorned with majestically carved ornamentation” (…een heerlijck aensien, wel voeghlijk voor eens Princen Hoove, en is voorts oock met soo velerhande seltsame verzierlijcke breeckinghen, en verheven en ghesneden wercke geçiert).153 An even higher status was achieved by costly stone, sculpted elements and gilded touches, such as on the Delft Town Hall façade from 16191620, “…everything wrought in a costly way and with majestically sculpted ornamentation, as well as richly gilded elements” (…alles kostelijcken ghewrocht en met verheven en uyt-gehouwen wercken, tot welcke noch de rijckelijckheyt van ’t overgouden ghedaen is). In this way Delft Town Hall surpassed those of all other neighbouring towns in “costliness and (…) delightful appearance” (kostelheydt en (…) behaaghelijcken aensien).154 The highest degree of stateliness was reached in William of Orange’s memorial monument from 1616-1620, with life-sized statues, costly materials such as bronze and coloured marble, and spectacular architectural details, some of which were discussed above. This kind of wealth, however, was considered inappropriate for private citizens’ houses. The façade of jeweller Hans van Wely’s Amsterdam house was the most costly of his day. It was decorated with a variety of sculpted motifs carried out in stone and even marble. In the caption accompanying the engraving the author indicated that, in fact, this was overdone: “above the usual nature of civic buildings, very prominent and very costly” (boven

151

Becker 1990, ills. 15, 36. “Quelle cose che si fanno secondo il commune uso ­ancora che con tutte le proportioni, & misure sian fatte, sono lodate sì, ma ammirate non giamai: ma quelle cose che sono inusate, se saran fatte con qualche ragione, & ben 152

proportionate, saranno non solamente lodate dalla maggior parte, ma ammirate ancora”. Sebastiano Serlio, Regole ge­ nerali…, fol. 179r (Payne 1999, pp. 118-119). 153 Architectura Moderna 1631, text with ill. XXIX. 154 Ibidem, with ill. XXXVII.

135

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 de ghewoonlijcken aert van Burgherlijcke Ghebouwen, gantsch uyt-steeckende, en gheheel kostelijck). The façades of the two other private houses shown in the Architectura Moderna only have “amusing decorations and an ingenious layout” (geestige verçieringen en konstighe verdeelinghe des werckx).155 Apparently the nova reperta was considered as a powerful instrument for visualizing the stateliness of a building and its owner. The new inventions allowed for a greater freedom and differentiation in the architectural range of expression; therefore it is no surprise that interpretations of this type were highly influential in the seventeenth century, although after 1630 this development of ‘modern’ architecture was mainly limited to the Southern Low Countries, as will become clear in the following chapter.

155

Ibidem, with ills. XXXIII and XXXIV.

136

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme Rubens and Huygens On Vitruvius

le regole degli antichi.

In the Low Countries during the first decades of the seventeenth century, the great admiration for modern architecture was not shared by those who considered its ‘unorthodox’ inventions a corruption of the pure classical rules.156 In his Schilder-Boeck from 1604, Carel van Mander sharply criticized the kinds of architectural liberties introduced by Michelangelo. He might have been referring to De Key’s Meat Hall in Haarlem when he wrote:

“Besides using the old and common method of the Ancients and Vitruvius, Michelangelo also applied new types of Orders in cornices, capitals, bases, tabernacles, sepulchres and other decorative elements. Architects who have come after him have him to thank for freeing them from old ties and giving them free rein to use decoration differently from the ancient manner. However, in truth these reins are now so loose, and architectural freedom has been so much abused here in the Netherlands, that this has led to great heresy among the stonemasons, with a frenzy of decorations and pilasters broken in the centre, and coarse diamond work on pedestals and similar abominations, abhorrent to the eye”.157

Simon Stevin, in a passage in his posthumously published book on dwelling (Huysbou), also expressed his disgust with the contemporary façade ornamentation of monsters’ heads: “As regards ugly monsters, with a mixture of the members of people and animals with hideous grinning faces, these do not please me as an ornament (…)”.158 In England, Inigo Jones made similar critical remarks when in 1614 he spoke of “the aboundance … brought in by Michill Angell”, preferring “sollid architecture” on the façades rather than “composed ornaments”.159 In his opinion these rich new forms were only suitable for interiors, for fireplaces and so forth. Nor did he appreciate the Netherlandish early seventeenth-century language of form, as is clear from his notes in the margin of his copy of Alberti’s architectural theory: “…but not as the Flemings, full of invention but no reason of proportion”.160

156 Vitruvius also abhorred to the new decorative style of painting such as grotesques, which replaced the illusion of true architecture by a completely non-architectural decoration pattern of fantastic animals and ornaments. Vitruvius, De Architectura libri decem, liber VII, cap 5. 157 “In der architecture, beneffens den ouden ghemene wegh der Antijcken en Vitruvii, heeft hij [Michelangelo] ander nieu ordenen opgebracht, van cornicen, capiteelen, basen, tabernakelen, Sepultueren en andere cieraten. Waerom alle naevolgende Architecten hem te dancken hebben, dat hij hun van d’oude banden en stricken verlost heeft, en ruijmen toom en verlog ghegheven van yet beneffens d’Antycken te versieren. Doch om de waerheijt te segghen, is desen toom so ruijm, en dit verlof bij onse Nederlanders so misbruijckt dat mettertijdt in de Metselrije een grote Ketterije onder hen ghecomen is, met eenen hoop raserij van cieraten en brekinghe der Pilasters in ’t midden, en op pedestalen voeghende hun aenghewende grove puncten van Diamanten, en derghelijcke lammicheijt, seer walghelijck om aen te sien”. van Mander 1604, fol. 168r f. In his biography

of Pieter Coecke, he sets Coecke’s merits as a publisher of correct Vitruvian architecture off against “a new, worthless, modern High German style” (“een nieuw vuyl moderne op zijn hoogduytsch”) which has recently come into fashion (fol. 218v). Miedema 1994-1999, I, p. 132, III, p. 80. 158 “Wat lelicke monsters belangt, gemengt van menschen en beesten leden met ansichten yselick greinsende, en bevallen mij int cieraet niet” (Byvough der Stedenoirdening van de oirdening der deelen eens Huys, in: Stevin 1649, p. 112). 159 “And to saie trew all thes composed ornaments the wch Proceed out of ye aboundance of dessigners and wear brought in by Michill Angell and his followers in my oppignion do not well in sollid architecture and ye fasciati of houses, but in garden loggis stucco or ornaments of chimnies peeces or in the inner parts of houses thos compositions are of necessity to be housed” (Inigo Jones’ Roman sketchbook, January 20, 1614. Coll. Chatsworth). Anderson 1997, p. 50. 160 Note in the margin of Alberti’s De Re Aedificatoria, Collection Worcester College, Oxford. With thanks to Gordon Higgott.

137

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 Although Jones, a well-travelled artist, appreciated the inventiveness of Netherlandish architecture, he also considered it lacking in a rational, mathematical design structure. His architectural ideals were based on Palladio’s and Scamozzi’s classical architecture, which he had seen for himself in the Veneto in 1613-1614, and whose theories he studied in Palladio’s Quattro Libri from 1570 and Scamozzi’s L’Idea della Architettura Universale from 1615. Palladio had pointed out illogical architectural forms in his chapter on ‘errors’, calling the architecture of the final years of the Roman Empire, an important source for these inventions, bello ma corotto (“beautiful but corrupt”), thus at the same time recognizing its decorative value.161 Scamozzi’s disapproval was even greater. In his treatise from 1615 he sharply denounced any deviation from the Vitruvian rules and architectural logic that had been derived from nature. He called such liberties indecentie e sciochezze (“indecencies and foolishness”) inherited from the barbarians, and the work of idioti.162 Such designs were completely at odds with his ideal of achieving the highest degree of purity and perfection, un grandissimo desiderio di ritrovarne la certezza.163 New forms should not clash with the fundamental principles of the entire architectural system and of Creation itself. It was this strict interpretation of the principles of ancient architecture, expressed by Scamozzi in particular, that found a growing response in the Northern Low Countries in the second quarter of the seventeenth century. The Rise of Classicism in Holland From about 1625 a group of Haarlem artists: Jacob van Campen (b. 1595 – d. 1657), Salomon de Bray (b. 1597 – d. 1664) and later, Pieter Post (b. 1608 – d. 1669), began to emphasize the precise application of the classical Orders rather than the invention of new decorative variations. It is not surprising that the Haarlem art circles were the source of this development, since from the end of the sixteenth century Antiquity had been admired, and consequently studied, by artists such as Hendrick Goltzius and Carel van Mander. As early as 1604 the latter referred to Vitruvius’ rules in his study of the correct proportions in art.164 The essence of classical design as it took shape in Holland was a strictly mathematically ordered architectural body. Proportions, which also determined the positions of the doors, windows and profiles, were made visible by portioning the façade with pilasters or other classical ornaments, in the same way that music is divided into bars. In this way, i.e. by applying the mathematics with which heaven and earth had been created, architects attempted to imitate the harmony of Creation, with the aim of achieving truly perfect beauty, independent of personal taste. For this reason there was a great interest in ancient architecture, since it was based on the same principles. Measurements of ancient remains, both those in Italy and the rare Roman finds in the Northern Low Countries, were carefully studied. Like the sixteenth-century antiquarians mentioned earlier, such as Abraham Ortelius and Hubert Goltzius (a distant relative of the Haarlem artist)165 they considered these finds of local Roman antiquities, however modest, to be of the greatest importance. After all, these remains demonstrated that parts of the Northern Low Countries had also belonged to the Roman Empire, and that the Batavians, as Roman allies, had taken part in Roman culture, and in doing so had made the ancient heritage part of their own national heritage.166 This group of antiquarians, humanists and architects regarded ancient architecture as the sole ‘true’ source for architecture in the Low Countries. 161

See the preceding chapter, note 141 for the full quotation. 162 Scamozzi 1615, Libro VI, cap. XXXV, pp. 170-171. 163 Ibidem, Libro I, cap. XIV, p. 47. In 1625 the Italian physician Gallacini actually wrote a treatise entirely devoted to such architectural ‘errors’; however, it was published as late as 1767.

138

164

van Mander 1604, De grondt der Edel vrij Schilder-const, fol. 10r. 165 Hubert Goltzius was a cousin of Hendrick Goltzius’ father. 166 See, for example, the history of Holland in Petrus Scri­ verius, Batavia illustrate, 1609, and the history of Nijmegen in Johannes Smetius, Oppidum Batavorum, seu Noviomagum, Amsterdam 1644 (Nijmegen 1999). Langereis 2001.

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi Vitruvius’ text provided an indispensable key to revealing the rules of true architecture. However, as it was not easily accessible, contemporary Italian treatises were consulted for better understanding, in particular those of Serlio and Palladio from the sixteenth century and Scamozzi’s from the seventeenth. These provided ample explanation and also demonstrated how to apply the ancient principles of design to contemporary commissions. In the Northern Low Countries, Scamozzi’s treatise was the most popular because of its lucid explanation and strictly rational and scientific approach.167 “Architecture can not be better learnt than from Scamozzi, since he observes the best proportions in the most excellent way” (De Architectuier is niet beter als uit Scamotius te leeren, die de beste ende bequamste proportie daer in observeert), wrote Jan Stampioen, land surveyor and teacher of mathematics in 1645.168 Thus, by means of printed examples, architecture from the Veneto served as a model for the desired purification of architecture in the Northern Low Countries in accordance with the ‘true’ rules of ancient art. In his introduction to the publication of the Dutch translation of Scamozzi’s treatise, the Amsterdam publisher Danckert Danckertsz. wrote:

“The inventors of the art of building, casting their eyes on the Works of God Almighty, understood that one should not build irregularly and haphazardly, but in a well-ordered and regular manner, heeding measure and number, just as in the large and small world; i.e. the human body which is ordered so perfectly in number and measure that it cannot be faulted nor improved, added to nor reduced without spoiling, maiming or diminishing its health. If modern builders, while attempting to build in accordance with the ancients such as Vitruvius and others, happen to err in whatever way, and in doing so fail to accomplish their aim, this should not be attributed to architecture, but to the failings of the builders. For Architecture with its laws and fixed principles can in no way stray from perfection, nor lose its integrity. In Italy a number of ingenious minds, patronized by princes and other noble gentlemen, have recognized the decay and errors that have crept into this laudable art, due to the ravages of time, and have devoted themselves to restoring Architecture to its former, ancient splendour. One of them was the illustrious Vincent Scamozzi, Venetian architect (…)”.169

Scamozzi published his treatise in Venice in the last months of 1615. He immediately initiated the distribution of his work involving a bookseller who took it to the international book fair at Frankfurt. As early as June 1616 some copies must have arrived in Antwerp and London.170 We have no further details of this enterprise, but the international distribution took another turn after Scamozzi’s death on August 11, 1616. His legacy included 670 copies of his work, which were bought a few days later by Justus Sadeler for 6 lires a copy.171 Born in Antwerp in 1583, the son of Jan Sadeler, 167

Ottenheym 2003b. Christiaan Huygens, Oeuvres completes 1888, p. 7. 169 “De vinders der Bouwkonst, hunne oogen slaende op de wercken van Godt almachtigh, verstonden dat men in het bouwen niet ongeregelt en in het wildt, maer geschickt en geregelt behoorde te gaen, en op maet en getal en evenredenheyt te letten, gelijck de groote en kleyne werelt, namelijck het lichaem des menschen, soo volkomen op hare maet getal en gewight gebouwt en gheordineert zyn, dat er niet aen te berispen noch te verbeteren, noch eyt by of af te doen valt, sonder het werck te ontluysteren of te vermincken, en zynen welstant te verminderen (...) Om het verval, en de gebreecken deser loffelijcke Konste, door de woestheyt der tyden allengskens ingesloopen, te kennen, en de Bouwkonst in haeren eersten glans te herstellen, en tot den luyster der Ouden te brengen, hebben sich in Ita­ lien nu en dan verscheyde vernuften, by Princen en groote 168

Heeren aengequeeckt, naer hun vermogen gequeeten, en onder andere de doorluchtige Vincent Scamozzi, Bouwmeester van Venetien”. Danckert Danckertsz.’s dedication to Mayor Cornelis de Graeff in the Dutch Scamozzi edition (book 3) of 1658. 170 “Le mie opere (lodato iddio) per mezzo di librari hanno felice spazzo a Roma, Napoli et in Sicilia, e per queste parti della lombardia, e con la Fiera di Francfort ne sone andate in Anversa, e fino in Londra”. Letter by Scamozzi to Curzio Picchiena , June 18, 1616 (Firenze, Archivio di Stato, Mediceo del principato f. 1330, c. 222). Vicenza 2003, p. 463. 171 Olivato Puppi 1974-1975, pp. 353-354. The inventory of his legacy together with the names of the buyers, dated August 14, 1616, is kept in Vicenza, Biblioteca Bertolina, Ms. Gonz. 8.9.4 (FA21).

139

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

141. Maarssen, country house of the Amsterdam merchant Pieter Belten (Huis ten Bosch), designed by Jacob van Campen 1628.

142. Amsterdam, former Municipal Orphanage, second courtyard, by Jacob van Campen 1634.

Justus was a member of the renowned family of engravers and print dealers.172 From 1596 he lived in Venice where he became an important book and print dealer whilst maintaining his ties with the Low Countries. Given his close relations with his native town, when Scamozzi’s treatise came into his hands it is not surprising that L’Idea became available in Antwerp shortly after Scamozzi’s death. As early as June 28, 1617, it was bought by Peter Paul Rubens at Moretus’ bookshop in Antwerp for 19 pennies.173 In 1620 Justus Sadeler travelled to Holland with a Venetian delegation to do business. In Leiden he visited the two brothers Mattheus and Bonaventura Elsevier and stayed at their house on the Rapenburg174 where he unexpectedly died. The two Elsevier brothers were sons of Louis Elsevier, also from the Southern Low Countries, who had settled in Leiden in 1580, and within a few decades had built up an international book and publishing firm.175 After Louis’ death in 1617 his sons Mattheus and Bonaventura continued the book and publishing firm in Leiden, while two other sons managed branches in Utrecht and The Hague. In this way the Elsevier network spread over large parts of Holland. One of the subjects of discussion in 1620 between Sadeler and his Leiden colleagues might have been the purchase of a number of copies of Scamozzi’s L’Idea. Whatever the case, the book must have been available in Holland shortly after 1620. The first two examples of classical architecture were two designs by Jacob van Campen: the façade of the private house from 1625, owned by the Coymans brothers on Amsterdam’s Keizersgracht, which was included in Architectura Moderna as early as 1631, and the country house ‘Huis ten Bosch’ near Maarssen from 1628, built for the Coymans’ brother-in-law, Pieter Belten. In 1629 the reconstruction of Warmont Castle followed, designed by De Bray, and in 1633 Van Campen designed the girls’ interior courtyard of the Amsterdam Burgerweeshuis (civic orphanage) with a colossal Ionic pilaster Order. In the following years Van Campen was able to implement the classical principles of design fully and consistently in The Hague, where courtiers and high dignitaries of the Stadholder’s Court saw this architectural style as a vehicle to render dignity to new private town houses. In 1633

172

Sénécha1 1990. Antwerp, the Plantijn-Moretus Museum. Archive, Journal 1617, no. 224, fol. 101v. Tijs 1983, p. 97. 173

140

174

Rapenburg 34. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock & van Dissel 1990, Va, pp. 120-177. 175 Willems 1880; Davies 1954.

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi

143. The Hague, Mauritshuis, designed by Jacob van Campen 1633 (built 1633-1644).

144. The Hague, Mauritshuis, ground plan from Van der Aa 1713.

Van Campen designed the city palace for Count Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen, the Mauritshuis, and in 1634 construction began on the neighbouring house owned by Constantijn Huygens, the Prince of Orange’s influential secretary. With these two Hague palaces, classical architecture had been accepted, as it were, as the architectural style for status-conscious regents, rich merchants and governing bodies in Holland. In retrospect, Van Campen could be regarded as a passionate genius, brimming with original ideas but too impatient to work out all his designs into detailed plans. As he was too restless himself, he employed one or more architectural draughtsmen for all his important building commissions. An additional, welcome consequence of this working method was that Classicism was thus distributed all over Holland within the time span of one generation. Pieter Post was his assistant during the construction of the Mauritshuis and the Huygenshuis between c. 1633-1640, after which period Post continued working as an architect for the establishment in The Hague, with the Stadholder’s Court and the States of Holland as his most important employers. In a number of projects in Amsterdam between 1636-1638 Van Campen was assisted by Philips Vingboons (b. 1607 – d. 1678). The latter established himself as an architect immediately after this period and as such worked for the Amsterdam notables for a number of decades. Arent van ’s-Gravesande (b. c. 1610 – d. 1662) met Van Campen in the mid-1630s when ’s-Gravesande was working as a master carpenter and draughtsman on the embellishment of the Honselaarsdijk Palace south of The Hague. Afterwards, ’s-Gravesande became town architect for The Hague, and two years later, in 1638, he was employed in the same position by the city of Leiden. Thus, each of these three talented young architects found his own sphere of influence: Post in The Hague, Vingboons in Amsterdam and van ’s-Gravesande in Leiden. Meanwhile, their teacher, Van Campen, withdrew more and more from the profession, only returning to act as an architect for monumental works such as the Amsterdam Town Hall in 1648. Van Campen was the first to actually use Scamozzi’s treatise as a guideline for architecture in the Dutch Republic, while his younger assistants, in developing Van Campen’s building projects,

141

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 all familiarized themselves with Scamozzi’s views on architectural design, and adhered to his book of instruction and examples once they had all gone their separate ways by c. 1637. In turn, the stonecutters and contractors carrying out these projects were required to master Scamozzi’s measurements and details for the Orders. The increased interest in Scamozzi’s book must have been the reason why the Amsterdam publisher Cornelis Danckertsz. (who had also published Architectura Moderna in 1631) had Scamozzi’s Book VI on the column Orders translated into Dutch and subsequently published. This 1640 edition marked the beginning of a series of Dutch editions of Scamozzi, which were reprinted until well into the nineteenth century for instruction on architecture in the Netherlands.176 At the end of his introduction to Architectura Moderna from 1631, De Bray expressed his wish that architecture “would regain its highest standard, now that it is making so much progress” (met soodane schreden voortgaande, weder op haren hooghsten trap te sullen geraken).177 Seventeen years later, Philips Vingboons published his book on architecture, with a selection of his designs from 1637-1647 for town houses and country houses. In the introduction he wrote that De Bray’s wish had been fulfilled: “(…) after few years of progress, the love for an Architecture that is in accordance with the measurements and rules of the Ancients has increased so much it is a miracle that in such a short time so many excellent works have been created” (naest weynige jaren herwaerts (heeft) de liefde tot de Bouwkonst, op maet en regelen der Ouden, alhier so toegenomen, dat het wel voor een wonder te achten is, dat in soo korte tijt soo veele treffelijcke wercken zijn toegestelt).178 However, the swift success of Classicism in Holland was not only due to the talents of Van Campen and his colleagues; it was also Constantijn Huygens’ support as an employer and promoter behind the scenes that played a significant role. Huygens and the Study of Vitruvius The co-operation between Van Campen and Constantijn Huygens (b. 1596 – d. 1687) on the construction of Huygens’ new home on the Plein in The Hague in the early 1630s proved to be of extreme importance for the breakthrough of the new, severer form of architecture. Huygens, a poet, musician, composer and amateur architect, was not only the central figure in a wide cultural network of scholars and scientists, artists and art lovers, but also secretary to Frederik Hendrik, the Prince of Orange, and as such his chief adviser on matters of art. Due to his diplomatic missions, he had personally seen Palladio’s and Scamozzi’s work in Northern Italy, as well as Inigo Jones’ work in England.179 Unlike the Classicism of Van Campen and De Bray, which had found response with only a small group of chiefly Amsterdam patrons, it was this type of architecture that became the court’s architectural style, promoted by Huygens and Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen, and eagerly imitated by regents and notables far and wide. Huygens’ significance as a patron and enthusiastic advocate of the history of architecture is clearly reflected in his legacy of numerous written records, such as letters, diaries, poems and treatises that provide us with a profound insight into the world and motivation of this erudite lover of architecture. His (unfinished) treatise Domus and, in particular, a number of letters, are important sources of information on the construction of his house.180 When Van Campen and Huygens met, the foundation of the house had already been laid, based on a design by Huygens and his wife. In all likelihood it was Van Campen who was drawn into the building project to advise on the correct application of the pilaster Orders, since he was one of the few experts at the time. While the building activities were in progress, Huygens became totally immersed in the study of Vitruvius’ theory of architecture. A typical humanist of his time, he was not simply

176

179

177

180

Hopkins & Witte 1997. Architectura Moderna 1631; foreword by De Bray on p. 7 (see the preceding chapter). 178 Vingboons 1648, prologue addressed to the Mayors of Amsterdam.

142

For his travels see Ottenheym 1999. KBDH, Ms. XLVIII, fols. 733-752. The complete Latin text of Domus was published together with the Dutch translation. Blom, Bruin & Ottenheym 1999.

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi

145. The Hague, house of Constantijn Huygens, built 1634-1637. Photograph before its demolition in 1876.

satisfied with just one edition of Vitruvius, he had his learned friends send him various commentaries and contemporary treatises on Vitruvius’ theory. That he actually read all these works very carefully is clear from his 1635 comparative study of the measurements of the parts of the column Orders taken from eight different authors: Vitruvius, Philander, Alberti, Serlio, Palladio, Vignola, Scamozzi and Wotton.181 Jacob van Campen helped him with this study: “Mr van Campen, who came to see my design, is helping me with my study of Vitruvius remarkably well” (le Sr. van Campen, qui m’est venu veoir à ce dessin, m’y assiste en Vitruve tres-parfaict).182 Although, as Huygens admitted, this close study of the rules of architecture was not necessary for design purposes, it gave him intellectual pleasure: “I take pleasure in knowing in theory what will never be asked of me in practice” (Je (…) prens plaisir à sçavoir en theorie que la prattique ne me demandera jamais).183 It was this study that made him decide to have Vitruvius’ theory of architecture translated into Dutch and subsequently published. The botanist Johan Brosterhuisen, a mutual friend of both Huygens and Van Campen, was the translator. In 1642, Brosterhuisen informed Huygens that his work would soon be ready.184 Apparently Brosterhuisen, Van Campen and Huygens intended to expand this Dutch Vitruvius edition into a complete handbook for the study of classical architecture, incorporating parts

181 182

KBDH, Ms. XLVIII, fols. 478-489. Worp Briefwisseling, II, no. 1046 (December 5, 1634).

183 184

Ibidem, no. 1088 (March 8, 1635). Worp Briefwisseling, III, no. 2942 (February 6, 1642).

143

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640

146. The Hague, ground plan of the Huygens­ huis, print by Matham after drawing by Pieter Post, 1639.

147. The Hague, façade of the Huygenshuis, print by Matham after drawing by Pieter Post, 1639.

of Palladio’s Quattro Libri, an essay on the history of architecture by Jacob van Campen, and a Dutch translation of Wotton’s The Elements of Architecture (1624), to be used as an introduction. Although Van Campen and Brosterhuisen did the actual work, they were dependent on Huygens’ approval of this plan. Regretfully, after this letter from 1642 nothing further is known about this edition. Brosterhuisen’s manuscript has never come to light, and neither has Jacob van Campen’s history of architecture, which in view of the latter’s “natural lethargy” (aangeboren sloffigheid) in all likelihood was never even written.185 Huygens’ ideas for the perfect presentation of Vitruvius, which focused on the classical theory of harmony, and with Wotton’s Elements as an introduction, may have found an echo in Johannes de Laet’s Vitruvius edition of 1649. After the failure of his own project with Brosterhuisen and Van Campen, part of his original plan may have been worked out in this publication, this time in Latin rather than Dutch, and not as a practical guidebook for architects, but for scholars with a historical and antiquarian interest.186 Huygens was a convinced adherent of the aesthetic-philosophical principles of the Ancients and of fifteenth and sixteenth century Italian humanists. Like Scamozzi he believed in the indisputable truth of the universal principles that rule heaven and earth and, consequently, that ‘beauty’ was not an arbitrary thing or subject to personal taste, but rather the outcome of Creation’s universal laws. The mathematical principles of Divine Harmony manifested themselves in all arts and sciences. As an architect and a composer, Huygens was also particularly interested in the concordance of the rules of architecture with the rules of music theory.187 Therefore architecture was also regarded as a science; that is, as applied mathematics and rational ordering, derived from the ratio (i.e. ‘reason’), which was the basis for architectural design. Huygens took this key principle from Scamozzi, who continually referred to il ragione (reason) as the basis of architectural principles. Like the Italian humanists of the previous century, Huygens was convinced that the extremely high level of ancient civilization was founded on these universal rules of art. These rules had not originated all at once but evolved from gradually developing insights whose subsequent conventions grew into a system of rules, ultimately leading to the highest form of perfection in Antiquity. Huygens describes this as “Greek and Roman 185 186

Worp Briefwisseling, I, p. 459, no. 906 (May 2, 1634). Ottenheym 1998.

144

187

A detailed discussion is found in Daniele Barbaro’s well known commentary on Vitruvius, which Huygens had studied extensively. Worp Briefwisseling, II, no. 1088 (March 8, 1635).

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi

148. The Hague, section of the Huygenshuis, print by Matham after drawing by Pieter Post, 1639.

149. Remains of the portal in the former vestibule of the Huygens­ huis, now at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

times, purified of all blemishes”.188 Thus, the classical canon had evolved from a long process of purification and improvement. This conception of an evolutionary development of the classical rules was shared by other Dutch scientists, such as Stevin and Beekman, with whose work Huygens was well acquainted.189 Over the course of the centuries, the ancient rules continued to be upheld, which, according to Huygens, proved their universal truth – another tenet he derived directly from Scamozzi’s ideas.190 He considered it most important to learn to understand and subsequently apply these rules again, a process that was already taking place in other European countries. Huygens could not stand the fact (as he said himself) that his own country was lagging behind in this development and that even mediocre experts on Antiquity chuckled on seeing samples of modern Dutch architecture.191 Hence he aimed to achieve a purification of art in the Republic similar to the one that had taken place in Antiquity. He considered the artist Jacob van Campen suitable for this task. Many years later Huygens was to refer to him as “the man who would purify his century of so much impurity”.192 Huygens’ own house in The Hague was to be a recreation of Vitruvian architecture, an exemplary model for the purification of Dutch architecture, demonstrated primarily by the system of proportional measurements used as the basis for its design.193 The plan was completely symmetrical in its layout, with apartments on both sides of the central halls, the entrance hall and the staircase. The application of the pilaster Orders was planned in a strictly logical way, with a Doric gate on the street side, Ionic and Composite pilasters on the front façade and Corinthian pilasters in the entrance hall, all in accordance with Scamozzi’s directions for column Orders. This perfectly Vitruvian architectural design was crowned by a pediment bearing three personifications, representing, as Huygens explained, the three main Vitruvian virtues: firmitas (strength), utilitas (convenience) and venustas (beauty).194

188 “defaecatissimis temporis Graecorum ac Romanorum”. Domus, fol.743r. (Blom, Bruin & Ottenheym 1999, p. 19). 189 van den Heuvel 1997a, p. 57. For Huygens’ knowledge of Stevin’s unpublished work, see van den Heuvel 1994b, pp. 8-10. 190 Domus, fol. 743r (Blom, Bruin & Ottenheym 1999, p. 19). Scamozzi 1615, Libro VI, p. 30. 191 Domus, fol.742r (Blom, Bruin & Ottenheym 1999, p. 18).

192

“expurgaturo tot sordibus aevum”. Worp Gedichten, III, pp. 287-288 (February 10, 1644). Worp Briefwisseling, III, nos. 3462, 3465. 193 For the system of measurement of the Huygenshuis see Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 219-220. 194 Worp Gedichten, VIII, p. 143 (October 8, 1676). Vitruvius discusses these three principal virtues in Liber I, caput 3.

145

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 After its completion in 1637, Huygens decided to send prints of his house to the learned friends with whom he kept up a correspondence.195 He asked Pieter Post, who had assisted Jacob van Campen with the construction of the house, to make the drawings for the prints. After their completion in March 1639, they were etched by Theodoor Matham. They consisted of the layout, the front façade, the southern side façade, the cross section, the gate in the wall separating the front courtyard from the street, and a fully worked out elevation in perspective of the house and garden, viewed from the city square in front of the house. From the end of June 1639 these engravings were distributed among Huygens’ friends. Undoubtedly, Huygens must have hoped that they would recognize this house as an example of the Vitruvian architectural principles. Indeed, Casper van Baerle described it as follows: “…his house that, one might say, is built according to Vitruvius’ rules” (sa maison, qu’on peut dire estre bastie selon les regles de Vitruve).196 The Leuven professor Erycius Puteanus admired Huygens’ taste and Godfried Wendelin, a priest from Herk (in present day Belgian Limburg) even called the Huygenshuis prints a literal commentary on Vitruvius.197 The French scholar Jean Louis Guez de Balzac thanked Huygens profusely for the prints, describing them as “your ideas of perfection” (vos Idées de perfections) and as “a masterpiece of your mind and hand” (vos chef-d’oeuvres de l’esprit & la main).198 However, in order to judge the building’s true merits, one should have well-attuned eyes and come from Rome rather than a country village, as Balzac wrote with an ironic lack of self-esteem: pour juger du merite d’un ouvrage si achevé il faudroit avoir les yeux plus sçavans que je ne les ay, & mieux purgez des vapeurs terrestres, & la barbarie de la province. Il faudroit ester de Rome, & non pas de ce village (…).199 A Roman background as a criterion for true judgement of the Huygenshuis? It so happened that Huygens had also sent his series of prints to Rubens, who had actually spent a great number of years in Rome. The correspondence on architecture between Huygens and Rubens on the occasion of the new The Hague house offers a rare opportunity to compare contemporary views on the application of Vitruvian principles of design in the North and South. Rubens’ Interest in Vitruvius In his own day, Rubens’ fame as an expert on architecture was founded on the publication of his treatise Palazzi di Genova.200 The first part appeared in 1622, containing seventy-two engravings with façades, cross sections and plans of seven city palaces and five villas from Genoa. A second volume followed a few years later (probably in 1626), containing sixty-seven engravings and plans of another nineteen Genoese city palaces and four churches. Both publications were reprinted four times.201 The drawings were not by Rubens himself; he either bought them during his stay in Genoa or acquired them later through an intermediary. The 1622 publication contained a brief introduction in Italian by Rubens in which he set forth his motives for this work, i.e. the presentation of a number of models for contemporary palazzi in Antwerp and other cities north of the Alps. He considered well-known palaces in Rome and Paris designed for reigning monarchs and their royal households to be unsuitable as models for building projects by private citizens. The great value of the Genoese models was the convenient scale of most houses, which served as a source of inspiration for the town houses built for noblemen and patricians in the North. 195

Lunsingh Scheurleer 1987, pp. 39-51. Lettres de M.J. de Wicquefort (…) avec Réponses de M.C. Barlée, Amsterdam 1696, p. 95 (June 13, 1639). 197 Worp Briefwisseling, II, Puteanus: no. 2117 (June 30, 1639), no. 2167 (July 12, 1639). Wendelin: no. 12160 (July 7, 1639), no. 2267 (October 25, 1639). 198 Lettres choisis du Sr. de Balzac, Amsterdam 1678, pp. 153-155 (Balzac’s answer of January 15, 1640 to a letter 196

146

from Huygens of July 6, 1639, Worp Briefwisseling, II, no. 2157). 199 Ibidem. 200 Rubens 1622-1626. Rott 2002, with extensive bibliography. 201 Later editions: Antwerp 1652, 1663, 1708 and Amsterdam/Leipzig 1755. Rott 2002, p. 263.

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi

151. Peter Paul Rubens, Palazzi di Genova I, figura 7. 150. Peter Paul Rubens, Palazzi di Genova II, figura 9.

By encouraging Italian-style architecture for private houses Rubens hoped to make a contribution to the prospective recovery and subsequent prosperity of his hometown of Antwerp. Following Aristotle, Rubens stated that the collection of private houses constituted the corpus of the town (il corpo di tutta la città), and thus the town’s beauty would flourish as a result of the construction of fine town houses. Preparations for the publication of the first volume took place during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621), when hope reigned for a definitive peace settlement in both the Northern and Southern Low Countries. Unfortunately, it was impossible to foresee that after 1621, the war would last another twenty-seven years. However, with his publication Rubens hoped to steer the expected increase of private building activities in Antwerp in the correct, classical direction, with Italian examples as the model. At the beginning of his introduction from 1622, Rubens expressed his satisfaction at the fact that the barbaric, i.e. Gothic architectural influence was waning in his native country, and that, thanks to a few sensible people, the principles of true architecture in accordance with the doctrine of the Ancients were regaining strength:

Vediamo che in queste parti, si và poco à poco invecchiando & abolendo la maniera d’Architettura, che si chiama Barbara, ò Gothica; & che alcuni bellissimi ingegni introducono la vera simmetria di quella, conforme le regole degli antichi, Graeci e Romani, con grandissimo splendore & ornamento della Patria; (…).

With la vera simmetria Rubens clearly referred to the ancient classical architectural rules based on the doctrines of Vitruvius, and the Italian fifteenth and sixteenth-century theoreticians Alberti, Serlio, Palladio and Scamozzi, whose treatises he wanted to supplement with his series of Genoese models. It is surprising that in his introduction Rubens completely ignored Vitruvian traditions in sixteenth-century Antwerp: he only presented contemporary examples of the “revival of true architecture”, namely the Jesuit church in Brussels realized by Francart (ill. 282), and the Jesuit church in Antwerp designed

147

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 by Aguilon and Huyssens (ill. 278), where Rubens himself was responsible for the sculptures on the façade and main altar. This illustrates Rubens’ recog­ nition of the new church architecture in the South during the first decades of the seventeenth century as correct, classical architecture. Thus, when in his introduction Rubens praised a number of bellissimi ingegni (“superb minds”) for their contributions to the introduction of the principles of true architecture, he was undoubtedly referring to Aguilon, Huyssens, Francart and Wensel Cobergher. As well as belonging to this distinguished group, Cobergher had studied Vitruvius and the Italian theoreticians extensively. It is clear that Rubens, too, rated himself among this select group of connoisseurs of architecture, and that later he came to be highly regarded as an authority on true architecture. Rubens’ interest in the classical rules of architecture evidently dates back to the years 1616-1621, when he became deeply involved in Italian architecture while in the process of building his house in Antwerp, preparing his Palazzi di Genova, and designing the decoration of the apse, main altar and decorations for the Antwerp Jesuit church. At that time he bought two editions of Vitruvius, as well as Scamozzi’s treatise, which had been published in Venice only a short while before in 1615.202

152. Antwerp, Jesuit church, detail of the façade, c. 1616-1620.

The Correspondence between Huygens and Rubens Huygens greatly admired Rubens’ excellent painting skills and great expertise in architecture; in his autobiography from around 1630 he already called him “one of the wonders of this world”.203 Rubens’ Palazzi di Genova was available in the Northern Low Countries, and in all likelihood Huygens owned a copy, which may have been a welcome addition to his collection of designs of ‘correct’ modern Italian architecture. The triumphal arch on the rear wall of the Huygenshuis entrance hall appears to have been directly inspired by one of the Genoese palazzi included in cross section in Rubens’ publication (compare ills. 148 and 151).204 Rubens’ emphasis on the importance of la vera simmetria and the ancient rules of architecture must have struck the right chord with Huygens. In addition, they both openly abhorred the Gothic, defined by Rubens as architettura (…) barbara, ò gothica, while Huygens later referred to the Gothic tradition as “the ugly Gothic mask” (de vuyle Gotsche schell), “silly Gothic scrolls” (Gotsche krulligh mall) and “the old heresy” (ouw’ Ketterij).205

202

204

203

92.

See note 173. “Maar een van de zeven wereldwonderen is voor mij de vorst, de Apelles onder de schilders, Peter Paul Rubens” (But to me one of the seven wonders of the world is the prince, the Apelles amongst the painters, Peter Paul Rubens). Huygens-Heesakkers 1987, p. 79.

148

205

Terwen 1979, pp. 59-63; Ottenheym 2002a, pp. 90-

Huygens 1653, verse 620; Worp Gedichten, VI, 247; de Jongh 1973.

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi In 1635 Huygens, in his function as secretary to the Prince of Orange, received a request from Rubens for permission to pass through Holland on his way to England. Although he could not grant this permission, he used his letter of response of November 13, 1635 as the first step in an informal correspondence on architecture with the Antwerp master. He described his building activities in The Hague, the general layout of his house and his intention to use it as an example for a small-scale revival of ancient architecture, adapted to the climate and his financial possibilities: (..) je pretens faire reviver la dessus un peu de l’architecture ancienne, que je cheris de passion, mais ce n’est qu’au petit pied, et jusqu’à où le souffrent le climat et mes coffres.206 Four years later, on July 2, 1639, Huygens sent Rubens the prints of his house. In an accompanying letter he gave an elaborate description of the house, which he jokingly called “a block of brick”.207 He emphasized the mirror image order of its layout, similar to ancient and good modern Italian design: ceste égalité regulière de part et d’autre, que vous trouverez en ces departements, que vou sçavez avoir tant pleu aux anciens et que les bons Italiens d’aujourd’huy recherchent encor avecq tant de soin, (…).208 A description of the various rooms and their functions followed, as well as a request for careful study and judgement of the plan. It is certain that Rubens received the prints and subsequently studied them quite carefully. Unfortunately, his letter of response to Huygens containing his judgement has not survived, although Huygens’ answer to this particular letter (of November 14, 1639) has.209 Apparently Rubens had made some critical remarks about the architectural design of the Huygenshuis (alcuni dubij d’architettura), and Huygens let him know he would refute his doubts in his next letter. However, the documents in his legacy only contained a draft letter. It is very likely that Huygens needed some time for this promised letter and did not finish it. Rubens died at the end of May 1640. Two months after the funeral, on August 2, 1640, Huygens made notes for the letter that he had planned to send to Rubens. From these notes, Rubens’ opinion of the layout of the Huygenshuis becomes quite clear.210 This draft letter is an intimation of the debate on architecture that could have evolved between the two masters had one of them not died prematurely. Whereas reactions from others had been full of flattery and praise, Rubens’ response contained four practical points of criticism. Huygens’ notes are formulated as a classical apology, with Rubens’ points of criticism – copied from his letter – on the left hand page with their respective answers on the right. (1) According to Rubens, the Doric gate on the street side seemed too low in proportion to its width. He suggested a large rustic stone arch with fine stone connections at the top to improve the proportions and at the same time observe Vitruvius’ rules more closely. Vitruvius had forbidden the construction of a stone architrave on an intercolumniation of this width, as it would break under its own weight.211 In his answer, Huygens explained why such an arch would not be suitable: its height would impede the view of the façade as well as that from the windows. In addition, a gate of this type would have too powerful an effect on the interior courtyard, which was, perforce, narrow. Huygens continued his defence by stating that he had adapted the rules of art to the situation at hand by opting for the least harmful of two evils, admitting that he had been fully aware of the problems involving the enlargement of the Doric intercolumniation. The gate entrance itself had been given a proportional measurement of 1:2, justifying a widening of the intercolumniation. Huygens claimed that this did not seem to be wrong, since this had also been done frequently by others, in Italy too, for example when proportioning chimneypieces. 206

Worp Briefwisseling, II, no. 1301 (November 13, 1635). “Voijci le morceau de Brique que j’aij eslevé à la Haye”. Ibidem, no. 2149 (July 2, 1639). 208 Ibidem. 209 Worp Briefwisseling, II, no. 2272. 210 KBDH, Ms. XLVIII, fol. 82r. Complete transcription in Ottenheym 1997a. 207

211

Rubens is referring to Vitruvius’ directions for the various intercolumniations in Liber III, caput 3, para. 5, where Vitruvius discusses the widest intercolumniation, the aerostylis, which was more than three times the column width, remarking that these measures do not look well, nor that this construction can be carried out in stone or marble.

149

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 (2) Rubens’ second point concerned the doorway in the front façade, which seemed to be too tall and narrow in the print. In his view, the crowning of this entrance with pediment and festoons was too weighty in relation to the stanchions below, which appeared thin and scanty, although he admitted that other solutions might be impracticable due to a lack of space. Huygens explained that in this case, too, the rules of ancient architecture had been observed quite closely, as could be seen on the larger, real plan of the design, and that since the misunderstanding was merely due to the engraver’s errors, he would have preferred sending Rubens the original drawings on a larger scale. (3) As Rubens himself indicated, a lack of space could have been the reason for his next point of criticism: the simple arrangement of the pilaster Orders on the front façade. He would have preferred half pilasters behind the pilasters, at least at both ends of the central projection, accentuated by a projecting entablature, in order to enhance the façade’s dignity and plasticity. In his reply, Huygens explained his choice of this type of façade ornamentation, admitting that limited space and, in particular, his limited financial means, had forced him to observe restraint, but that the design, although modest, had no serious distortions. It may be noted that this accentuation of the central projection with half pilasters at the rear, such as Rubens suggested, was an architectural feature not unknown in the Northern Low Countries. Two examples are Van Campen’s façade of the Amsterdam Coymanshuis from 1625 and Vingboons’ design for the façade of the Villa Westwijck from 1637. (4) Lastly, Rubens thought the front façade Ionic Order somewhat squat, although he wondered if it was merely the engraver’s faulty representation of its proportions, adding at the same time that such inappropriate liberties also actually occurred in contemporary architecture. This serious piece of criticism was refuted by Huygens, who explained that the façade’s proportions were completely accurate, and that the design was represented wrongly due to the engraver’s carelessness. (This may seem a feeble excuse, but the details of the pilaster Orders in the prints actually leave much to be desired, such as the hardly recognizable Composite Order at the façade top, in contrast to what can be seen on photographs taken just before the demolition of the house in 1876.) Huygens pointed out that – contrary to Rubens’ suggestions – the Ionic pilasters’ proportions of 1:8 2/3 modules were correct.212 Huygens ended his unsent letter to Rubens by endorsing Rubens’ criticism of contemporary fashionable fads, expressing his abhorrence of inappropriate deviations and extravagance since these excesses seriously debased and suffocated the true art of architecture. It may be concluded that although the two men disagreed on matters of detail, as experts on Vitruvius they fundamentally agreed with each other in a gentlemanly fashion. It is clear that Rubens thought the Huygenshuis too simple in comparison with the monumental architecture that had evolved in Antwerp two decades earlier. His suggestion to substitute the simple Doric gate on the street side with a large arch (un arcone rustico) with robust keystones on top may have been inspired by the arch giving on to the interior courtyard of his own Antwerp house (ill. 133). His preference for clustered pilasters and an angulated entablature may have been derived from the façade ornamentation of the Antwerp Jesuit church, which was given more relief in this way (ill. 152). In his view, a town house such as the Huygenshuis deserved stateliness rather than mere simplicity (la troppa simplicità). It was the contemporary view that modesty was a sign of weakness and that stateliness should be expressed with appropriate decorum. Apparently Rubens thought that in façade architecture this could be expressed by means of more relief and plasticity (maggior dignità e relievo à tutta la facciata). In contrast, Huygens emphasized that he had deliberately avoided too forceful an effect (un effetto di troppo violenza), preferring simplicity provided the rules of art were observed (servitù delle regole

212

Initially Huygens had written down 1:10, which were Scamozzi’s proportions for the Corinthian order. Apparently Huygens immediately saw his mistake, for 1:10 is scratched out and next to it, within the available length of the line, he corrected this into 1:8 2/3. However, these proportions

150

are also incorrect, since, according to Scamozzi, the correct proportion for the Ionic order is 1:8 ¾ (cf. Serlio’s proportion of 1:8, whereas both Palladio as well as Vignola have 1:9 for the proportions between the cross sections and the length of the Ionic column).

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi antiche). According to Scamozzi, the use of a pediment was already a privilege reserved for upper class buildings.213 Up to this point both sides comply with the familiar image in historiography: Rubens, the Baroque, exuberant wit and Huygens, puritan guardian of the classical heritage. Concurrently in this correspondence, both Huygens and Rubens expressed views paradoxical to the postulations described above. It was Rubens who continually insisted on the strict observance of the Vitruvian rules and proportions for the measurements of the gate and entrance as well as for the façade pilasters, and it was Huygens who had to justify himself to this Vitruvian judge. Remarkably, it was Huygens who in his defence proposed that observance of the rules could be less strict in order to suit circumstances (un poco ubedire l’arte al sito), as long it was not disturbing to the eye (senza incommodità dell’ occhio), but that this should never lead to indiscriminate liberties (licenza inconveniente) and excesses (stravaganza), since this would harm the essence of true architecture. This flexible view on the part of Huygens was later corroborated by Willem Goeree when he wrote: “According to Mr Huygens the laws of art may bend but not break” (de konstwetten, segt d’heer Huijgens, mag men wel wat buijgen, maar niet breecken).214 Thus, Vitruvius’ doctrine was also the architectural standard in 1640 Antwerp, which is no surprise given that Vitruvius had been studied for more than a century in that city. However, Rubens and Huygens seem to have had different views with regard to the application of additional architectural features, since opinions on the need for means of expression varied. One example is the question concerning the degree of richness in ornamentation and relief appropriate to the Huygenshuis as the home of the secretary to the Prince of Orange. What was too modest for Rubens (la troppa simplicità), was more than enough for Huygens, who avoided the strong elements that Rubens proposed. Rubens may have overestimated Huygens’ position, but most of all there was a difference of opinion with regard to decorum. Vitruvius in the South In view of Rubens’ pedantic remarks on the correct proportions, his suggestions concerning the enhancement of the stateliness of the Huygenshuis may appear illogical. However, in Rubens’ eyes these rich, plastic elements apparently constituted part of the unspoilt classical heritage. Rubens had also praised the Jesuit churches in Brussels and Antwerp as examples of the revival of true architecture according to ancient classical principles, whereas in twentieth-century art history these were always described as starting points of the ‘Belgian Baroque’. Nowadays, it is not easy to identify the seventeenth-century boundary between the correct classical forms and the much-feared extravagance of free inventions. On the face of it there is no trace of similar classical designs in architectural practices in the Southern Low Countries. Although Scamozzi’s book was available in Antwerp as early as 1617, it was hardly used in design practice, whereas twenty years later in the North it was distributed widely as a manual. Nor was Rubens’ own architectural publication Palazzi di Genova widely used as a design model in Antwerp, due to the absence of a new flourishing period for private building. However, in the North it was considered a significant addition to other Italian examples, and was consulted in particular for the monumental position of the staircase behind an arcade and for the extremely sober façade architecture of some of the Genoese examples.215

213

Scamozzi 1615, Libro VI, p. 41: “I frontespici (…) si sogliono fare sopra alle Cornici (…) e nelle sommità della facciate de’ Tempii, ò d’altri nobili edifici; iuuero rendono grandissima Maestà, & ornamento, (…)”.

214

Willem Goeree, D’Algemeene Bouwkunde volgens de Antij­ cken en hedensdaagse manier (…), 1679, KBDH, ms. 68 B 11, fol. 23v. van den Heuvel 1997b. 215 Ottenheym 2002a.

151

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 While the focus in the Northern Low Countries lay on Northern Italian examples, in the Southern Low Countries architectural design was evolving from a continual process that had been going on for some decades. This implied that ‘invention’, that is, new architectural ornamentation, still made up a significant part of classical architectural design. As in the previous decades, the quality of the design was judged on the basis of new, original variations that enriched the classical repertoire of forms. One example is the architectural work of the Brussels painter and architect Leo van Heil, who may have been involved in the design of Our Lady of the Assistance in Brussels. He worked for the town as well as for the court, and received particular praise in 1661 for “his amusing work that is elegant and rich in the eyes of the beholder” (de vermaeckelijckheyt van zijn werck d’welck cirich en rijckelijck inde ooghen spelt vanden Aenschouwer).216 This richness and elegance are particularly expressed in the ornament and in decorative elements such as portals and window frames, which became more and more sculptural in the course of the seventeenth century. The original classical architectural motifs were mainly used for decorative purposes and no longer pretended to serve the constructive function they had had in classical architecture. By letting go of the original imitation of constructive motifs, a process that had already been manifest in the work of Francart and his contemporaries, a more decorative application became possible. An almost endless series of new variations of broken pediments, central niches with their own crowning, occasionally with volutes on both sides, pushed-up architraves and protruding panels or cartouches were connected to each other in a graceful pattern of cornices and profiles for crowning altars, portals and gables. However, this development does not imply that this type of architecture was considered nonclassical in the Southern Low Countries. Indeed, Rubens’ remarks seem to prove the contrary. Apart from this development, there are also indications of a continuation of the Vitruvian tradition in the seventeenth-century Southern Low Countries, although it evolved quite differently from the architecture in the North. An example of this is the work of the first court architect of the Archdukes, Wensel Cobergher (see Part Three, Chapter I). Not only did Cobergher possess a great knowledge of ancient coins, he had also studied ancient buildings during his long stay in Rome and Naples from 1581 to 1604. He then wrote a treatise in which he aimed to use Vitruvian standards to correct Palladio’s and Serlio’s rules. Unfortunately this treatise has not survived, although its contents are known from another text from 1606.217 It was not only Rubens who praised the Antwerp Jesuit church as an example of true Vitruvian architecture. In 1621, when the church was finished, the Antwerp Jesuits wrote a long letter to their superiors in Rome explaining proudly that their church had been designed by members of the order who had proved capable of using Vitruvius’ rules: secundum Vitruvianas praeceptiones.218 They put forward several arguments for this claim. First, three classical Orders were superimposed on the façade: Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns, with monolithic stone shafts, enriched by flutes, and the pediment above was supported by caryatids. The metopes of the Doric frieze were decorated with religious objects. The bell tower was regarded as the most correct Vitruvian tower in the world. In the church interior, the white marble columns were praised, as were the colourful marbles on the walls. Four years earlier they had compared the interior of the church to a basilica because of its marble columns and, of course, the Early Christian basilica was itself regarded as a correct classical building type (see also Part Three, Chapter III).219 216

De Bie 1661, p. 526. This treatise is only known to us from a description by Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, from July 30, 1606 (see the Introduction to this Part, note 8). Van den Gheyn 1905. 218 “Habet Antverpiae Societas JESU ad domum professam, ut vocamus, templum vetusti operis magnificum, Ligustico marmore aedificatum. Cujus templi & speciem secundum Vitruvianas praeceptiones (secus atque vulgo fit in his regionibus ubi Gothicae substructiones praehaberi solent) delineavit (…) Franciscus Aguillonius, Rector postremus 217

152

collegii (…)”. Bollanus, Henschenius & Papenbrochius 1865, p. 24. Quoted from Snaet (forthcoming). 219 “…speculant non sine admiratione cives ordinem marmorearum columnarum (…) id quod plurimos ad elargiendas liberaliter impensas iam insigni basilica perficienda inflammavit” (ARAB Archieven van de jezuïetenorde, Provincia Flandro-Belgica, Lettres de P.Provincial de la province Flandro-Belgique, 991-992 (anno 1617), fol. 292). Quoted from Snaet (forthcoming).

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi We find the same reference to ­Vitruvian architecture in the Jesuit churches from the midseventeenth century. Willem Hesius (b. 1601 – d. 1690) was the Rector of the Jesuits in Leuven. In 1650 he designed the impressive new church of the order in the same city (ill. 284). In 1659 he became Rector of the order at Ghent. The Jesuit church in this city had been built by Hoeymaker between 1606-1618 in the modern Gothic style favoured in that early period of Jesuit building in the Low Countries. Once established in Ghent, Hesius almost immediately started to change the existing interior. The Gothic structure was covered by arcades with round-headed arches and embellished by capitals, friezes and cornices, garlands and putti, all executed in stucco. In his own words he had, as a result, transformed the church in formam Vitruvianum.220 In the South as in the North the basis for all good architecture was the use of correctly proportioned measurements, described by Rubens as la vera simmetria. Not only had he and Huygens devel153. Mechelen, St. Joseph’s altar in St. Catherine’s oped a perfect sense of proportion, other patrons church, by Lucas Faydherbe, 1648-1651. had also done so. An illustration of this in the North is the conflict between the Leiden scholar Ludolf van Ceulen and the stonecutter Van Delft about differences of only some centimetres in the proportions of Ionic columns for a new mantelpiece.221 This kind of sensitivity also existed in the Southern Low Countries; an example of which occurred between Elisabeth Danesin and the sculptor-cum-architect Lucas Faydherbe, who, on her orders, built an altar to St. Joseph at St Catherine’s Church in Mechelen, but in doing so deviated from the original design without notifying his employer. By raising the profile of the altarpiece, and thereby also the crest crowning the entire altar, the flanking columns became comparatively shorter. Elisabeth Danesin felt that this disturbed the proportions, resulting in a misshapen altarpiece: “none of the works (…) conform to the prescribed model, shortening and diminishing the columns, making the work misshapen, (…)” (alle wercken (...) disconform aen het voorscreven model, waerdoor de pilaeren maer en soude worden vercleijnt ende vercort, ende het wreck alzoo mismaeckt,(…).222 In the South, too, critics expressed their abhorrence at the impure interpretation of the classical repertoire of forms and excessive architectural liberties. Rubens’ disgust with new-fangled absurdities that almost suffocated art has been referred to earlier. Francart also warns against their excessive use in his Premier Livre, although this work presents many examples of new ornamentation: “I have seen buildings in various places filled with so many decorations that even from a short distance one could not make out what they were. Moreover, they were all covered in dust and spiders (…) In addition,

220

ARAB Archieven van de jezuïetenorde, Provincia FlandroBelgica, 981 (annual report of the order in Ghent, anno 1660, fol. 76r). Quoted from Snaet (forthcoming). 221 In 1651 Daniel van Ceulen, who lived on 34 Rapenburg, Leiden, ordered a new mantelpiece from the Amsterdam stonecutter Dirck Adriaensz. van Delft. The argument about

the measurements of the columns concerned a deviation of half an inch in the base and one inch in the plinth, and was laid down in a notarial deed. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock & van Dissel, Va, 1990, pp. 140-141 and appendix 3 on p. 162. 222 Van Riet 1996, pp. 142-149, 213 (appendix 4, point 6).

153

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 another disadvantage is the great expense to the patron, which stalls building activities”.223 Scamozzi also strongly warned against unnecessary building expenses: “It may be said that he who over-decorates his house will blind himself and gain nothing by it. Therefore it is quite foolish to wish for more than what is appropriate”.224 Apparently his wise advice matched current ideas in the Southern Low Countries just as it did in the North. The Southern Interpretation of rilievo e dignità Although architectural theory in both North and South seemed to be based on the same principles of Vitruvian architecture, after 1630 the actual application of these principles show rather clear differences. It was not, however, a contrast in interpreting the classical rules that caused these differences but rather a different sense of decorum. In 1617 Francart wrote in the introduction to his Premier Livre that although architecture’s most important beauty lay in the proportions, ornamentation could enrich a building: “It is important to note that the principal decoration of architecture is to be found in the correct proportions of the entire building; special ornaments may however decorate the building (…)” (Ende al ist saken dat het principaelste ciraet vande Architecture ghelegen is inde goede proportie van het gheheel ghebouw, zijn der nochtans besunder ornamenten waermede men die bouwinghe verchiert…).225 The most important difference between Southern and Northern seventeenth-century architecture lay in the use of these ‘special ornaments’. The Northern tendency towards a perfect system of Orders was markedly stronger than the wish for a freer language of forms. Around the mid-seventeenth century, the Leiden architectural theoretician, Nicolaus Goldmann, represented this choice as a ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ issue, as simplicità laudata versus constipatio reprobata (laudable simplicity versus inferior accumulation), a position entirely in line with Scamozzi and Huygens.226 On the following page, when discussing the correct and incorrect application of architectural details, he illustrated this with a quotation by Villalpando: axioma Vilalpandi: nimus ornatus corrumpit architecturum (Villalpando’s axiom: exaggerated decoration spoils architecture).227 During the first decades of the seventeenth century, the new, enriched language of forms in the Southern Low Countries that evolved from Roman examples was the answer to an increasing need for representation in architecture. In contrast with the North, no theoretical exposition on this specific type is known to have existed in the South. There is, however, the odd surviving note, which serves to shed light on the language of forms that was used. These notes give an impression of the various possibilities for a more refined differentiation in stateliness, mainly manifested in relief, scale and materials. Façade Relief The Italian word rilievo stands for the Latin prominentia, which not only means ‘prominent’ in the sense of physically protruding but also ‘prominent’ in its metaphorical sense. Rubens wanted more “relief and dignity” (relievo e dignità) on the Huygenshuis façade, since in his view, façade relief was a direct reflection of the prominent position and high social standing of the owner of the house. Rank

223

“Ick heb in diversche plaetsen ghesien sommighe bouwinghen soo vervuelt met dusdanighe chiraten dat men van 30 screden verre nyet en coste oordelen wat dat het was ende waeren soo vol stof ende spinnekoppen(…) Hier en boven bringhen zy dit achterdel dat zij den bouwheer in grooten costen brenghen ende het werck verspaden”. Francart 1617.

154

224

Scamozzi 1615, Libro III, p. 224. Huygens adopts this view and connects excessive ornamentation to extravagance and overconfidence. 225 Francart 1617, Totten leser. 226 Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Liber Pictorum A 71, fol. 278. Goudeau 1995; Goudeau 2005. 227 Ibidem, fol. 279 f.

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi could be distinguished by the degree of plasticity on the façade, as Rubens would also have found in Scamozzi’s treatise. In Book VI Scamozzi states that relief on cornices will enrich the building and enhance its expressiveness, whereas straight cornices will bore the eyes of the beholder228 – exactly as Rubens suggested to Huygens. Not only was the relief of the stones themselves important, but also the effect of the shadows they cast. In 1617 Francart wrote the following about the chiaroscuro effect of highly prominent façade ornamentation creating sharp shadows: “You should never apply refined ornamentations on parts that should project since their shadows create the illusion of sloping backwards”.229 Scale The size of a building also served to express the patron’s high social standing, as is clearly stated in a letter sent by Willem Hesius, Jesuit rector of the Leuven College and a practising architect, to 154. Mechelen, main altar of St. Rombouts’ cathe­ Archbishop Andreas Cruesen, concerning the condral, by Faydherbe and Hesius, 1665. struction in 1665 of a new high altar in Mechelen Cathedral.230 According to Hesius, the elevated status of both the donor and the church could best be conveyed by a large altar. Apparently, therefore, quantity contributed to quality. Choice of Material The choice of materials was another means of differentiating social status. Bronze and marble, in particular the coloured varieties, were not only expensive, but were also associated with Roman imperial architecture, and therefore considered to convey magnificentia.231 In addition, monolithic marble or stone columns rather than superimposed drums added to the grandeur of a building.232 The use of coloured marbles, as for example in the southern side chapel of the Antwerp Jesuit church, or as used on various altars and funeral monuments, was regarded as the supreme solution, referring, as it did, to Roman grandeur and given its strong emotional appeal to the beholder.

228

Scamozzi, L’Idea…, 1615, Libro VI, p. 41: “I Risaliti delle Cornici, & altre parti in vero fanno parere più ricche, & adorne (…). E per l’opposito quando le Cornici sono diritte, e continuate, e senza risalti; oltre, che hanno dell’opulente, ancora la vista nostra si stanca, e per dir cosi prende fatietà di rimarle”. 229 “…want die nature van de chiraten die veel cleyn schaduen gheven, is hen achterwaerts ende dieper te thoonen int ghesichte. Hierom ist dat men hem wel moet wachten

van dusdanighe chiraten te stellen aen dinghen dewelcken vereysschen voorwaerts te commen”. 230 Van Riet 1996, pp. 173, 221 (appendix 9). 231 See pages 267-268. See Gijsbers 1996, pp. 306-312 for the situation in Rome. An example of a patron preoccupied with the quality of the white marble used for his tomb can be found in Archbishop Andreas Cruesen, 1659. Van Riet & Van Wonterghem 1994, pp. 161, 200. 232 Van Riet 1996, pp. 174, 221 (ad ‘contra 4’).

155

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 Thus, by exploiting variations in plasticity, size and material, master builders had a range of possibilities at their disposal in the application of the classical principles of architecture. These forms of expression (which, it is clear, were applied more extensively in the South than in the North) gave the architecture of the Southern Low Countries its characteristic, sculptural appearance, not as an impulsive outburst of joy, but rather as the result of an extraordinarily well-calculated and well-considered design process in which both the patron and the building were given the precise measure of social status that prevailing decorum required. Architects and Commissions As the above has made clear, in the Northern and Southern Low Countries contemporary architecture was regarded as a worthy imitation of the classical rules of ‘true’ architecture. The North adhered to the humanist interpretation that had developed in the Veneto in Northern Italy, striving for the purification of the column Orders as a means of pursuing the ‘true’ principles of architecture, while the South looked to contemporary Roman varieties for their role models, seeking to achieve greater power of expression by enriching the classical vocabulary. These different starting points may be attributable to the various types of architect as well as to the differences in building commissions in the two parts of the country. The leading classical Dutch architects, Van Campen, De Bray, Post and Vingboons, who had all been trained as artists, had a broad cultural education and a profound knowledge of the Italian conception of art. Moreover, the Haarlem group of painters and architects who were the pacesetters in this development, all belonged to St Luke’s Guild, which ranked painters, architects, land surveyors and mathematicians amongst its members. As a result, the direct connection between pure mathematics and the beauty of architecture, as described by Palladio and Scamozzi, met with a positive response. This direction was also further encouraged by Huygens, who had seen and admired the two masters’ work during a visit to Italy in 1620, as well as work by Inigo Jones in England. During the course of the seventeenth century, architecture continued to be regarded as an applied science directly derived from Euclid’s mathematics; further evidence of this were the lectures on architecture held by Nicolaus Goldmann in Leiden. Other examples include the architect Adriaan Dortsman who studied mathematics at Leiden University, and his colleague, Johan van Swieten, court architect between 1677–1689, both sworn land surveyors. During the first half of the seventeenth century in the Southern Low Countries there were two groups of trend-setting architects who derived their inspiration from Rome: the two court architects Wensel Cobergher and Jacques Francart, who had each spent a long time in Rome, and the group of clerical architects, such as Pieter Huyssens and Willem Hesius. The latter was a Jesuit priest who had been educated in Rome and was therefore completely familiar with the latest Roman developments, while Huyssens, educated as a craftsman, was able to profit from the extensive collection of Roman material (drawings, engravings and treatises) present in libraries, such as the one in the Jesuit training college in Antwerp.233 The second half of the seventeenth century saw the emergence of a new group of architects who continued to build on the innovations from the first half of the century without having had any direct contact with Italy. These architects, amongst whom were Faydherbe in Mechelen, Cosijns and Willem de Bruyn in Brussels, and Baurscheit the Elder in Antwerp, also worked as sculptors and thus continued the traditional link between the stonecutters’ and sculptors’ trades and architecture, a link that had been so characteristic in the sixteenth century and earlier. Cobergher and Francart, on the other hand, were painters – as indeed was Rubens.

233

Daelemans 2000.

156

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi The essentially different nature of the building commissions in North and South also greatly influenced the different development of the common Vitruvian and sixteenth century heritage. In the Republic, the buildings that served as examples of the development of architecture were secular, for example the palaces owned by the House of Orange, the stately town houses of courtiers and regents in Holland, and government buildings, particularly town halls. Dutch seventeenth-century church architecture had its own, severely austere, classicist development, which had little influence on other types of buildings (see also Part Three, Chapter III). According to Calvinists, a church was not the house of God, but rather the house of the Word, ‘a place of religious observance’ (een oeffenplaets van de Godtsdienst).234 When compared to the South, where the church represented God’s throne and was traditionally regarded as first in the hierarchy of buildings, Protestant church building in the North belonged to 155. Brussels, guild houses on the Grote Markt, 1697. the category of a noble school building. Thus, in the first half of the seventeenth century, church building projects in the South had primacy over other types of architecture. The Archdukes’ court could not invest in the construction of grand new palaces because of different, mostly political, factors (see Part Three, Chapter I), but could and did focus on prestigious church projects, such as Scherpenheuvel, and various churches in Brussels and other cities, which it sponsored on a large or small scale: Pietas Austriaca.235 Rubens’ only large-scale architectural project of a civic nature consisted of the temporary triumphal gates that marked the 1635 Triumphal Entry into Antwerp of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand as Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, but this was merely ephemeral theatre architecture that bore no relationship to architecture for private houses or palaces. The construction of prestigious town buildings, while not exactly rare in the seventeenth-century Southern Low Countries, never quite reached the scale attained by civic architecture in the North; examples of larger Southern projects include the new Exchange of Rijsel/Lille from 1652, and the reconstruction of the guild houses on the Brussels Grand’Place after 1695 (see Part Three, Chapter II). Magnificentia and Modestia The profoundly different nature of the building commissions in North and South required an essentially different approach as far as the language of classical forms was concerned. This type of distinction between a rich and extravagant finish and one that is restrained and sober is also found in rhetoric. In the seventeenth century, as in Antiquity, the art of rhetoric distinguished between ‘Attic’ simplicity and ‘Asiatic’ richness, concepts also denoted by the terms stilus humilis and stilus magnificus. At issue was the application of the various modes of art rather than differences in language or grammar:

234

Commentary accompanying the octagonal church plan by Hendrick Danckertsz., added to the second edition of Architectura Moderna, Amsterdam 1641.

235

Duerloo 1997; Duerloo 1998.

157

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 the choice between the two styles of rhetoric depended on the type of subject and audience the orator had to address. It could be said that a parallel exists between this rhetorical duality and the differences between Northern and Southern classical architectural traditions.236 Magnificentia was to be expressed by using the most majestic of architectural forms. Within the traditional building typology, the highest rank of building in the Catholic world was allotted to its churches, since they were God’s residence on earth. A Catholic church building had to comply with certain requirements in order to express its superiority. Already in the fifteenth century Alberti wrote that age renders authority to a building, and that likewise, its decoration expresses its stateliness. In 1570 Palladio accordingly demanded magnificenza e grandezza for churches, demonstrated by their size, the use of large gates flanked by columns, and rich materials, “so that by means of form, ornaments and material, the Divinity is accorded as much honour as possible” (accioche con la forma, con gli ornamenti, & con la material si honori quanto si puo la Divinità).237 These guidelines also held true for the CounterReformation; Carolus Borromeus’ summary of the new instructions for the interior design of churches in 1577, in accordance with the guidelines of the Council of Trent, contained only general remarks on architecture. The church façade should be as fine as possible, without profane ornamentation and appropriate for its holy location: nulla apparisca in essa di profano, riesca splendida più che è possibile e conve­ niente alla santità del luogho.238 In his 1615 L’Idea, Scamozzi also gives a number of practical instructions on how to express majesty in a building through its layout. By raising the height of the façade by means of a basement or an extra top storey, a building acquires maestà, and the use of marble renders nobiltà.239 Well-proportioned large doors convey gracefulness and majesty, while similarly, cambered doors convey more grandeur, splendour and magnificenza than straight doors, since they derive from triumphal arches. For this reason, writes Scamozzi, they should only be used for public buildings and noblemen’s houses; the houses of private citizens should be limited to doors with straight lintels.240 Since scale, wealth of forms and the use of costly materials were successfully manifested in church architecture in the Southern Low Countries, contemporary architects considered that these churches complied with the classical architectural theory for contemporary design as described by Palladio and Scamozzi. Examples include the Jesuit churches in Antwerp and Brussels, which, as we have seen, Rubens designates as examples of ‘true’ classical architecture in his Introduction to Palazzi di Genova. After churches, magnicifentia, as the supreme architectural manifestation of majesty, was reserved for the highest worldly authorities: God’s representatives on earth. Various fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth-century humanist writers claimed, as had Cicero and Aristotle before them, that only reigning monarchs, in order to express their dignity, were entitled to use the embellishments that pertained to this highest category; for example, in their clothing, carriages and architecture.241 As mentioned earlier, grand style façade architecture could be expressed by a well thought out combination of size, plastic relief and rich materials. The lower nobility and prominent citizens had to be content with simpler means of expression appropriate to their rank and status and in accordance with the principles of order and measurement, since this social order, too, was considered part of the Divine Creation. It was not magnificentia, but rather mediocritas, i.e. the golden mean, that was appropriate, while humilitas (humility) served the lowest ranks.

236

Resembling the parallel that was established in the case of various kinds of portraits, as explained by Becker 1992, p. 87. 237 “Portici ampii, & con maggior colonne di quelle (…) sta bene che essi siano grandi, & magnifici (...) & con grandi, e belle proportioni fabricati (…) materia eccellentissimo, &

158

della piu preciosa”. Palladio 1570, Libro IV, proemio, p. 7. Borromeo 1577 (1952), caput 3. 239 Scamozzi 1615, Libro III, pp. 264, 270, 271. 240  Ibidem, Libro III, p. 318. 241  Imesch 2000, pp. 32-46. Of main importance was Giovani Pontano, I trattati delle virtù sociali, 1498. 238

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi Entirely in line with this theory, Scamozzi distinguished three types of country house, namely the magnifiche, honorevoli, and the commune, differing in size, number of rooms and richness of ornamentation. External ornamentation could only be applied to the first two categories. It was considered a sign of innate refinement not to break these codes; one was required to know one’s place in the world and behave accordingly. Those who were not entitled to grandezza and magnificentia were merely extravagant in their excessive and exuberant display of ornamentation. Scamozzi praised restraint and moderation: la mediocrità. The dignified citizen’s house is an example of ‘golden mean’ architecture with no unnecessary decoration, but it is still quite definitely refined and well-proportioned: “It is important to remain within the boundaries of temperance and seemliness. Ornaments are very expensive yet do not render greater convenience to the building, nor improve its proportions”.242 Since private houses constituted the major part of the commissions in the Northern Low Countries, Scamozzi’s advice was well received. Huygens, too, took great care not to overstep the mark, observing “the moderation befitting my status”, as he wrote in his autobiography.243 Thus, his house was slightly more modest in scale, materials, as well as in classical Orders, compared to the Mauritshuis owned by his noble neighbour, Count Johan Maurits of Nassau-Siegen. However, the latter’s house was not the pinnacle of majestic architecture either, since this was reserved for the new front wing of the Oude Hof on the Noordeinde, built for the Prince of Orange in 1639 by Jacob van Campen (ill. 197). This princely residence surpassed all other palaces and private houses both in terms of its scale and the materials used: it had a completely stone façade whereas the Mauritshuis had brick walls between stone pilasters. Ultimately, the new Amsterdam Town Hall as the centre of power of the New Rome, a palace of a virtually sovereign city government, was to surpass all that had been built earlier in the Netherlands in terms of scale, relief and use of materials (solid sandstone façades, marble interiors with bronze parts). Huygens’ and Rubens’ correspondence demonstrates a marked difference of opinion regarding the correct criteria for appropriate decoration within the various levels of society in the North and South. Rubens regarded Huygens’ modestia as misplaced simplicity. As was described earlier, this difference in appreciation of the various decoration schemes can be explained by the nature of the building commissions in the seventeenth-century Southern Low Countries where architecture was dominated by church building projects. Church façades in the world of the Catholic Counter-Reformation deserved the greatest honour: they were the triumphal gates of faith and deserved every aspect of magnificentia in honour of the Most High. Totally new forms are also found at the level represented by the magnifiche. Cicero associated licentia, i.e. the use of deviations, with the grand style in rhetoric. In the early modern period, inventions were not only considered necessary demonstrations of the artist’s talent, but also a deliberate means of evoking surprise and admiration in the spectator.244 The doctrine of affects, the study of the human mind, held that the spectator’s soul could be aroused to admiratio by confrontation with novitas. Consequently, the combination of surprise and awe could evoke respect and admiration (veneratio) for a building,245 which was exactly the purpose of the splendid façades of the Southern Netherlandish churches and the temporary triumphal gates in Antwerp. In the North, however, where this approach was well known, it was imperative to avoid these effects in civic architecture, as Huygens also explained in his letter to Rubens that was referred to earlier. Indeed, effetto di troppo violenza was not what he had in mind for his house, not because Rubens’ suggestions were not classical enough, but rather because he considered them inappropriate for this particular building.

242 243

Scamozzi 1615, Libro III, p. 224. Huygens-Heesakkers 1987, p. 58.

244 For fifteenth and sixteenth-century reference material see Günther 1997. 245 Descartes 1659, pp. 33-34, 79.

159

Part Two: Architectural Theory, Antique and Modern 1560-1640 By way of contrast, the Southern examples of the richest forms in the architectural vocabulary served as frames of reference for other, more modest buildings that required some degree of representative appearance. Thus various decorative elements, such as gates and windows, found their way to secular building projects. The classical scheme of the Orders, in some cases with pilasters and original new ornaments and sculptures, was always used as the basis. One such clear example are the state owned pawnshops, the so-called ‘Bergen van Barmhartigheid’ built by Cobergher in various Southern cities during the first decades of the sev156. Sint-Winoksbergen, Mount of Piety, 1633, enteenth century, where utilitarian buildings were designed by Cobergher (Parent 1926, pl. xiii). given a remarkable monumental gate (ill. 179), and even in some cases, such as in Sint-Winoksbergen, a really splendid façade.246 Modestia was considered inappropriate with regard to Southern urban prestige; monuments of urban pride were adorned with rich forms of ornamentation like the ones that had been developed for church architecture, but in the former case carried out rather less exuberantly and expensively. In the mid-seventeenth century, this led to a certain degree of inflation in ‘magnificent’ ornamentation, since it was increasingly applied to more ordinary buildings, and in particular to portals. Conclusion As to the question of unity and discontinuity within the classical tradition in the Northern and Southern Low Countries during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the following tentative conclusion may be drawn. Until around 1625 there existed a continual architectural interrelationship between both regions; only from the second quarter of the seventeenth century does a clearly noticeable discontinuity begin to manifest itself. Examples of these two related, but different architectural interpretations include the two series of triumphal gates erected in 1635 and 1638 in Antwerp and Amsterdam respectively. These temporary pageant constructions were built in honour of the new governor Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria’s solemn Triumphal Entry into Antwerp, and that of the French queen mother, Maria de’ Medici into Amsterdam. In both cities the royal guest was to be received with due honours, including a tour along the triumphal gates and stages. Rubens was the designer of the Antwerp decorations whereas the Amsterdam designer is unfortunately unknown. Although both cities aimed at a revival of the ancient triumphal gate, the difference was remarkable. Amsterdam strove for the recreation of an ancient triumphal gate, whereas Antwerp’s ideal was to express true triumph. However different these two forms of architecture may seem to modern eyes, they should not be defined as two totally different schools on either side of an impenetrable border. The idea of a strict separation based on differences in style between ‘Classicism’ and ‘Baroque’ is an anachronism, a forced classification merely based on different applications of ornamentation. The developments in the North and South are better explained as two parallel schools evolving from their common sixteenth-

246

De Jonge & De Vos 2000, pp. 18, 30-31.

160

Chapter III: la vera simmetria conforme le regole degli antichi

157. Triumphal gate at the Entry of Ferdinand of Austria in Antwerp in 1635, designed by Rubens (from C. Gevaerts & P.P. Rubens, Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi, Antwerp 1641).

158. Entry of Maria de’ Medici in Amsterdam 1638 (from C. Barlaeus, Medicaea Hospes, Amster­ dam 1638).

century heritage: one emphasizing the correct imitation of the Ancients, the other an enrichment of the classical repository of forms. Architecture in the seventeenth-century Southern Low Countries can only be properly understood provided we recognize its classical principles. Since there was a strong need for the South to express stately decorum in its designs, extra means were used. In the North, the composition was played on the piano, as it were, while in the South we hear the same piece of music on the organ.

161

Part Three Patrons

and

Patronage 1600-1700

159. Claes Jansz.Visscher, Novissima, et Accuratissmima Leonis Belgici, seu Septemdecim Regionum Descriptio, Amsterdam 1611, engraved map.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture within the Context of the Courts (1580-1700)

Introduction: A Period of Change The gradual political separation between the Northern and Southern Low Countries during the first half of the seventeenth century is mirrored by the development of a separate architectural policy at the archducal court in Brussels and at Maurits of Nassau’s court in The Hague. These courts could hardly be called equal in rank, however, in spite of the marvellous piece of propaganda in the Novissima, et Accuratissima Leonis Belgici, seu Septemdecim Regionum Descriptio, a large version of the famous Leo Belgicus map dedicated to the Twelve Years’ Peace, published in 1611 by Claes Jansz. Visscher of Amsterdam.1 The townscapes attributed to Petrus Kaerius (Peter van der Keere) that flank the ‘Belgian Lion’ – Northern cities in the column on the left and Southern cities on the right – each show, at the bottom of the column, a view of a palace. The ‘Court of Holland’ or Binnenhof in The Hague, with the medieval predecessor of the Mauritstoren (added in 1592-1598) shown prominently in the foreground, symbolizes the Northern provinces, while the Southern ones are represented by the ‘Court of Brabant’ or Coudenberg Palace in Brussels, shown in its 1560s state. In the even more complex composite map of Henricus Florentius van Langren dated before 1617, there are two views of each palace at the bottom of a double column, topped by a two-fold representation of Amsterdam (on the left) and Antwerp (on the right).2 This confrontation is unusual not only because of the care taken to show both palaces in their Ur-form, without their more recent additions,3 but also because of the disparity in rank. In court society, the official residence in The Hague of the Stadholder, the representative of the Count of Holland (actually the King of Spain, whose sovereignty was no longer recognized in the North), ranked below the official residence in Brussels of the regents nominated by the King for the whole of the Low Countries, i.e. Albrecht of Habsburg, Archduke of Austria (b. 1559 – d. 1621), and the Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia, Philip II of Spain’s daughter (b. 1566 – d. 1633). The maps of both Visscher and van Langren nevertheless suggest that already in the first decades of the seventeenth century, the rebellious Northern states were united around a court that was equal in stature to the Brussels one. On closer analysis, this turns out not to be true on the architectural level, at least not before the early 1640s, which must be considered as the turning point. At that time, the court of The Hague acquired greater cultural prominence under Frederik Hendrik and Amalia von Solms, which it expressed through very idiosyncratic architectural choices. By then, the Brussels court had entered its last epoch of true splendour for the seventeenth century under Leopold Willem of Austria, a noted collector and amateur of the fine arts;4 in terms of architectural patronage, however, its true heyday was already past.

1

KBB Kaarten en plannen IV 561-XIII A Pays-Bas Gén.1609-Visscher. Roegiers & Van der Herten 1994, pp. 69-83; Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 117-119, cat. 151; Münster/Osnabrück 1998-1999, Catalogue, pp. 34-35, cat. 28; Krefeld/Oranienburg/Apeldoorn 1999, pp. 51-52, cat. 3/1. 2 Van de Kerckhof 2000, p. 155. Henricus Florentius van Langren was related to Michael Florentius van Langren, who was Isabella of Spain’s court cosmographer and ‘engineer’ from 1628. Bragard 1998, p. 214.

3

The model image of the Brussels Court is an engraving by Bartholomeus de Mompere, dated before 1560, but frequently reused, even in the seventeenth century, by Dutch mapmakers such as Visscher and Blaeu. Lebeer 1981; Brussels 2000, pp. 266-267, cat. 154. For the contemporary iconography of the Binnenhof, see Dumas 1991, passim and Amsterdam 2000, pp. 228-229, cat. 77; pp. 289-294, cat. 142-144. 4 Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991, pp. 241-260.

165

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

160. Netherl.  Anon., garden façade of Coudenberg Palace, after 1628, lion and dragon’s fountain left foreground.

Royal Ambitions: The Archdukes’ Architectural Patronage (1598-1633) Architectural Symbols of Spanish Court Society in the Low Countries The residence on the Coudenberg in Brussels should be considered as the first and foremost example of court architecture in the Spanish Low Countries. Occupied on an almost permanent basis by the Archdukes, it was most frequently used for political decision-making.5 Even before his official Triumphal Entry, and certainly as early as September 1598, Albert of Austria started renovations there. The piecemeal character of the successive renovation campaigns that occurred throughout his reign demonstrates the lack of a coherent master plan; the main motivation behind alterations lay in the adaptation of the old palace to meet the requirements of contemporary Spanish court ceremony.6 This ceremony had evolved from the Burgundian code of customs, still officially in use at the court of Charles V, through the inclusion of several Spanish elements, mainly at the instigation of Philip II.7 Consequently, the standard state apartment for the middle of the sixteenth century grew into a more complicated sequential arrangement, with at least two additional anterooms between the traditional

5

Saintenoy 1932-1935, II, pp. 86-113, III, pp. 3-95; Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991, pp. 272-275. The Brussels palace is shown in the background of Albert’s state portraits, e.g. the one conserved at Leeds (Royal Armouries Museum, inv. Acq. No. I.50). After being widowed, Isabella was often shown in the gardens, below the rear façade of the palace, e.g. the one in Madrid (Museo del Prado, inv. 1451). Brussels 1998-1999, p. 109, cat. 137, pp. 149-150, cat. 204; Brussels 2000, pp. 269-270, cat. 156. 6 Detailed studies in De Jonge 1998a and De Jonge 1999d.

166

7 Rodríguez Villa 1913, p. 11 pretends that the 1651 version of the ceremonial corresponds exactly to the Jean Sigoney version dated 1545 (De Ridder 1889; Hofmann 1985, pp. 58-73), and that there was no change in the intervening period. This is not altogether true, as shown by De Jonge 1999d, p. 187. The Venetian ambassador Paolo Tiepolo already remarks upon the hybrid nature of Philip II’s court ceremonial in 1563 (Albèri 1839-1863, V, p. 71; Gérard 1998, p. 336). See also Elliott 1989.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture salle (hall) and sallette (dining or reception room) on the one hand, and the chambre (state bedroom) and retraicte (private retiring room) on the other, thus allowing for a more refined reception ritual for visitors, according to their rank and degree of distinction.8 For instance, the arrangement of Philip II’s living quarters at the Alcázar, Madrid, from 1562 until 1568, clearly shows this evolution when compared to Charles V’s apartment there, as does the royal apartment at San Lorenzo de El Escorial.9 This Burgundian-Spanish hybrid was perceived as being solely Spanish, as the protest by the Netherlandish nobility demonstrated when Albert introduced it at the Brussels court in 1598. The papal envoy Ottavio Mirto relates 161. Netherl.  Anon., design for the grotto in the upper garden how the nobles perceived this change as a betray- of the Warande Park, 1629. al of the “olden Brabantine traditions”, in other words the ceremony from the time of Charles V.10 As we have seen, the architectural changes in the palace, particularly the departure from traditional window and door types, were not appreciated either.11 Court documents confirm that the strategic positions within the court hierarchy were mostly occupied by Spanish officials.12 Owing to its location at the top of a steep slope descending to the Warande Park, the fifteenth and sixteenth-century main body of the palace building could only be expanded with ease on the courtyard side, which meant sacrificing the fifteenth-century staircase tower and its sixteenth-century triumphal arch.13 Moving the entrance towards the chapel allowed the architects, Hieronymo Hardouin, alias Hardouino, and Mathieu Bollin, to create a double sequence of rooms, starting at the monumen­ tal new staircase enclosed within an arcaded entrance hall (1599-1603). Here, on the first floor at the western end of the main wing, were a set of state rooms whose access was carefully controlled according to rank in the Spanish manner, as can be deduced from contemporary source material.14 At the eastern end, the sixteenth-century long gallery, transformed into an imperial state room by its decoration of twelve, stone-coloured statues of emperors on bronze-coloured consoles, adjoined Mary of Hungary’s former apartment, which apparently served more private functions.15 As can be seen from numerous depictions made of the palace façade on the park side during the second half of the seventeenth century, the arcaded portico on the ground floor underneath the gallery also contained “thir-

8

On the sixteenth-century disposition of the apartments in Brussels, see De Jonge 1994b, pp. 111-114. 9 For the Alcázar, see Gérard 1984, pp. 15-31, 52-55, 81106; Barbeito 1992, pp. 1-24, 43; Domínguez Casas 1993, pp. 223-233 (fifteenth-century state). For the Escorial, see the Passetemps of Jean Lhermite (Ouverleaux & Petit 1896, pp. 68-70). 10 As told in his letter of September 18, 1599. Gachard 1874, p. 102 note 1. 11 See Part One, Chapter III, note 213. 12 Lanoye 1998. 13 Its statuary was, however, carefully salvaged and reused in the gardens. See Part One, Chapter II, note 135.

14

From the only contemporary, fragmentary plan ARAB Kaarten en plannen in handschrift, 509 (Brussels 1998-1999, p. 153, cat. 206); from the legend illustrating a lost plan, ARAB Audiëntie 200/40-45, published by Saintenoy 19321935, III, pp. 20-22; from the accounts of 1620, ARAB Rekenkamer 50563, 1st account January-March 1620, fol. 24v; from the later inventories of the picture collection (1659 and 1731) published by De Maeyer 1955, pp. 39-40, 436-448 (doc. 271), 464-471 (doc. 280). Detailed plan in De Jonge 1998a, pp. 194-196 and De Jonge 1999d, pp. 192-193. 15 Sources for the following in De Jonge 1998a, pp. 191192. See also Baudouin 2005.

167

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

162. Bird’s eye view of Coudenberg Palace and Warande Park; new courtyard façade and state rooms visible left hand corner (engraving by Lucas Vorsterman Jr. from A. Sanderus, Chorographia sacra Brabantiæ, Brussels 1659-1669).

163. Brussels, Coudenberg Palace, main floor. Fifteenth-century core (1431-1436, nos. 10, 14-16 and 1468-1469, no. 17); extended 1533-1537 (nos. 22-26). Additions by Hardouin and Mathieu Bollin, 1598-1603 (nos. 6, 7, 9, 11-21); by Mathieu Bollin, 1600-1603 (no. 27); by Henri Meerte, 1604 (no. 18); by Wensel Cobergher, from 1606 (nos. 1, 24); by Wensel Cobergher and Jacques Francart, 1623 (no. 28). - 1 New entrance building. 2 Great hall of Philip the Good (1451-1461). 3 Chapel of Charles V (1522-1538 and 1548-1552). 4 Sacristy (1553-1554). 5 Double oratory (1548-1552). 6 Entrance hall and staircase. 7 Corridor. 8 Corridor. 9 Porter’s room. 10 Archers’ hall (reuse of 1431-1436). 11 Sallette for public dining. 12 First antichambre. 13 Second antichambre. 14 ­Audience room. 15 Private dining room and withdrawing room. 16 Cabinet. 17 Chambre de parade. 18 Wardrobe. 19 Isabella’s new oratory. 20-21 Withdrawing chamber. 22 Corridor. 23 Study. 24 Cabinet. 25 Chamber. 26 Long gallery. 27 Council of Finance and Spinola’s quarters. 28 Terrace. (Reconstruction K. De Jonge).

168

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture teen stone emper­ors on their pedestals”, all from the Habsburg lineage, but installed there after the Archdukes’ reign. During their time the imperial theme was also present in the main grotto created from 1606 onwards in the hoogen hoff, the terraced garden above the Feuillée or Labyrinth, and may have been present in the great hall. This terraced garden, decorated with twelve antique busts of emperors set on pedestals, recalls the contemporary jardín de los emperadores created for Philip III of Spain between 1618 and 1623 below Charles V’s gallery in the Alcázar at Madrid; this garden was decorated with two series of twelve Caesars imported from Italy, and with an image of Charles 164. Bird’s eye view of Coudenberg Palace courtyard; V himself.16 The imperial themes not only refer new entrance wing at left (engraving by Jan van de to the glorious past of the Coudenberg Palace, Velde, from J. and N. Blaeu, Novum ac magnum theatrum but also indicate the particular aspirations to the urbium Belgicæ fœderate, Amsterdam 1649). imperial crown held by Albert of Austria, Prince of the Empire.17 Other additions directed by Wensel Cobergher, Sylvain Bollin and Henri Meerte, for example the new entrance building created between 1606-1607 in the form of a monumental clock tower crowned by a wooden dome, mirrored the Archduke’s past experiences, such as the torreão which Juan de Herrera and Felipe Terzi had added to the old Lisbon palace from 1581 onwards for Philip II, and whose construction he had supervised as Viceroy of Portugal.18 However, other imperatives dictated the addition of a third storey to both parallel sections of the main wing, and consequently the renewal of the roof (from 1609), the construction of a tower-like pavilion situated next to the long gallery at the side of the courtyard, which would serve variously to lodge the Council of Finance and the famous general Ambrogio Spinola, and the addition of a second state gallery with fifteen balconied windows decorated with copper balustrades, on top of the sixteenth-century one (from 1608).19 The gallery led directly from the Infanta’s apartment on the second floor, the core of which corresponded to the Duchess of Burgundy’s former living quarters, although the apartment was continuously embellished throughout the years. This apartment had the same number of rooms as the Archduke’s on the first floor, as was, in fact, appropriate to Isabella’s status as reigning consort, which probably also explains the construction of the second state gallery. Lastly, by 1619-1620, work was underway on the Infanta’s oratory, which faced the courtyard: a tower-like polygonal volume supported by arches and crowned by a pyramidal roof. The main level above the arches was connected to Albert’s apartment, whereas the gallery suspended along its inner walls joined Isabella’s. In 1623, circulation through the first-floor apartment was made much easier by the construction of a lead-covered terrace supported by an arcade that ran in front of the windows on the courtyard side; namely, from the entrance near the chapel to the oratory, and from the oratory to the tower pavilion near the long gallery.

16 Barbeito 1992, p. 111; Morán Turina 1994a, pp. 251-252; Sancho 1994, p. 67. 17 DaCosta Kaufmann 1998.

18 Sources in De Jonge 1998a, p. 193. On the torreão, see Iñiguez Almech 1952, pp. 49-50; Kubler 1982a, pp. 96109; Moreira 1983. 19 Sources in De Jonge 1998a, p. 193.

169

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 The modernization of the residence itself almost pales in significance when compared to the extensive restorations and new water works carried out in the different parts of the Warande Park.20 Between 1600 and 1610, Salomon de Caus was paid huge sums for the creation of several grottoes, hydraulic machines, water organs and fountains. His earliest work at Brussels, an artificial ­grotto fountain decorated with shells and auto­ mata, was located at the end of the portico underneath the long gallery, and mostly finished by 1602.21 Nevertheless, as with the palace, respect for tradition and continuity 165. Netherl. Anon. (Hendrik Meerte?), Amor and Silenus fountain dominated building work of any kind. The with section of the mechanism, 1604. pavilion at the centre of the oldest enclosed garden, which had existed in one form or another since at least the fourteenth century, was carefully repaired, as were the statues and the famous double fountain with the statue of Amor by Jacques Jonghelinck (1597) and Silenus.22 Not all Renaissance additions were restored, however. For instance, the wooden garden pavilion in the Feuillée, constructed c. 1540 in the Hispano-Arabic manner, but resembling above all a Turkish kiosk, did not survive.23 The famous portrait pendants of the Archdukes by Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel carry a complementary message.24 Albrecht is shown in front of the old medieval castle of Tervuren in the Soignes Forest, thus referring to his status as successor to the medieval Dukes of Brabant, whereas in the background of Isabella’s portrait is the hunting lodge of Mariemont, Mary of Hungary’s most personal creation. The Soignes Forest that surrounded Brussels from north-east to south-east with its constellation of hunting lodges, remained a private hunting forest as it had been in the time of Charles V and his predecessors, and its residences – Boitsfort, for instance, or Tervuren – were carefully restored.25 Of the many ducal hunting pavilions in the forest, the Archdukes especially favoured the ancient castle of Tervuren, which they renovated with new living quarters (1612), new kitchens (from 1608), a gallery with terraced roof, a ‘floating’ garden in the moat and a new chapel in the outer bailey (dedicated in 1617).26 The hunting park was enclosed with a new wall pierced by ten rusticated gates, and in 1626, Isabella founded a new Capuchin convent in its immediate vicinity. The grounds of Mariemont, a residence that was a personal favourite of the Infanta’s – as her correspondence to the Duke of Lerma demonstrates – were greatly expanded, while the gardens, which had been destroyed by Henry II of France’s troops in 1554, were created anew between 1598 and 1604 under the direction of Pierre Le

20 Saintenoy 1932-1935, I, pp. 65-137; Lombaerde 1991; Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991, pp. 109-121; Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 154-155, cat. 208-209, pp. 221-229, cat. 309-318; De Jonge 2000-2001, with detailed reconstruction on pp. 94-95. 21 On this “fontaine artificielle”, see source material cited in De Jonge 1998a, p. 217 note 44 and extensive discussion in De Jonge 2000-2001, pp. 92-93. 22 Sources in De Jonge 2000-2001, pp. 96-97. 23 Shown in the drawing for the March tapestry of the Hunts of Maximilian, before 1560, attributed to Bernard van

170

Orley’s workshop, Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. 20.160; on its Arab appearance, see Georges Fricx, Description de la ville de Bruxelles, Brussels 1734, cited by Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991, p. 136 (Fricx confuses it with the older pavilion at the centre of the garden). 24 Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. 1683-1684. Brussels 19981999, p. 149, cat. 202-203. 25 In general, Pierron 1935-1938 and De Jonge 1993. 26 Wauters 1855, III, pp. 388-390; Pierron 1935-1938, II, p. 401; Müller 1990, I, pp. 127-128; Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 156-158, cat. 211-212. ARAB Hofwerken 244, 377-410:

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

166. Denijs van Alsloot, Bird’s eye view of Mariemont, 1620.

Poivre, and Loys Patte the Archduke’s gardener.27 Eight long avenues planted with trees, some following the traces of those from the sixteenth century, connected the main house with the surrounding villages and priories. Scattered throughout the park were several small chapels that served as miniature pilgrimage sites; the most important one, the Chapelle à l’Echo, stood outside the park near its main entrance, and took the form of a small octagonal Doric temple with an eight-sided domed roof. The renewal and expansion of the park also included the renovation of the fountains and the conduits feeding them.28 Some of these had existed since Jacques Du Broeucq’s day and were restored between 1606-1607, but Salomon de Caus also installed new ones such as the grand bassin de piramide dans la grande court. Robert de Nole of Antwerp was responsible for sculpting some of these.29 The renovation of the main building itself left intact the original, squat, tower-like structure set in an artificial square pond, although between 1618 and 1621 Wensel Cobergher and his assistant Jean Straesborgh added four corner pavilions called ‘cabinets’. By that time additional wings in galleried form and a monumental stable-block with a clock tower (1606-1610) had already transformed the hunting lodge into a court residence frequently used by the Archdukes.30

documents dating chiefly from 1610-1613. ARAB 245 (not numbered): two designs for the rusticated gates (?). 27 In general, Demeester 1978-1981 and De Jonge 2002, pp. 37-38; on Isabella’s personal involvement in the planning of the gardens, see García García 1998, pp. 71-72. 28 ARAB Hofwerken 354, plan dated June 22, 1728.

29

The ‘pyramid fountain’ is shown in Denijs van Alsloot’s view dated 1620, Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, inv. 197 (Brussels 1998-1999, p. 158, cat. 213). On Robert de Nole’s fountains at Brussels and Mariemont, see Casteels 1961, pp. 162-166. 30 Demeester 1978-1981, pp. 252, 260-262.

171

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Albert of Austria and Isabella of Spain did not undertake to build huge new palaces of their own, but concentrated on the restoration and renovation – albeit often carried out in a luxurious manner – of the most important court residences, hunting lodges and gardens dating from the imperial period. This can be seen as a means of self-legitimization through architecture, as well as a way of emphasizing continuity with the glorious past; all of it on a par with their use in 1599 of the old ritual of the Triumphal Entry,31 and with the particular interest they showed towards the tombs of their local ancestors, some of which they restored at great cost. Examples of this process of self-legitimization are the tomb of the Dukes of Brabant at St Gudule’s, for which Montfort created a bronze lion (1612-1614);32 Antonio de Succa’s recurring hunt for legitimate representations of the Counts of Flanders and the Dukes of Brabant (1601-1602, 1608 and 1615),33 and the court historiography of Jean-Baptiste Gramaye, Aubertus Miraeus and others.34 The only exception to this seems to be Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu), the architectural manifesto of the new era (see the last chapter of Part Three). This pilgrimage town dedicated to Our Lady is court architecture in the sense that the creators were Albert himself, ably assisted by a succession of ‘court architects’: Wensel Cobergher, Henri Meerte, Sylvain Bollin, Fredericq Kierurt and Jacques Francart.35 The Court in the City As was to be expected, the archducal architectural ambitions in Brussels spilled over beyond the strict confines of the Coudenberg domain to extend to the whole of the capital city and its surroundings.36 More than ever before, the city constituted the official centre of gravity in the archducal peregrinations, and consequently from this time onwards can be considered without too many ana­ chronistic overtones as a capital in the current sense of the term. From this perspective it is impossible to separate civil and religious aspects in any distinct way. First of all, the archducal religious policies required a clear symbol in a prominent, strategic position. The convent of the Discalced or Theresian Carmelites, erected on a part of the archducal domain between the former Coudenberg and Namur gates, fulfilled this role, serving at the same time as a manifesto of archducal architectural tastes.37 All visitors entering the city from the direction of Namur had to pass the church with its prominently displayed façade. This complex must be considered as an integral part of archducal court architecture. Didn’t the Archdukes visit the site every day when construction was going on, interesting themselves personally in the progress of the works? Contrary to the customs of the order, which favoured sober architecture of a simple disposition and without ornament, the new church was a three-aisled structure with a high tower beside the apse, built on monumental lines with a splendid sculpted decoration. Its façade (1607-1611) – a faithful repetition of the two-tiered Gesù scheme, including the pilasters in flat relief and the Michelangelo-inspired niches – did not make any concession to local building customs or taste. As in the contemporary Scherpenheuvel façade, Wensel Cobergher had designed a purely Italianate composition, without doubt following the express wishes of his patrons. Its architectural vocabulary recalled the Michelangelo revival Cobergher had experienced at first hand before leaving for the North, and was firmly rooted in the

31

Thøfner 1998a. Pinchart 1860-1881, I, pp. 126-127; Casteels 1961, p. 96; Brussels 1975a, pp. 180-181; Smolderen 1996, pp. 168174, 211-214. 33 Brussels 1977b; Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 62-63, cat. 63. 34 Continuity is stressed in the iconography of the Triumphal Entry pageants, see Thøfner 1998; Papy & Van Houdt 32

172

1998; Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 28-31, cat. 13-16. 35 Plantenga 1926, pp. 32-43; Mörsch 1965, pp. 33-82; Duerloo 1998, pp. 275-276; Lombaerde 1998, pp. 177-182; Meganck 1998b, pp. 52-94; Martens & Snaet 1999; Duerloo & Wingens 2002. 36 De Jonge & De Vos 2000, pp. 34-37. 37 Plantenga 1926, pp. 30-31; Meganck 1998b, pp. 32-51.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

167. Convent of Discalced Carmelites, Brussels, 1607-1615, designed by Cobergher (engraving by Renier Blockhuijze from ­A. Sanderus, Chorographia sacra Brabantiæ, The Hague 1726-1727).

168. Netherl. Anon., manuscript map of Brussels, late 18th ­century; at left, the new Isabella street (1625) leading to Sts. Michael and Gudule’s, with the Domus Isabellæ; upper right, the church of the Discalced Carmelites.

Roman late 1580s.38 Moreover, the façade’s sculptural programme – centred upon its patrons’ protector saints: Saint Albert of Louvain, whose relics were venerated there from December 1612, and Saint Elizabeth of Thuringia, a relic of whom was acquired in 1614 – had nothing to do with Carmelite devotional practices.39 Also, the proximity of the Warande gardens seems to have led to a disturbance in the cloistered life of the Carmelites. In actual fact, the court and the Discalced Carmelites made uneasy neighbours.40 Archducal meddling did not cease with the dedication of the church in November 1615. In 1622 Isabella commissioned a nyewe capelle van Ons Lieve Vrouwe van Loretten (a new chapel to Our Lady of Loreto) for the convent garden, and at the same time she ordered an etching of the Italian model, the Basilica of Loreto, with all its “sepulchres and ornaments” including inscriptions in “Italian writing” from Stephano van Schooren, without doubt to serve as a manifesto of this devotion which was especially favoured by the Archdukes.41 On the other side of the court domain, the Archdukes attempted to establish a clear axis leading to the main church of the town: the collegiate church of Saint Gudule and Saint Michael, which was of particular importance due to the Most Holy Sacrament of Miracles venerated there, which again had particular Burgundian-Habsburg connotations.42 The church served as the mausoleum for Albert’s predecessor Ernest, who had died prematurely in 1598,43 and Albert would also be interred there in 1622, albeit not before the main altar but in the chapel of the Holy Sacrament. The first chapel of the Holy Sacrament, built on the north side of the ambulatory between 1436 and 1438 under the patron-

38

De Vos 1994; De Vos 1998b, pp. 87-93. Duerloo 1998, pp. 277-278; Brussels 1998-1999, p. 263, cat. 365. Payment for the statues in ARAB Rekenkamer 27508, 1612-1613, fols. 219r-v. 40 The back wall of the main grotto in the Warande Park abutted the garden of the Carmelites and soon needed repairing (ARAB Rekenkamer 27511, 1617-1618, fol. 226r). The noise of the organs and water games must have constantly disturbed the peace within the enclosure. On the grotto, see De Jonge 2000-2001, pp. 93-96. 39

41

ARAB Rekenkamer 27512, Oct. 1, 1622 – Sept. 30, 1623, fol. 20r; fols. 81r, 82r; Duerloo 1998, p. 273; Duerloo & Wingens 2002, pp. 29-31. 42 Duerloo 1998, p. 268. 43 The Archdukes commissioned a splendid new tomb for him from Robert de Nole in 1602. Pinchart 1860-1881, I, pp. 133-134; Casteels 1961, pp. 94-95, 273-276; see also the documents cited in De Jonge 1998a, p. 217 note 51. On Ernest’s exequies, see Soenen 2001, pp. 270-274.

173

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 age of Philip the Good, had been replaced between 1533 and 1542 at Charles V’s behest by the existing Flamboyant masterwork.44 The stained glass windows, together with the ones in the transept, constitute a clear representation of the Habsburg lineage: Charles V and his siblings paired with their spouses are shown kneeling beneath antique-looking triumphal arches and porticoes, watched over by their respective protector saints.45 This chapel still lacked a pendant, which was to be the chapel of Our Lady on the south side of the ambulatory, in accordance with the wish Isabella expressed to Jacques Francart shortly before her death. This chapel was eventually constructed by Hieronymus Duquesnoy and Leo Van Heil between 1649 and 1655, under Leopold William of Habsburg.46 The exequies of Charles V (celebrated in Brussels on December 28-29, 1558),47 of Philip II (December 30-31, 1598),48 and later of Albert himself (March 13, 1622), took place in this church, with splendid canopies and decorations placed under the crossing.49 By 1559 it was already clear that a more direct ceremonial way connecting the palace to the church was sorely needed: the cortège had had to descend to the Grand Place then climb up again to the church; the reverse, in fact, of the circuitous route taken at the Triumphal Entries.50 The more direct route necessitated passing through the gardens of the Greater Guild of the Crossbow, an obstacle the Duke of Alva had not been able to remove when the idea of a new route first arose in 1570. Negotiations ended with the royal ordinance of May 15, 1625. The new ‘Isabella Street’ would run along the early, thirteenth-century fortification wall that surrounded the Warande Park on that side: no heavy traffic, noisy artisans’ workplaces nor shops would be permitted there. The construction of new housing along its length was to be strictly regulated in terms of height and distance from the wall so that archducal privacy would not be infringed upon. In exchange, but on the Warande side, accessible through one of the old fortified towers, Isabella had the new Domus Isabellæ built against the wall to serve as a festive hall for the guild. A new fountain on the outer side of the wall marked its location.51 The most important markers in the new urban and suburban topography turn out to be religious. From 1626, north of the city, Isabella established a direct connection to one of her most favoured pilgrimage sites: the Church of Our Lady at Laken and, as before, Jacques Francart, Cobergher’s nephew and successor, drew up the plans.52 The pilgrimage route from the town ran along the Allée Verte, a shaded avenue that started at the Oeverpoort in the Brussels enceinte, continued along the canal to Willebroek, and reached the church by way of the Laken Bridge.53 Four rows of trees were planted along the 169. Hendrik van Wel, view of St. Anne’s chapel and the route, interspersed with small chapels (1628-1631). ­Lakense Dreef, c. 1700.

44 Plantenga 1926, pp. 54-55; Henne & Wauters 1845(1975), III, pp. 288-329. 45 Helbig & Vandenbemden 1974, pp. 13-169; van den Boogert 1992. 46 Originally, Ernest of Habsburg’s tomb would have been transferred to this new chapel too. Bertels, Callens & Fredricx 2000. 47 Schrader 1998. 48 Soenen 2001, pp. 261-270. 49 De Vos 1998b, pp. 28-29; Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 278279, cat. 384; Papy & Van Houdt 1998, pp. 321-322.

174

50 Tahon 1912; Des Marez 1927, pp. 102-116; Henne & Wauters 1845(1975), I, pp. 360-362; De Vos 1998a; De Vos 1998b, pp. 31, 45-47. 51 Des Marez 1927, p. 74. Unpublished view from the Arenberg collection sold in Brussels on June 11-12, 1998. The Romantic Agony, Book Auctions Devroe & Stubbe, Catalogue 9, pp. 67-68, cat. 437. 52 On this devotion, Duerloo 1998, p. 275. 53 Wauters 1855, II, pp. 354-355; Thibaut de Maisières 1934; De Vos 1998b, pp. 47-48.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

170. Franciscus Iosephus De Rons, view of the Pantens manor near the Allée Verte, Laken, 1731.

171. Netherl. Anon., Sketchbook of Leuven, view of Heverlee castle from the North, c. 1615.

Until the eighteenth century, this suburban area would have the densest concentration of country houses in the surrounding district.54 Francart created a second, 2400 foot long avenue bordered by trees in Laken itself to link the southern transept of the church with a miraculous spring reputed to help women conceive, and the chapel of Saint Anne. Habsburg Court Architecture The potent models established during the reign of Charles V and the regency of Mary of Hungary remained universally valid in the Southern Low Countries until the end of the seventeenth century, as even the most cursory study of sources confirm, such as Antonius Sanderus’ Flandria Illustrata for the county of Flanders, and Baron Jacques Le Roy’s Castella et prætoria nobilium Brabantiæ for the duchy of Brabant;55 the same can be said for the gardens that complement them.56 In many cases, it was simply a matter of completing what had already begun. For instance, before his death in 1612, Charles II of Croÿ, Duke of Aarschot and one of the most powerful nobles at the archducal court, tried to complete the ancestral castle at Heverlee, one of the first manifestations of the type: foundations were dug for the two missing wings – which would have been narrower than the early sixteenthcentury front, or main wing – and for the missing corner pavilions, which would have transformed the original L-shaped plan into a more modern one, similar to the one at Boussu.57 Brick-and-stone masonry, many-windowed square towers topped with onion spires and courtyards enclosed by galleries 54

De Jonge 2006. Antonius Sanderus, Flandria Illustrata, Cologne, Cornelius ab Egmondt, 1641-1644, 2 vols.. [Baron] Jacques Le Roy, Castella & Prætoria Nobilium Brabantiæ/Châteaux et maisons de campagne des gentilshommes du Brabant/Kasteelen en Heeren Huysen der Edelen van Brabant, Leyden, Peeter van der Aa, 1694, at least five new editions before 1730, copied by de Cantillon in 1770 in his Délices du pays de Brabant. On Sanderus’ sources, see Lauwers 2003.

55

56

De Jonge 1999c. As shown by the contemporary iconography, which includes foundation plans by Pierre Le Poivre (KUL Arenberg Archief 2454). The foundations can also be clearly seen in an anonymous view in the Livre d’esquisses de Lou­ vain, c. 1615, fol. 103 (KBB Ms. II 2123). Minnen 1993, pp. 177-235. 57

175

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 continued to serve as the principal components of the architecture of the nobility.58 Most curved staircases were replaced by straight ones, modernized casement windows appeared towards the end of the century, and one notes a more modern repertory of forms in arcades and portals, but these changes remain superficial. In spite of the classicizing revolution of court architecture initiated under Stadholder Frederik Hendrik, there is evidence that this Southern model also retains some validity in the North (see below). At the very least, the quadrangle at Breda, which had been left unfinished after the death of René de Chalon, was completed at the close of the seventeenth century according to the original design.59 It was one of the most prominent examples of sixteenth-century court architecture, and at the same time had been one of the principal bones of contention between the North and South. Evidence of innovation is scarce, and crucial buildings have been lost. A case in point is the castle of Ronse (Renaix), which was built from 1629 for a Catholic scion of the Nassau family, Jan VIII van Nassau-Siegen (b. 1583 – d. 1638), and demolished in 1823.60 Its corner pavilions topped with bulbous spires are direct descendants from Boussu, as is the emphasis on the main axis and the masonry type, but the U-shaped layout is not. The four wings no longer have the same weight: the front wing has been replaced by a low and narrow terrace, and the narrow open porticoes at the sides, which also rise above the courtyard level, contrast with the double-pile corps de logis at the back of the courtyard. It looks, in fact, as if a typically French disposition has been adopted here, as it was slightly earlier – but in reverse – in the North at Honselaarsdijk (see below). It is only in the more compact seventeenth-century manor houses or ‘leisure homes’ of the South, and never in primary residences, that one notes a new inter58

172. Ronse, castle of Jan VIII of Nassau-Siegen, 1630, plan and perspective view (lithograph from P.-J. Goetghebuer, Choix des ­Monumens, édifices et maisons les plus remarquables du royaume des PaysBas, Ghent 1827).

176

See for instance the castle at Ooidonk in Flanders, renovated by Maarten della Faille c. 1595; the castle at Eijsden in the Meuse region, built by Arnold de la Margelle from 1636, and the castle at Perk, renovated for the Counts of Ribeaucourt from 1659. Wauters 1855 (1971-1874), VII, pp. 104-126, ills. 105-126; Genicot 1973, pp. 204-205, 208-209. 59 1686-1695. van Wezel 1999, pp. 258-259. 60 Ottenheym 1998.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture est in symmetric, compact, double-pile plans, which may be extended by corner pavilions in the manner of Mariemont.61 An example of the first group (without corner pavilions) is the (lost) ‘Villa Scharbecana’, also called Monplaisir, at Schaarbeek, the property of Pierre Ferdinand Roose, Baron of Bouchaut.62 Suburban dwellings with corner pavilions can be found, for instance, in Beaulieu (in Machelen near Brussels), built c. 1653-1655 for Lamoral II Claude François von Thurn und Taxis and attributed upon shaky grounds to Lucas Faydherbe (only one pavilion survives), and also in an anonymous drawing formerly in the Arenberg Collection. This house seems close to the castle at Lembeek near Brussels, which was built in 1618 for Guillaume Richardot and Anne de Rye (demolished). Another is the socalled Coloma Castle in Sint-Pieters Leeuw, built between 1694 and 1704 for Charles Roose, Second Baron of Leeuw.63 Most of these manor houses were built for members of the new nobility whom the Spanish kings created from 1620 onwards in an effort to strengthen and support the aristocracy of the Southern Low Countries. The houses served as the headquarters of new seigneuries in the Brussels periphery.64 In fact, the most easily defined, modern aspect of the architecture of the Southern nobility in the seventeenth century remains the repertory of forms used for window surrounds, doorframes, chimneypieces and other ornaments. This new formal language carried an unmistakable Michelangelolike stamp, as shown for instance by the window frames on the side aisles of the castle at Renaix, or by the surviving sketch for a sculpted hood, possibly in connection with the new chimneypieces in black marble, which Charles Misson and others delivered

61 For most smaller dwellings, however, rectangular or Lshaped plans with a staircase tower in the inside angle remain standard, to which other wings may be added in an organic manner. De Jonge 2006. 62 Wauters 1855 (1971-1974), VIIIA, pp. 112-115, ills. 171173, 165-168, ills. 281-286; Temmerman 1986. 63 Unpublished view from the Arenberg collection sold in Brussels on June 11-12, 1998. The Romantic Agony, Book Auctions Devroe & Stubbe, Catalogue 9, pp. 66-67, cat. 434; Wauters 1855 (1971-1974), I, pp. 157-159, 160-161, ills. 269-274; Genicot 1973, p. 248; De Maegd 1998. 64 Wauters 1855, I, pp. LXX-LXXI.

173. Machelen, castle of Beaulieu, built c. 1653-1655.

174. Unidentified castle, 17th c., washed drawing, formerly Arenberg Collection.

175. Groot Bijgaarden, Coloma Castle, built 1694-1704.

177

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

177. Michelangelesque designs for a door, 17th century (Promptu­ arium Pictorum, vol. II). 176. Jacques Francart, Premier livre d’architecture, pl.VII.

between 1600 and 1610 to the palace in Brussels.65 It was introduced by the court architects: first, Wensel Cobergher, and following him, his nephew and successor Jacques Francart, who was also his brother in law. The latter’s Premier Livre d’architecture, a collection of models for doors and gates published in 1617, serves as its official manifesto (see Part Two, Chapter II).66 The phenomenon spread rapidly and widely, especially in Jesuit circles, as attested by the materials in the second volume of the so-called Promptuarium Pictorum, their chief drawing and engraving collection of the time,67 and in the urban milieu, for instance in the work of Pierre Paul Mercx, one of Francart’s successors and also a royal engineer. The Archducal Architects and Engineers The drawn-out process of renovation carried out at Brussels and Mariemont perfectly illustrates the wide variety of practitioners serving as architects to the court.68 The correspondence between 65 See the cross section of the castle at Renaix, from Goetghebuer 1827, pl. 35. For the chimneypiece design, see ARAB Kaarten en Plannen in handschrift, inv. 1389; accounts in ARAB Rekenkamer 27504, 1598-1600, fols. 44r, 50v, 174r-v; 27506, 1608-1609, fols. 221r-222v; 27507, 16091610, fols. 209v-210r; 27510, 1616-1617, fols. 285v-286r. Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 153-154, cat. 207 (without reference to documents). Several gates of black touchstone, delivered at the same time by Misson, may also have been of a Michelangelesque type (ARAB Rekenkamer 27504, 15981600, fols. 44r-v, 45r).

178

66

De Vos 1994; De Vos 1998b. (Mostly) preserved in AVJH. Daelemans 2000. 68 Sources for the following cited in De Jonge 1998a, pp. 192-193 and De Vos 1999, p. 202. They are variously drawn from the correspondence in ARAB Audiëntie 197; the requests in Audiëntie 1235 and 1237; Hofwerken 22; the accounts Rekenkamer 27504 and 27505 (for the years 1598-1605); and the wage registers Rekenkamer 46010 and 46012. 67

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

179. Wensel Cobergher, main door of the Mount of Piety in Ghent, 1622.

178. Brussels, Grote Markt, unexecuted design for Den Zak, by Pierre Paul Mercx, 1640.

180. Antwerp, former Van den Bergh brewery, door inspired by Francart’s ­designs, 1676.

179

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Archduke Albert and the State Council proves that the first renovation stage was due to a certain Hieronymo Hardouin or Hardouino, an ingenaire who also bore the title of chevalier and about whom nothing more is known. Apparently he was of a doubting disposition, tearing down as often as not what had been built the day before, and working in a markedly different style from the ‘Brabantine manner’ that prevailed throughout the old building. By 1600 another engineer, Mathieu Bollin, had sole responsibility for the construction going on at the court (messier Mathieu Bollin ingeniaire et commis a la direction des ouvraiges de la court). At his death on October 20, 1603, a relative, Sylvain Bollin from Arras, took over as ingeniaire et architecte à la direction des ouvrages de la court. One of his requests stresses his experience in “architecture and other matters depending from his position as engineer”, but other documents explain that he was in fact a subordinate of Henri Meerte, mathematicq et architecte versed in the “art of geometry”, who is styled directeur des ouvraiges de la court des archiducqz en la ville de Bruxelles, aussy des villes frontieres de leur altezes et de tous aultres lieux et places ou besoign et commande luy est (1604). These titles clearly indicate that firstly, court architects functioned within a strictly hierarchical service; secondly, that the terms ‘architect’ and ‘engineer’ were still to a great extent interchangeable within the court context; and thirdly, that architecture was seen as a science based on geometry, although practical experience was valued. At the time, however, the Archdukes were already looking out for a new architect who could serve as an arbiter elegantarium in matters architectural and artistic; thus, without loss of title or remuneration, both Sylvain Bollin and Henri Meerte were soon relegated to a secondary position within the hierarchy by the rapid rise of Wensel Cobergher (b. 1557/1561 – d. 1634).69 After acquiring the status of officer of the court in November 1604, by the end of 1605 Cobergher had been designated architecte et ingeniaire au faict des ouvrages et fortifications des villes et fortz de leur altezes de la court a Bruxelles, Mariemont et aultres maisons d’icelles et toutte aultre chose que de leur part luy pourra ester encharge dependents de l’architecture, paincture et aultres ses artz.70 In the accounts of 1609 he was called architect-general (architect generael) for the first time, a title that was amplified in 1613 to “engineer and architect-general to their Highnesses” (ingenieur ende architect generael van hunne hoocheden). Somewhat lower on the ladder could be found specialists like Salomon de Caus (b. 1576 – d. 1626) who, as a hydraulic engineer, could function rather independently and was always styled ‘French engineer’, and Pierre Le Poivre (b. 1546 – d. 1626), responsible for only one project: Mariemont.71 The engineering corps placed under Cobergher’s orders enjoyed a solid reputation that extended beyond the confines of the Low Countries.72 Their expertise was not confined to civil architecture in the strict sense of the term. In 1624, Isabella recommended some of them (Abraham Melin, Adrian Zele or Cele, Pedro Baes and Jacques De Beste) to the Spanish king who needed a river bed straightened. In the Low Countries there were famous, Cobergher-led enterprises such as the draining of the Moeren (1619-1627); the digging of the canal between the Meuse and the Rhine, the so-called fossa Eugeniana (1626); the new urban design for Ostend after its surrender by the Northern army in 1604, and the new heptagonal layout of Scherpenheuvel/Montaigu, which mirrored the design of the church at its centre (from 1605).73 In the register of wages and pensions, the architects at the court are mentioned in the

69 Meganck 1998a; additional sources cited by De Jonge 1998a, p. 193, mostly drawn from the accounts (ARAB Rekenkamer 27505-27507); De Vos 1999, pp. 201-202. 70 “architect and engineer responsible for the works and fortifications of the towns and the fortresses of Their Highnesses, at the court of Brussels, Mariemont and other houses belonging tot hem, and all other things which they might order, relating to architecture, painting and other arts he has

180

mastered”. From the 1605 patent letter, quoted in De Vos 1999, p. 201 (ARAB Rekenkamer 46010, Registres 15821607, fol. 253r). 71 van den Heuvel 1998; Franke 1998. 72 Bragard 1998. 73 Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 197-198, cat. 273, pp. 121-122, cat. 156-157; Lombaerde 1998.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture chapter: Traictement aux officiers de l’artillerie, a fact that highlights their close relationship with the military engineers. All persons in this register were nominated by patent letter, and were thus, like Cobergher, ‘officers of the court’.74 Jacques Francart (b. 1583 – d. 1651), Cobergher’s nephew who had also worked in Italy as a painter and who had followed his uncle to the Low Countries, would rise to almost equal heights as court architect to Isabella, thanks to such proofs of expertise as his Premier Livre d’Architecture of 1617, his work for the Jesuit and Augustine orders in Brussels, and especially his direction of the funeral ceremonies for Albert on March 12, 1622. Thanks to the Pompa funebris optimi potentissimique principi Alberti Pii, published 181. Bird’s eye view of Scherpenheuvel, 1609-1627, designed by Cobergher (engraving by C. Lauwers from A. Sanderus, the next year, he finally obtained the title Chorographia sacra Brabantiæ, Brussels 1726-1727). of Royal Architect and Engineer.75 Only in 1633, a few months before Isabella’s death, would a third court architect be nominated 76 at his side: Anthoine Defossez. Nevertheless, Cobergher, who was increasingly busy with the Mounts of Piety,77 had transferred only part of his responsibilities to Francart, thus maintaining his pre-eminent position in the hierarchy, as his title of Royal Counsellor demonstrates. Much has been made of the artistic liberty and independence Cobergher seemingly enjoyed, that is if the Archdukes’ instructions to Philippe d’Ayala, commis de nos Domaines et finances, are to be taken at face value.78 However, contemporary sources take a somewhat different view of the architect’s professional position in relation to his patron, and in relation to the formidable administrative machine that processed all building in the context of the court. As we have mentioned before, according to Cornelis De Backer, “comptroller of His Majesty’s works in Brabant”, the architect’s duty consists “only in the making of plans, models and other architectural things” and not the day-to-day running of the building site.79 Francart’s commission of 1622 stresses the same fact, as does a request describing Jehan Fayet’s role as “architect and engineer to Their Highnesses”. Moreover, he had to submit each project to the finance administration for the comptroller’s approval; only when this was forthcoming would the paymaster (recepveur commis au payement desdits ouvraiges) authorize payment “without the architect being obliged to do anything except for seeing to it that the proper measures and ornaments of architecture he

74 De Vos 1999, p. 201 quotes ARAB Rekenkamer 4601046012, Registres aux gaiges et pensions for the period 15821650. The military domain will, however, not be treated here: see Bragard 1997-1998. 75 In addition to his yearly wage of 300 pounds, he had been paid 10729 pounds, 4 shillings and 4 pence for his work on the chapelle ardente and funerary chariot; an additional 700 pounds was accorded for his artistic direction of the ceremony and for the publication of the Pompa. Papy & Van Houdt 1998, p. 330. See also note 49. 76 De Vos 1999, p. 201.

77 He had been nominated ‘superintendent-general’ by patent letter, dated January 9, 1617. Soetaert 1986, pp. 95-104; Plantenga 1926, p. 303. 78 ARAB Hofwerken 191/2-3; Plantenga 1926, pp. 293-294 (doc. 12). 79 Francart’s commission was published by De Maeyer 1955, p. 364 (doc. 179). For Jehan Fayet, see ARAB Audiëntie 1237, request dated September 7, 1603. De Backer’s statement can be found in ARAB Hofwerken 192/7/2. De Vos 1999, pp. 203-204.

181

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 has designed are respected”. De Backer even observes that: “ordinary things, such as plans, models and drawings were up until now made by the comptroller, […] even in the architect Cobergher’s time, so that the architect’s presence on the building site is largely unnecessary and may be reduced to once a month”. This explains, for instance, why several clerks receive a relatively important reward in 16081609 for drawing up “divers plans and models” for the new buildings at the court.80 The architect, “who has no other charge than to make drawings of the buildings”, cannot hire or fire workmen, nor sign the orders for payment for working men or buy materials on his own, because this is the comptroller’s respon182. Jacques Francart, Pompa funebris optimi potentissimique principi Albertii sibility and prerogative. De Backer tellingly Pii, Brussels 1623, frontispiece. concludes that none of the “famous architects” like Jacques Du Broeucq, Hardouin, Mathieu Bollin, Wensel Coberger and Henri Meerte ever aspired to more. The new practitioners of architecture, painters by training like Cobergher and Francart, and the military engineers, often also geometre (surveyors) like Le Poivre, may have enjoyed the artistic liberty which the enlightened patronage of the court conferred upon them, but on a practical level they were still caught within the administrative framework that had regulated construction at court in the duchy of Brabant since the early fifteenth century. On the basis established by Philip the Good, this administration had evolved in the meantime into a separate institution.81 During the last decades of the sixteenth century, the Bureau of the Court Works (Hofwerken or Ouvrages de la cour) gradually emancipated itself from the Brabant Chamber of Accounts (Rekenkamer or Chambre des Comptes), although it remained subordinate to the Council of Finance, as was the Chamber of Accounts. The Bureau, led by the comptroller of works, was assisted from the beginning of the Archdukes’ reign by a lieutenant-comptroller. Its responsibility only extended to the royal buildings, which included, in practice, the residences at Brussels, Tervuren and Mariemont. At the highest level royal building projects were supervised by the Superintendent of Court Works, who from 1607 until 1675 was also a member of the Council of Finance. There nevertheless remained a close tie to the Chamber of Accounts: Cornelis De Backer combined the functions of steward (rent­ meester) of Brabant, the highest level within the Chamber of Accounts, with that of lieutenant-comptroller (and later of comptroller) of Court Works. The court architect or architect-general, it must be stressed, belonged to another, parallel section; i.e. the officers of the court, but he was assisted by a superintendent, usually an engineer, who controlled construction and was thus closely linked with the comptroller and the steward.

80

ARAB Rekenkamer 27506, 1608-1609, fols. 126r, 169r.

182

81

De Vos 1999, pp. 201, 203.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture Building for State and House: Maurits van Nassau and Architecture (1585-1625)82 Organizing Construction at the Nassau Court The structural organization of building projects at the court of The Hague under Maurits of Nassau (b. 1567 – d. 1625) shows both parallels with and remarkable differences from the situation at the Brussels court during the reign of the Archdukes. Undoubtedly the similarities are due to the common political-historical background both courts actively shared until the last quarter of the sixteenth century, but as was stressed at the beginning of this chapter, even before the separation there was a difference in status. In the fifteenth and sixteenth century The Hague had been only a satellite court on the periphery of the Spanish Kingdom, unlike the royal residence at Brussels, which operated as the political centre of the Low Countries. It became a princely court only later, due to Maurits, but especially due to his half-brother Frederik Hendrik who initiated a genuine court life there, probably inspired by the former King and Queen of Bohemia who lived in exile in The Hague from 1621 onwards.83 The first, centralizing reorganization of all ducal building work had already occurred in the Burgundian period in the duchy of Brabant, but due to the particularism of the political institutions in the Low Countries, this innovation was never systematically extended to the whole of the Burgundian federation. Consequently, the Court of The Hague lacked an equivalent tradition of court architects who were also ‘officers of the court’, as had developed in Brussels. Nevertheless, the administrative organization of building projects at both courts was not dissimilar, even if centralization was only possible to a certain degree in the Nassau context.84 The Stadholder’s properties and building activities were indeed controlled by various organizations. The stewards and inspectors of the Nassau Estates Council (Nassause Domeinraad) saw to the administration of construction in Maurits’ personal domains (such as the palace in Breda and the castles of Buren and IJsselstein), while the Chamber of Accounts of Holland, which was subordinate to the States of Holland, managed the palace (Stadthouderlijk Kwartier) in The Hague. There was no formally appointed architect at Maurits’ court. Artists and building contractors were engaged on a free-lance base for tasks such as designs, expert opinions, and recruitment of workers. The steward assigned work, paid for services and deliveries, and inspected the work upon completion. Building specifications were drawn up by “masters, craftsmen and others who have knowledge and experience of this”.85 Construction work was supervised by a comptroller, usually a master craftsman. There was no central design authority capable of implementing a coherent artistic policy throughout all construction sites. Various artists and building masters were contracted for various projects, such as the sculptor Adriaen Fredericksz. van Oudendijck working at the Binnenhof in The Hague, the contractor Melchior van Harbach at various projects in Breda and its surroundings, and the master carpenter Willem Arentsz. van Saelen supervising the new Prinsenhuis in Willemstad.86 In some cases, these ‘clerks of the works’ could be called court architects avant la lettre. Those responsible for the residences of Honselaarsdijk and Ter Nieuburg in particular occupied a well-established position in the building office, because they were, or later became, stadsfabrycq; i.e. town architects: Pieter van Bilderbeeck in Leiden and Gerrit Druivestein in The Hague.87 Here lies a second contrast with the Brussels court, for as we have seen, since the early sixteenth century Habsburg court artists such as Jean Mone, Pieter Coecke van Aelst and Jacques Du Broeucq had emancipated themselves from the urban building industry.

82

Unless indicated otherwise, this section is based on De Vos, van den Heuvel & Ottenheym 2000. 83 Groenveld 2003. 84 De Vos 1999, pp. 204, 209 ; De Vos, van den Heuvel & Ottenheym 2000, p. 124.

85

“meesters, Werc-luyden en anderen die daer van last ende kennisse hebben”, document quoted ibidem. 86 For Willemstad, see also Meischke 1985. 87 De Vos 1999, p. 205.

183

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Nassau Court Architects? At the close of the year 1615, Maurits commissioned Constantino de’ Servi who had been sopraintendente di tutta la maestranza (court architect) of Cosimo II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, to design a new palace for The Hague, about which more below. De’ Servi was an all-round artist, active as architect, engineer, sculptor, painter and founder of medallions; from this point of view at least, he could be compared to Cobergher. He also shared Cobergher’s international background, having worked at Richmond for Henry, Prince of Wales from August 1611, where he must have met both Salomon de Caus, who had left Brussels at the close of 1610, and Inigo Jones, Surveyor of the Prince’s Works. General Sir Edward Cecil, commander of the English regiments in the Republic, may have served as a cultural agent in this matter; he was present when De’ Servi showed his drawings to his patrons. Nevertheless, in Maurits’ loosely structured architectural administration De’ Servi never gained a title or position comparable to Cobergher’s in Brussels. Neither did the other artists favoured by Maurits in the following years, such as Adriaen Fredericksz. van Oudendijck, a master sculptor from The Hague with Italian experience who designed a renovation plan for the Binnenhof in 1620, or Melchior van Harbach “architect and master stonecutter from Breda” who worked at the castle in that city in the 1620s. Van Harbach was singled out by the title of architect by the steward (1621), but in spite of his responsibilities, he did not receive an ordinaris gage as a member of the court. Similarly, the talented painter Jacques de Gheyn II was able to develop a career as virtual court architect without ever gaining official recognition of the fact on the administrative level; his work consists of individual commissions assigned on an ad hoc basis by various authorities.88 Constantijn Huygens, who became his friend, praised his knowledge of the arts of design, and his experience with perspective and architecture must have come in useful to Maurits. Around 1620 De Gheyn designed the famous Prince’s Garden at The Hague, making use of his connections with the botanists at Leiden; he had also designed the illustrations for Clusius’ famous Rariorum Plantarum Historia (1601), dedicated to Rudolph II. De Gheyn, followed by his son, worked on the gallery and the grotto with a fountain. He was also involved in the publication of the engravings showing Maurits’ exequies (1625), a typical, and politically important assignment for a court artist well versed in ceremonial matters.89 The exception to the rule, however, was the French garden architect and gardener Louis d’Anthoin, who by patent letter was accorded a twice-yearly wage from 1622, and who would also serve Maurits’ successor. Not until 1634 did the situation in The Hague truly change, when Frederik Hendrik appointed Simon de la Vallée from Paris “Architect of His Highness’ Buildings”. However, an equivalent of the Brussels court architect did not appear until the appointment of Pieter Post as “painter and architect ordinaris” by the Prince on February 9, 1646. From that moment Post belonged to the domestic officers. After the death of Frederik Hendrik he remained in the service of his successor, Willem II, as did his colleagues in Brussels. The ‘Binnenhof’ in The Hague Even if Maurits’ efforts in the field of architecture were never exclusively focused on his official residence at The Hague, the maps discussed in the introduction to this chapter demonstrate its propaganda value on an international level, and within this perspective it merits special attention. In the late sixteenth century the medieval seat of the Duke of Holland in The Hague, called ‘Het Binnenhof’, had become the centre of power of the young Dutch Republic. Since the sovereignty of the province had passed into the

88

De Vos 1999, pp. 206-208; De Vos, van den Heuvel & Ottenheym 2000, p. 125.

184

89

van Regteren Altena 1983.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

183. The Hague, view of the Binnenhof, with the execution of van Oldebarneveld in 1619 (engraving by Claes Jansz.Visscher).

hands of the States of Holland, this institution had become the owner of the Binnenhof building complex, and as such they were the host of various other governmental bodies. The States of Holland and the States General used various rooms in the north wing of the complex that faced the large pond (called the ‘Hofvijver’), while the Holland Court of Justice was located in the former ducal residence dating from the twelfth century, the oldest part of the whole complex. The thirteenth-century Great Hall at the front of this residence had no particular function in the era of the Dutch Republic and was rather neglected at the time. Traditionally, the apartment of the Stadholder of Holland’s apartment was located in the west wing of the Binnenhof, facing an open square called the ‘Buitenhof’, and the city of The Hague. Throughout the entire history of the Dutch Republic there was an obvious tension between the Stadholder and the States of Holland, formally his superior. Only abroad, in the small Princedom of Orange, was he a sovereign; in Holland itself the Stadholder served the States as their first and supreme servant, above all else as captain-general of the army. Two centuries of struggle for power between the Stadholder on the one hand, who actually had the ambition to act as a sovereign ruler of the Republic, and the States General and the States of Holland on the other, who carefully maintained the republican constitution, is reflected in the building history of the Binnenhof. At various times both parties tried to have control over the governmental complex by imposing their own architectural landmark.90 This first began in 1598 when Maurits erected an imposing, four-floor square tower pavilion at the north-west corner of the complex as an addition to the Stadholder’s apartment. The large room on the main floor became Maurits’ new office. In 1605 an astronomical observatory was constructed

90

After various modernizations of the Stadholder’s apartments by Maurits and Frederik Hendrik, the States of Holland created their new assembly hall in the 1650s (Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, 163-172). Around 1748 William IV wanted to transform the whole west wing into a French

inspired palace (Schmidt 1999, pp. 81-105) but his successor William V made the sole addition of a new ballroom in the 1770s. This room became the first assembly room of the new Parliament after the revolution of 1795, and was used as such until 1992 (de Carvalho-Roos 1996).

185

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

185. The Hague, Stadholder’s garden in front of the Binnenhof, ­designed by Jacques de Gheyn (engraving by Hendrick Hondius 1620). 184. The Hague, The Hofvijver and the Stadholder’s wing of the Binnenhof.

on top; thus it gained a modern-looking terraced roof surrounded by a balustrade. In 1615 Maurits’ ambitions to upgrade his residence went even further when Constantino de’ Servi was invited to design a ‘royal palace’, a regio palazzo, on the site of the former Castello della Haya.91 In The Hague De’ Servi showed his designs to the members of the States of Holland as well as to Maurits himself, and back in Florence he made a wooden model. We can presume that he had designed a regular, up to date Italianate complex with an arcaded square courtyard. However, the States’ members must have considered this design for the reconstruction of the site as far too radical and costly, and since the States of Holland had to pay for the project, they had the last word. In 1620 the Stadholder’s wing at the side of the Binnenhof was indeed rebuilt, but in a far more modest way, after a design by the local sculptor Adriaen van Oudendijck. The most prestigious part of the renovation was the new princely garden designed by Jacques de Gheyn II in front of this two-storey building. The composition was dominated by two huge circles – obviously inspired by the famous gardens designed (but only partially realized) by Salomon de Caus next to the castle of Heidelberg in the Palatinate. An open arcade closed the garden at the east side. It was most probably in this arcade that De Gheyn designed an artificial grotto with fantastic scenery constructed around a huge statue of Neptune.92 Maurits’ Architectural Policy Maurits’ architectural policy can only be defined with difficulty since the available source material is divided unequally across his reign. In the early decades of his stadholdership he had no possibilities to spend any money on prestigious private architecture. The main building projects commissioned by him were of a military nature, like the new city of Willemstad or the fortifications of Coevorden and Bourtange. His priorities lay, after all, with the extensive fortification programme he implemented; for instance the foundation in 1600 of a course of studies for surveyors and fortification engineers at

91

Fock 1979; De Vos, van den Heuvel & Ottenheym 2000, p. 124.

186

92

van Regteren Altena 1970, p. 37.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture the University of Leiden, known as the Duytsche mathematique (see Part Two, Chapter I).93 At that time, Maurits’ court obviously lacked the international aura of the Habsburg Court of Brussels, which was firmly anchored between the Spanish and imperial worlds. Only when his political position in the Dutch Republic had become unassailable, and after he had inherited the Princedom of Orange from his brother Filips Willem (1618), he did start to embellish his courtly dwellings at The Hague, Breda and elsewhere in the country. But even then his court did not become a focus point of architectural fashion in Holland. In the early decades of the seventeenth century architectural developments were dominated by civic architecture. The work of Lieven de Key in Haarlem and 186. Willemstad, Prinsenhuis, 1623. of Hendrick de Keyser in Amsterdam also served as a reference point for court architecture, so that the external appearance of the new court buildings followed, albeit in a moderate way, the modern architecture of Hendrick de Keyser and his circle (see Part Two, Chapter II). Even the more prominent buildings maintained a certain air of functionality rather than sumptuous splendour. Nevertheless, the severe simplicity of the Prinsenhuis at Willemstad (1623-1625), which was meant to serve as a hunting pavilion, or indeed of its octagonal church (started 1596), is misleading if one is to gauge the true nature of Maurits’ interest in architecture, as is the outer appearance of the Binnenhof after its renovation. The square corner pavilion with terraced roof recalled Habsburg court architecture in the Southern Low Countries, and set the tone for the renovation of the adjacent wing. The latter’s brick-and-stone masonry, stepped end gable, steep roof covered in slate and its closely serried ranks of cross-mullioned windows also evoked examples from the past century; not surprisingly, perhaps, if one takes into account what happened in Brussels. De’ Servi’s unexecuted design would certainly have allowed Maurits to express his personal ambitions in a more monumental manner, but we should not reject the new Stadholder’s quarters as traditionalist. Maurits did not evince a lack of broader interest in courtly representation. After all, this manner of architecture was still valid throughout the whole of the Low Countries and had the advantage of evoking, by association, a more glorious era. On the other hand, the classical geometric design of the garden below this wing – a large rectangle with two perfect circular berceaux inside – demonstrates the patron’s underlying theoretical interest in architecture as a form of mathematics, or a building as a perfect geometrical unity. Maurits had a lively interest in mathematics, rational order and the application of the sciences in daily life. The mathematician and engineer Simon Stevin was appointed as his personal maths teacher in 1593 (as discussed in Part Two), and as well as studying the results of their scientific experiments together, they examined various options to modernize the army and improve fortification systems.94 As superintendent van Sijne Vorstelijcke Genades Comptoiren vande finantie; i.e. a high-ranking civil servant, Stevin was an officer of the court rather than a practitioner of architecture, and consequently it is difficult to gauge his impact on actual building practice at court. Nevertheless, Stevin’s preferment testifies to Maurits’ pronounced interest in mathematics and its practical applications – such as perspective, urban design, fine arts and, of course, the art of fortification – and so do the contents of his library, which included

93

van den Heuvel 2004.

94

van den Heuvel 2000.

187

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 treatises by Vitruvius (in two editions), Alberti, Serlio, Vignola, Philibert de L’Orme and Vredeman de Vries.95 De Vries astutely dedicated his book on perspective to Maurits, thus hoping to gain a professorial post at the University of Leiden through his recommendation.96 Although at first glance other buildings commissioned by Maurits do not seem to have an innovative appearance, they show the same rational approach towards architecture. We can particularly trace this characteristic in the geometry of ground plans like those of the protestant church of Willemstad (1596) and the hunting lodge near Breda (1620), both perfectly symmetrical octagons. The church in Willemstad with its eight Tuscan inner columns will be discussed in the 187. Breda, octagonal hunting lodge in the forest of Belcrom, c. 1620 last chapter of Part Three, but it is important to (engraving in E.T. van Goor, Beschrijving der Stadt en Lande van Breda, note here that Maurits was the one to insist on an The Hague 1744). octagonal ground plan. The lost hunting lodge in the Belcrom Forest north of Breda had a cellar, two storeys and a belvedere on top. An eighteenth-century description mentions eight columns on the main floor, which formed an ambulatory: “you can walk around it as in a church”.97 Repeated for Ernst Casimir (1626-1632) in the Prinsentuin at Vlissingen and in Groningen, and again at Honselaarsdijk for Frederik Hendrik, The Hague garden design, published by Hendrik Hondius in his Perspective Conste (1623), gained general recognition and obviously carried special connotations for the Nassau family.98 It should be seen as a sign of modernity, a forerunner of the Classicism that characterizes the court art of the next Nassau generation. Other symbols of modernity can be found in the grotto, which, like the berceaux composition, has been compared to work by De Caus, as published in his Les raisons de forces mouvantes (Frankfurt am Main 1615), and Hortus Palatinus (Frankfurt am Main 1620). Fancy grottoes were a specialty of his, as is clear from his early work in Brussels (1600-1610), and his subsequent work in England (1610-1612) and Heidelberg (1613-1620).99 The garden thus mirrors the active Anglo-Dutch relations of the period, and also the connections with the Palatinate.100 In addition, there are the fountains designed by De Gheyn, and the parterres de broderie, which were among the first to be realized outside France (albeit by French gardeners). Maurits’ gardens, if not his palaces, could compete on an international level with those of his contemporaries.

95

Renting & Renting-Kuipers 1993. Part I, Leiden, Hendrick Hondius, 1604, Part II, ibidem, 1605. The New Hollstein XLVIII, pp. 165-225, cat. 517-591; Antwerp 2002, pp. 227-228, cat. 50; Vredeman’s letter of solicitation, see Antwerp 2002, pp. 358-359, cat. 201. 97 Hedendaagse Historie, ofte Tegenwoordige Staat van alle Volkeren 12, Amsterdam 1740, pp. 224-225. 98 Amsterdam 2000, pp. 314-315, cat. 160; Bezemer Sellers 2001, pp. 233-238. 99 De Gheyn’s grotto project, ibidem, pp. 315-317, cat. 161. Franke 1998; Brussels 1998-1999, pp. 189-190, cat. 96

188

266 (with older bibliography). On De Caus in Brussels, see De Jonge 2000-2001, pp. 92-96; in Heidelberg, see Zimmermann 1986. 100 In England, De Caus worked with De’ Servi in the gardens of Richmond for Henry, Prince of Wales. The Raisons were dedicated to Henry’s sister Elizabeth, who married Frederick V, Prince Elector of the Palatinate; De Caus would work for him in Heidelberg. Prince Maurits had served as a negotiator for the marriage and would receive De’ Servi in 1615.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture Princely Splendour: Frederik Hendrik and Amalia von Solms’ New Court Architecture, 1625-1647 On the death of Prince Maurits in 1625, Frederik Hendrik (b. 1584 – d. 1647) succeeded his half-brother as Prince of Orange. He was also appointed captain-general of the Dutch army, as well as Stadholder of Holland and four other provinces of the Republic (his cousin, Count Ernst Casimir van Nassau-Dietz, was Stadholder in the two northern provinces: Friesland and Groningen). In the same year Frederik married Countess Amalia von Solms, a remote member of the family and a ladyin-waiting to the former Queen of Bohemia, who was living in exile in The Hague. With the new princely couple began a new era of cultural display. Far more than had been the case in Maurits’ time, the court of Orange became a centre of arts, music, and architecture. Frederik Hendrik and Amalia were ambitious to meet the high standards of international court life because of their passion for the fine arts, which also served their dynastic politics.101 The Stadholder’s old residences in The Hague, as well as his private possessions elsewhere in the country, were far too modest to rival those of foreign royalty. The Nassau family’s most prestigious property, the palace of Breda, was re-conquered by the Spanish in 1625. Building new residences in and around The Hague was an urgent necessity for Frederik Hendrik and Amalia. Whereas the Archdukes in Brussels, following Habsburg policy, gained prestige mainly through important ecclesiastical patronage, the building activities of the Prince of Orange, which focused on palaces and public squares seem more inspired by those of the Kings of France, especially the Valois and Henry IV. In his time, Prince Frederik Hendrik was known as a knowledgeable amateur in the field of architecture, and one who always wanted to be closely involved in the design process. His passion for building and renovating palaces and their gardens, and for designing interiors, remained a major preoccupation throughout his life.102 His best-known projects in this field are the palaces at Honselaarsdijk, south of The Hague, where work went on from 1621 until his death in 1647, and Ter Nieuburg at Rijswijk, between The Hague and Delft, which was built in a very short time: between 1630 and 1634. Sadly, both these palaces have long since been pulled down and all that remains is a small section of the Honselaarsdijk outbuildings. In The Hague, however, more traces of Frederik Hendrik’s love of architecture have survived. Here he was actively involved as patron in the radical redesigning of the ‘Oude Hof’ on the Noordeinde. In 1645, moreover, his wife Amalia von Solms secured his permission to build a summer palace just outside the city. Originally called the ‘Oranjezaal’, it is now known as Huis Ten Bosch. Frederik Hendrik’s activities in this field were not limited to his own properties. He forced the States of Holland to renovate his apartments in the Binnenhof, the traditional seat of Holland’s Stadholder, in a very sumptuous manner.103 In 1632 he strongly supported Constantijn Huygens’ ideas to create a new, regular square at the rear of the Binnenhof. Over the following years this square, called simply ‘het Plein’, became a famous spot for various prestigious residences, like those of Huygens and Count Johan Maurits.104 France as a Model The taste for building at the French court, to which Frederik Hendrik was introduced at an early age, would have provided an important boyhood model. From the age of fourteen to fifteen, Frederik Hendrik and his mother Louise de Coligny spent over eighteen months, from September 1597 to April 1599, at the court of his royal godfather, Henri IV of France.105 During that time he must have 101

103

102

104

Frijhoff 1997. Slothouwer 1945; Ottenheym 1997b; Bezemer-Sellers 2001.

Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 35-38. Bruin 1999. 105 Poelhekke 1978, pp. 38-42.

189

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 become thoroughly familiar with the royal residences in and around Paris, the renovated Louvre by Pierre Lescot, the Tuileries by Philibert de L’Orme and Jean Bullant, and the palace at Fontainebleau. He was to return to France later for short stays: for example in 1610, 1611 and 1619. During these later visits Frederik Hendrik would have become acquainted with Henri IV’s great programme of modernization in Paris, by then practically complete. This involved large-scale, co-ordinated complexes of a kind then unknown in the Low Countries, such as the Pont-Neuf and the Place Dauphine at the tip of the Ile-de-la-Cité, the Place Royale (the present Place des Vosges), the extension of the Louvre and the long gallery along the Seine between the Louvre and the Tuileries. The scale alone of these projects was enough to marvel at. Frederik Hendrik must have looked around Paris and its vicinity with expert knowledge and a trained eye: he was well versed in mathematics, the field to which architecture was considered to belong. As we have mentioned, his brother Maurits had appointed the mathematician and engineer Simon Stevin as his own personal maths teacher, and had also put him in charge of the Duytsche Mathematique in Leiden, the most modern engineering school of its time (see Part Two, Chapter I). We can be sure that Frederik Hendrik, too, was aware of Stevin’s ideas. In any event, in The Hague he received private tuition in mathematics, fortifications and architecture from the surveyor Jan Jansz. Stampioen.106 In these ways, Frederik Hendrik would have acquired his knowledge of the theory of architecture. Even from his home in The Hague Frederik Hendrik could quite easily keep abreast of the latest developments in France. The principal documentation of the new royal architecture of the sixteenth century consisted of a series of publications from 1559, 1562 and 1582 by Jacques Androuet I Du Cerceau, which included theoretical models for country houses and town palaces, as well as a 15761579 print series of the finest palaces: Les Plus Excellents Bastiments de France.107 The models for palaces, particularly in Du Cerceau’s first and third book, offered many examples of a strictly rational arrangement of the ground plan, which included two or four apartments, each consisting of an antichambre, chambre, cabinet and garde-robe. In Du Cerceau’s examples, the apartments are arranged symmetrically on either side of more public areas like the hall, the main room and the staircases. Both the important part played by the apartments in the design of the ground plan, and the central position of the staircase and main room, would be further developed in France by the following generations, as they would be in the Dutch Republic. Indeed, Du Cerceau’s models were still sufficiently up to date for reprints to be published in 1611 and 1615.108 Frederik Hendrik was able to follow contemporary trends, albeit at a distance, due to his close contacts with his French relatives. A case in point was the layout of the Palais du Luxembourg, built from 1615 onwards by Salomon de Brosse for Maria de’ Medici, the widow of Henri IV. This palace, with its striking façade ornament of banded rustication and pilasters, was above all an important example of the new, systematic arrangement of the ground plan. The first floor had identical apartments in the four corner pavilions, which were joined by long galleries around the forecourt. The main building, the corps de logis, housed the staircase, which thus became the very centre of the layout, as many of Du Cerceau’s paper designs show. Moreover, the Luxembourg garden was an important source of inspiration for the integrated design of house and garden introduced into Holland by Frederik Hendrik in the 1630s. Indeed, The Palais du Luxembourg was well known at the court in The Hague. After Maria de’ Medici was exiled from France in 1633, the palace passed to Gaston d’Orléans, the younger brother of Louis XIII. Gaston’s steward Nicolas Tassin was the agent for the House of Orange at the French court, and Frederik Hendrik was also in touch with Tassin about architectural matters. Thus in 1643 Frederik Hendrik asked him, through Huygens, to commission designs from the best French architects for the addition to Huis Honselaarsdijk of a court chapel and galleries extending as far as the 106 107

Muller & Zantvliet 1984, pp. 21, 37, 150. Boudon 1988; Thomson 1988.

190

108

Reprint of Du Cerceau’s Livre d’architecture (1559) by Jean Barjon (Paris 1611). Reprints of the Troisième Livre (1582) are known of in 1615 and 1648.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture outbuildings: (…) le communiquiez à de vos meilleurs architectes et jardiniers separément, pour les faire ordonner dessus ce qu’ils estimeroyent s’y pouvoir appliquer pour plus grand embellissement du lieu.109 The Dutch architect Pieter Post in fact provided the final solution in 1644, as we shall see. The Advisors: Italy as a Model From 1621 until his death in 1647, Frederik Hendrik, as a commissioning patron, had almost constant opportunities to study architectural problems. Throughout this period his secretary Constantijn Huygens (b. 1596 – d. 1687) gave him expert advice. While on diplomatic missions, Huygens had seen the work of Palladio and Scamozzi in the Veneto, and the work of Inigo Jones in London in the early 1620s. By the mid-1630s, during the building of his own house and the Mauritshuis in The Hague, Huygens had become the centre of a far-ranging network of scholars, artists and art lovers. As explained in a previous chapter (Part Two, Chapter III), Huygens’ circle attached great importance to the study of the principles of classical architecture according to the rules of Vitruvius. As the Prince’s secretary and a member of the Nassau Estates Council, Huygens was in a position to make known his preference for the new, classically inspired architecture. Huygens invariably accompanied the Prince on his military campaigns in the Southern Low Countries. He reported almost daily to Amalia von Solms on the Prince’s health and on events in the army camp. Evidently there was time in the evenings of these summer campaigns to converse on more elevated matters than the fortunes of war. “After the evening meal he occupies the time by looking at the designs for my house in The Hague and attending to other questions to do with architecture, one of his favourite pastimes,” reported Huygens on June 4, 1639.110 It is clear from this correspondence that in the 1630s and 1640s Frederik Hendrik kept careful track of progress on his palaces and gardens even while with the army, and discussed these matters with his staff. This often led to his making changes or adding instructions of his own to the plans. In 1638, for example, the Prince was making his own designs for the garden at Ter Nieuburg,111 while in 1640 he was poring over the plans for additions to Honselaarsdijk: “He dined – extremely well, perhaps too well – and spent over two hours arranging the gardens and buildings at Honselaarsdijk”.112 Like Huygens, Count Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen (b. 1604 – d. 1679) was greatly respected in court circles for his knowledge of architecture. Just before leaving for Brazil in 1636, he discussed with the Prince the design for the ceiling paintings for the new galleries at Ter Nieuburg, including both the choices of ornament and the colour scheme.113 His own residence in The Hague, the Mauritshuis, built between 1633 and 1644 to a design by Jacob van Campen, is still regarded as one of the first convincing examples of the introduction to the Dutch Republic of the North Italian Classicism of Palladio and Scamozzi. But elsewhere too, as governor in Brazil from 1636 to 1644, as Stadholder in Cleves from 1647, and as commander of the Knights of St. John in Brandenburg from 1652, Johan Maurits was the driving force behind projects of various kinds: gardens, palaces and model farms.114 Thus, both Huygens and Johan Maurits were leading proponents of the new classical architecture in Holland. Their new houses in The Hague, both begun in 1633-1634, marked the introduction of this new architecture into court circles. This was the beginning of the breakthrough of the new, 109 Worp Briefwisseling, III, p. 369 (no. 3220, Huygens to Tassin, February 16, 1643). 110 “Après l’heure du souper il passera le temps à voeir des figures de ma maison à la Haye, et autres choses touchant l’Architecture, qui est un de ses plus aggréables divertissements”. Worp Briefwisseling, II, p. 456 (no. 2109). 111 Worp Briefwisseling, II, pp. 388-389 (no. 1909, August 2, 1638).

112

“Il souppa – très bien, peut estre trop bien – et demeura bien deux heures à ordonner les jardins et bastiments de Honselardick”. Worp Briefwisseling, III, p. 52 (no. 2426, June 30, 1640). 113 Worp Briefwisseling, II, p. 194 (no. 1449, September 20, 1636). 114 Terwen 1979.

191

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 more austere style into the whole country. Up until that time the architecture of Frederik Hendrik’s palaces had always been based on French models, but by the second half of the 1630s, Frederik Hendrik, too, must have been converted to the new, classicist architecture championed by Huygens and Johan Maurits. The modernization of the central section of Honselaarsdijk (1635-1637) was the first sign of this change, and the commissioning of Van Campen for the 1639 renovation of the Oude Hof on the Noordeinde finally confirmed it. This marked a shift in the Prince’s taste, however, rather than a drastic change. The difference in the architecture at the Stadholder’s court lay principally in the treatment of the façade. Instead of a wealth of contrasting, plastic forms, the aim now was the correct application of the classical orders, usually in the flat form of pilasters, in order to get as close as possible to the classical ideal. But interest in the French models did not suddenly end. With regard to their ground plans in particular, the more modern French palaces – both the hôtels in the cities and the country houses – undoubtedly continued to be important examples for Frederik Hendrik. The Architects Although Frederik Hendrik started an impressive new series of building activities, he did not really change the administrative organization of the Nassau building projects. For several years he continued with the system exactly as it had existed under Maurits. All work was put out to tender and executed by local contractors and artisans. The building contractors of the various building sites were supervised by architects or stewards appointed by the Nassau Estate Council, the princely administration that was responsible for the final decisions and control. An important man in this organization was Simon van Catshuyzen. He was steward of the Nassau properties in the area south of The Hague (het Westland), bailiff of Naaldwijk, and steward of Honselaarsdijk. In addition he owned a big building company and had constructed various parts of the Honselaarsdijk and Ter Nieuburg palaces. Although in the 1630s he and his assistant Arent van ’s-Gravesande were paid for architectural drawings of various details for these projects, he was not responsible for the main architectural designs.115 The architects responsible for the first plans for Honselaarsdijk and Ter Nieuburg are not known, but in any event the Stadholder would have indicated his preference regarding the general outlines for these palaces. The drafts may even have been sketched out in France and the plans turned into detailed designs in Holland. Not until 1633 was a court architect appointed: the Frenchman Simon de la Vallée, who was given a permanent position in 1634.116 This choice is not surprising when we recall that he came from the circle of artists who were directly involved in the Palais du Luxembourg. He was the son of Marin de la Vallée, one of the architects who had worked on the completion of the Palais du Luxembourg after the death of Salomon de Brosse in 1626. Moreover, Simon de la Vallée was a brother-in-law of Claude Boutin, head gardener at the palace. Simon de la Vallée’s most important tasks were the finishing of Ter Nieuburg and the new staircase at Honselaarsdijk. He stayed for only a few years, however, leaving for Sweden in 1637.117 Specialists were also brought from France for the laying out of the gardens, among them Louis d’Anthoni, André Mollet and the fountain expert Joseph Dinant. While De la Vallée was still attached to the court, Jacob van Campen was also called in from 1635 to 1636 as a designer. This was no doubt at the instigation of Huygens, whose house was then nearing completion thanks in part to Van Campen. The first commission given to Van Campen initially involved new sculpture in the pediment of the façade at Honselaarsdijk, and a new pavilion in the park. In later years he continued to work for Frederik Hendrik, primarily as a designer of new interiors and without the kind of permanent position that De la Vallée had enjoyed. In these projects 115

De Vos 1999, pp. 204-205, 209; Steenmeijer 2005, pp. 13-18.

192

116 117

Nordberg 1970. Noldus 2004, pp. 38-40.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture Van Campen not only designed the decorations but also coordinated the execution of the paintings commissioned from various artists, such as the series of portraits of European rulers for the galleries of Ter Nieuburg in 1638. Later on, when Huis ten Bosch was being finished, Van Campen played a similar role in the decoration of the Oranjezaal. The renovation of the Oude Hof on Noordeinde in The Hague was the first (and only) truly architectural commission Van Campen received from the court. He was unwilling or unable to direct this work himself, however, and in 1640 Pieter Post was put in charge of overseeing the project. Post successfully exploited this opening into the world of the court and only a few years later, in 1644, he was acting as the Stadholder’s architect. This led to his appointment to the post in 1645, and to a permanent position as painter and architect ordinaris in 1646. From that moment he belonged to the domestic officers of the court, a post he continued to hold after the death of Frederik Hendrik.118 In this position Post may be regarded as the equivalent of the Brussels court architect of the early seventeenth century.

188. Honselaarsdijk, reconstruction of its situation c. 1637 (drawing by J.J. Jehee in Meischke 1990).

Honselaarsdijk In 1612 Frederik Hendrik bought the old castle of Honselaarsdijk near Naaldwijk from the Count of Arenberg.119 After the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce in 1621, building work started at the new house, but it was not to be concluded during Frederik Hendrik’s lifetime.120 He repeatedly had the house enlarged or internally modernized according to the latest ideas. This long building history can be broadly divided into four episodes that begin in the years 1621, 1633, 1640 and 1646. Between 1621 and 1631 the old castle was pulled down in stages and replaced by a modern, U-shaped design.121 The entrance was in the main wing, the corps de logis, which faced south and was separated from the public road by a forecourt. The palace had two rectangular corner pavilions on the garden side, two octagonal corner towers on the front, and a substantial central pavilion in the main wing at the front. Between the two rectangular pavilions on the garden side, a gallery was laid out at ground floor level, giving the inner courtyard the feeling of being enclosed. The building had a cellar, plus a ground and first floor, and was executed in brick with a great many stone elements such as the frames and pediments of the windows, the pilasters and weather moulds. Tiers of Doric and Ionic pilasters adorned the façades facing the courtyard, while the brick front façades of the building were enlivened by alternating triangular and arced pediments above the windows. Only the central projecting bays had tiers of Ionic and Corinthian pilasters, intended to accentuate the main entrance. The state 118 119

Terwen & Ottenheym 1993. Derez et al. 2002, pp. 189-193.

120 Morren 1905; Slothouwer 1945, pp. 39-88; Bezemer Sellers 2001, pp. 15-59. 121 Meischke 1990.

193

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

189. Honselaarsdijk, detail of an engraving by Balthasar Florisz. van Berckerode c. 1638.

190. Honselaarsdijk, reconstruction of the staircase as designed by Simon de la Vallée in 1633 (drawing R. Rooyaards-ten Holt).

apartments were on the first floor of the main wing, on each side of the great hall. Frederik Hendrik’s apartment was on the west side and Amalia’s on the east, and both consisted of an antichambre, chambre, garde-robe and a cabinet in the octagonal corner towers. Both chambres were connected to long galleries on the first floors of the side aisles. The design of the new Honselaarsdijk as it took shape in the 1620s, both in the arrangement of the volumes and the symmetrical layout of the apartments, was entirely in the style of French castles, as illustrated by Du Cerceau and others.122 Also the connection between chamber and gallery was typically French, although both the galleries of Honselaarsdijk could also be reached through the antichambre (which meant the galleries were not strictly private).123 From 1633-1639 the newly completed palace was adapted to correspond to the latest trends in France. The architect André Mollet gave the garden new parterres,124 while the court architect Simon de la Vallée built a monumental staircase behind the main pavilion with a double flight of steps and a central landing.125 The oval lantern crowning the stairwell, an invention almost contemporary to Mansart’s spectacular staircase at Blois (1635), sensationally augmented the spatial effect. Since Gaston d’Orléans also commissioned the new wing of the château at Blois, it is possible that the Prince of Orange was informed about its design even before construction at Blois had actually started. The idea of a double staircase on the rear façade had been introduced into the Republic through the palace of the ‘Winter King’ (the King of Bohemia) in Rhenen in 1630-1631, a building that was rather traditional in its design except for this one innovation.126 Whereas in Rhenen each flight of stairs had its own vault, at Honselaarsdijk there was a single open space with the double staircase inside it. A related design for a covered staircase within the corps de logis, can also be found among Du Cerceau’s examples, but without the monumental lantern.127 122

For example in his Livre d’architecture (1559) models XIX and XXVII, and in the Troisième Livre model XI. 123 On the gallery in the French context, see Guillaume 1993; in the Habsburg context, see De Jonge 1994b, pp. 116-121.

194

124

Hopper 1982; Bezemer-Sellers 2001, pp. 35-40. Snoep 1969; Meischke 1981. 126 Muller Fz. 1911; van Gelder 1911. 127 Livre d’Architecture, 1559, model VIII. 125

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

191. J.A. Ducerceau, design of a palace from his Livre d’Architecture, 1559, model VIII.

192. Honselaarsdijk, bird’s eye view by A. Bega and A. Bloote­ling, 1680.

Between 1635 and 1636 work was also proceeding on the modernization of the central projecting bays on the front façade, which in 1635 had a columned portico added to it. Probably, the broad pediment was also added during this building campaign, and at the end of that year Van Campen designed sculpture for it.128 It is not clear to what extent Van Campen or De la Vallée was responsible for this alteration of the main façade. At all events, Van Campen was put in charge of the further modernization of Honselaarsdijk when De la Vallée left in 1637. In that year Van Campen’s projects were restricted to the decoration of the main parts of the interior: the hall, the staircase and the great salon on the first floor, which were adorned with pilasters and a series of paintings for the walls and ceilings on the theme of Diana and the hunt; in particular, relaxation after the hunt.129 The main route through the palace: from the forecourt via the hall and the staircase to the great hall on the first floor, was thus turned into a suitable setting for state receptions and other official events. To provide enough stabling, coach houses and servants’ quarters – essential on such major occasions – large annexes were added to the palace between 1640 and 1644. On either side of the palace gardens rose U-shaped buildings consisting of tall, square corner pavilions with long, low sections between them. The building on the east side was called the Nederhof and the one on the west, the Domeinkwartier. In both, the long section on the garden side was reserved for special functions. In the Domeinkwartier it contained the living quarters of the higher court staff, while the one in the Nederhof, designed by Pieter Post, was arranged as a direct extension to the palace itself. It contained the court chapel, an open gallery looking out on the garden, and a gallery decorated with pilasters that framed a series of paintings depicting the story of Amor and Psyche.130 This gallery led to the east pavilion, which housed a luxurious bath apartment. To match the impressive staircase and the refurbished salon above the main entrance, plans were made in 1646 to modernize the state apartments at the front of the first floor.131 The existing rooms dated from 1621: twenty-five years later it was clear to anyone familiar with international trends that

128

The addition of the columns to the front façade is mentioned in a letter by Huygens, Worp Briefwisseling, II, pp. 117-118 (no. 1266, October 26, 1635). Meischke suggests the pediment was there from the very beginning. ­Meischke, Zantkuijl & Rosenberg 1997, pp. 85-86, ill. 150. 129 Snoep 1969; Meischke 1981; Meischke 1983.

130

Meischke & Ottenheym 1992, pp. 126-133; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 46-51. The Amor and Psyche series was painted by Gonzales Coques, using sketches by Abraham van Diepenbeeck (based on Raphael’s paintings in the Villa Farnesina in Rome). van Gelder 1949, pp. 48,53. 131 Terwen 1988; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 51-54.

195

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 they were no longer sufficiently imposing or comfortable. After some preliminary studies, Pieter Post designed the new apartments, for which new, rectangular pavilions would replace the old chambers and the octagonal corner towers. The exterior of these additional volumes was made to match the existing ones at the back of the house in order to preserve the unity of the palace. These new pavilions allowed for a better and more spacious arrangement of the princely quarters. The new state apartments formed a fitting climax to the monumental staircase that had been built ten years before. Beyond the vestibule, the magnificent stairwell with the oval lantern, and the great salon on the first floor, were state apartments to the left and right, each of which now had an enlarged antichambre, and the new spacious reception room known as the chambre de présence, followed by the chambre containing the state bed, the garde-robe and cabinet. The chambre de présence gave direct access to the galleries in both side wings. In the 1687 travel notes made by the Swedish architect Tessin the Younger, the interior layout of the apartments on the first floor receives special praise, above all because it was possible to move through the principal rooms on both sides: the antichambre, chambre de présence and gallery, without having to enter the private areas: the chambre, garde-robe and cabinet.132 At that time, this layout, with its clear distinction between the more public part of the apartments and the private rooms, was only known in the palaces of Europe’s ruling monarchs. At Honselaarsdijk it clearly illustrates the high ambitions of the Prince of Orange and his wife.133 Post’s plans of 1646 also envisaged the construction of two low wings, one on each side of the forecourt so that Honselaarsdijk would have a true, French-style cour d’honneur, like the one built a few years before at the Oude Hof in The Hague. After Frederik Hendrik’s death in 1647, Willem II put a stop to this work. But in that year he did allow the new pavilions to be completed and had both old antichambres enlarged, so that their façades came to stand virtually in line with the projecting central section. Instead of the wings that were to join the new pavilions, in 1649 Post designed the finishing for the front of the pavilions, including a central pediment above each. The new form of front façade that was eventually realized at Honselaarsdijk corresponded to the contemporary tendency in France to make country houses more compact, without long wings. Striking examples are Château Blérancourt by Salomon de Brosse, built between 1612 and 1619, and Château Maisons by François Mansart, built between 1642 and 1646. It seems highly likely that such modern palaces would have stirred the imagination at the Dutch court and influenced the final designs for the new façade at Honselaarsdijk. Ter Nieuburg Even before the first phase of work at Honselaarsdijk was finished, Frederik Hendrik began building a second country seat. Honselaarsdijk was intended as a hunting lodge and summer residence for the whole court, whereas Ter Nieuburg, situated close to The Hague, was to be more of a private palace without extensive accommodation for members of the court and the large numbers of servants they required. Frederik Hendrik acquired the estate of Ter Nieuburg in the summer of 1630.134 There, over a period of four years, a highly original summer palace was built in the form of a central rectangular volume with long gallery wings on either side, ending in smaller, square pavilions to the left and right. Work began in 1630 with the building of the central pavilion, which was completed in 1633. In 1632 the foundations were laid for the galleries and the corner pavilions on either side. In the following

132

“Die vertheilung wahr artig genug in dem fall, dass man die vornembsten zimmer kunte durchgehen, undt die alcove, cabinet undt guarderobbe doch auf beijden seiten nicht zu passiren (…)”. Upmark 1900, p. 145. 133 In that period the House of Orange had made recent connections with ruling sovereigns in Europe. Frederik

196

Hendrik’s son William (II) was married to Mary Stuart, daughter of Charles I. His eldest daughter would marry the Great Elector of Brandenburg in 1647. 134 Slothouwer 1945, pp. 89-133; Bezemer Sellers 2001, pp. 61-99.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

193. Ter Nieuburg, built 1630-1633, groundplan and elevation of the palace and courtyard (print by J.A. Rietkessler 1697).

194. J.A. Ducerceau, design of a palace from his Livre d’Architecture, 1559, model XXXII.

year commissions were awarded for the construction of these elements, and by 1634 all the structural work was finished. The finishing and decoration took several more years, culminating in the paintings. In 1638 Jacob van Campen coordinated the production of a series of portraits of European rulers.135 At the same time Gerard van Honthorst worked on the ceiling painting in the great hall, which was finished in 1639. The central volume had two identical apartments with the usual series of rooms: antichambre, chambre, cabinet and garde-robe. Both apartments had a gallery located in the long side wings. The galleries also gave access to the corner pavilions, which had a less elaborate apartment on each floor. The central areas of the main block had more public functions: the entrance hall on the ground floor gave access to a staircase with a double flight of steps and a landing, and the central hall on the upper floor. An arcade with three arches led from the entrance to the staircase. Stairs rose left and right, with the entrance to the garden in the centre, comme à Luxembourg de Paris, as a French visitor remarked in 1638.136 By means of a landing halfway up, the stairs reached the upper floor in a single central flight. The doorway between the staircase and the upper hall could be closed off, so that the hall could also be used as a proper reception room. A special feature was an extension on the rear façade, opposite the staircase. On the ground floor it had an open arcade on three sides, while on the floor above there was a kind of belvedere with a wooden vault that provided a view on three sides overlooking the gardens and the tower of the New Church of Delft in the distance. The belvedere was reached from the upper hall by two passages, one on either side of the opening to the staircase. Moreover, the extension had a flat roof, which could be used as a lookout point and was reached by a monumental door in the springing of the roof. From there the view was excellent and the design of the garden would have been seen at its best.

135

Heldring 1967; Buvelot 1995, pp. 129-132.

136 Dubuisson-Aubernay, Itinerario Batavico (1638), fol. II (Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, sign. MS no. 4407). Vermeulen 1938, p. 133.

197

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Both the general layout of this palace and the distinctive design of the façade again suggest a strong French orientation. The initial plan for the house and its gardens, which is a fairly close imitation of the Palais du Luxembourg, was sent from France.137 The final building, however, was based less on the Paris model than on one from Du Cerceau’s Livre d’architecture of 1559, specifically No. XXXII. The façades of Ter Nieuburg were elaborately and carefully finished, with Doric pilasters on the ground floor combined with blocked bands, and Ionic pilasters on the first floor. This combination of elements was unusual in Dutch architecture. In 1618, twelve 195. Bird’s eye view of Ter Nieuburg (anon. engraving, 18th century years earlier, Hendrick de Keyser had experimented with similar forms in his designs for the after J.J. Milheusser, 1644). new town hall in Delft. However, the immediate model for the design of the façades at Ter Nieuburg was probably the Petite Galerie of the Louvre in Paris, built about 1566 as an extension to the royal apartment in the new Louvre, thus joining it to the bank of the Seine. Here again, a personal preference on the part of Frederik Hendrik is a clear possibility. The architect of Ter Nieuburg is unknown but we do have the names of various people who were involved in its design and construction. Bartholomeus van Bassen, referred to in the accounts as “perspective painter and architect”, supplied drawings of plans and elevations of the house and garden in 1633 – as it was at that time and as it would be when the side wings were completed.138 Since Van Bassen was not otherwise involved in the project, we may assume that in 1633 he only provided handsome drawings of the building based on its current appearance with the additional aid of the designs from 1630. From 1632 the young Arent van ’s-Gravesande was active as a draughtsman and overseer.139 It seems he was given the 1630 design, and from it produced detailed drawings to be used in its execution. Given that the drawing for the initial design of the house and garden was French and followed the model of the Palais du Luxembourg, we can presume that the final 1630 design for Ter Nieuburg came from France as well, probably from the circle of the De la Vallée family. This would not have been an unusual procedure for Frederik Hendrik: in 1643 the stadholder certainly sought the advice of architects in France when preparing the enlargement of Honselaarsdijk. Moreover, the designs De la Vallée made later in Sweden for the Riddarhus in Stockholm employ the same formal vocabulary.140 The ‘Oude Hof’ in The Hague (Huis in ’t Noordeinde) Since childhood Frederik Hendrik’s own home in The Hague had been the sixteenth-century aristocratic town house Brandtwijck on the Noordeinde, which the States-General rented for his mother Louise de Coligny in 1591.141 Four years later the house was bought by the States-General, and in 1609 they transferred the ownership to Frederik Hendrik. After his appointment as Stadholder in 1625, Frederik Hendrik lived in the Stadholder’s quarters on the Binnenhof while the house on the Noordeinde, then known as the ‘Oude Hof’, served as guest accommodation for distinguished visi-

137

Bezemer Sellers 2001, pp. 67-77. NADH Nassause Domeinraad, inv. no. 1042 (1633), fol. 258v. 139 Steenmeijer 2005, pp. 13-18. 138

198

140

Nordberg 1970, pp. 89-98. Slothouwer 1945, pp. 134-178; van Pelt 1979; Jehee 1985; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 38-43; Bezemer Sellers 2001, pp. 101-112. 141

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture tors and as a venue for festive occasions. Maria de’ Medici stayed here during her visit to The Hague in 1638. In connection with the impending marriage of the young Willem II, son of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia, to the English princess Mary Stuart, work began in 1639 on a thorough modernization of the Oude Hof. It was to be transformed into a suitable residence for the future Stadholder Willem II and his royal bride, a marriage that was the crowning achievement of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia’s dynastic policy. The new palace was to provide every comfort required for modern court life, with a great hall and two apartments arranged as mirror images of each other, and each with its own gallery. The old house stood some distance back 196. The Hague, Noordeinde palace (het Oude Hof), groundplan before and after the renovation of 1639-1647 by Jacob van Campen from the street, and until 1639 had consisted of two and Pieter Post. parallel wings joined by a short passage. Both wings had two stories and steep, saddleback roofs with stepped gables at the ends. The shorter front wing was used as the servants’ quarters while the rear wing, which looked onto the garden, contained the principal rooms proper, such as the apartments and a long banqueting hall. The modernization under Frederik Hendrik took place in three stages. Between 1639 and 1643 the front wing was extended towards the north (i.e. to the right when viewed from the Noordeinde) and two galleries were built at the front, one on either side of the forecourt. In the second stage, 1643-1645, a new front façade was constructed, so that the old build- 197. The Hague, Noordeinde palace (het Oude Hof), facade ing and the newly completed addition now formed designed by Van Campen 1639. a single entity. At the same time a monumental, transversely positioned banqueting hall on the first floor replaced the passageway between the front and rear sections. To achieve this, the ground floor of this section had to have rooms added on both sides. Finally, between 1645 and 1647, the rear wing was modernized and extended, followed by the finishing of the new banquet hall and the apartments at the front. Building work began in 1639 under the direction of Jacob van Campen. As was the case with the Huygenshuis and the Mauritshuis, the detailed implementation of his plans was entrusted to Pieter Post, who in 1640 was officially made overseer of the Noordeinde building site. The whole layout on the Noordeinde: the new façade and the new galleries, and the idea of a large hall in the middle of the complex, would have been conceived by Van Campen. However, the alterations to the rear façade, the decoration of the interior, the chimneypieces, ceilings and suchlike, were the work of Pieter Post. The result, certainly on the Noordeinde side, was an entirely new town palace where no reference remained to the sixteenth-century origins of the building. The new palace forecourt, the cour d’honneur, was originally separated from the street by a wall built along the Noordeinde. The wing on the Noordeinde side became the principal component of the complex and housed the apartments of Willem II and Princess Mary Stuart, while Frederik Hendrik and Amalia kept their apartments in the

199

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 rear wing. However, after Frederik Hendrik’s death, only Amalia’s apartment on the south side of the rear wing was renovated. Willem II was allocated the southern (the left hand side seen from the forecourt) apartment in the front wing, his wife the northern (right hand) apartment. Willem II’s apartment was in the old core of the sixteenth-century house and thus less regular in its layout than Mary’s on the other side. Furthermore, it had its own stairs, which provided ready access to the ground floor, whereas his wife had to use the grand staircase at the rear. Between the two series of rooms at the front of the first floor was a spacious antechamber that served as the salle de garde for both apartments. The centre of the palace was the new banqueting hall that measured 10 x 24 metres and about 9 metres high. The wooden mirror vault was divided into square sections, painted with trompe l’oeil views of a sky full of 198. The Hague, Huis ten Bosch, final groundplan, 1645 (engraving birds. The walls of the great hall were decoratby Jan Mathijs after Pieter Post, 1655). ed with a series of nineteen tapestries showing scenes from the story of Dido and Aeneas. The exterior of the palace, in particular the dramatic transformation on the Noordeinde with the enclosed forecourt and the galleries on either side, was probably inspired by contemporary Parisian hôtels, with perhaps the 1635 Hôtel de la Vrillière by François Mansart as the foremost model. The design of the façades, however, both in terms of the pilaster orders used and their specific application in an arcaded gallery, are directly derived from Scamozzi’s treatise, as went more or less without saying for Jacob van Campen (see Part Two, Chapter III).142 As a result, the new ‘Huis in’t Noordeinde’ can be viewed as a successful combination of Frederik Hendrik’s close affinity with the court culture of France on the one hand, and on the other, the new taste for classicist design along Italian lines instigated by Huygens. Huis ten Bosch, the ‘Oranjezaal’ The initiative for building another stadholder’s residence in the vicinity of The Hague came from Amalia von Solms.143 In May 1645 she asked and obtained permission from the States of Holland to build a new country house in the Haagse Bos, an area of woodland right beside the city. At first this was to be a modest summerhouse, a ‘playhouse’ for relaxation. A copy of Pieter Post’s plan for this initial idea has been preserved.144 It was an elongated, H-shaped building, with a long transverse hall as the centre and two apartments in the wings. On the north side, where the entrance was planned, a similar elongated vestibule flanked the long hall. Designs for country houses with this kind of ground plan had been published by Serlio in the sixteenth century, and they are also found among the examples by Du Cerceau that were mentioned earlier.145 142

Scamozzi 1615, Part I, Book 3, p. 246: design for Palazzo Cornaro in Venice. van Pelt 1979, pp. 28-31. 143 Slothouwer 1945, pp. 179-224; Loonstra 1985; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 56-72; Bezemer Sellers 2001, pp. 112-120.

200

144

NADH Kaartverz., VTH 3323. Serlio, Libro VII (Frankfurt 1575); Du Cerceau, Troisième livre d’architecture (Paris 1582).

145

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

199. The Hague, Huis ten Bosch, section (engraving by Jan Mathijs after Pieter Post, 1655).

Although preparations for constructing the building had begun and the plans had been approved, Amalia must have had second thoughts and asked Pieter Post to make the design grander. Post must have modified the plan in July 1645, giving more importance to the central hall in particular. Once again Frederik Hendrik, 200. The ‘Oranjezaal’ in Huis ten Bosch, built 1645-1647, who at that time was with his army in the Southern Low paintings 1648-1652. Countries, wished to be kept informed. In the camp he discussed the new enlarged design, although at first, as Huygens reported to Amalia on July 20, 1645, the Prince was opposed to the grander scheme. He thought the original form should be retained, while the central room could be put to all kinds of uses: as a hall, a vestibule, or a waiting room for footmen and guests.146 In the end, Frederik Hendrik let himself be persuaded, no doubt thanks to Huygens’ efforts. Thus Amalia received permission to build the monumental cruciform hall after which the whole building was later named: the Oranjezaal. It became a broad, brick summer palace, a classic villa suburbana, with a ground floor, first and second floors, a cruciform room at the centre and apartments on either side. The monumentality of the exterior was largely due to the tight grouping of rectangular brick volumes; today, after the extension of the palace and alterations to the façade in 1734, this can only be experienced on the garden side.147 While the palace with its central hall seems to be very much inspired by Italian villas, no single model can be pointed to. In essence, Post combined two kinds of hall; namely, a cruciform space as in Palladio’s Villa Barbaro at Maser or Scamozzi’s Villa Badoer at Peraga, and an octagonal domed space as in Scamozzi’s Villa Rocca Pisani. This original creation was to form the centre of an extensive, mathematically laid-out site, with the forecourt and two service buildings on the north side, and ornamental gardens on the south. Construction progressed rapidly and, eighteen months later, in the winter of 1646-1647, the roof was

146

Worp Briefwisseling, IV, p. 178 (no. 4034).

147

For the alterations in the eighteenth century: Ottenheym & Schmidt 1994.

201

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 in place. Originally the intention must have been to have a slim tower on the roof. In that winter, however, the decision must have been taken to put a broad lantern on the roof instead, which would light the hall from above.148 This lantern had a gallery where musicians could play during festive occasions in the hall, so that not only light but also pleasant sounds would descend from the dome. After construction was completed in the summer of 1647, the finishing and decoration could begin. But Frederik Hendrik had died in the interim, and Amalia decided to turn her entire summer palace into a mausoleum in honour of her husband. She took it upon herself as the grieving widow to continue to look after the Orange interests, and above all to keep alive the memory of Frederik Hendrik. Mourning and renown are accordingly the central themes in the final decoration of Huis ten Bosch. They are evident, not only in the iconography of the great hall, but also in the choice of certain paintings and the colour scheme in the private rooms.149 The culmination of Huis ten Bosch is the Oranjezaal, which has paintings on all the walls and ceilings. In close consultation with Huygens, Amalia had a series of paintings made which together were to express a single iconographic programme: the triumph of Frederik Hendrik as the bringer of Peace and the Golden Age.150 In 1647 Huygens drew up a programme for thirty paintings, which were to be commissioned from various artists in the Northern and Southern Low Countries. Overall co-ordination was in the hands of Jacob van Campen, who had carried out a similar task – though less complex and extensive – ten years earlier at Honselaarsdijk and Ter Nieuburg. The structure of the hall is governed by the faux architecture of double Corinthian pilasters on the canted corners in the middle and their entablature above, all of which is executed on flat panels and painted in false relief, with the panels a similar umber-grey colour as the trompe l’oeil architecture in the paintings. The large arches on the canvases depicting the triumphal procession situated on the lower level along the side walls thus form an entity with the faux architecture of the hall itself. Architecture and painting are united in a single majestic stage setting. From the antichambre of her apartment on the east side of the house Amalia had her own direct access to the central hall, which is also shown in Post’s plan. In the hall itself, this door is disguised behind one of the large paintings.151 When Amalia was to appear in the hall, the painting could be swung aside on hinges. All at once, Amalia would be standing there, the main protagonist in a theatrical decor of her own devising, immediately in front of the showpiece and iconographic climax of the hall: Jordaens’ Triumph of Frederik Hendrik. A Latin inscription by Huygens that adorns the eight sides of the inside of the dome, once again expresses the significance of the building and the hall as a memorial to Frederik Hendrik. The exterior of the dome was originally topped by a many-pointed star, which can be regarded as the pinnacle of the iconographic programme carried out in the building, and a symbol of the virtuous prince who had led his people in troubled times like a clear star in the night: “He is a bright star, with rays of pure light/ who can bring his land and people out of night”.152 This was the image of Frederik Hendrik that Amalia von Solms wanted to preserve and perpetuate in her Oranjezaal. The unfortunate actions and premature death of Willem II, and the proclamation of the Stadholderless Regime in 1650, were to confirm in retrospect the value of such a palace for the head of the House of Orange.

148

Two different rafter constructions in the roof indicate a change to the design of the dome while building was in progress. Study for Rijksgebouwendienst 1986 by E.J. Nusselder and K.C. van den Ende. Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 59-60. 149 Lunsingh Scheurleer 1969. 150 Brenninkmeijer-de Rooij 1982; Buvelot 1995, pp. 132141.

202

151 It is the portrait of Amalia and her four daughters, by Honthorst, on the left hand side of Jordaens’ Triumph of Frederik Hendrik. The painted basement below the portrait of Amalia and her daughters is of course also fixed on this movable panel. 152 Paradin 1615, pp. 257-258. Complete quotation in Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, p. 70.

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture A Model for All Time: The Influence of Frederik Hendrik’s Palaces on Dutch Architecture after 1650 Frederik Hendrik’s palace projects were the most monumental buildings in the Northern Low Countries at the time. However, after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the proclamation of the Stadholderless Regime in 1650, the architectural glories of the House of Orange were equalled by two new government buildings commissioned by their political opponents: the Amsterdam Town Hall (now the Royal Palace on the Dam) and the Assembly Room of the States of Holland in The Hague’s Binnenhof (now the chamber of the Eerste Kamer, the Upper House of Parliament). It should be added that both these buildings were designed and executed by architects and artists, including Jacob van Campen and Pieter Post, who were working contemporarily on the completion of the Oranjezaal. Although art and politics were inextricably connected in such projects, individual artists were evidently not caught up in the political struggle between the States faction and the House of Orange. Even after 1650, the palaces of Frederik Hendrik continued to influence the development of architecture in the Dutch Republic. Particularly in their use of monumental staircases and the organization of apartments, they provided a model for houses on a less grand scale. In public buildings such as town halls, several new elements from the princely palaces were used, adapted to suit their new functions and scale. Also in their private town houses and country seats, the urban patriciate continued to look to these princely models for several decades, copying them on a reduced scale. However, the strict symmetry displayed in the palaces of the House of Orange was seldom copied. Instead, a more flexible division of the ground plan can be found, which favoured a greater degree of commodity and privacy. Moreover, an arrangement with two symmetrical apartments would not have made sense in a burgher’s home where man and wife lived together – quite unlike the life style of the upper nobility. In this respect Huygens’ house in The Hague remained a distinct exception. During the revival of court life under William III, Stadholder (1672-1702) and King of England (1689-1702), several new stately homes were built.153 The new élan shown by the Court of Orange in the last quarter of the seventeenth century was also reflected in its architecture, especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1689 that brought William and Mary to the throne of England. Various members of the Dutch court followed William and Mary to England and had to keep up standards among their English peers. In this period, examples from the first half of the century remained major sources of inspiration. The plan of Amerongen Castle (1674), for example, can be traced back to the Mauritshuis in The Hague, and the arrangement of the central section of the palace of Het Loo (1686) is inconceivable without the example of Ter Nieuburg. The novelty of the spatial effect created by the staircase at Honselaarsdijk, as realized in 1633-1636, was not imitated in the Netherlands until 1695, when the staircase of Middachten Castle was built. Het Loo In the province of Gelre, close to his preferred hunting grounds on the Veluwe, William III began several new building activities: the country house of Dieren, Het Loo, begun in 1685 and completed in 1688, and De Voorst, begun in 1695 (the latter built for his favourite courtier Arnold Joost van Keppel, Earl of Albemarle). In 1684 William III asked the Royal Academy in Paris for a design for a hunting lodge, but we do not know whether any were ever made. If so, it is most likely they were never used since the general layout of Het Loo is almost a copy of the central building of Ter Nieuburg, albeit without the latter’s garden room at the back. In 1685 Jacob Roman was still Leiden’s city architect, but we may 153

See for a complete overview van Raaij & Spies 1988; Hunt & de Jong 1988.

203

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

201. Apeldoorn, Het Loo, 1685, enlarged 1689-1691 (anon. draw­ing of the ground plan 1695, photo Rijksgebouwendienst). 202. Apeldoorn, Het Loo, bird’ s eye view.. 203. Staircase of Het Loo, designed by Daniel Marot c. 1690. Engraving in his Nouveaux livres de pintures de salles et d’escalliers (c. 1710).

204

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

205. Amerongen castle, exterior. 204. Amerongen castle, built 1674-1676, ground plan (drawing by R.G. Bosch van Drakestein).

suppose he was already involved in the designs for Het Loo. Although only officially appointed architect to the court in 1689, in the previous years he had received large sums of money for his services (unfortunately not specified). Both the interior decorations and the garden parterres de broderie were designed by Daniel Marot, the famous Hugenot refugee from France who introduced into Holland the new French fashion of unity in interior design.154 Originally Het Loo was an almost cubic building with two large perpendicular wings, one on either side of the forecourt. In the central volume we find a spatial arrangement similar to that in Ter Nieuburg: a huge rectangular vestibule with a double staircase behind it and a central corridor leading directly to the garden. The staircase ascends to the upper vestibule, which also acts as the main reception room, as in Ter Nieuburg. There is direct access from this room to both state apartments, each consisting of an antichambre, chambre, garde-robe and cabinet, pleasantly situated on the corners at the rear of the house and overlooking the gardens. The main building was connected to the side wings by two curved Ionic colonnades. After 1689 the house had to be adapted to its new status as a summer retreat for the royal court. The Ionic colonnades were removed and placed at the back of the enlarged garden. Between the main building and the lower wings, two new building sections were inserted, one at either side. The right hand section served Queen Mary and, among other facilities, contained a private library, an Anglican chapel and a gallery. Amerongen In 1673 the French army had burned the old castle of Amerongen, seat of Godard Adriaan van Reede, Dutch ambassador to the Berlin Court. The following year the ruins were removed with the exception of one tower, and the construction of a complete new building started, with the remaining tower incorporated into the south-west corner.155 The overseer and building contractor was Hendrick Geurtsz. Schut from Amsterdam. The earliest surviving designs were most probably made by Van Reede himself, who also wrote the specifications. His old friend Count Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen, 154

Ozinga 1938a, pp. 49-76; de Jong 1993, pp. 59-97.

155

Mulder 1949.

205

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 the most celebrated dilettante in architecture in the Dutch Republic, gave some useful advice. As a result, the ground plan of the new Amerongen Castle rather closely resembles that of the Mauritshuis in The Hague. The castle is a solid brick volume surrounded by water. Arranged on the central axis of the main floor is a spacious vestibule, a double staircase, and the main reception room at the back. To the left and right of these central spaces are two series of rooms, exactly as in the Mauritshuis. A new element is a transverse passage inserted between the reception room and the staircase, in order to bring some light into the interior of the building. From the outside, the sober, massive brick volume and its moat immediately suggest a castle, although there is no direct reference to medieval architecture. The central projection is accentuated by a steep roof instead of a classical pediment. The only refined details are the Ionic pilasters at the main entrance. While construction was taking place, the son of Van Reede, Godard van Reede-Ginkel, had tried to enhance the design by proposing a pediment on top and a stone façade. Although his father ignored these ideas, some twenty years later, Godard got his chance when modernizing the castle of Middachten. Middachten Godard van Reede-Ginkel, son of the Lord of Amerongen, had married the heiress to Middachten Castle. Van ReedeGinkel had become a military commander under William III, and his most important victories were in the Irish battles of 1691 that followed the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Van Reede was created Earl of Athlone, Baron of Aughrim and general of the Dutch cavalry; thus, after his return to the Dutch Republic in 1692, his stately home at Middachten needed to be adapted to his new position.156 The existing building was transformed into a regular, symmetrical country house after a design delivered by Jacob Roman, architect to the court of William III, and Steven Vennecool, a private architect from Amsterdam. The first designs must have been made in 1693, and building was in progress from 1695 to 1698. The former complex of various wings around a central courtyard was transformed into a solid volume, with central projections on all four sides. The former courtyard became an oval staircase crowned by a cupola, richly decorated inside with plasterwork. The result was another, even more sublime, echo of the Mauritshuis,

156

Ottenheym 2002b.

206

206. Middachten Castle, 1695-1697, designed by Jacob Roman and Steven Vennecool.

207. Middachten Castle, ground plan (drawing 18th century, collection Huis Middachten).

Chapter I: The Production Process for Architecture

208. Middachten Castle, staircase 1696, designed by Steven Vennecool.

207

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 with vestibule, staircase and main salon on the central axis, and various rooms to the right and left. Although the layout of the plan in general was not at all new, the oval staircase with its domed cupola above marked the introduction of a new, imposing motif that would seriously influence the next generation of stately houses in Holland. In the 1690s, however, the only earlier existing example of this invention was the staircase at Honselaarsdijk with its oval lantern, designed by De la Vallée in the 1630s.

208

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the City 1580-1700

Introduction: Gearing Up for Separation When Alexander Farnese took the city of Ghent in 1584 and Antwerp in 1585, the Protestant rebellions lost their most powerful and precious strongholds. Ghent was a major centre of the textile industry, while Antwerp had become the economical and financial capital of sixteenth-century Northern Europe where merchants from England, Germany and Brabant met their colleagues from the Mediterranean.157 Both cities were important centres of Protestantism in the late 1560s, and both had joined the Protestant Union of Utrecht in 1579.158 In those years Ghent had been ruled by a rather fanatic Calvinist republican government, whereas the Prince of Orange had tried to establish a more tolerant rule in Antwerp, securing freedom of religion for both parties. Farnese’s successful military campaigns brought both cities back under Spanish rule, and Catholicism was re-installed as the only accepted religion.159 All Protestant inhabitants were forced to either convert or leave the country within four years. This caused an enormous exodus of merchants, craftsmen and artists from Flanders and Brabant to the Protestant provinces in the North. The city of Antwerp, for example, lost more than 50% of its population in those years, its number dropping from some 100,000 inhabitants before 1585, to 42,000 in 1589.160 These emigrants not only took their goods and money to the North but also their skills, techniques and international network. This wave of highly qualified and, to a certain degree, wealthy immigrants was one of the foundations of the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century. The two cities in Holland that profited most from this transmigration of labour force and money were Amsterdam and Leiden.161 Seventeenth-century Leiden, famous for its textiles, became the most important industrial city in the Republic, while Amsterdam became the new financial and commercial centre of Northern Europe, taking the position that Antwerp had held in the sixteenth century. Amsterdam saw its population grow from a mere 60,000 in the middle of the sixteenth century to 100,000 around 1600. In the century that followed, its number would even double, mainly due to the arrival of immigrants from other countries, especially Germany, Spain and Portugal. In the seventeenth century Amsterdam was ruled by a class of wealthy merchants and bankers, all of them with direct interests in shipping and trading companies, or other commercial activities. From their point of view the main role of the city government was to create the best opportunities for their trading activities. This would not only bring them profit, but also benefit the whole city. The seventeenth-century rise of Amsterdam as a centre of world trade and commercial exchange caused a growth in its population and urban space unprecedented in history. It was the task of the city government to maintain order in the growing urban structure, as well as in political, economical and social life. The enlarged city needed a whole series of new public buildings, not only those necessary for a city that was the centre of world trade; i.e. the mercantile infrastructure and its maritime defence, but also churches and structures to control and to improve social life, such as administrative buildings, social institutions and houses of correction. There was no building programme projected in advance nor a general master plan; nevertheless, even if these building initiatives appear to be isolated, we can trace 157 Van der Wee 1987; Van der Wee & Materné 1993. On Antwerp as the centre of gravity in the Brabant urban network, see Van Uytven 1992. 158 Decavele et al. 1984; Marnef 1987; Marnef 1996. 159 Van der Essen 1933-1937; De Groof & Galdieri 1993. On the re-establishment of Catholicism in Antwerp, see for instance Thijs 1990; Marinus 1995; Marinus 1996.

160

On the economic impact on the South during the first half of the seventeenth century, see also Baetens 1976, pp. 33-48 and Klep 1990; on the cultural impact, see Balis 1993. 161 Israel 1989; Groenveld & van Maanen 2003, pp. 88-107; Frijhoff & Prak 2004, pp. 107-187.

209

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 a certain system in their planning. They were commissioned and built by the city government and its dependent, semi-public organizations to create a well-ordered mercantile civilization. As a result, several new building types were developed. The city authorities also closely guarded the aesthetic appearance of the town. In this period when aesthetics were linked so strongly with ethics, the beauty of the city was regarded as an expression of good government as well as a symbol of prosperity. The economical translatio imperii from Antwerp to Amsterdam can also be identified in the sumptuous building programme that took place in the latter city. Antwerp, the “metropolis of the world” had needed a fitting infrastructure since, in Calvete de Estrella’s words of 1552, “all things which God created can be seen united there, and all peoples of Christianity, and even from outside Christianity, come there to stock up”.162 In the course of the first half of the sixteenth century, various new buildings had been erected in the city to facilitate commercial activities, such as the stock exchange (first built in 1485 on a modest scale before being extended in 1515 and then replaced by the monumental new exchange in 1531); a new public weigh house in 1547; the textile merchants’ market hall – the Tapissierspand – in 1551, and the voluminous warehouse of the Hanseatic League (1564-1568).163 Antwerp’s new town hall, built 1561-1565, can be regarded as the keystone in the series of new public and semi-public buildings dating from that period.164 Indeed, opulenta Antwerpia triumphat (rich Antwerp triumphs), as contemporary humanist verse would have it.165 Tellingly, in the middle of the sixteenth century the city of Amsterdam initiated a similar building campaign to create its mercantile infrastructure. It began with the new weigh house, built in 1565 on the Dam Square. After the first decades of the war, when the situation in the North became more stable, the first major public projects were the construction of the warehouse and offices of the East Indian Trade Company in 1604 (‘Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie’), and the huge exchange in 1608. In later years these were followed by various market halls, a tax office (1637), and to cap it all, a new town hall (1648-1665). In Antwerp, the world’s former leading trade city, not only had specific buildings adapted to traders’ needs been created, but also an optimal infrastructure of waterways, market squares and roads. In the mid-sixteenth century various open areas within the old city had been reconstructed according to a rational urban plan: rectangular squares and perpendicular streets served the newly established economic activities in those quarters. In the 1550s the harbour capacity had been significantly increased by the construction of three new canals in the Nieuwstad, the city’s new extension.166 All three were directly accessible from the River Schelde. Half a century later, the overall idea of this rational urban system of canals and streets may well have served as a source of inspiration to the Amsterdam city government when it decided to enlarge the old city with the now famous ring of canals. Indeed by this point the need for good harbour facilities was as urgent in Amsterdam as it had previously been in Antwerp. In the 1610s new islands were created west of the old city, and later, in the 1660s, others on the east side.167 These were appropriate for warehouses, shipbuilding, rope-walks etc. Notwithstanding these parallels between sixteenth-century Antwerp and seventeenth-century Amsterdam, there is a difference in the form architectural expression took in the aforementioned public buildings. It is not so much a difference in style caused by the disparity in time, but more a subtle dissimilarity in the way utilitarian public buildings were regarded in their role as part of the official expression of civic pride. In Antwerp in the first half of the sixteenth century the most prestigious building in town was in fact the main church dedicated to Our Lady, which in 1559 became the seat of the new bishopric of Antwerp.168 In his Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi the Florentine historian Lodovico Guicciardini, 162

165

163

166

Petit 1873-1884, IV, p. 19. Clijmans 1941; Soly 1977, pp. 221-223, 235-237; Himler 1974; Materné 1992; Antwerp 1993, p. 235, cat. 84, p. 238, cat. 87; Tijs 1993b, pp. 146-147. 164 Prims 1930; Corbet 1936; Duverger & Onghena 1938; Duverger 1941; Roggen & Withof 1942; Bevers 1985.

210

Quoted from Dunckler & Weiss 1983, p. 50. Soly 1977, pp. 205-215. 167 Taverne 1978; Abrahamse 2004. 168 Van Damme & Aerts 1993. On the new bishoprics, see in general Dierickx 1950; Dierickx 1960-1962.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

209. Detail of the view of Antwerp, 1565, by Virgilius Bononiensis, with the weigh house of 1547 (from Voet 1973).

210. Idem, the Tapissierspand of 1551.

who lived for many decades in the city, dedicated a major part of his description of Antwerp to this church, its chapter and its religious confraternitie.169 In 1610 the Jesuit Carolus Scribanius still cited the church as Antwerp’s major monument, while also listing the so-called Spanish Citadel (1567), the (less unexpected) town hall, the exchange, the Tapissierspand, and the Hanzehuis.170 Wenceslas Hollar’s 1649 engraving also testifies to the church’s emblematic value, standing pars pro toto for the city of Antwerp as a counter-reformation ‘bulwark’ against the North even one year after the Peace of Westphalia.171 But even though the city occasionally interested itself in the church building, properly speaking it was not its financial responsibility: the church enjoyed a large income of its own as Guicciardini pointed out. The civic buildings with an official representative task were the exchange of 1531, built in the latest ‘modern’ style (now called ‘Flamboyant’) and, of course, the new town hall, which stood out because of its sumptuous materials that had been gathered from all over the country and Northern Germany, and because of its up to date, Serlio-influenced repertory.172 The other mercantile buildings such as the new weigh house and the textile hall were built in a less fashionable way from brick strengthened with some stone elements, but without any major sculptured decorations.173 The new weigh house, the Tapissierspand with its new urban surroundings, and even the three canals in the Nieuwstad were the brainchildren of one man, the entrepreneur Gilbert van Schoonbeke, who as waagmeester (weigh master) was well placed to judge the shortcomings of the old commercial infrastructure. 174 Acting

169

Editio princeps Antwerp, Guglielmus Silvius, 1567, henceforth quoted as Guicciardini 1567; second revised edition, Antwerp, Plantin, 1581. We have used the French translation of the latter, ibidem, quoted as Guicciardini 1582. Guicciardini-Jacqmain 1987, pp. 23-26. 170 Carolus Scribanius, Antverpia, Antwerp, Johannes Moretus, 1610. Held 1996; see also Brouwers 1961, pp. 187-199. On the citadel, see Soly 1976; van den Heuvel 1991, pp. 105-129; van den Heuvel 1993. 171 Antwerp 1993, pp. 173-174, cat. 25-26.

172

On the materials of the Antwerp town hall, see Adriaenssens 1980. 173 As shown by the contemporary iconography, chiefly the 1565 plan of Virgilius Bononiensis. Soly 1978. Brick was nevertheless a valuable material, as shown by the municipal ordinances meant to counter speculation (the earliest dates from 1514). During the work on the bastioned fortifications there was even a shortage. Soly 1977, p. 208; Tijs 1993b, p. 86. 174 Soly 1977, especially pp. 167, 209, 239 f.

211

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 as middleman for the city – and profiting hugely from it – Van Schoonbeke realized these buildings in record time. Strictly speaking they were not private enterprises, since the city authorities with the regent’s approval were the actual paymasters. According to Guicciardini, they also paid for the new warehouses in the Pauwel Eloutstraat (15611563), which they rented to the English nation, and the Hessenhuis (1564-1566), “used for the goods which come overland”.175 The huge warehouse of the Hanseatic League, on the contrary, was an initiative of the German merchants, albeit realized with the financial support of the city.176 It is important to note that, at the time, Antwerp was in fact ruled by old patrician families who did not actively take part in the sixteenthcentury boom in trade. They were wise enough to support the commercial activities of the new rich merchants as much as possible, but trade was still considered to be a private activity rather than a part of public administration.177 The old patricians ruled the city also as representatives of the central govern211. Idem, the Nieuwstad. ment. Only during the Calvinist regime, imposed in 1576 by the Prince of Orange, did the wealthy merchants acquire more influence in local politics by upgrading the position of the so-called Broad Council (‘Brede Raad’), in which the main guilds had their representatives. This experiment ended in 1585. A situation of this type was not exclusive to Antwerp. In the case of Ghent, the Concessio Carolina imposed by Charles V in 1540 in order to curb, once and for all, the rebelliousness in the city of his birth, had decisively changed the balance of power in the city government in favour of a new patriciate, closely linked to the central government. The representatives of the main guilds – grouped together in twenty-one different corporations – lost an important part of their power. Except for the Calvinist interregnum, the Concessio remained valid until the end of the Ancien Régime.178 In the seventeenth century in the Dutch Republic, the situation in the most important cities differed slightly from the South, in that the city magistrate assumed complete responsibility for the religious buildings; and secondly, developed the urban commercial infrastructure in a more systematic manner than ever before. In the Protestant North, the old city churches, now transformed into Calvinist churches, kept their prominent position contrary to what might be expected. Some of these, which were still under construction during the Reformation, were even finished under the new regime to serve the new religion. In new cities like Willemstad, or in new urban developments like the ring of canals in Amsterdam, it was the city’s task to erect churches for Calvinist worship. Moreover, politically speaking, the merchant class in the Dutch Republic had finally come into its own. In a city ruled by merchants, the main aim of good governance was clearly to support commerce, crafts and all their

175

Guicciardini 1582, pp. 125-126; Guicciardini-Jacqmain 1987, pp. 31-32. 176 They would be paid 60.000 guilders Carolus by the Hanze cities, and an additional 30.000 by the city of Antwerp, which had also donated the land. Himler 1974, p. 108.

212

177

Soly 1993. For the impact on the building sector, see Dambruyne et al. 1992, II, pp. 15-18.

178

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

212.  Antwerp, Hansehuis or Oosters Huis, 1564-1568 (warehouse of the Hansa League) in the Nieuwstad (engraving by Petrus Kaerius 1613).

attendant activities, since flourishing trade and industry would bring prosperity to all. Therefore in seventeenth-century Holland, the cities not only systematically built new town halls but also new weigh houses, trading halls and all manner of minor public buildings as vital contributions to help themselves flourish. Since these institutions were regarded as departments of the city administration, their buildings were seen as sub-offices of a kind to the town hall. Consequently, they were adorned with the city’s coat of arms, and to some degree were required to express dignity in their architectural appearance, even though their functions were merely utilitarian. In this way the mercantile infrastructure became part of the architectural vanguard. Even the offices of the main industrial and commercial organizations, such as the Lakenhal (cloth hall) in Leiden, and the office of the East India Trade Company (V.O.C.) in Amsterdam, were built by the city’s building team. It should be stressed that the board of directors of these commercial organizations generally had very close ties to the local government; at times they were even the same people. The enlarged cities in the North also needed various other types of public buildings that were not directly linked to commerce. New buildings such as orphanages, homes for the poor and elderly, and houses of correction were commissioned and built by the city government and its dependant, semi-public organizations to create a well-ordered mercantile civilization.179 The architecture of these public buildings therefore became an essential part of the expression of civic pride.180 179

Groenveld 1997, pp. 58-84, 134-150. Again a parallel to Antwerp must be noted (as reported by Guicciardini): the Dulhuys for the mad, for which the city almoner was responsible (from 1522 in St. Rochus hospital), the Knechtjeshuis for boys from needy families

180

(founded in 1558 with the financial support of Johanna van Schoonbeke, Gilbert’s sister) and the Maagdenhuis for girls (founded in 1553 with the support of Jan van der Meeren). Guicciardini-Jacqmain 1987, p. 31.

213

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 The Municipal Building Company and its Architects The city authorities in the Republic closely guarded the aesthetic appearance of the town. The beauty of the city was regarded as an expression of good government as well as a symbol of prosperity. City councils had various tools at their disposal to enhance the architectural appearance of their town.181 First of all, they had to seek the highest quality in their official buildings; secondly, to some degree they could impose regulations upon their citizens, obliging them to conform to general high standards. Both categories will be discussed here, starting with the city’s own building activities. “Architecture of high quality adorns the city and magnifies its fame”, Constantijn Huygens explained in 1655 in a letter to the authorities of the city of Leiden. He argued that it was essential to appoint a highly qualified architect as the head of the city’s building company, not a mere craftsman si decus et ornatum Urbis amatis (if you care for your city’s honour and embellishment).182 Huygens’ letter, in fact, signals a change. In the past, all major cities in the Low Countries had had their own municipal building company, although its scale and organization differed in each one.183 In general, two masters, the master carpenter and master bricklayer, headed these building companies, while the financial supervision was in hands of a member of the city council. Both masters had various assistants and servants, and additional men could be hired if necessary. Originally, these teams had to build and maintain urban constructions such as streets, quays, city walls and bridges. The master carpenter and the master bricklayer were mostly highly experienced craftsmen, selected from among the best in town. Their artistic talents, if any, were less important. For example, the Antwerp city regulations of 1618 mention two Boumeesters, aided by a clerk, for the administration of the building site, plus a comptroller (contrerolleur vande eeckhof); the ‘building masters’ alternated with each other every two years.184 Nothing specific is said about their qualifications, other than they were to be ‘competent’. In the sixteenth century, the Ghent team comprised not only a mason and a carpenter – who were the most influential – but also a plumber, a smith, a stone carver and a surveyor. In addition, there were specialists for lime mortar, slate and tile roofs, nails, glass and paving stones, all of whom were in tenured (and sometimes hereditary) positions; they were paid wages just the same as any other civil servant, and they received a pension.185 Any qualified master of a craft could apply when a position in his field fell vacant. Until the end of the sixteenth century, architectural designs for prestigious civic buildings – such as the Ghent and Antwerp town halls, (see below) – were commissioned from specialized artists. The municipal building company would probably be charged with the construction of the selected design. In the North this situation gradually changed from the end of the sixteenth century, first in the cities of Haarlem and Amsterdam, where two highly skilled sculptors were added to the cities’ building teams as master stone carvers. Lieven de Key took up this new position in Haarlem in 1591, and Amsterdam followed in 1595 with the appointment of Hendrick de Keyser.186 Lieven de Key was born in Ghent where his father was a well-known master mason who had contributed to the so-called Bollaertskamer in 1582 – the first classical extension to the town hall of Ghent, constructed during the Calvinist Republic.187 Hendrick de Keyser came from Utrecht and was trained as a sculptor in the atelier of Cornelis Bloemaerts. The function of a master stone carver also included the design and production of sculptural details in stone. As explained in Part Two, the 181

Ottenheym 1996. Letter of 29 January 1655. The Hague, Koninklijk Huis­ archief. The architect he promoted here was Pieter Post. Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, p. 6. 183 See for Rotterdam: Bonke 1996; Leiden: Steenmeij­ er 2005; Kampen: Kolman 1993; Amsterdam: Meischke 1994, van Essen 2000. For the Republic in general: see the forthcoming PhD dissertation by G. van Essen (Utrecht University). 182

214

184

Printed with the support of the Archdukes. See specifically chapter X, Van de boumeesters, materialen, stadts-werken ende t’ghene daer aencleeft (Brants 1912, pp. 366-397). With thanks to Dirk Van de Vijver. 185 Dambruyne et al. 1992, II, pp. 79-82. 186 Blom 1995; Neurdenburg [1930]. 187 Van Tyghem 1978, I, pp. 134-141.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

214. Amsterdam, municipal arsenal, by Hendrick de Keyser, 1606.

quality of architecture in this period was directly related to the quality of the sculptured parts and the invention of all kinds of new ornaments. For this reason it is highly likely that De Keyser and De Key were responsible for the architectural design of the prestigious buildings that were erected by the municipal building companies 213. Haarlem, entrance to the prisons in the new in Amsterdam and Haarlem. While construcwing of the town hall, by Lieven de Key, 1620. tion was underway they shared the supervision of the buildings with their two colleagues, the master carpenter and the master bricklayer. Among De Key’s most prominent buildings in Haarlem are the new wing of the town hall with prisons on the ground floor and offices on the first (1616-1622); the meat hall (Vleeshuis) (1601-1603) on the Grote Markt in front of the main entrance to St. Bavo’s Church, and the new weigh house by the Spaarne River (1597-1598), although the authorship of its design is still under discussion.188 Among the great works of Hendrick de Keyser in Amsterdam, the most well-known are the three, new, city churches in the new urban extensions (the Zuiderkerk, Westerkerk and Noorderkerk); the series of elegant bell towers along the new canals, the stock exchange, the headquarters of the East Indian Trade Company (V.O.C.), and the new arsenal on the Singel. The idea to upgrade the municipal building team with a high quality architectural designer was continued in the next generation: in 1621 Hendrick de Keyser was succeeded by his eldest son Pieter. Trained as a stone carver in the paternal workshop, Pieter de Keyser continued his father’s famous ‘modern-classical’ style. In the 1630s, when Van Campen introduced a more severe classical style, Pieter de Keyser tried to adapt to the new formal language, as can be seen in his 1637 tax office. Presumably the city regents were not completely convinced of his capacities, and for the more prestigious new buildings of the 1630s and 1640s they invited Van Campen to present designs (see below). The correct use of the new classical language was still a rare quality in the 1630s. The specialists in this style were not stone carvers but painters-cum-architects. However, at the time, it did not make sense to appoint such artists to a 188

Kiem 1996b; Roding 1993a.

215

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

215. Amsterdam, municipal tax office, attr. to Pieter de Keyser, 1638 (attic later addition).

permanent position within the municipal building company, where purely technical assignments still outnumbered more scholarly architectural projects. The first appointment of such a type occurred in 1636, when the city of The Hague appointed Arent van ’s-Gravesande as its master carpenter.189 216. The Hague, Sebastiaansdoelen, by Arent van ’s-GravesanHe was well skilled in straightforward technical de, 1636. works, but due to his collaboration with Jacob van Campen on the princely palaces of Ter Nieuburg and Honselaarsdijk, he had also been thoroughly trained in the principles of classical architecture. In The Hague he designed the new headquarters of the civic guard – the Sebastiaansdoelen at the Hofvijver – very close to the Mauritshuis and the Huygenshuis. Its broad façade, with four colossal Ionic pilasters and a pediment at the centre, was one of the first examples of the use of the classical style for a nonresidential, public building (the colossal Ionic pilasters Van Campen had used in 1633 in the Municipal Orphanage in Amsterdam were in the courtyard and therefore not visible from the street). Only two years later Van ’s-Gravesande was persuaded by more substantial remuneration to accept the position of master carpenter of the city of Leiden. Here he remained until 1655 creating his major works, such as the octagonal Marekerk and the Lakenhal (the guildhall of the textile manufacturers), both in 1639; a new prison for the court of justice, and a semi-public library, the Bibliotheca Thysiana. After some years of interregnum, in 1662 Willem van der Helm was appointed as the new master carpenter of the same city. Like Van ’s-Gravesande, Van der Helm was an excellent technical engineer as well as a highly skilled draughtsman and architectural designer. Among his major contributions to the public buildings of Leiden are the series of new city gates, of which the Morschpoort and the Zijlpoort survive today, and the new Court of Justice.190

189

Steenmeijer 2005, pp. 22-41.

216

190

van Essen-Lambrechtsen 1993.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 Copying Models and Starring Guests The appointment of a specialist architectural designer among the city masters was a rare phenomenon in seventeenth-century Holland, a luxury solution that only major cities could afford. There were other means, however, to get a good architectural design. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, if not earlier, it had been common design practice to copy an existing building or project, as attested by numerous documents.191 We also have several documented cases from the seventeenth century where civil authorities asked their colleagues in other cities for drawings of some specific building, or where the local municipal masters were sent further afield to investigate these buildings. Sometimes drawings of several different buildings from various cities were discussed in the city council before it was decided which building would be copied. Buildings that served as models in this way could date from a previous generation, since it was not the style of decoration that would be copied but the division of space and probably the method of construction. Ornaments were always added in an up to date way. Thus the local municipal building companies could construct new public buildings by adapting existing solutions, without the interference of any professional designer. Also, city masters with a good reputation as architectural designers were sometimes sent by their superiors to investigate a building elsewhere that might be used at home. In 1607 Hendrick de Keyser was in London to have a close look at the Gresham Exchange, itself based upon the Antwerp one, while he was preparing his designs for the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (1608). Coenraet Roelofs, master carpenter of the city of Groningen, was sent to Willemstad in 1653 to investigate the octagonal church from 1596, which then served as a model for the new church in the village of Sappemeer (1655-1656).192 Sometimes none of the models studied were followed. When the city of Middelburg wanted to build a new church at the harbour entrance in a new part of the city, the council wanted to compare various contemporary church models beforehand. In 1644 the city council asked for drawings of two different modern churches: the cross-shaped church of Maassluis (1629) and the Lutheran church in Amsterdam (1632), a longitudinal church with two rows of U-shaped galleries in the interior. These drawings were presented by the master mason Bartholomeus Drijffhout, who had previously collaborated with Pieter Post in several prestigious projects. We may presume these buildings were carefully studied, although in the end another example, the Marekerk in Leiden, was the major source of inspiration. The authorized design of the new church in Middelburg, the Oostkerk, made by Drijffhout and Post in 1647, has an octagonal plan, crowned by a huge cupola.193 More or less the same situation occurred in Groningen some years later. In the late 1650s, when the city of Groningen had to build a new church in its northern extension, master Roelofs was sent to take the measurements of the Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague and the Marekerk in Leiden.194 In the end neither of these was used since the new Groningen Noorderkerk (1660-1665) followed the model of Hendrick de Keyser’s 1620 Amsterdam Noorderkerk on a somewhat grander scale. Cities that wanted to erect a genuinely new building yet had no gifted designer among their city masters could invite architects from outside to prepare the design, a method that had been practised in earlier centuries. In the late sixteenth century the city of Leiden asked Lieven de Key in Haarlem to design a new, sculptured façade in stone for the city’s medieval town hall.195 De Key made drawings that were sent to Bremen in 1593 to be executed in stone by Luder von Bentheim. In this case, the task of the city masters of Leiden was simply to ‘assemble’ these prefabricated elements in situ (see Part Four). De Keyser, too, was asked to design various public projects in other cities of the Republic, such as the weigh house in Hoorn, and in 1618 the town hall of Delft. The same practice can be found in the South in the early seventeenth century. The principal architects at the archducal court were involved in civic building projects: architect-general Cobergher designed the town hall of Ath in 1614; his suc191

194

192

195

Philipp 1989. Ozinga 1929, pp. 89-90. 193 Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 206-208.

Ozinga 1929, pp. 45-47, 89-91. Meischke 1989.

217

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 cessor Francart designed the ephemeral triumphal gates for the Cardinal-Infant’s Triumphal Entry into Ghent in 1635 – taking the opportunity whilst there to inspect the new wing of the town hall. The engineer Sylvain Bollin from Arras, who had supervised work at Brussels and Scherpenheuvel (see the preceding chapter), probably designed the façade of the new Landhuis or seat of the Kasselrij in Veurne, built between 1613 and 1621.196 It should also be remembered that the most important new civic buildings in the Southern towns were the Mounts of Piety erected under the supervision of Cobergher. During his lifetime they appeared in Brussels (1618), Antwerp and Mechelen (1620), Ghent (1622), Arras (1624), Tournai, Mons, Valenciennes and Cambrai (1625), Bruges, Lille and Douai (1628), Namur (1629), Kortrijk (1630) and Sint-Winoksbergen (1633), all showcasing his distinctive Michelangelesque style of ornament.197 In the South such prestigious new public buildings became rare after 1635, while in the North the demand 217. Ghent, Mount of Piety, by Wensel for sophisticated designs by famous architects continued ­Cobergher, 1622. unchanged. Jacob van Campen drew up various plans for the city of Amsterdam: the Ionic courtyard of the Municipal Orphanage in 1633 (today the Historical Museum), the first municipal theatre in 1637, and a city gate.198 The city council used Van Campen’s artistic skills once more for Amsterdam’s most prestigious commission: the new town hall. During the first years of construction, from 1648 until 1654, Van Campen spent several months each year in Amsterdam to refine his design and its details. Nonetheless he was never appointed in any official position within the municipal building company that executed the work (since he was considerably wealthy, he probably never had any such ambition). For this major project a new employee was appointed, Daniel Stalpaert (b. 1615 – d. 1676). He was the first official ‘city architect’ and in this function he was responsible for the logistic supervision of the building site as well.199 He also made some architectural designs for other (semi) public institutions; for example, the huge naval arsenal at the harbour (1655), today the Maritime Museum, and the Orphanage of the Deaconry (1656). Pieter Post had a privileged position as architect to the Court of Orange. He also often worked for governmental institutions such as the Province of Holland and the Direction of the Dikes of Rijnland (Hoogheemraadschap).200 Moreover, some cities invited Post to work on prestigious new public buildings: he designed some major public buildings in Leiden during the late 1650s, in the period between the departure of Van ‘s-Gravesande and the appointment of Van der Helm. Among these projects was the new weigh house and annexed butter hall (1657-1658). Some ten years later, the city of Gouda asked Post to design a weigh house on the market square, constructed between 1668-1669. His most prestigious commission for a public building was the new town hall of Maastricht, designed in 1656 and built from 1659-1664.201 In the late seventeenth century, too, town halls remained the most important type of civic urban building in the Dutch Republic. At that time well-known architects from out of town made most designs for new town halls or for the modernization of existing structures. In 196

Plantenga 1926, pp. 20-21, 301; Parent 1926, p. 36; Battard 1948; Van Tyghem 1978, I, pp. 190-191; Meganck 1998b, p. 28; De Vos 1998b, pp. 50-52. 197 Parent 1926, p. 88; Faider & Delanney 1928, pp. 137138; Vergriete 1962; Piérard 1974, pp. 31-32; Devliegher & Goossens 1980, pp. 11, 72-74; Soetaert 1986.

218

198

Swillens 1960; Ottenheym 1995. van Essen 2000. 200 Terwen & Ottenheym 1993. 201 de Heer & Minis 1985. 199

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 1670 the town hall of ’s-Hertogenbosch was modernized and enhanced with a new stone façade, thus covering the three old houses behind. Pieter van der Minne, an architect-stonemason from The Hague, designed this façade (ill. 235).202 Steven Vennecool from Amsterdam built the new town hall of Enkhuizen in 1688, and Jacob Roman, architect to the court of William III, designed the new, very austere façade to the town hall of Deventer in 1692 (ill. 113).203 In some cases the city councils even invited several architects to submit a design, thus organizing an unofficial architectural competition. A celebrated case in point from the preceding century concerned the preparations for the new town hall of Antwerp in 1560. A special committee with representatives of the city council as well as 218. Maastricht, town hall, designed by Pieter Post 1656, two famous independent artists from outside, Jacques Du built 1659-1666. Broeucq from Mons and Jan Mijnsheeren from Ghent, examined a number of designs delivered by several artists, engineers and stonemasons, among whom were Cornelis Floris II, Willem Paludanus (alias Van den Broecke), Hans Vredeman de Vries and Niccolò Scarini, an architect from Italy. The final solution was most probably a collaboration between Floris and Paludanus, who were responsible for the façade designs, and the master masons Hendrick van Paesschen and Jan Daems who had been involved in the layout of the ground plan that Floris and Paludanus had been unable to undertake.204 The most famous competition in the North took place almost a century later: the design for the new town hall of Amsterdam. Several of the competing plans, dating between the years 1639 and 1648, have been preserved, including designs by Philips Vingboons and some anonymous proposals.205 In other cities the same situation might occur when the city was preparing an important new building project. For instance, in 1645 five different designs were presented for the New Church in Haarlem. They were made by three leading architects of the time: Jacob van Campen, Pieter Post and Salomon de Bray, and two lesser-known masters, the sculptor Jan de Vos and the carpenter Willem Cruyff.206 The drawings have not been preserved, but from descriptions that have, we know that churches of various shapes were proposed: rectangular, octagonal and square. In the end the square plan of Van Campen was chosen (see ills. 287-288), but not before careful costings for all the projects had been made. From the variety of designs submitted one can assume that in this case the city government had not given any detailed instructions or made any special demands. The city sought the best plan that could be executed for a reasonable price. On the contrary, in other cases there must have been clear specifications formulated beforehand. For instance, in 1657 both Pieter Post and Willem van der Helm made designs for the new weigh house in Leiden.207 The results are rather similar, probably because they both took the city’s stipulations faithfully into account. In contrast to Van der Helm’s austere façade, Post added Doric pilasters to the upper storey and a crowning pediment, which gave the rather square building a much more impressive character. This seemed to have pleased the authorities, since Post’s plan was accepted. In 1658 both architects made their proposals for a new entrance gate to the city’s medieval keep. Van der Helm proposed a rusticated Doric arch while Post invented a rather ‘castellated’ gate, flanked by two quasi-Gothic towers. Again the city council decided to follow Post’s proposal. 202

Ozinga 1938b (see also the comments in note 223). Theunisz. 1927. Koch 1982. 204 See page 49. Rylant & Casteels 1940; Duverger & Onghena 1942; Casteels 1961, pp. 51-52. 203

205

Ottenheym 1989; von der Dunk 1993a; Vlaardingerbroek 2004. 206 Ozinga 1929, pp. 59-66; Ottenheym 1995, pp. 184187. 207 Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 186-190.

219

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Probably, his idea to express the historic nucleus of the city in such a chivalrous manner was exactly what the city council wanted to see.208 From Design to Execution The practical realization of these avantgarde designs remained, of course, firmly under the thumb of the lower echelons in the municipal building company, who were all experienced craftsmen. Before the separation, all the major cities in the North and South had developed a quality control system for their building materials; the Ghent archives, for instance, testify to an elaborate set of control measures for lime and brick, supervised by a specialized administration, and something similar is known to have existed in Antwerp, based on the evidence of municipal ordinances from 1512, 1518 219. Leiden, entrance gate to the Burcht, design by Willem van and 1520.209 Most cities had their own craftsmen, der Helm, 1658. but works on a grand scale – such as all masonry, carpentry, and stonework for the town halls in Ghent and Zoutleeuw (1530-1539), or the new bastioned Antwerp enceinte – were usually put out to tender (taswerken).210 In these cases, it was necessary for the work to be described in an exact and complete manner (see below). Before its realization, however, the design had to be communicated to the craftsmen. Not surprisingly, the most important, still extant group of early sixteenth-century presentation drawings from the Low Countries are related to Rombout II Keldermans and Domien de Waghemakere, who were often called in as out of town specialists.211 In the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century, drawings became an indispensable medium for organizing and building the large numbers of new public buildings.212 Not only the limited 220. Leiden, entrance gate to the Burcht, design by Pieter Post, 1658. group of professional designers – the painterscum-architects – but also common master carpenters and other building masters had to be able to make accurate and clear drawings in order to convince the commissioners and to instruct those who would actually construct the building. In the course of the seventeenth century a strictly rational drawing technique was developed that avoided any kind of ‘picturesque’ effect: perspective was not used; presentations were strictly orthogonal. Colour was sometimes added, not for aesthetic reasons

208

Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 195-197. Dambruyne et al. 1992, II, pp. 73-74; Tijs 1993b, pp. 85-86. 210 Soly 1977, pp. 264-268; Dambruyne et al. 1992, II, pp. 209

220

50-53; Verleysen 2003, pp. 340-344. Meischke 1952 (1988); Van Tyghem 1987; Philipp 1989, pp. 88-92; Dambruyne et al. 1992, I, pp. 307-308. 212 Gerritsen 1997; Gerritsen 2004. 211

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 but to indicate building materials: white for stone, red for brick, a blue roof to indicate slate etc. Dutch municipal archives still contain plenty of architectural drawings, ranging from beautifully coloured designs for submission to the commissioners, to all kind of utilitarian drawings needed at the building site, such as drawings of the foundations and details on a 1:1 scale. In the South, similar records are mostly lacking for the urban milieu, contrary to, for instance, the Jesuit context, where drawings of every type have been conserved.213 The other main tool the municipal building company had at its disposal to guarantee the quality of execution of its new buildings, were the building specifications that complemented the final drawings. The more precise these were, the less leeway was left to the builder to vary the design – or to cheat – as the case may have been. In the North, these specifications were printed: the first example was drawn up for the Blauwe Poort at Leiden in 1600.214 In the South, only manuscript versions or documents alluding to specifications in an oblique manner have survived from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; there are no printed copies known before the eighteenth century.215 Nevertheless, they are mentioned in the 1618 Antwerp regulations as a regular part of proceedings for public tenders.216 An additional, no less important tool consisted in a post-completion quality control, executed by official comptrollers or surveyors – known as erf-scheyders in Antwerp and Ghent. In the latter city, the city’s master mason and master carpenter also served as ‘sworn surveyors’, as evidenced by the municipal ordinance of August 1, 1545. From 1581-1582, for instance, Pieter de Scheppere’s masonry work for the Bollaertskamer (see below) had been controlled by erf-scheyder Joos Rooman, who was also the city’s master mason, and by Lieven de Key the Elder, Christoffel Goethals and Arnoult de Landtheere.217 The city could indeed also call in outside experts for this purpose, as numerous sources from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries show218. This control extended not only to the quality of the work but also to its quantity. Work outside the urban milieu – at Mariemont and at Binche, for instance – was surveyed in 1549 by Roelant Du Chesne, mesureur sermente demourant a Roeulx en Jean Ausseau, me machon de Hayn[nault]; payments were made on the basis of this survey.219 Such ‘sworn surveyors’ – cerquemaneurs, landtmeters, erf-scheyders – frequently appear in documents from 1531 when, on the initiative of Charles V, local customs were gradually written down. Sworn surveyors such as these served a variety of functions that differed from town to town.220 Indeed every city and region in the Low Countries had different surveyor’s regulations that were only regularized towards the end of the Ancien Régime. In the Dutch Republic during the seventeenth century, municipal surveyors (rooimeesters) were mainly employed for the layout of new urban areas, the arrangement of streets and canals on site, and for determining the correct size of new building plots. In some cases they also had to control the city’s building activities as, for example, the rooimeester Jacob Willems Van Swieten in The Hague.221 In most cities the advice of the masters of the city building company was essential for final payments of new civic buildings. They had to check all work done by internal as well as external employers. On 213

Tijs et al. s.d.; Daelemans 2000. van Tussenbroek 2001a, p. 150; Gerritsen 2004, pp. 141-145. 215 For instance, the contract which repeats the specifications for the Kasselrijhuis extension in Oudenaarde, with drawing dated 1649 (Tijs et al. s.d., pp. 64-67), and the Besteck, conditiën ende voerwaerden, welcke volgende myne heeren den pastoor, schouteten, schepenen, gemeentenaeren ende regeerderen tot Sundert ende Weernout sullen besteden om te maken eenen nieuwe cappen opten toren vande kercke tot groot Sundert from 1610 (Erens 1928, with thanks to Dirk Van de Vijver). On a similar contract-cum-specifications from the private sector dating from the early sixteenth century, meant for the Nassau castle at Diest, see Roosens 1983. The term oordonnancie which is used here appears in numerous contracts as part 214

of the architect’s duties, e.g. the famous 1518 contract for the town hall in Ghent (Van Tyghem 1987, p. 111; Philipp 1989, pp. 75-79). 216 See chapter X, article 11 (Brants 1912, pp. 366397): “goede cedulen ende schriftelycke instructien, begrypende alle de voorwaerden ende conditien vande bestedingen, ende wat stoffen ende materialen in de voorsz. wercken sullen ghebesicht worden”. With thanks to Dirk Van de Vijver. 217 Dambruyne et al. 1992, II, pp. 52, 80-82. 218 Philipp 1989, pp. 72-74. 219 Which survives in written form in the accounts, ARAB Rekenkamer 27302, 27305 and 27306. De Jonge 1997a. 220 Brussels 1976a, pp. VIII-XIV. 221 de Klerk 1998, pp. 69-72.

221

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 special occasions, in the case of prestigious buildings, the advice of independent experts from outside was sometimes requested. Master carpenters and architects from other cities were asked to do the final control (expressed in the age-old term visiteren), as had happened in the past. In some cases external advisors were asked to give their opinion about the design made by one of the members of the municipal building team. For example, in 1639 Jacob van Campen intervened on request in the design for the Marekerk in Leiden by Arent van ‘s-Gravesande.222 In 1670, the Rotterdam municipal architect Claes Jeremiasz. Persoons was asked to inspect the renovation of the town hall of ’s-Hertogenbosch, designed by Pieter Minne from The Hague and Dirk de Lith from ’s-Hertogenbosch. In this case it seems the visiting controller approved the project without altering the design.223 Civic Building Types Compared to the overwhelming range of new public buildings erected in the North during the seventeenth century, the number of examples in the South is rather limited. Indeed, in this area the situation in the Southern cities cannot be compared with cities in the Republic. The ‘golden age’ of public urban construction in the South had taken place during the previous two centuries when most important cities had rebuilt their town hall and trade halls. In the seventeenth century there was no need for a large number of new public buildings, especially when political and economic restrictions prevented a sufficiently prestigious modernization of existing ones. Moreover, the cities in the North acted almost as independent city states (especially Amsterdam), while in the South there were strong centralizing tendencies at work, which affected, for instance, the political and financial autonomy of important cities such as Ghent. In the Low Countries a modern, centralized state had indeed gradually begun to develop under Burgundian and Habsburg rule. After the Revolt, the Southern cities remained relatively more dependent upon their central government, while the Northern cities could revive, or maintain, many of their medieval privileges of local autonomy. When the circumstances were right, however, the Southern cities still built expressive monuments to local pride, such as the celebrated Belfort Tower in Mons (1662-1672), the new exchange in Lille (1652) modelled after the Antwerp and Amsterdam ones (see below), and Brussels’ Grand’Place with its surrounding guildhalls and adjacent public buildings, such as the Meat Hall, reconstructed in one sustained building campaign after the French bombardment of 1695 (see below).224 Great sums of money were also spent on the fortification works around the cities and, as in the past and for good reasons, these new ramparts were also regarded as expressions of civic strength and power.225 Let us now investigate some specific types of civic buildings, comparing examples from the North and South. City Gates From the earliest times city gates have played an important role in expressing civic strength, power and privileges. In the medieval system of town walls, city gates were joined to wall towers, and these towers and barbicans added to an impressive appearance. The new fortification system of bastions and low, broad walls that were adapted to modern gunpowder artillery, was introduced into the Low Countries in the first half of the sixteenth century by the military engineers of Charles V.226 222

Terwen 1964; Steenmeijer 2005, p. 172. Ozinga 1938b. Erroneously Ozinga suggested Persoons was the designer of the new façade since he is called “architect Persoons” in the archival sources. But “architect” refers here to his formal position in Rotterdam. Hurx (forthcoming). 224 For Brussels, see Culot et al. 1992; Smolar-Meynart 1997. For Mons, see Piérard 1972. 225 See the so-called plans-relief or models made for Louis 223

222

XIV and XV of France, showing the defence works around the towns of the Southern Low Countries (Grodecki et al. 1965). Some examples of strategically located towns fortified from 1655: Namur (Jacquet-Ladrier 1988, pp. 149-156), Mons (Mons 1991, pp. 13-14). 226 van den Heuvel 1991; Roosens 2000; van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000; van den Heuvel & Roosens 2003; Roosens 2005. With thanks to Pieter Martens.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

221. Florent Joostens, Antwerp, Keizerspoort (Imperial Gate), 1865-1866. Designed by Donato di Boni, 1545.

In this system, city gates were no longer combined with towers but reduced to tunnel-like passages through the broad ramparts. For security reasons, these passageways were often curved, and usually located directly beside bastions that protected their entrances. In 1542, the imperial engineer Donato de’ Boni designed the new Antwerp fortifications, which included a series of bastions as well as five city gates. Instead of the traditional castellated 222. Rammekens, entrance to the fortress, Donato di tower-gate, a new type of city gate resembling a Boni, 1547. classical triumphal arch was introduced into the Low Countries. The idea of these ‘triumphal’ gates had been developed in the previous decades in Northern Italy by, among others, Sanmicheli in Verona and Falconetto in Padua; in fact, the design of the Antwerp gates with their combination of flat rustication and a simplified, ‘Greek’ Doric Order without a base is particularly Sanmichelian.227 De’ Boni’s most impressive examples in Antwerp were the Imperial Gate and the Kipdorp Gate, both of which followed the three-partite system of the Arch of Septimius Severus in Rome, crowned by an attic storey.228 Today the only remaining de’ Boni gate is not to be found in Antwerp but in the 1547 fortress of Rammekens near Vlissingen.229 Its architectural scheme is slightly reduced compared to the Antwerp gates, as there is only one arch, but its gigantic rustic blocks are nevertheless imposing.230 In the seventeenth century another gate, the Waterpoort (1624), was added to the Antwerp enceinte. It was located at the entrance to the city from the quay along the Schelde. Although this gate was narrower than those from the previous century, here again, much care was taken to create an important showpiece. It bore the King of Spain’s coat of arms on its city façade, and the personification of the Schelde on the side facing the water. These sculptured parts were designed by Rubens and executed by Hans van Mildert and Huibert van Eynde.231

227

In general, see Lamberini 1988; Adams 2002. Demolished in 1866. Plans, sections and views in Torfs & Casterman 1871; oldest known photographs in Van Goethem 1999. With thanks to Pieter Martens. 229 Kiem 1987. 228

230

The architectural language of these and similar gates De’ Boni designed for the citadels of Ghent (1540) and Cambrai (1544) has been studied by Bragard 1999. 231 Parent 1926, pp. 48-49; Lombaerde 2002a. With regard to the attribution to Rubens, a critical note is sounded by Baudouin 2002, p. 15.

223

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

223. Hoorn, Oosterpoort (eastern city gate), by Joost Jansz. Bilhamer, 1578.

224. Deventer, Bergpoort, by Hendrick de ­Keyser, 1619 (now in the garden of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam).

The Northern provinces adapted the bastioned fortification system when all rebellious cities had to be fortified in the 1570s and the ­following decades.232 At first, most of the gates in the new walls were merely utilitarian, but if finances allowed for a more prestigious architecture, the North also used the triumphal gate. Sometimes these were adorned with contemporary decorations, as was the case with the Oosterpoort (East Gate) at Hoorn from 1578, where various motifs from Vredeman de Vries’ 1565 Dorica Ionica were applied. In ­Utrecht in 1615 the Catharijnepoort was built based on the design of one of the gates published in Serlio’s Book IV (see ill. 334), while in the same period the Bergpoort in Deventer imitated the Antwerp model more closely. These monumental city gates were indeed regarded as important showpieces of civic power; in all three cases the city councillors 225. Leiden, Zijlpoort, by Willem van der Helm, 1667. had not been content to use the local craftsmen from the municipal building company, but had involved experts from outside. The sculptor and stone carver Joost Janszoon Bilhamer, the most prestigious architectural designer in Amsterdam at that moment, designed the Oosterpoort in Hoorn,233 and Hendrick de Keyser from Amsterdam designed the Bergpoort in Deventer (now in the garden of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam). In Utrecht, the city council asked one of its members, the famous painter Paulus Moreelse, to make the drawings for their new gate. The privileged position of this art232

Westra 1992.

224

233

Staring 1964, p.203.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

226. Utrecht, Wittevrouwenpoort, by Struys and Post, 1650-1653 (painting, 18th century).

ist becomes clear when we realize that he asked (and received) a higher payment for this job than a normal stonemason would have, precisely because he was – in his own words – “absolutely ignorant in such matters” (sic!).234 During the seventeenth century, the triumphal arch style of gate became the standard for all new city gates in the Dutch Republic, such as Jacob van Campen’s Heiligewegspoort in Amsterdam (1637) and most of the new city gates in Leiden, designed by Willem van der Helm in the 1660s. In the second half of the century new types were also invented, some referring to the traditional castellated tower-gate from a past era. In the first decade after the Peace of Westphalia, the hierarchy among the cities that had a voice in the provincial government apparently became a significant issue. The basic principle of this hierarchy was seniority. Age meant power, and therefore it became important to show the city’s history, whether real or imaginary. Most probably this was the reason why a huge, rather old-fashioned looking octagonal tower surmounted the new Wittevrouwenpoort in Utrecht in 1652, whereas the decoration of the entrance to the passage through the wall had been designed in 1651 as a triumphal arch, as described above.235 Amsterdam’s Leidse Poort, most probably designed by Stalpaert from 1662-1663, looked almost like a small castle with four corner towers crowned by tall spires. Instead of choosing the almost common all’antica style, it had probably become more important to refer to ‘real history’; i.e. to the medieval roots of the city and the legendary castle of Amstel. The new gate to the keep in Leiden city centre, designed by Pieter Post in 1658 (see above, ill. 220), can be explained in the same way. These castellated gates are not the result of some ‘romantic-poetic’ mood, but most probably a well-calculated tool to underline the age and rank of the city. 234

“(…) soodanig man, die hoewel goede kennisse van architecture hebbende, evenwel sulcx sijn professie niet en was, ende daeromme te meer moeytens, arbeits ende hooftbreeckens daerinne heeft gehad (…)”. HUA, Vroed-

schapresoluties 25 april 1625. Cited from Ozinga 1931, p. 20. 235 Cuperus 1952; Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 193195.

225

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Town Halls The town hall was the institutional seat of the municipal authority. It housed the offices of the burgomasters, as well as the city council and their secretaries. The town hall also served as the court of justice and the seat of the sheriff and his aldermen (schout en schepenen). Most architectural decorations, particularly the sculptured details on the façade, traditionally referred to justice. Inside, the seat of the High Court, the so-called Vierschaar, was installed in a prominent position from where the death sentence could be proclaimed with due ceremony. In earlier times this ritual had taken place in an open-air location, but from the late Middle Ages onwards the verdict was announced inside, safe from both inclement weather and possible turmoil. Nevertheless, the ceremony always maintained its public nature, which was why the Vierschaar was often erected in the main hall of the building. Although it could be a temporary construction, in several cases it was a permanent architectural structure. Traditionally, the political system of the Low Countries had granted most of its cities substantial administrative autonomy, but in the Burgundian-Habsburg era this (relative) independence had been eroded to some extent by the central government. As mentioned before, after the Revolt, the cities in the South remained caught up within this evolution towards a modernized state, whereas in the North the autonomy of the cities was enforced. The Republic was a federation of seven provinces, and most major cities held a vote within their provincial government. In the provinces of Holland and Zeeland, in particular, the cities were mighty powers. Each municipality in the North acted very much like an independent city state, except in the field of international politics and warfare; whereas in the South, cities were more circumscribed in their actions, even if they still enjoyed a large measure of autonomy, especially on the domestic level. As a consequence, the need for new town halls during the seventeenth century was substantially less pressing in the South than in the North. The new, powerful position of the Dutch cities was expressed in a wide range of new town halls built from the late sixteenth century. In the North as in the South, various new town halls had been erected during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (albeit on a slightly reduced scale compared to those in Flanders and Brabant). However, contrary to the South, where these buildings continued to serve requirements, those in the North were mostly replaced by completely new buildings, or were at least thoroughly renovated. New town halls in the South were altogether scarce in the seventeenth century. Renovation often took place on a limited scale, mostly involving the addition of a new façade, wing, or belfort tower. 236 Tellingly, most renovations occurred in the archducal period (1598-1633). New wings were added to the town halls of Ghent (Schepenhuis van Gedele, 1596/1597-1604/1605 and 1614/16151618/1619), Cambrai (1606) and Veurne (left wing, 1596; right wing, 1612). A belfort tower was added to the town halls at Sint-Truiden (1606), Menen (1610), Veurne (1628), Thuin (1639) and, as we have seen, Mons (1662-1672). The following town halls were renovated partially or completely: Lille (1593), Valenciennes (1612), Halle (1616), Ieper (Nieuwerk) at the east side of the cloth hall, 1620-1622), and Dunkirk (1644). The disastrous economical and political situation – due to almost constant French and Dutch military invasions – discouraged major architectural revolutions or even investments in the second half of the century. Notwithstanding their political differences, in North and South alike, the town hall remained the most prominent secular building in town, and correct decorum was always required. Therefore the change in ideas about what constituted ‘good architecture’ had a direct impact on the development of the town halls in the Low Countries in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Some new town halls in important cities became major examples, and were copied or followed on a reduced scale in smaller cities. The most outstanding example in the second half of the sixteenth century was, of course, the town hall of Antwerp, built between 1561 and 1565. As mentioned earlier, the façade was

236

Parent 1926, pp. 46-48; Battard 1948.

226

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 erected after a design by Cornelis Floris II and Willem Paludanus, with superimposed Doric and Ionic pilasters above a slightly rusticated, arcaded base in the side bays, and with a powerful central projection of Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite half columns topped by a fantastic fifth Order with herms. As has been suggested, the central projection, with its Classical Orders and monumental scrolled gable, is reminiscent of the ephemeral structures erected in the Antwerp streets in 1549 for the Triumphal Entry of Charles V and Philip of Spain into the city. Indeed, any visitor taking the traditional entry route towards the new town hall would be immediately confronted with this part of the façade upon entering the marketplace.237 In that sense, this is indeed ‘civic’ architecture, 227. Antwerp, town hall, Cornelis Floris and Willem Paludanus, since the iconography of the Triumphal Entry 1561-1565. centred upon the just relationship between the subjects (the city) and its ruler.238 But there may also be an allusion to palace architecture. The use of ‘antique’ architecture directly referred to the status of ancient rulers, as can be learned from a contemporary letter by Lambert van Noort, one of the other designers in the competition for the Antwerp Town Hall. In 1561 he praised his (rejected) design for its adherence to “the proportions and beauty of the Antiques” (met den maten ende schoonheyt gelyck de Antycken plaghen haer edificien te maken).239 Of course, Antwerp’s vanquished rival, Bruges, had long before recuperated the ‘antique’ language from the court context for the modernization of its Schepenkamer and Griffie: for although the magnificent chimneypiece of the aldermen’s chambers (1529-1531) glorifies Charles V (ill. 7), the façade of the new offices for the administration of justice (1534-1537) is a true civic monument, adorned with the most up to date; i.e. Jean Mone-influenced, antique repertory of the time (ill. 37).240 Furthermore, Van Noort stresses in his letter that his design was enriched by towers, which would provide magnificence, triumph and splendour, “like the buildings of princes and lords in antique times” (gelyck in tempo anticho was, wat princen ende heeren eenige edificie deden maken, hadden daer grooten loff doer...). Thus, for the first time, the association is made between the belfort tower – the traditional status symbol of the town hall – and Antiquity and antique rule. It cannot be excluded that the towering frontispiece of the final design refers to this concept. In any case, Vredeman de Vries – another unlucky participant in the competition, as we have seen – associates towers in his work with some of the more palace-like spin-offs of the Antwerp Town Hall, most notably in his 1577 Architectura.241 The ‘antique’ magnificence of the Antwerp Town Hall façade became a point of reference for several generations, greatly aided by the speedy publication of its design.242 In 1582 the Calvinist regime enlarged the Flamboyant town hall of Ghent with the Bollaertskamer, which was decorated on 237

Bevers 1985, pp. 82-92. Soly 1984; Meadow 1999; Lecuppre-Desjardin 2004. 239 Letter by Van Noort from March 8, 1561 (SAA, Pk 2197, fol. 25r). Bevers 1985, p. 161 (document IX). 240 See Part One, Chapter I. Wittevrongel 1973; Devliegher 1987. 241 Especially the variants on fol. 20 (Corinthian palaces). The New Hollstein XLVIII, p. 61, cat. 428. See also the ideal 238

cityscape published before 1577-1578 as the city of Niniveh, left, ibidem p. 86, cat. 432. 242 Already in 1565 Melchisedech van Hooren published an etching showing a view (surviving coloured example in Vienna, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, see Antwerp 1993, pp. 243-244, cat. 92).

227

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

228. Gent, new wing of the town hall at the Botermarkt (schepenhuis van Gedele), 1596-1605, 1614-1619.

229. Veurne, court of justice, 1612 (photograph early 20th century).

the outside by a superposition of paired Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns, according to a design by Joos Rooman.243 Sometimes the new ‘antique’ extension to the existing, highly refined late-Gothic architecture of Domien de Waghemakere and Rombout II Keldermans is erroneously explained as an expression of the Calvinist regime in Ghent, yet Rooman was paid for his designs as early as 1572, five years before the Calvinist regime was established. The use of Classical Orders was no privilege of Protestant rule: at the court of Charles V, the notion of imperium had been associated with ‘antique’ art since the late 1520s, and most notably expressed in the new palace at Granada.244 As the Antwerp example demonstrates, a Catholic city magistrate could as easily identify himself with ancient Roman senators and consuls as a Protestant one. From 1595 onwards, some ten years after the Habsburg Catholic regime had been reinstated in Ghent, the Classical façade scheme was continued on the east wing of the town hall facing the Botermarkt.245 An impressive façade with a superposition of Doric, Ionic and Corinthian half-columns was erected, comparable, to a certain extent, to the Antwerp example, but even closer to the Vredeman de Vries version of the same model. The specific combination on the Antwerp façade of Classical Orders surmounted by a richly decorated gable became a powerful reference point for many new town halls in the North and South during the decades that followed: Leiden (1593), Vlissingen (1595), Tournai (1610), Veurne (1612), Valenciennes (1612) and even Halle (1615), which otherwise lacks the sumptuous Antwerp ornament. The ideal of such a classical palace as a town hall in the centre of a more or less classical city became widespread through the dissemination of the engravings of Vredeman de Vries who, in his 1577 treatise, also published many variations on this theme, varying from simple to exquisite and magnificent façades.246 In some smaller examples, the ideal of a large, richly decorated palace with a central gable was

243

245

244

246

See note 187. On this association in Netherlandish court art, see van den Boogert 1992 and 1993a. On Granada, see Tafuri 1988; Tafuri 1992, pp. 255-304; Marías 2000a; Marías 2000b; Granada 2000b.

228

Van Tyghem 1978, p. 152-180. See Architectura, fols. 10, 12, 14 to 16, 18 to 20. The New Hollstein XLVIII, pp. 61-62, cat. 418, 420, 422-424, 426-428. Uppenkamp 2002, pp. 101-102.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

231. Ath, town hall, entrance hall, by Cobergher, 1614.

reduced to putting rich ornament on the central projection and gable only. To distinguish these smaller town halls from the normal houses beside them, it was necessary to enrich their façades with refined sculptured decorations, as was the case in The Hague (1565), or even by twin gables as in Franeker (1593) and Graft (1610).247 In the first decades of the seventeenth century the new, ‘modern’ repertory already prevalent in the work of Hendrick de Keyser and Wensel Cobergher was also applied to new town halls, such as De Keyser’s in Delft (1618), the one in Bolsward by an unknown architect (1616), and 230. Bolsward, town hall, 1616. Cobergher’s town hall of Ath (1614). Although these architects introduced startling new inventions in their architectural details, they still adhered to the main principles of the building type: the ideal of a large ‘palace’ enriched by a powerful central projection with gable also informs these buildings. Cobergher’s town hall at Ath (built 1614-1616) is situated parallel to the street, with its steep, strapwork-decorated gable on the side façade. The main façade facing the street has a stone revetment, and the central axis is accentuated by two Doric columns on the ground floor, and a pair of Ionic columns above carrying a segmental pediment. The frieze, cornice and pediment of this central element rise above the cornice of the façade, more or less replacing the traditional central gable. The Doric entablature is not continued along the façade; in its place we find a plaque above the arched entrance and additional fanlights above the main windows left and right. All kinds of new, ‘modern’ mouldings are used to frame the entrance, windows and fanlights. A richly carved chimneypiece, staircase with balustrade and arched doorways embellish the main hall in the interior. In the South, a town hall like this was exceptional in the seventeenth century, and it is no surprise that the initiative for this new building did not come from the city council but from the military governor, the nobleman Charles de Grave.248 Most likely it was he who insisted on asking the court architect for this design.

247

Kuyper 1994, I, pp. 175-180; Boschma-Aarnoudse et al. 1992, pp. 82-83.

248

Plantenga 1926, pp. 20-21.

229

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

232. Delft, town hall, modernized after a fire, by Hendrick de Keyser, 1618.

233. Amsterdam, town hall, designed by Jacob van Campen 1648, built 1648-1665.

In 1618 the free-standing medieval town hall of Delft was severely damaged by fire, and De Keyser, who was in town executing the funeral monument of William of Orange, was asked to reconstruct the building. Incorporating several of the medieval remains, such as the old tower, De Keyser designed an almost square building with a prestigious façade that faced the market square and a spacious hall inside.249 This richly detailed stone façade is a showpiece of De Keyser’s ‘modern’ variation on the Classical Orders. The wall is decorated by a superposition of Doric and Ionic pilasters, and the Corinthian order is used in the gable of the central projection. The Doric pilasters are enriched with rusticated blocks and the Ionic order is fluted and shows diamond knots in the lower drum. Only the cornice of both entablatures continues along the whole façade, whereas architrave and frieze are interrupted – on the Doric ground floor by windows, and on the Ionic upper storey by balustrades. Many of the sculptured details were originally gilt. In the hall, an arcade of five monumental arches in black marble marks the place where the High Court sat. In Architectura Moderna (1631) the use of rich sculptured decoration and precious materials is explained: wrought with white stone, marble, the Classical Orders and sculptured decorations, and partly enriched by gilded details, this building surpassed any other town hall in the region, thus enhancing the prestige and dignity of the city.250 From the middle of the seventeenth century onwards, Dutch town halls refer more noticeably to classical princely palaces by omitting the central gable and showing off new inventions. The most magnificent example of these governmental palaces is the Amsterdam Town Hall, designed by Jacob van Campen and built between 1648 and 1665. In terms of scale, building materials, the artistic quality of the sculptured parts, and the rhetoric of its decorative programme, the town hall rivalled, and even surpassed, several of the residences of ruling kings and princes in Europe. In Amsterdam no effort was spared to create a real classical palace, although its purpose was not to house a monarch but rather an oligarchic republican administration, ambitious to be compared with the ancient Roman Republic.

249

Terwen 1967; de Groot 1984. Architectura Moderna 1631, text accompanying ill. XXXVII: “gantsch cierlijck en in zijn gheheel al van witte Hertsteen, met Pilasteren en heure opper-cieraeden (...), alles kostelijcken ghewrocht en met verheven en uyt-ghehou-

250

230

wen wercken, tot de welcke noch de rijckelijckheydt van’t overgouden ghedaen is, gheciert: sulckx dat dit werck in sijn gheheel, is van grooter kostelheydt, en van behaaghlijcken aensien, alsnoch gheenighe Raets-Huysen in eenighe der buur-steden te sien is”.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 In those years Amsterdam was indeed depicted as the new Rome; its burgomasters were referred to as ‘consuls’ and the city council as the ‘senate’. Several of the designs for the new town hall that were made during the years of ‘open competition’, before the plan of Van Campen was finally chosen, also clearly refer to ancient Rome. The ground plan Philips Vingboons designed c. 1643-1645 (eventually published in 1648) was inspired by Scamozzi’s reconstruction of a Roman senator’s palace, la casa de’ senatori romani, as illus234. Amsterdam, prelimenary design of the town hall trated in Scamozzi’s L’Idea della Architettura Univerby Philips Vingboons, c. 1647 (London, National Map sale.251 Vingboons’ town hall has square pavilions Library, coll. Beudeker). on the four corners, and its façade has a central projecting plane with a formal flight of steps upon which rest giant Corinthian pilasters crowned by a huge pediment. Scamozzi did not provide an illustration of the façade of the Roman senator’s palace and Vingboons resorted for inspiration to the contemporary centre of civic power in Rome, the Palazzo del Senatore on the Capitoline Hill, designed by Michelangelo and others in the late sixteenth century. In a later design dating from 1647, Vingboons removed the external staircase and supported the giant Corinthian pillars with pedestals. At ground floor level he added two small columns between each pair of giant pillars. Thus Vingboons again referred to the Roman Capitol, this time by quoting Michelangelo’s Palazzo dei Conservatori. Although such designs for the Amsterdam Capitol based on the Campidoglio in Rome were appropriate, the burgomasters rejected Vingboons’ proposal in favour of that of Jacob van Campen. The basis of Van Campen’s design is the main central hall flanked by two courtyards and surrounded by galleries, a system that coincides with Vitruvius’ description of a Roman forum, as interpreted by Palladio.252 This represented an even better model for the town hall since a forum 235. Den Bosch, town hall, facade by Pieter Minne, combined several public functions. It included the 1670. senator’s curia as well as the seat of the consuls, the treasury and the prisons, which was also the case with the Amsterdam Town Hall. Palladio’s reconstruction of the forum included a classical basilica in the centre. Van Campen designed his Burgerzaal as a new classical basilica as well. It has two levels of Corinthian pilasters along the walls and is 120 feet long, 60 feet wide and 90 feet high, in accordance with Vitruvian proportions. 251

Scamozzi 1615, Book III, p. 221.

252

Palladio 1570, Book III, p. 36. Terwen 1969.

231

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

236. Antwerp, the old exchange (Oude Beurs), 1515.

237. Antwerp, the exchange of Domien de Waghemakere, 1531 (engraving by Petrus van den Borcht in L. Guicciardini, Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi, Antwerp 1581).

Later Dutch town halls also followed this ideal of a classical ‘palace of the Republic’. The reference to republican Rome, however, was not always as clear as it is in Amsterdam. In the town hall of Maastricht, for example, designed by Pieter Post in 1656, or the transformation of the medieval town hall of ’s-Hertogenbosch in 1670, the idea of a classical palazzo was adopted but without direct reference to any specific Roman building. Exchanges The first building in Northern Europe to be expressly intended as a meeting place for international merchants was established in Antwerp as early as 1485 when a former private house was designated to serve this purpose.253 In 1515 this building was modernized to equal the prestige of the growing international mercantile activities. Parts of this old exchange (the Oude Beurs on the Hofstraat) still exist. In fact it is almost like the courtyard of a wealthy private residence, with galleries around three sides. The privileged status of the building is expressed in the refined details of the arcades, which include trefoil arches and sculptured capitals. The extraordinary prospe­rity of Antwerp in the first decades of the sixteenth century caused an enormous increase in the numbers of merchants in the city, and within a couple of years the first stock exchange became far too small. In 1531 the city ordered the construction of a new exchange on a prominent site close to the Meir. The design was by Domien de Waghemakere, architect of the most prestigious building in town: the church of Our Lady.254 Adriaen and Peter Spillemans from Brussels successfully bid for its construction for a sum of 16,000 guilders.255 In the original building from 1531, the layout of the modest first exchange was transformed on a monumental scale. In the thoroughly classicising caption to the emblematic etching by Petrus van der Borcht (ordered by Plantin to illustrate the 1581 edition of Guicciardini’s Descrittione) it is aptly called

253

In general, see De Clercq et al. 1992; BDEH 3na, pp. 119122. 254 Clijmans 1941, pp. 13-18; Meseure 1987, pp. 21-26; Materné 1992. The actual situation of the new exchange (‘de Nieuwe Beurs’) is the result of a rather romantic, steel-

232

and-glass covered reconstruction by Josef Schadde created in 1867-1876 after a devastating fire that ruined the original building in 1858. 255 Philipp 1989, p. 87 cites Genard 1870, p. 475 f.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

238. London, Gresham’s Royal Exchange 1569 (engraving by W. Hollar 1644).

239. Amsterdam, exchange by Hendrick de Keyser, 1608 (demolished early 19th century). Engraving by C. Jz.Visscher 1612.

an ornament built for God and City.256 It was a spacious open square, surrounded on all four sides by an elegant arcade with delicately sculpted arches and capitals which, at the time, were only equalled by the work of Rombout II Keldermans in buildings such as the Grote Raad in Mechelen, or indeed Domien’s and Rombout’s joint masterpiece, the Ghent Town Hall.257 An upper floor surmounted this arcade, with windows overlooking the central courtyard. It was a building with a multifunctional character. The open gallery served as a meeting place for merchants where they could exchange goods, stocks, money, bills of exchange and so on. Rented shops were installed along the galleries on the upper floor, and a public art gallery was also founded there, where one could purchase works by living Antwerp artists. Originally there were two entrances to the exchange located at opposite sides of the courtyard, but somewhat later further entrances were also created on the other two sides. Apart from the two original entrance gates, the building had no specific external architectural features. Like the earlier one, it was merely an adorned courtyard almost completely enclosed by other private houses. It is worth noting that Guicciardini, in fact, defines the exchange as a public square, the “most decorous” one in Antwerp.258 The Antwerp Exchange was famous all over Europe in the sixteenth century. When Sir Thomas Gresham built his exchange in London (1566-1569), it was almost inevitable that an architect from Antwerp would be invited for the job, in this case Hendrick van Passe (or Paesschen) who had previously worked on the Hanzehuis and the Town Hall. Netherlandish masons and carpenters were also employed. In addition, Gresham imported wooden panelling, slate, ironwork, bricks, columns and other prefabricated elements from the Low Countries, including the statue of the Queen that was placed above the entrance.259 The Gresham Exchange was not square but rectangular, with open porticoes on the ground floor and, as in Antwerp, closed galleries punctuated by windows on the first. When the centre of Northern Europe’s trade and finance moved from Antwerp to Amsterdam in the late sixteenth century, Amsterdam needed to build a stock exchange.260 In 1607 Hendrick de Keyser was sent 256

“S.P.Q.A. in usum negotiatorum cuiusumq. nationis ac linguæ urbisq. a Deo suæ ornamentum...” Antwerp 1993, p. 235, cat. 84. 257 Van Tyghem 1987, pp. 123-127.

258

Guicciardini 1582, pp. 108-109; Guicciardini-Jacqmain 1987, p. 22. 259 Murray 1985, p. 298; Imray 1997; Saunders 1997. 260 Neurdenburg [1930], pp. 39-40, 68-70; Meseure 1987, p. 101; Wagenaar 1992, pp. 93-94.

233

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 to London to investigate the Gresham Exchange, most probably because it was impossible to pay a professional visit of this type to Antwerp with war still in progress. The Amsterdam Exchange was eventually built between 1608 and 1611, close to the Dam Square over the River Amstel. To some extent it followed the London model. It, too, was a rectangular building with a Doric arcade on all four sides of the ground floor and the upper storey reserved for a series of shops with windows overlooking the courtyard. All architectural efforts were concentrated on the courtyard. Although it was a free-standing building, the exterior was executed in plain brick masonry without any specific ornaments, again very like the London example. Only half a century later, however, the entrance façade was embellished with colossal pilasters. Some decades later, from 1652-1653, the Amsterdam model was repeated in the new Rijsel/ Lille Stock Exchange designed by Julien Destrez.261 It is a square building, but somewhat reduced in scale compared to the Amsterdam design. It has an arcade of five arches on Doric columns on all four sides of the courtyard and windows between Doric pilasters above; the windows are enriched by garlands, elegant balustrades, cartouches and curved 240. Lille, exchange, designed by J. Destrez, 1652. pediments. The building is prominently situated in the middle of the market square. Unlike the examples mentioned above, shops were not only present in the interior but also on all four sides of the exterior. Another difference compared with earlier examples is that all four external façades are heavily embellished with sculptured decorations in stone, such as rusticated pilasters, garlands, herms and cornucopias. This rich architectural decoration with abundant new sculptured inventions was designed to impress merchants and visitors, emphasizing the dignity of the city in a way that was typical of the Southern provinces (as explained in Part Two, Chapter III). Trade Halls The old cities in the Southern part of the Low Countries had a long and respectable tradition of medieval trade halls. The prominent status of these halls was expressed by their position close to the town hall: for instance, the famous cloth halls in Ypres and Ghent, and the cloth hall and meat hall behind the Brussels Town Hall. In the sixteenth century, when a new class of merchants took the lead in international trade and the ruling elite did not want to disturb the dignity of the squares in front of the town hall, new mercantile buildings were no longer visually connected with the centre of government. The grandest series of public mercantile buildings in the South was constructed in Antwerp in the 1540s and early 1550s. The new cloth hall (Tapissierspand) and public weigh house (Waag) were part of Gilbert van Schoonbeke’s strictly rational, commercial developments within the old city.262 His

261

Parent 1926, p. 49; Meseure 1987, pp. 101-102.

234

262

Soly 1977, pp. 165-176, 234-238.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

241. Deventer, municipal trade hall and weigh house, 1528-1531.

242. Amsterdam, office of the East Indian Trade Compagny (V.O.C.), by Hendrick de Keyser, 1606.

mercantile buildings were also focus points within his new urban quarters, both situated in the middle of new squares and accessible by straight streets. These new squares were, of necessity, situated at the periphery of the old, densely built-up city centre, and both buildings had a utilitarian character, without any superfluous ornamentation. Their representational value is thus subject to debate. Even though they were not situated along any part of the ceremonial route followed at the Triumphal Entry; nevertheless, as “magnificent public buildings”, they have pride of place in Guicciardini’s description: he mentions them in one breath together with the Vleeshuis (see below), the warehouses of the foreign nations and the town hall itself.263 Whatever the outcome of this debate, the Northern trade halls continued to be considered as major public buildings in the seventeenth century. A rare Northern example from the early sixteenth century is the trade hall-cum-weigh house in Deventer, executed with rich architectural details (15281531), and given a position of prominence in the market square.264 To the ruling mercantile elite of the seventeenth century, trade halls and other commercial buildings constituted the core of civic life and prosperity; therefore these public buildings were still regarded as an expression of civic prestige. They were carefully designed, erected in prominent locations and, if possible, adorned with sculptured details. In some cases even the urban layout was altered to improve their position. The design of their façades follows changing ideas on how to express dignity, much as was the case with town halls. In the early decades of the seventeenth century, richness in sculptured details and the invention of new ornaments were used to enhance and dignify these commercial buildings, such as in De Keyser’s headquarters of the East Indian Trade Company (V.O.C.) on the Hoogstraat in Amsterdam 263

Route of 1549 described by Calvete de Estrella, see Petit 1873-1884, IV, pp. 19-90; Roobaert 1960; Kuyper 1994, I, pp. 7-78; Guicciardini-Jacqmain 1987, pp. 31-32; Goris 1940.

264

Kiem 1994; Bloemink et al. 2003.

235

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

243. Leiden, cloth hall (Lakenhal), by Arent van ’s-Gravesande, 1639.

(1606). From the 1630s onwards in the North, classical models of suburban villas were also adapted for commercial buildings such as trade halls. One of the most convincing examples is the cloth hall (Lakenhal) in Leiden, built by Arent van ’s-Gravesande in 1639.265 Laid out like a French hôtel, with a forecourt and two lower wings at the side, the design of the corps de logis closely resembles one of the villas Scamozzi presented in 1615. The ground floor serves as a kind of podium to the colossal Ionic pilasters on the central three bays above. Sculptured tableaux between the windows show all phases of textile production. The sculptured garlands in the pediment as well as those below the windows are also modified into this textile-iconography: they imitate draperies, held together by the many kinds of tools used inside the building. Let us focus on one type of these trading halls – the meat hall – in more detail. Meat halls were public health concern, and in many cities the local government erected a secure place to keep control over such perishable goods. Enclosed and vaulted spaces were best suited to keeping out direct sunlight and remaining as cool as possible on warm days. The most prestigious example from the sixteenth century can again be found in Antwerp.266 It was built from 1501-1504 on an exceptionally monumental scale by Herman II de Waghemakere and his son Domien, and situated at some distance from the main market square and the town hall. Like many other trade halls in Northern Europe in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century, it is a free-standing rectangular structure, a number of storeys high, covered by one, huge, saddleback roof with tall turrets at the corners. The ground floor, where the meat was actually sold, is vaulted and divided by a row of pillars into two bays that provided room for

265

Steenmeijer 2005, pp. 133-145.

236

266

BDEH 3na, pp. 409-413.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 sixty-two counters. The exterior walls are built of alternating brick and limestone layers, with sculptured Gothic details, according to the prestigious ‘Brabant manner’ that was practised in important contemporary buildings, patrician residences and town halls.267 With its monumental scale and architectural refinement, the Antwerp Meat Hall was almost comparable to a town hall. In most cities in the Low Countries meat halls were less prominently displayed, although most did not lack specific architectural detailing. In Kampen, for example, the existing meat hall from the late fifteenth century was thoroughly modernized in 1557, when it was embellished with a façade in stone, decorated all’antica with pilasters, masks, and (probably) a scrolled gable on top.268 As a building type it follows the scheme of a traditional town house, but is enhanced by its façade in stone, which must have given the building a very prestigious appearance. The rebuilding of the meat hall was paid for by the city authorities, and afterwards the hall was rented to the butchers. Upper floors were rented as storage 244. Antwerp, municipal meat hall, 1501-1503. rooms to individual merchants. Notwithstanding the costly detailing of the façade, the enclosed position of the building (it was part of a continuous row of private houses) was not practical. In 1593 the city decided to sell the building and to erect a new, free-standing meat hall on the land of a former churchyard. In the first half of the seventeenth century various new meat halls were erected in the North, such as those in Haarlem, Nijmegen and Utrecht, all with elaborate architectural details. The Haarlem Meat Hall was built by Lieven de Key in 1601 on the most prominent site available – on the great market square, not far from the town hall and in front of the main entrance to St. Bavo’s, the city’s most important church.269 The three façades are decorated with a rich scheme of highly original ornamentation in Tuscan, Doric and Ionic style (see above, Part Two, Chapter II). Cows’ heads adorn the front façade and the city’s coat of arms appears on top. In the ground floor interior, the vaults are supported by a row of five Tuscan columns, dividing the space into two bays. Some specific details are a clear illustration of the city government’s desire to create not just a hall for selling meat but a true monument of civic prestige. In 1601 Lieven de Key presented his design to the city council with two variations for the façade: one with a broad classical pediment and a flat roof behind; the other, the more expensive, with a stepped gable and a steep roof. The more costly solution was chosen, as was the case with other details for these buildings. The city council wanted stone windows instead of wooden ones; they wanted the roof to be covered by lead, not with tiles or slate, and they wanted the interior to be vaulted in brick, with stone columns. A second example was constructed at Nijmegen (see ill. 327). Here, in 1612, a multi-functional municipal building was erected on the central square, comprising a meat hall on the left side of the ground floor and a weigh house with a butter hall on the right.270 As usual, the meat hall had vaults 267

De Jonge 2003b. Kolman & Stenvert 1994. 269 van Beek-Mulder & Polman 1993, pp. 41-69.

270

Brinkhoff 1977.

268

237

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

245. Haarlem, municipal meat hall, by Lieven de Key 1601-1603.

246. Idem, detail.

supported by a central row of three Tuscan columns that divided the internal space into two aisles. The weigh house next door had only a wooden beam covering. The spacious upstairs rooms in the meat hall were used by the guard and, probably, also by the tax collectors. The attic was used to store grain. The architecture on the exterior displays all the elements necessary for gaining the respect and dignity due to an important public building; elements almost on a par with those of a town hall. The two shorter façades are decorated with stepped gables bearing various sculptured details, while the longer façade is enriched by two dormers in the style of Vredeman de Vries and Hendrick de Keyser, and a monumental double staircase. A generation later, in 1637, the new Utrecht Meat Hall was erected. As with the Kampen Meat Hall, it is not a free-standing structure but a long rectangular building with tall gables at both ends. The main façade with its three bays marks one of the first attempts in Holland to adapt the classical pilaster system to a more traditional façade with gable. Two rows of Tuscan and Doric pilasters divide the bays on the ground floor level and those in the upper storey. On the third level, two Doric pilasters mark the central bay in the gable, which was framed by elegant scrolls. At that time such an exquisite architectural detail almost like that of a church façade, was still uncommon in utilitarian civic buildings. It illustrates once more the importance of this kind of public building as a symbol of urban authority. Sculptured decorations are restricted to a single cow’s head above the main entrance, a sheep’s head above the side entrance, a sculptured relief on the upper storey and some minor details. Meat was prepared and sold on the ground floor, which had entrances on two sides. Unlike most other meat halls there are no vaults. The ground floor opens up into one single space of substantial height, covered with a wooden ceiling.

238

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700

248. Brussels, meat hall by Willem de Bruyn, 1695 (photograph before 1917).

A rare, comparable seventeenth-century example in the South was the new meat hall in Brussels dating from 1697. During the French bombardment of 1695 the old meat hall behind the market square was destroyed: Marshal Villeroy’s 247. Utrecht, municipal meat hall, 1637. artillerists had been trying to hit the tall town hall spire but had missed every time, with disastrous consequences for the immediate surroundings. Willem de Bruyn, the city’s master stonemason, built a new meat hall nearby on an important, adjacent public square (Grasmarkt), while the original site was occupied by the early eighteenth-century extension of the town hall.271 The new meat hall (demolished 1929) was a rectangular complex surrounded by four narrow streets, but impressive in its scale. The interior consisted of a single open space that was divided into three bays by two rows of tall wooden pillars. On all four sides were entrances, but three of these did not receive any specific exterior architectural features because small shops surrounded them. The main entrance on the Grasmarkt was seven bays wide, decorated with colossal Ionic pilasters. This façade certainly enhanced the dignity of the building. It seems that the meat hall in Brussels maintained its traditional place among the city’s prominent public buildings. It is worth noting that the old, lesser meat hall located in St. John’s Square, also destroyed during the bombardment, was relocated to the single, new urban square that Governor Maximilian Ernest of Bavaria managed to create, and which bore his name (1702).272 Just as the main meat hall served as a pivot for the new urban development next to the Grand’Place, so the smaller meat hall would have provided an anchor for of the new Bavaria Square and street further up the slope towards the Coudenberg Palace.

271 Culot et al. 1992, pp. 222-225; Meyfroots 2001, pp. 22-25. 272 Culot et al. 1992, pp. 234-235. An unpublished project by Lucas Jacques (1701) from the former Arenberg Collec-

tion was sold in Brussels on June 11-12, 1998. The Romantic Agony, Book Auctions Devroe & Stubbe, Catalogue 9, pp. 3738, cat. 175.

239

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

249. Amsterdam, weigh house on the Dam square 1563-1565 (drawing by Jan de Beyer, mid-18th cen­ tury).

250. Haarlem, weigh house, by De Key, 1597-1598.

Weigh Houses Weigh houses played a crucial role in the economy of the Dutch Republic. Since all incoming goods were required to be weighed, and the pound weight varied from region to region, the weight of these imports had to be converted into the local standard pound, which provided an excellent occasion for collecting taxes on these goods. Therefore in those cities that had the right to impose such taxes, the weigh house was regarded as an important extension of the local authority. Over the course of time various types of weigh house developed.273 In some cases they were incorporated into the town hall, as in Bolsward (1616) or Maastricht (1659). However, if the town hall was not easily accessible for the heavy loads entering the town then separate weigh houses were built. We find them along the main canal or on the riverfront, as in Haarlem (1598), or on the central market square as in Hoorn (1609). Sometimes they were completely detached as was the case with Van Schoonbeke’s weigh house in Antwerp (1547). This model was followed in Amsterdam as early as 1563-1565, when the weigh house was built in front of the town hall, on the Dam Square, close to the waterfront. But here again the difference in ideas about the representative function of these buildings is clear. The weigh house in Antwerp represented a revolutionary modernization of the type: free-standing and mono-functional, it had the latest kind of scales inside, and its monumental size was further enhanced by the absence of architectural adornment.274 In contrast, Amsterdam’s new weigh house was only half the size of the Antwerp building, but its location was far more prestigious and its decoration far more elaborate. It stood directly in front of the town hall and was built from white stone enriched by various sculptured elements.

273

In general, see Kiem 1996a.

240

274

Ibidem, pp. 51-54.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 Whatever the situation, the weigh house in a Dutch city was always clearly recognizable as a public building representing the authority of the city council. It was carefully designed, respectable and even quite dignified, sometimes decorated with sculptured details, and always bearing the city’s coat of arms. In some cases even the scale of the building was adapted to its status. The weighing itself only took place on the ground floor. Occasionally there was a drive-through system whereby goods entered at the front, were weighed inside the building and exited at the back. An alternative, innovative system was introduced in Antwerp in 1547 and could also be found in the North. In this new system the scales could be moved along an iron bar attached to the ceiling. As a consequence, the merchant and his goods did not have to enter the building, but only to draw alongside it. The weighing masters stood inside and put the official weights on one scale while the goods were set on the other, external scale. This method allowed a free-standing building to have several balances in use at the same time at the various sides of the building. 251. Leiden, weigh house, Pieter Post, 1657. Even though the act of weighing took place at ground floor level, most weigh houses also had an upper storey. Although these floors never had any function related to weighing (they were used as a guardhouse or as a guild office), their façade decoration was nevertheless related to weighing. These upper storeys merely served to enlarge the building, thus creating a more imposing silhouette, appropriate to such an important public building. Such was the case with the two most monumental free-standing weigh houses – in Leiden and in Gouda – both designed by Pieter Post. The first (1657) was built behind Leiden’s town hall along the bank of the River Rhine. The waterside façade is completely executed in stone. The ground floor has a rusticated base, while Doric pilasters on the first floor flank a huge relief depicting the weighing activity, sculpted in marble by Rombout Verhulst. All other sculptured details, such as the pediment, and the garlands on the side walls, also illustrate the function of the building, whose height once dominated the whole quay. Post’s second weigh house, designed in 1668 for the city of Gouda, more or less followed the Leiden example but without the pilasters; the marble relief in the centre of the front façade was sculpted by Bartholomeus Eggers. The building was positioned directly behind the town hall, with the main façade facing the marketplace and the rear façade facing the water. The calculated way in which the building site was chosen sufficiently illustrates the care taken by the city council over the appearance of such ‘utilitarian’ buildings. Before any formal decision was taken in the matter, the city council put a wooden mock-up of the façade on the proposed building site.275

275

Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 190-193.

241

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 The City and its Inhabitants: Building Regulations, Restrictions and Incentive Bonuses ‘Order’ and ‘regularity’ were regarded as expressions of good government, as several contemporary city guides inform us. In the seventeenth century, cities were not praised for any ‘picturesque’ quality, but for their well-balanced, mathematical ground plan, their series of huge and impressive buildings, and the regular appearance of their private houses. Apart from public buildings commissioned by the city government itself, there were other tools available to achieve these qualities. Urban planning could be implemented through formal regulations and restrictions. Most of these directly served functional requirements as well. As was also the case in other parts of Europe, from the Middle Ages on, all cities in the Low Countries had developed various building regulations to restrict the risk of fire.276 The oldest rules demanded brick party walls between houses and banned roofing in straw or thatch. From the late fifteenth century onwards, and especially during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this ban was extended to include wooden façades. The cities of the Low Countries also set strict building lines, distinguishing public and private property. Substructures or outbuildings erected beyond these lines would hinder the traffic in the streets or endanger public safety, (as in the case of open cellar entrances). In the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, a new awareness arose of the aesthetic value of rectilinear or, as the case may be, curved streets with regular housing patterns that also offered a perspective view of an important building.277 Before the second half of the eighteenth century, however, this was only fragmentarily reflected in the urban regulations of the Southern cities, whereas in seventeenth century Dutch cities, city councils usually went much further to control the architecture along the new streets and canals, especially in the new urban quarters, as we shall see. Regularity in the urban layout and uniformity in façade architecture were the main aesthetic criteria. Again, sixteenth-century Antwerp may have offered a starting point, most notably in the regularity of the new urban quarters developed by Van Schoonbeke, and the architectural uniformity of the streets and squares he created. The layout of the Nieuwstad between 1549 and 1552 showed a strict regular pattern of streets, canals and buildings designed to optimize the use of the site.278 The rectilinear arrangement of the new streets was also considered more beautiful, since it contributed to “the public ornament, order and security of the city”, according to a contemporary source.279 Nevertheless, it must be stressed that Van Schoonbeke never formulated explicit instructions for the architecture in his Nieuw­ stad: in the available records, it is only vaguely characterized as “reasonable, avoiding any pomp”.280 We must therefore conclude that his motivation was chiefly economical. In keeping with this, the chapter Van Erf-scheydinge, Servituten ende des daer aen cleeft in the Rechten ende Costumen van Antwerpen; i.e. the traditional laws of the city printed for the first time in 1582 by Plantin, expresses the notions of a maximum height and of regular building lines, but does not prescribe exact dimensions or relevant architectural features, except for the traditional restrictions on flammable materials and the like. It would not be long, however, before these concepts were organized into a radical and systematic form. The German military engineer Daniel Speckle, who visited Antwerp and the Low Countries,

276

Overviews in Verplaetse 1973-1975; Meischke 1975 (1988); Ryckaert 1984; Voskuil 1990; Ryckaert 1993; Tijs 1993b; de Vries 1994; De Jonge 1999e. 277 Tijs 1993a; Tijs 1993b, pp. 177-206. 278 See the original plan by Peter Frans, SAA (c. 1550), and its modern copy. Antwerp 1993, p. 73 ill. 38. 279 “…der publique vercieringhe, rust ende sekerheyt der selver stadt”, as expressed in a petition of owners at the opening up of the Beggaardenstraat in 1581-1582. This

242

aesthetic awareness was also expressed in the first printed version of the Antwerp urban regulations, i.e. the chapter Van Erf-scheydinge, Servituten ende des daer aen cleeft in the Rechten ende Costumen van Antwerpen, Antwerp, Christoffel Plantin, 1582. Soly 1977, pp. 381-382 also stresses the strategic advantages. 280 “tot redelijckheyt, sonder de edifitien te seer pompeus te maecken”, SAA, IB 2180, no. 21, quoted by Soly 1977, p. 380.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 posited that “houses must be built on a straight line and be of equal height, built on a cellar, with a ground floor of stone only, the roof covered with tiles and, whatever the case, never be sided with wood”.281 Simon Stevin’s chapter Vande oirdening der Burgherlicke Huysen eens blocx, the core of which can be dated to before 1594, offers a critique of the curved streets and narrow, elongated building plots prevalent in Netherlandish cities, and proposes a new planning model based on a grid with straight streets and regular plots.282 In practice, these ideas had more influence in the North, which is not to say there are no echoes to be found in the South.283 The new town of Scherpenheuvel, and Ostend after its fall (1604), also reflect the then current preoccupation with regularized street patterns and blocks, combined with the strict polygonal outline of a bastioned enceinte.284 It must be admitted that these were archducal initiatives, and therefore should be placed in the category of new fortified towns or place-fortes, but Ostend especially may be compared to the old market cities because of its harbour. In their Princelyke Ordonnantie of 1604, the Archdukes clearly expressed the wish that the reconstructed city would become an important port “for all our territories in general”.285 The customary law governing private property in the old cities, however, made such ‘modern’ settlements very difficult to realize in the South in the course of the seventeenth century. The reconstruction of Brussels after the bombardment of 1695 shows how difficult it was to regularize a medieval urban fabric without appropriate juridical tools (such as rapid expropriation procedures). This became only slightly easier in 1704 when, by royal decree, the public street was explicitly defined as the property of the king.286 However, in many Southern border cities, such as Mons, Tournai and Namur, the catastrophic invasions and sieges of the late seventeenth century created the physical vacuum necessary for modernization. The ideals of commodité, beauté and régularité, often expressed in contemporary municipal ordinances, were applied to the new housing blocks, dictating regular alignments and strict norms for façade proportions and materials, although, as a rule, not for ornaments.287 In Mons, the control exercised by city architect Levé led to a surprisingly homogenous aesthetic. The 1684-1686 ordinances from Tournai are exceptional in that they prescribe specific ornaments, such as a gilt sphere or lily on the roof ridge, and a stone cartouche between the windows.288 Damaged or not, in general, cities had two means at their disposal to persuade the private building sector to create ‘commodity’, ‘beauty’ and ‘regularity’: on the one hand, the building permit, which was limited to the façade and represented by a modelle or façade design that had to be approved by the responsible magistrate; and on the other hand, financial incentives. For instance, in Bruges the modelle became obligatory for all in the middle of the seventeenth century, in Ghent from 1671, in Mechelen from 1687, in Tournai from 1688 (if not earlier), and in Brussels (with limited success) from 1695.289 In some cases there were subsidies to be had for façades that contributed to the “public ornament (ciraet) of the city”, which included all façades in stone and brick. Examples have survived; for instance, there are ones in Antwerp (from 1628) and in Ghent (between 1618 and 1674).290

281

Architectura von Vestungen, Strasbourg 1589, chapter 28, cited in Taverne 1978, p. 70. On Speckle’s travels, see Kabza 1911 and van den Heuvel 1991, pp. 133-137. 282 From the treatise Vande oirdeningh der steden, published posthumously (and fragmentarily) in 1649. Taverne 1978, pp. 35-48; Taverne 1985; van den Heuvel 1994b; van den Heuvel 2005, pp. 47 f. See also Part Two, Chapter I. 283 Taverne 1978, pp. 49 f.; Roding 1993b. 284 Lombaerde 1983; Lombaerde 1998; Lombaerde 2004. 285 Ibidem, pp. 117-118. 286 Culot et al. 1992, pp. 164-165. Fifteenth and sixteenth -century documents, for instance for Brussels, already refer

to the public street as sheerens strate, but the authorities only had limited powers of intervention. 287 Regulations concentrate on the street façades. Piérard 1974, pp. 36-37, 44-45; Piérard 1991; De Rycke 1992, pp. 204-206. 288 Soil de Moriamé 1904 (1977), pp. 273-276. 289 Soil de Moriamé 1904 (1977), p. 278; Schouteet 1959; Tijs et al. s.d.; Installé, Hillaert & Jonckeer 1981; Dambruyne et al. 1992, II, pp. 70-73. 290 Adriaenssens 1981; Dambruyne 1989; Dambruyne et al. 1992, II, p. 71; Tijs 1993b, pp. 121-123, 209-210.

243

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

252. Utrecht, design for a new urban quarter according to the ideas of Hendrick Moreelse, 1664 (drawing attr. to A. van Lobbrecht).

In seventeenth-century Holland economic expansion made the realization of these ideals far easier, especially in the numerous new urban extensions; otherwise the situation in North and South is not so very different. From the first, explicit economic reasoning went hand in hand with aesthetics. On more than one occasion the city governors strove for financial profits as well as aesthetical improvement: profijt (profit) was married to cieraat (ornament) and dienst (utility).291 The sketch made by A. Lobbrecht in 1664 in support of the plan for the urban expansion of Utrecht actually exhibits this ideal of a rational, regulated and mathematically ordered citizens’ town containing stately houses. These drawings illustrate Burgomaster Hendrick Moreelse’s ideas of an important extension to the city, published in a detailed description.292 Depicted along the broad, straight canals are continuous series of prestigious houses: not with uniform façades, but with common basic measurements and specific common elements. In Utrecht this remained a paper dream, but elsewhere in Holland its actual realization can be found in many new city extensions. Since the situation in Amsterdam’s new urban quarters is well known, it may serve here as an example. The new ring consisting of three canals was realised from 1610 onwards. The two inner canals, the Herengracht and the Keizersgracht, were intended to be a residential area for wealthy merchants and other well-to-do citizens, although the formal rules to prevent the settlement of noisy industries and crafts only came into force in the decades after 1610. There were building regulations, most of them concerning fire prevention and the protection of the inner space between the buildings; 291

Abrahamse 2004, p. 104.

244

292

Hendrick Moreelse was the son of the artist Paulus Moreelse, mentioned above. Taverne 1978, pp. 230-278; Roding 1988, pp. 13-18.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 here only gardens were allowed, excluding secondary commercial housing activities or industries. The only rule concerning the architecture of the street façade prescribes the height of the stairs to the main entrance, which was limited to five feet. In the second part of the ring of canals begun in 1660, this was increased to seven feet. In order to obtain regular series of houses along the new canals, all plots sold after 1610 were exactly 30 feet wide, which can be considered an original initiative in the Low Countries. However, since it was not prohibited to split up the sites into smaller plots, houses of 20 feet and even less were also built in the first part of the ring, and the desired regularity was partially lost. In the 1660s, when the plots along the second part of the ring of canals were sold, the rules were much stricter. The plots were 26 feet wide and could not be split without permission from the authorities; but at the same time the purchase of two adjacent plots was allowed, thus creating the possibility to build a prestigious house 52 feet wide. Especially in the second part of the Herengracht and Keizersgracht, continuous rows of such sumptuous, broad houses were erected. Here the desire for a regular and stately streetscape was finally fulfilled. In some cases the city not only strove for regularity and clarity in the ordering of the urban space, but also for architectural uniformity. Three building plots around the new Westermarkt in Amsterdam were sold in 1615 with the obligation to erect a façade according to a design provided by the city (most probably made by Hendrick de Keyser): in conformiteit van’t patroon bij deser stede meesters gemaeckt en den omstanders verthoont.293 This row of uniform gables must be considered as another first. Another example of such far-reaching aesthetic control on the part of the local authorities is known in The Hague. From 1635 on, five town houses for patricians were built on the Korte Vijverberg, the short side of the small lake in the centre of the city (the Hofvijver) where a new, straight road had just been constructed. These five new houses had a rather uniform appearance: each was 50 feet wide, divided in five bays, and three stories high, crowned in the classical way by a straight entablature, without a central gable. There were strict regulations concerning the height of the doors and windows in order to ensure they would be at the same level in all five houses. The sources even mention a general design for the façade (no longer extant), and the purchasers were required to follow its general outlines. It was permitted to enrich this design, but forbidden to simplify it. In the second half of the seventeenth century various series of uniform buildings were realized. In Amsterdam the properties along the banks of the River Amstel, formerly on the outskirts of the old city, became prominent building sites after 1660, once the second part of the ring of canals was realized. In 1661 the owners of some plots were allowed to erect new houses on these sites in the curve of the river (where the opera house stands today). Since they would become a kind of landmark to those entering the city from the river, the city government added the condition that the façades on the waterside should be built according to a single uniform design provided by the authorities. The houses had to be topped by one large cornice stretching across all façades, and covered by a single large roof. In this way the new buildings would serve the beauty of the city: ... strecken tot ciraet van de stadt.294 Not far from this location, in town, along the last part of the Herengracht, other rows of identical façades were constructed on adjacent plots in 1669 and the following years. All these houses were three bays wide with a façade in continuous, stone, rusticated bands. They were crowned by one long entablature that ran the length of all the houses on the Herengracht, as well as those on the Amstel. Adriaan Dortsman, the architect who designed these houses, settled in one of them.295 In the same period he designed an almost comparable series of houses on the opposite side of the Herengracht. As far as we know the city set no direct requirements for these two projects. Both complexes were commercial enterprises

293

Jansen 1960, p. 87. “aen de waterkant alle onder een dack en lijste ende op een faciaet volgens teyckeninge daervan sijnde (...) strecken tot ciraet van de stadt” (on the river bank, all under one roof and cornice, and with a façade according to the design

294

which has been provided (…) to the ornament of the city). GAA 5039-2, fol. 86v. Abrahamse 2004, p. 117. 295 van Eeghen 1970; Vlaardingerbroek 1996.

245

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

253. Amsterdam, corner Amstel – Herengracht in 1689, drawing by Jan van Call.

254. Leiden, Rapenburg nos. 4-10, c. 1670.

undertaken by private investors who, we may assume, followed general contemporary taste in order to sell their buildings easily. In all likelihood this kind of uniform architecture responded perfectly to the taste of the Northern upper middle class. The regents and rich merchants which formed the urban elite, too, liked to build their residences here in the same straightforward, plain manner, as shown by the houses of Jan Six (Herengracht 619), and Gijsbert Dommer (Amstel 216) – again, both designed by Dortsman – which only differ in scale from the rows of almost anonymous houses on either side of them.296 Another example is found on Leiden’s Rapenburg, the city’s most prestigious canal. Here in 1668 the old Prinsenhof, established in a former monastery, was demolished and, as the city wanted a few monumental private houses built on this prominent spot, the site was divided into four large building plots with the two central ones larger than the end ones.297 The buyers had to follow certain stipulations, as the drawing attached to the contract shows. This drawing, which was most probably by the hand of Willem van der Helm, the city’s master carpenter, is now lost, but the description in the contract is fairly clear. The houses were to follow the general design, with particular regard paid to the “height of the façade and its decorations” (hoochte, fatsoen, cierade en ornament als op de teijckeningh geteij­ ckent).298 This resulted in four regular façades with widths of three, five, five and three bays respectively, all crowned by the same Ionic entablature (today numbers 4, 6, 8, and 10). The two broader houses in the middle were enriched by a central projection with a pediment above. The Ionic entablature was probably part of the obligatory design, but the wall decoration below was not. The end houses, adorned with Ionic pilasters, presumably follow the general design most closely, whereas the two central houses show more divergence: the left one is decorated with Composite pilasters (notwithstanding its Ionic entablature), while the one on the right is much more austere, with no pilasters at all, but decorated with fancy garlands on the central bay. The individual owners were free to determine the scale of the windows as well as the various heights of the floors. They were also free to choose their own architects. We can presume that the owners of houses 4, 6 and 10 asked Willem van der Helm to adjust the final design according to their wishes, whereas the owner of number 8 commissioned Pieter Post.299 It is interesting to compare these examples with similar ones from the Southern Low Countries, where there were almost no major urban extensions that could have offered possibilities to introduce the same kind of urban uniformity. It was only at the end of the century that reconstruction campaigns in 296

298

297

299

Idem. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock & van Dissel 1986-1992, II, pp. 163-250.

246

GAL, SA II no. 1559, fol. 152v. Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 144-147.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 the war-torn cities occasionally produced comparable results. In Mons in particular, the effect of the post-1691 reconstruction can be clearly seen even today in many streets in the city centre, although groups of urban properties with identical façades are extremely rare.300 It can be surmised that this type of uniformity was – apart from the juridical difficulties – almost impossible to enforce because it ran contrary to the dominant taste of the urban elite. A prime example is the rebuilding of the Brussels Grote Markt/Grand’Place after the French bombardment of 1695.301 Almost all the 255. Brussels, guild houses ‘De Hertogen van Brabant’ on the guildhalls around the market square – some of Grote Markt, by Willem de Bruyn, 1695-1697. them still with wooden façades – were destroyed, or at least severely damaged. The stone façades of the fifteenth-century Gothic town hall and the Broodhuis or King’s House from 1515-1536 survived, however, and these were repaired during the reconstruction of the square in the following years. In 1696, city architect Willem de Bruyn designed a broad, monumental façade for each block of buildings. It is important to stress that the idea of creating a uniform screen to cover individual houses did not originate with the city council, nor with the guilds’ leaders, but with the governor, Maximilian Ernest of Bavaria, who ruled the Southern Low Countries in those years on behalf of the King of Spain. He was most probably inspired by the various Places Royales in Paris, especially Place Louis XIV (today Place Vendôme). This proposal did not sit well with the guilds, which would have lost their most individual expression in the very centre of the city. As a result of their obstruction, De Bruyn’s unifying project was only partially executed, along the east side of the square.302 Here six houses rose, each three bays wide, behind one huge Classicist screen, decorated with colossal Corinthian pilasters and a series of busts of the ancient dukes of Brabant. The six, central bays are crowned by a huge segmental pediment, with a scrolled gable above (in 1772 the scrolled addition above the pediment was replaced by a straight balustrade, while the segmental pediment was filled with a bas-relief depicting The Return of Trade and Industry). De Bruyn designed a similar façade for six houses on the north-east side of the square, the block to the right of the Broodhuis. The central axis was to have been crowned by a sculpture of Governor Maximilian on horseback. In 1697 the house in the middle was erected (De Gulden Boot), together with its neighbour to the right (see ill. 155). But while these were under construction it became clear that the opposition of the guilds was too strong to pursue the project. Consequently, all the other houses in this block, and on the remaining sides of the market square, were executed differently. The reconstructed guildhalls on the Brussels Grote Markt show off a diversity of highly original inventions. The façades are framed by Classical Orders, decorated with all kind of profiles, cartouches, herms and garlands, and crowned with gables adorned with sculptured ornaments, scrolls and statues.303 Also, models of Dutch pilaster façades as well as the latest French ornamental designs were sources of inspiration. The precedent for this formula could be found in the House of the Wolf (now called Wolvin) that belonged to the archers’ guild. Destroyed by fire in 1690, it was reconstructed in a grand manner according to a design by the painter Pieter Herbosch, with a gable decorated by elaborate

300

Piérard 1991, p. 110. Culot et al. 1992. 302 Maybe facilitated by the fact that the city had constructed six identical houses (in brick masonry) there in a single campaign in 1441. Heymans 2001, p. 66. 301

303

In their original state, recorded by Franciscus Iosephus De Rons in the early eighteenth century. Most ornament was recreated during the famous restoration ordered by Mayor Charles Buls at the close of the nineteenth century. Heymans 2001, pp. 115-163.

247

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

257. Brussels, Grote Markt, bakers’ guild house (‘Koning van Spanje’), 1697 (top pavilion ­reconstructed 1902). 256. Brussels, Grote Markt, House of the Boatmen, by Antonio Pastorana, 1697. To the right, detail of the ‘Wolf ’ by Pieter Herbosch.

sculpted decorations and allegorical statues, some of which recall the ephemeral festive decorations erected in the Coudenberg Palace by the same painter on the occasion of the marriage between Charles II of Spain and Marie Anne de Neuburg.304 Among the most prominent examples from the reconstruction campaign is the Gulden Boom of the brewers’ guild, with Doric and Corinthian half columns, crowned by a segmental pediment and a gilt statue of Governor Maximilian Ernest on horseback on top (see ill. 14).305 On the west side the boatmen had their guildhall, designed in 1697 by the architect and cabinet-maker Antonio Pastorana. Its gable is a life-size representation in stone of the richly carved stern of a ship. Not far away the bakers’ guild built their headquarters, ‘the King of Spain’, a seven bay wide façade with three rows of superimposed classical pilasters, crowned by a straight balustrade with statues and an octagonal pavilion above the central bay (reconstructed 1902). 304

Ibidem, pp. 32-37.

248

305

This statue was originally carved in stone. In 1705 it was replaced by a bronze sculpture. In 1752 the head was replaced by a portrait of the contemporary governor Charles of Lorraine. Culot et al. 1992, p. 157.

Chapter II: Civic Prestige. Building the city 1580-1700 The failure to reconstruct the main square in Brussels in a uniform way might be seen as typical of the situation in the South in the second half of the seventeenth century. It was clear that ‘quality’ meant something different in the public mind. This explains why, on even less historically charged sites than the Grand’Place, such projects were doomed to failure. Maximilian Ernest’s designs for Bavaria Street and Square (now Dinantstraat), partially realized (but in a botched manner) between 1695 and 1709, were not received with much enthusiasm by the public.306 Elsewhere too, for instance in Ghent, the system of the building permit with modelle, and especially its corollary of subsidies for noteworthy façades, tended to reinforce the individualizing trend just described for the Grand’Place. While the municipal authorities in the Dutch Republic, especially in Holland, eagerly tried to find rules and restrictions to create an ‘orderly’ and, as far as possible, more or less uniform streetscape, their colleagues in the South concentrated much more on the quality of the individual design. In the main, the financial aid given to private citizens primarily rewarded those with special ambitions for the embellishment of their street façade. The Ghent gratuyteiten ter causen van het maecken van de nieuwe huysen ende ghevels (gratuities for the building of new houses and façades) had been condemned as a waste of money by the central government (the Secret Council or Geheime Raad) in 1672, and it was recommended that they be rescinded. It has been estimated that almost a fifth of the private urban fabric in the town had by that time been renewed with public money, a fact that explains this unusual comment.307 The building permit could have been used towards achieving uniformity, but as the situation in Brussels and Ghent makes abundantly clear, it usually was not. Conclusion Even if at first it seemed impossible to compare seventeenth-century public civic buildings from the Southern and Northern parts of the Low Countries, such a comparison nevertheless turns out to be worthwhile since, at that time, both were still rooted in a common tradition and responded to the same modernizing tendencies. There were, of course, shifts in gravity over the course of time. In the sixteenth century most building activity and innovation in this field took place in the South; in the seventeenth century, on the contrary, the building boom was in the North. The evolution that began with the development of Antwerp’s superb public infrastructure continued with the great urban expansion of the cities in Holland after the separation. Civic pride found an idiosyncratic expression in architecture both in the Southern and Northern parts of the Low Countries during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Allusions to hallowed Antiquity are rife in the culture of the urban elite. If Antiquity was mostly linked to the Emperor and his court circle in the first half of the sixteenth century, it rapidly became the realm of the municipal authorities in the second. City magistrates reflected upon (republican) Rome, calling themselves consuls and senators, and building town halls in an ‘antique manner’. The first traces of this development can be found in the South, most notably in the cities of Bruges (Nieuwe Griffie, 1534-1537), Antwerp (town hall, 1561-1565) and Ghent (Bollaertskamer, 1580-1583). This civic identification with Ancient Rome was continued in Holland during the seventeenth century. The ‘antique’ repertory used in these civic ‘palaces’ naturally evolved into the ‘modern’ manner lauded by Vredeman de Vries and represented by Hendrick de Keyser in the North. In mid-seventeenth century Holland the demand for a more strict interpretation of the classical rules also found its expression in public architecture, starting with the Sebastiaansdoelen in The Hague (from 1636) and the Lakenhal in Leiden (from 1639). From 1640 onwards, almost all public buildings were regarded as greater or minor classical palaces. In this tradition the Amsterdam Town Hall became the dominant example for the next two centuries, never imitated but often used as a point of reference.

306

Ibidem, pp. 228-243; BDEHB, 1A, pp. 258-259.

307

Laleman 1985, p. 58.

249

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Public buildings in South and North therefore constitute the two parts of a continuing story, not only in the reception of style, but also in the modernization of building types. The Netherlandish medieval town hall accommodated several public functions. Besides being the seat of the government and justice, the building could contain spaces for various commercial functions. In the expanding economy of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, more mono-functional buildings were developed. In this process the South, most notably Antwerp, seems to have preceded the North. Mercantile building types such as the meat hall, the exchange and the weigh house were further developed in Holland in the seventeenth century. Local authorities in the Republic regarded these public buildings as annexes to the town hall; i.e. as representatives of civic authority, and therefore mere utilitarian solutions were no longer enough. Henceforth public buildings were designed according to the same architectural standards as the town hall, but of course in a more modest way, according to the hierarchy of building types within the city. Civic pride could be expressed in handsome public buildings built by the city government, but also in the pleasing appearance of private houses. In new urban areas, or after a destructive disaster, the city government could insist on some regularity for the street façades of private houses. These attempts were apparently more successful in the North. Directly contradicting the general cliché that the South was ruled by an absolutist regime while the North was a free republic, it was only in the North that uniform architecture was, in fact, imposed by local authorities, while such attempts mostly failed in the South where the municipal authorities tried to improve the appearance of public space by encouraging private owners to ‘embellish’ the public street through individual projects.

250

Chapter III: For The Greater Glory of God. Religious Architecture in the Low Countries 1560-1700

Situated at, or indeed across, the ever-shifting frontier between the Catholic and Protestant worlds, the Low Countries constituted one of the richest laboratories for religious architecture in Europe during the seventeenth century. In no other architectural domain do the Northern and Southern Low Countries seem so different from each other: by the end of the sixteenth century, unity had apparently given way to discontinuity. Traditional historiography has expressed this contrast in a simplified stylistic formula: Southern Baroque versus Northern Classicism, both struggling to divest themselves from Gothic fetters. This chapter intends to show the far greater diversity and complexity that can be found in this field, once preconceived stylistic labels are abandoned and lesser-known experiments are taken into account.308 The First Protestant Churches in the Low Countries During the 1520s the first Protestant views found their way from the German Empire to audiences in the Low Countries. Luther’s writings, which gave voice to widespread public dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Catholic Church, were quickly diffused in pamphlets and books. The central government responded by the destruction of books, burnings at the stake and banishments. From around 1535 onwards, the Protestant movement took a more radical turn when Anabaptism penetrated the Low Countries. Following the example of the Occupation of Munster, several attempts were made to turn cities in the Low Countries into the New Jerusalem, amongst them Amsterdam, Leiden, Deventer and Bolsward. In the 1540s Calvinism gradually spread into the Low Countries from the South. The movement was well organized, had a militant character and quickly found a broad adherence amongst all classes of society. The Brussels government heavily condemned the preaching and the chanteries, but found little support amongst the city magistrates and politically frustrated local nobility. In the Miracle Year of 1566 the League of discontented grandees felt strong enough to apply to the Regent Margaret of Parma for a suspension of the heresy laws. In a moment of hesitation the Regent promised moderation, which led to a general strengthening of the Calvinist movement. Large numbers of people came to the open-air services, the so-called ‘hedge preaching’, organized outside the city walls of many towns. In August and September of 1566 the iconoclastic fury or Beeldenstorm swept from the South to the North leaving in its wake chaos and consternation.309 New Ideas on the Finish and Use of Churches The Protestants rejected Christianity as shaped by the Roman popes, and blamed them for being responsible for the decline of the Christian Church.310 According to them, many Catholic rites and most of the sacraments – except for Baptism and the Eucharist – stemmed from the Middle Ages and did not correspond to the origins of the Christian faith. The Protestants also rejected the worship of images, a practice they believed the Early Christians did not follow. Luther emphasized that wherever the Word of God was preached, the House of God was present. Therefore, a church building was no longer necessary; a place where the remembrance of the sacrament of the Last Supper was kept alive would suffice. Luther rejected large church buildings like St. Peter’s in Rome and Cologne Cathedral, and thought that small buildings with low vaults were better suited to preaching. However, Lutherans 308

This chapter is entirely based on the author’s forthcoming PhD Thesis (Catholic University of Leuven), henceforth quoted as Snaet (forthcoming).

309

Decavele 1975; Groenveld, Leeuwenberg & Mout 1983. 310 Vogler 1992; Millet 1992; also Menozzi 1991; Scavizzi 1992.

251

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

258. Plan of the Protestant church (‘temple’) of 1566 in Ghent, by M.Van Vaernewyck.

259. Recontruction of the Protestant church of Ghent (drawing Joris Snaet).

still accepted the use of images for didactic reasons and because they were considered as symbols of faith (adiaphora). The followers of Calvin, on the contrary, strongly opposed the use of all liturgical objects, including images. They considered the sacrament of Baptism merely as a sign of divine forgiveness, and rejected the sacrament of the Eucharist, (although in many reformed communities in the Dutch Republic, symbolic avondmaalsvieringen were celebrated three or four times a year). In his Institutio christianae religionis of 1561, Calvin wrote that churches must be solemnly equipped and should provoke inner reflection and contemplation. He urged the abandonment of any decoration, since this could distract churchgoers, and the money would be better spent on the poor. Calvin claimed that the Jewish temple (the synagogue equipped for Jewish liturgical services) was also unsuitable as an example for Christian church buildings.311 The Calvinist Rodolphus Hospinianus, a pseudonym for Rudolf Wirth (b. 1547 – d. 1626), stated in his De origine et progressu templorum of 1587 that Roman Catholic church buildings no longer had anything to do with those of the first Christians, and thus rejected the construction of martyrii and basilicæ.312 He also rejected the decorating of churches as a superstitious practice that had originated in Jewish and pagan beliefs.313 Hospinianus’ reasoning was, in fact, based on an interesting historical analysis of Early Christian architecture. 311

Calvin 1561, Liber III, Caput XX, pp. 565-566 ; Liber IV, Caput VI, p. 705. 312 “Martyrii vocabulum, quo loca quædam cœtuum ­publicorum appellari consueverunt, Constantini tempore, usurpare cœpit... Basilicæ quoque appellatio post Constantini M. tempore frequens esse cœpit apud Nazianzenum, Ambrosium & alios Basilica autem principiò dicta fuit domus ampla & spatiosa, causarum cognitioni destinata, dicta ab eo, quòd principes eò ad ius dicendum convenirent... Erat autem Basilica ambulationibus amplissimis instructa, ad quam multi tota ex urbe, alii causas agendi, alii consultandi, alii aliud agendi gratiâ confluebant... Postea etiam Basilicæ apud Ethnicos ædificatæ fuerunt in usum negociatorum, eaque in locis calidissimis, foróque proximis: ut haberent mercatores, quo se hybernis mensibus, subitò ingruente tempestate possent recipere. Vide Vitruvium lib. 5... Huiusmodi locorum nomen post annum D. 300 trans-

252

latum est ad ædes sacra”. Hospinianus 1587, p. 48 (Liber I, Caput VIII). 313 “Constantini M. tempore Ecclesias vasis aureis, anathematis, variisq; Ornamentis locupletare atq; immodicè exornare cœperunt, aut superstitione, aut pravâ imitatione Iudearum simul & Ethnicorum ... Ante Constantini Magni ætatem ornamenta in templis rara fuerunt admodum. Deinde illa habuerunt, ut in usus pauperum, ægrorum, aut illa quæcumque necessitate laborantium erogarentur, vel etiam captivi ob Christianam Religionem iis redimerentur. Crescente autem superstitione & imaginum cultu atque veneratione, nimirum in modum etià præposterum hoc exornandi locupletandiq: Templa studium crevit: falsò enim homines persuasi, tali ratione cultum Deo præstari. Hac igitur occasione non modò anathemata pretiosissima, sed omnis generis tabula, cortina, vela, sigillaria, oscilla, vexilla, spolia hostibus erepta, & similia in Templa sunt recepta ibique suspensa”. Ibidem, p. 262 (Liber II, Caput XXIV).

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God The Antwerp and Ghent Temples In autumn of the year 1566, the Netherlandish Protestants undertook the construction of the first churches or ‘temples’ designed to correspond to their new religious ideas.314 The temple at Ghent is the best known due to the detailed description by Marcus van Vaernewijck, who witnessed its construction.315 Built on an octagonal elliptical ground plan, it was a two storey, wood and brick construction with the ground floor forming an ambulatory. In Antwerp the city council gave its permission for the construction of six temples, of which only four were eventually built. Three of the four Antwerp temples had a ground plan similar to the one in Ghent, and were constructed from a combination of man-height stone masonry, wood and slate. The limited use of masonry was due to an ordinance of Margaret of Parma, prescribing that only the lower five feet of temple walls could be made in stone. The fourth temple was installed within an old stable. We know that Protestant temples were also built at Oudenaarde,316 Haarlem,317 Gorcum, and Leiden.318 All were probably destroyed during 1567 by order of Margaret of Parma, even before Spanish troops arrived in the Low Countries. The centralized ground plan of the Protestant temples allowed the people to gather around the pulpit, which had become the centre of Protestant worship. According to Marcus van Vaernewijck’s description of the Ghent temple, the women were seated in front of the pulpit, divided from the men by a balustrade. The many ground floor windows were adorned with biblical proverbs and the Ten Commandments. Van Vaernewijck found the round form of the temples odd. He compared the Ghent temple to a “lantern or a merry-go-round” (eenen lampteerne, ofte een peerdemuelenemaer) and likened the wooden constructions to “Moscow churches” (moscovijtchen Keercken). He referred to the Antwerp temples as ancient ‘amphitheatres’, because both had elliptically shaped ground plans, and because the lower parts of the Antwerp temples were made of stone (als amphitheatrums al van steene, in der figuere als eijronde).319 When Van Vaernewijck noticed how the Protestants posted guards to protect the construction sites, he drew a parallel with the construction of the Temple of Solomon by the Jews after their exile in Babylon, adding, however, that the Protestant cause was a far less righteous one.320 An anonymous source, probably dating from the beginning of the seventeenth century, also makes comparisons with the Temple of Solomon, as well as with the Lateran Baptistery.321 Since the Temple was often represented as an octagonal building, it might also have been referred to because of this formal analogy, and not solely on religious grounds. The mention of the Roman Baptistery is surprising, because the building is particularly famous for the baptism of the Roman emperor Constantine, who was loathed by the Protestants. The Jesuit Daniel Papebrochius (b. 1628 – d. 1714) compared the

314

Their erection and destruction has been mentioned by Decavele 1984, pp. 26-27; Decavele 1986, pp. 52-53; Marnef 1996, pp. 129-130. One of the Antwerp temples has attracted the attention of Rutger Tijs because it was located on the land parcel where Rubens’ house was later built. Tijs 1983, p. 104. See Snaet 1999a. 315 UBG, Ms. 2469, Marcus van Vaernewijck, Van die beroerlichen tijden in die Nederlanden. 316 UBG, Kostbare Werken, Ms. 522, L. Robyn, Historie van den oorsprong, voortgang en ondergang der ketterye binnen en omtrent Oudenaerde, Gent 1721. 317 Ampzing 1628. 318 Decavele 1986, p. 52.

319

UBG, Kostbare Werken, Ms. 2469, Marcus van Vaernewijck, Van die beroerlichen tijden in die Nederlanden, IV, cap. 16, fol. 131r. All relevant passages are fully quoted in Snaet 1999a. 320 UBG, Kostbare Werken, Ms. 2469, Marcus van Vaernewijck, Van die beroerlichen tijden in die Nederlanden, IV, cap. 4, fol. 107v. 321 “Desen waelschen tempel was gemaekt heel rondt, zeer anticxt, op de maniere van Salomons tempel te Jerusalem, ende te Roomen opt fatsoen van den tempel Lautron”. SAA, Pk 105, Chronycke van Antwerpen sedert het jaer 1500 tot 1575, p. 140.

253

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

260. Willemstad, Protestant church, 1596-1600/ 1605.

261. Willemstad, Protestant church, interior.

Protestant temples to the Pantheon in Rome because of their round form, adding that the Protestants were wrong in believing their places of worship represented the Temple of Solomon.322 The Protestant temples of Antwerp and Ghent can be compared with “Le Paradis” of Lyons, which was erected in 1563 or 1564. This temple is well known due to a painting that shows its interior, plus two drawings showing the interior and exterior, all ascribed to Jean Perresin.323 It was constructed on a circular ground plan, and had stone walls, a small gallery and a wooden roof supported by four piers. From the painting one can see how the women were seated in front of the pulpit and divided from the men, as in the Ghent temple. A large number of such temples must have existed in France: some of those constructed after the 1598 proclamation of the Edict of Nantes are known from iconographic sources. Those at Caen (1611-1612), Rouen (1600-1601), Dieppe (1600-1601, rebuilt 1606), La Rochelle (1600-1603) and Montauban (1616) were constructed on a centralized ground plan. Most had already been demolished before 1685, when the Edict of Nantes was revoked.324 At Hanau in Germany, a temple (1600-1608) consisting of two connected polygonal buildings was erected for the French and the Dutch speaking communities that had emigrated there from the Low Countries. It has been partially preserved after sustaining serious damage during World War II.325

322

“Die autem XXIX cœperunt Calvinistae Walones ... terram moliri ad novum ibi templum fundandum instar Salomonici unde etiam nomen sumserunt, ut vel sic longius recederent à ritu Romano. Fecerunt autem rotundum, ...”. KBB, Ms. 5329, Papebrochius, Annales Antverpienses, Volume V, ab anno 1534 ad 1566, fol. 156v. “Die XV cœptum est etiam destrui rotundum Walonica natinonis templum, antiquo more de formam Romani Panthei, sive (ut illi cre-

254

debant) templi Salomonici constructum”. Ibidem, Papebrochius, Annales Antverpienses, Volume VI, ab anno 1566 ad 1584, fol. 13r. 323 The two drawings are preserved at the Archives Municipales at Lyons, GG 86, I, and the painting is in the Bibliothèque publique et universitaire of Geneva. 324 Thomson 1995; Guicharnaud 1999. 325 Grossman 1995, p. 260.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God The First Churches of the Young Republic: Willemstad and IJzendijk In 1596 the construction of a church, partly paid for by Prince Maurits, was begun in the town of Willemstad.326 Willemstad was one of the young Republic’s most important military strongholds, rebuilt from a little place named Ruygenhil on the orders of William of Orange. Situated at the end of the town’s central street, the church is constructed on an octagonal plan with a square tower on one side. It has huge, round-headed, arched windows with stone frames, a heavy antique wooden entablature and an eight-sided roof with bell tower. The interior is finished with large stone Tuscan half columns in the corners that are unhappily connected to the wooden interior vault by means of small wooden piers. In view of the complex history of the building, which was restored between 1789 and 1791, damaged in 1944, partially destroyed by fire in 1950 and subsequently rebuilt, we cannot exclude that some of these architectural elements do not correspond with those of the original building.327 The church at IJzendijk, built from 1611 262. IJzendijk, Protestant church, 1611-1614 in the conquered territories across the Schelde, (enlarg­ed 1656-1659). was also erected on an octagonal ground plan. The church was enlarged between 1656 and 1659, but has kept its original entrance gate and five of the eight walls, and is finished with a pointed roof and a bell tower. Here, the pointed arches and stepped buttresses give the church a rather modest and traditional outlook when compared to the one in Willemstad.328 We do know that Prince Maurits, who helped to finance its construction, explicitly wanted the Willemstad church to have an octagonal or circular shape.329 These specifications imposed by the Prince can be linked to his interest in mathematics and sciences, and his (probable) knowledge of modern Italian ideas about church building (see also Part Three, Chapter I). However, given that at the time similar temples must have existed in France and others parts of Europe, it would seem likely that the round shape had a second connotation: round or polygonal church buildings were distinctly recognizable as Protestant ones. The preferred round shape thus made the church into a strong symbol of the Protestant nature of the Republic.

326 Ozinga 1929, pp. 12-19; De Vos, van den Heuvel & Ottenheym 2000, pp. 130-132. 327 Vermeulen wonders whether the framework of the windows and the architrave stem from the eighteenth-century restoration campaign. Vermeulen 1923-1941, II, p. 365. 328 Ozinga 1929, pp. 19-20.

329 On the petition (octrooi) from the town magistrate (dated August 12, 1586), the Prince wrote on December 19, 1597: “…gelijck bij hem voormaels is gedaen geweest, dat de kercke in Willemstad in eene ronde ofte achtkantige forme zal ende behoort gemaeckt teworden”. Ozinga 1929, p. 12, notes 5 and 17. The document is published by Juten 1922, pp. 14-15.

255

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

263. Amsterdam, Zuiderkerk, 1603-1614 (engraving from Architectura Moderna 1631).

The Amsterdam Churches The rotunda plan was not the only ideal pursued in new church buildings within the Republic. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the municipality of the rapidly growing city of Amsterdam ordered the construction of three new churches: the Zuiderkerk (1603-1614), the Westerkerk (16201638) and the Noorderkerk (1620-1623).330 Both the Zuiderkerk and the Westerkerk were given a longitudinal, three-aisled ground plan and had large dimensions, while the Noorderkerk was built on a centralized ground plan. The Westerkerk was the largest church erected for Protestant worship until the reconstruction of London’s St. Paul’s. All three new churches were built by the Amsterdam Fabrycqampt, led by the sculptor Hendrick de Keyser, the bricklayer Cornelis Cornelisz. Danckertsz., and the carpenter Hendrik Jacobsz. Staets (see Part Two, Chapter II).331 The Amsterdam Zuiderkerk and Westerkerk must be considered as important city churches, competing with the older medieval ones. The traditional three-aisled structure, the stylized tracery in the windows and the presence of high bell towers gave both buildings a recognizable church-like appearance. At the same time, both buildings were finished with antique stone ornaments to give them a dignified and fashionable look, much appreciated by contemporaries

264. Amsterdam, Westerkerk, 1620-1638 (engraving from Architectura Moderna 1631).

330

Peters 1901; Ozinga 1929, pp. 27-41; Vermeulen 19231941, II, pp. 370-377; Kramer 1998. 331 Meischke 1994.

256

265. Amsterdam, Westerkerk, interior.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God

267. Amsterdam, Noorderkerk, exterior.

such as Petrus Montanus, who praised the interior of the Zuiderkerk because of its proportion, beauty and finish.332 Furthermore, the Zuiderkerk was provided with a series of sixteen stained glass windows, financed by the town guilds and the Admiralty. However, already in 1658 the church council decided to remove these windows,333 either because they were too costly to maintain or, more likely, because they made the interior too dark. The size 266. Amsterdam, Noorderkerk, 1620-1622 of the building site was restricted, which resulted in (engraving from Architectura Moderna 1631). a narrow distance between the surrounding houses and three of the four church façades.334 Both of these Amsterdam churches had a ground plan and interior organization adapted to Protestant worship. According to Cornelis Danckertsz., the author of the comments accompanying the engravings in Architectura Moderna, the choir was omitted; this, he claims, “was willingly done because it had become unnecessary for Protestant worship”.335 In both churches the second and fifth bays were also enlarged by the creation of transept-like structures, thus providing a kind of centralizing effect within the interior. The pulpit was, in each case, originally placed in the centre, against one of the pillars. The two churches, however, differ significantly in their elevation: the Zuiderkerk is built along the lines of a Hallenkirche or pseudo-basilica, whereas the Westerkerk was given a tall clerestory with large windows. The latter construction must be considered as an improvement on the Zuiderkerk design, since it allowed more light into the church interior. Construction of the Noorderkerk started in the same year as the Westerkerk, but in contrast to the other two churches, it was built on a centralized plan and was less richly decorated, which can be linked to its location within a neighbourhood occupied by the lowest strata of society. The building has a cruciform plan with triangular passages between the arms of the (Greek) cross. It is still recognizable as a church due to the huge windows with geometric tracery, and the bell tower on the crossing. The pulpit is attached to one of the four piers of the central square and is set diagonally to the main 332

“Van waer oock de gantsche propositie van het werck niet weijnich schoonheijt ende ciragie en crijght”. Montanus 1614, s.p.. 333 van de Waal 1953, p. 20. 334 Mentioned by Fokkens 1664, p. 586.

335

“In dese kercke is geen choor, ‘t welck met wille is achterghelaten, vermidts deselve bij de gereformeerde en openbare godtsdienst onghebruyckelyck en ten overvloede sijn”. Architectura moderna 1631, p. 14. See Part Two, Chapter II.

257

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 axis, which turned out to be excellently suited to Protestant preaching. Contemporaries like Melchior Fokkens said the church was therefore the best one in town.336 The First Churches of the Counter-Reformation In its opposition to Protestant ideas, the Roman Catholic Church strongly propagated the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confession, as well as sermons.337 Although Roman Catholic leaders disapproved of the exaggerated splendour exhibited in many religious buildings, they emphasized that churches should have a dignified appearance and be decorated with images. The Leuven academician Johannes Molanus (b. 1533 – d. 1585) wrote in his De picturis et imaginibus sacris from 1570 that a church building should be a reflection of Heaven, and that images of saints, relics and other religious objects contributed to this purpose. He stressed the legitimacy of the use of images by referring to the Temple of Solomon, the interior of which was decorated with images of cherubs, and in which relics, i.e. the Manna, the Staff of Aaron and the Tables of the Ten Commandments were preserved.338 The Jesuit father Robertus Bellarminus (b. 1542 – d. 1621), who worked at Leuven University between 1570 and 1576, admitted that Christ pursued an ideal of poverty and sobriety, but stated that He had never opposed the decoration of Temples. In the Old Testament several buildings are described, such as the Tabernacle of Moses and the Temple of Solomon, that were richly embellished according to God’s Will. The Jesuit claimed that an ornate church building expressed the greatness of God and gave the churchgoers an image of Heaven. Many Christian sovereigns such as Constantine, Justine and Charlemagne erected splendid churches. Moreover, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome and St. Augustine had also propagated the decoration of churches.339 Bellarminus discerned four kinds of churches: ‘temples’ where God was honoured, ‘oratoria’ where orations were held, ‘basilica’ and ‘martyria’ where the relics or the memory of martyrs were preserved, and ‘churches’ where sermons were made and the sacraments were kept.340 A church building should be built according to the example of the Temple of Solomon, with a vestibule for non-believers, a nave for the faithful, and a choir for priests.341

336

“…dit is de beste kerck die Amsterdam heeft/ om datse bequaemst is tot ghehoor en ghebruyck der Gods-dienst”. Fokkens 1664, p. 227. 337 Venard 1992. 338 “Non potest autem fieri ut Christianorum templa minus exprimant figuram coelestium rerum, quam illud Salomonis expressat. Sed in templo Salomonis erant imagines, nimirem Cherubin gloriæ, obumbrantia propitiatorium: Erant etiam re­liquiæ, hoc est, manna, & virga Aaron quæ fronduerat, & tabulæ testamenti: multo igitur magis in Christianorù. templis oportet tum imagines, tum reliquias rerum sanctarum conservari, præsertim cum in ipso caelo constat, non modo Christum ad patris dextram sedere, verumetiam Apostolos & Martyres adesse; quam rem adumbrare & quibus modis possumus, exprimere in templis nostris debemus”. Molanus 1570, fols. 65v, 66r. 339 Bellarminus 1588-1593, Liber II, Caput III, De cultu Sanct. Liber III. Caput VI. 340 “Quatuor ob fines erigunt sacræ ædes, unde êt quatuor nomina fortiunt. PRIMO, ad sacrificâdum Deo, & hinc dicuntur templa. SECUNDO, ad orandum, & hinc dicûtur oratoria. TERTIO, ad Martyrum reliquias honorificè conservandas, & hinc dicuntur basilicæ, seu memoriæ, seu

258

martyria. QUARTO, ad populum verbo Dei, & Sacramentis pascendum, & hinc dicuntur Ecclesiæ ...ornatum tabernaculi & templi Iudæorum aliquo modo typicum & cæremonialem fuisse; tabernaculum enim, & templum cum omni sua supellectile figuræ fuerunt Ecclesiæ Christianæ”. Ibidem, Liber II, Caput III, De cultu Sanct. Liber III. Caput IV en Liber II, Caput III, De cultu Sanct. Liber III. Caput VI. 341 “De forma Ecclesiarum Christianorum non est qd multa dicamus, cum antiquissima Ecclesiæ visantur. Duo tamen notanda sunt. UNUM, ad similitudinem templi Salomonis, in quo erat atrium, sancta, & sancta sanctorum, Ecclesias ferè omnes habuisse tres partes. Primò porticus ante ingressum in templú, quem locum Greci πρόναον, nostri vestibulum dicunt: ubi manebant penitentes. Deinde erat νάος id est, têplum, sive navis. Ultimo βήμα, sive ιεράτειον, hoc est, sacrarium, sive sanctuarium, sive adyta, quae erat pars interior templi, ubi erat altare quæqúe divisa erat à reliquo templo gradibus, cancellis, & velis, sive aulaeis; neque eò penetrabant alij, quàm sacerdotes cum suis ministri cleris. Alterum est Ecclesias Christianorum, ut plurimum ad Orientem conversas fuisse, & quattuor latera habuisse, quibus quatuor mundi partes aspicerent, ...”. Ibidem, Liber II, Caput III, De cultu Sanct. Liber III. Caput IV.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God The First Jesuit Churches The first church the Jesuits built in the Low Countries was for the Jesuit college at Douai, where a new French-speaking university had been founded in 1562. It was erected between 1583 and 1591 according to an ideal model plan sent from Rome.342 The ground plan of the church (demolished in 1772) shows a clear inspiration from contemporary Italian Jesuit churches, in particular the Roman Gesù. It had a wide shallow choir, a large crossing and an oblong nave with four chapels. These were oriented towards the interior and connected by small corridors that allowed the priests to pass through the partition walls, similar to the way chapels in Italian churches were constructed (most notably in the Gesù). Oratoria, or private praying rooms with a view of the main altar – also typical of contemporary Italian Jesuit churches – were installed at both sides of the choir. From the description by the Jesuit father Halloix, we know that 268. Douai, plan of the Jesuit college, 1583-1591 there were galleries above the chapels, which were (demolished 1772). probably connected to the rood loft at the entrance side and accessed by means of two staircases in the façade wall.343 The church was constructed with flying buttresses, probably with the intention of installing stone vaults. These, however, were never executed; only in 1623 was a wooden vault built – most probably a barrel or pointed vault.344 The design of the church met the liturgical requirements of this young order of militant priests. Because the church had a large choir and a rood loft on the entrance side, liturgical proceedings at the main altar were thus fully visible from the nave. In the past, choirs in churches belonging to communities or monasteries had usually been concealed from the rest of the church. Also the wide single nave, which was no longer impeded by pillars, was excellently suited to preaching, and therefore praised by Halloix.345 In contrast to these modern features, we need to stress that the exterior of the church in particular maintained a rather sober appearance and can hardly be considered ‘Baroque’. The façade with its triangular gable was flat and minimally decorated, except for the large portal in antique style. Moreover, the presence of flying buttresses and two towers with pointed roofs flanking the choir, made the church look rather traditional.346 The church can be linked to a specific period within the leadership of the order. From 1565 onwards, plans for new church buildings had to be sent for approval to Rome, where they were con­ sidered by the order’s chief architect, Giovanni Tristano, and after his death in 1575 by Giovanni De Rosis (b. 1538 – d. 1610).347 Most of these plans348 were ground plans, which seems to indicate that

342

Braun 1907, pp.117-120; Delattre 1949-1957, Part II, pp. 173-278; Vallery-Radot 1960, pp. 301-302. 343 Halloix 1615. 344 This was because the large round window in the façade at the height of the top of the interior walls prevented the construction of a flat ceiling. 345 Halloix 1615, pp. 162, 163, 170-171, 173-174. 346 We must point out that it is not certain whether the Douai church had windows with tracery or not. The

drawing of the church in the Albums de Croÿ suggests there was tracery in the bottommost windows of the side walls. Prague, Public Library, Ms. XXIII/A9/2. Lesage, Lottin & Duvosquel 1985, pl. 107. 347 Vallery-Radot 1960; Wittkower 1972; Benedetti 1984, pp. 67-104; Bösel 1986. 348 Actually preserved at the BNP, Cabinet des Estampes, Recueil de plans des maisons, églises, etc. qui appartenaient à la Société de Jésus avant son abolition. See Vallery-Radot 1960.

259

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

269. Kortrijk, Jesuit church, 1607-1611, exterior.

270. Idem, interior.

they were judged merely on their functional and organizational qualities, rather than on their ‘style’. Because the processing of plans in Rome often turned out to be time-consuming and caused construction delays and financial problems, during the government of general superior Everardus Mercurianus (1573-1580) the order’s chief architects began to develop an ideal church and college plan that could be sent to the provinces. Only very few churches were built according to this ideal model: apart from the church at Douai there is only the Rio de Janeiro church, built between 1585 and 1588.349 Also extant is an unexecuted ground plan from 1585 for the church of Dijon, almost identical to the one in Douai.350 Already under the government of the general superior Claudius Aquaviva, the Roman superiors abolished this ideal plan and permitted building schemes that matched local building traditions. It has been suggested that this was done for pragmatic reasons, given that local building techniques were not always suited to the execution of the ideal plan. For instance, the vaults of the Douai church, most probably originally planned to be executed in stone, were actually constructed in wood. This alteration might indeed have had to do with the specific demands of the rather large, single nave church design. Later Jesuit college churches like the ones at Tournai (1601-1604), Kortrijk (1607-1611), Luxem­ burg (1613-1621), and the lost ones at Valenciennes (1601-1613), Mons (1608-1617), Ghent (1606-1618) and Arras (1612-1617) were constructed on a three-aisled ground plan with free-standing pillars connected by pointed arches.351 Except for the one in Kortrijk, they were all designed by locally trained members of the order: Hendrik Hoeymaker (b. 1559 – d. 1626) and Jean du Blocq (b. 1583 – d. 1656). The churches at Tournai, Arras, Valenciennes and Luxemburg were constructed on the Hallenkirche model, a type of church with a long tradition in the Low Countries. Furthermore, all these churches had lancet windows 349 350

Ibidem, pp. 56, 120. Ibidem, pp. 56, 232-233.

260

351

Serbat 1902; Serbat 1903; Braun 1907, pp. 9-103 ; Parent 1926, pp. 94-120.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God with tracery, which gave them a distinctly Gothic appearance. As with the Douai church, these other examples were executed with flat triangular gables; antique elements were confined to the decoration of portals and the development of the rood lofts. In the case of the Luxemburg church, each pillar in the nave was finished with a different pattern of antique scrollwork motifs. These early Jesuit churches have generally been described as Gothic constructions, and as such they are seen as one of the last manifestations of the Gothic style.352 However, when analysing their designs we first of all see that the interiors have modern, functional characteristics: the choir was wide and shallow while the nave had a broad and open character well suited to preaching. Oratoria can still be found in the choir apses of the existing college churches in Kortrijk and Tournai. Most surprising, however, are the entrance gates, for example, of the Luxemburg and Tournai college churches, which are executed in an antique way and prominently placed under Gothic style windows. Also the richly worked rood lofts of both churches are executed in an antique way, as was, most probably, the other furniture (now lost), which suggests 271. Tournai, Jesuit church, 1601-1604, by H. Hoeythat the Jesuits were not at all disinclined to use maker and J. du Blocq. antique formal elements. The combination of Gothic and antique elements in the construction and finish of these early Jesuit churches raises some questions about the characterization of these churches as Gothic and ‘oldfashioned’. The Jesuits clearly wanted to construct a well-equipped church building with a modern – i.e. antique – finish. The use of local, Gothic building schemes seems in large part due to practical and money-saving issues, since the design and follow-up of construction work on site could be entrusted to locally schooled members of the order. Apart from practical reasons, the Gothic style also seems to have been used for religious motives. Gothic elements, and especially the tracery within the lancet windows, might have been applied to give these churches a clearly recognizable religious appearance.353 Indeed, within a broader context, at the beginning of the seventeenth century tracery windows were often used to stress the religious character of a building. The Amsterdam Zuiderkerk, Westerkerk and Noorderkerk also had similar windows, although in their case the tracery was executed in a more modern, stylized way. Another contemporary example can be found in the Mons Town Hall where, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, an ornamental façade was erected on either side of the central building. Only in the newly erected left façade were two windows with tracery installed: one on each side of the central porch. This porch led to the chapel of St. George built around 1602 and located behind this façade; thus 352

“Wenn man von Gotik spricht, hat man wohl meist nur die Werte im Sinne, welche der Stil von seinem ersten Auftreten an bis etwa in die Frühe des 16. Jahrhunderts hervorbrachte. Nur wenige werden dabei auch an die mehr oder weniger verkümmerten Früchte denken, welche der einst so üppig blühende und so reich tragende Baum im Norden als leste Gabe spendete, ehe er der von Süden dor-

thin verpflanzten Renaissance endgültig das Feld überlassen musste”. Braun 1907, p. 9. “Dans les provinces belges, on bâtit encore dans le style gothique qui y était profondément enraciné”. Plantenga 1926, p. 77. 353 For the German and French contexts, see Hipp 1979, pp. 817-883 and Rousteau-Chambon 2003.

261

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 the tracery windows served to signal the religious function of this part of the building.354 Another example can be found in Hans Vredeman de Vries’ 1577 Architectura. The fourth plate in the chapter on the Corinthian order shows two antique porches destined for church buildings, since the windows are finished with tracery on a complex geometric pattern. They are, in fact, variants on the entrance porch of St. Jacob’s at Liège, explicitly mentioned by the author in his commentary.355 The religious connotation of the Gothic style is also demonstrated within the cycle of seven paintings for the Reichstädtisches Rathaus at Dantzig that Vredeman de Vries executed between 1594 and 1595. Here the artist associated a Gothic building with ‘faith’, as opposed to ‘heresy’, symbolized here by an antique building. Only one personification is represented within a Gothic building; i.e. Pietas, while all others are located in antique scenery. The commissioners of the cycle clearly had Protestant sympathies, since the whitewashed Gothic church interior, in which Pietas is seated amongst other virtues and biblical figures, is emptied of all sculpture and decoration except for the two plaques of the Ten Commandments in the choir. Outside the church, in the background of the painting, another scene is depicted representing Idolatria. Here we see a man kneeling in front of an idol under a baldachin-like structure finished with antique forms: again, both styles were explicitly set in opposition.356 The Capuchin Churches By the close of the sixteenth century the Capuchins, the second most important CounterReformation order within the Southern Low Countries, had already built a considerable number of churches in the Low Countries,357 amongst others at Antwerp (1589), Douai (1592), Arras (1592), Lille (1594) and Bruges (1595). Unfortunately, very little is known about these early church buildings because they were rapidly enlarged or reconstructed: the Antwerp and Brussels churches are two such examples. The former was already rebuilt between 1613 and 1614, and the latter between 1607 and 1620, and again from 1651 onwards. Nowadays Capuchin churches can still be found at Enghien (1617), Ghent (1630-1632), Ostend (1618-1620), Maastricht (1611-1614), Dendermonde (1629), Courtrai (1668) and Menen (1639-1641). The surviving churches, as well as the many iconographical sources showing lost ones, such as the church at Mechelen (1637),358 clearly prove that the Capuchin churches of the Low Countries were built according to one basic design which was very similar to the design of the Jesuit church at Douai. They all had a single rectangular nave and a large shallow choir, while the chapels – mostly restricted to one or two – were orientated towards the interior and connected by narrow corridors reserved for the priests. In most churches oratoria could be found flanking the main altar. In contrast with Jesuit practice, but in accordance with Franciscan traditions, the Capuchin monks followed Mass in a second, small choir, which was installed behind the main altar. The façades also are identical in composition. They had a central porch crowned by a niche containing a statue of the patron saint, two large windows (often with pointed arches) and a third window in the top (often round-shaped). Moreover, their appearance is surprisingly sober. The windows were barely decorated, and antique ornament was frugally applied around the entrances gates and niches only. 354

Patrimoine monumental 1975, p. 336. “Wy bevinden ooc op sommige plaetsen in onse Ne­derlanden, aen Kercken, Moderne eenighe treflijkcke gheçierde Poortalen, oft Frontis, tsyaende syden op tcruys werc, oft onder de torens, ooc wel eenige aen Moderne kercken, antique Poortalen, alsoo ick eenen ghesien hebbe binnen Luyck, aen Sint Iacobs kercke een Abdye, tselfde van harden steen ghemaect, en wel gheçiert, tselfde stont my wel aen, en hadde goede ordinancie” (comment on Corinthia tvierde stuck, Opt 21. blat, quoted from the 1581 Flemish edition). The New Hollstein XLVIII, cat. 429, pp. 61, 83. Zimmermann 2002b, pp. 113-114. The mid-sixteenth century 355

262

Liège portal is attributed to Lambert Lombard, but on shaky grounds. Paquet 1996. 356 Gronowicz 2002. 357 The order’s activities and architectural achievements in the Low Countries have been extensively studied by Hildebrandt 1945-1956. See also Marinus 1995, pp. 172-175; Bruges 1993. 358 Several drawings of the interior and the exterior made by J.B. De Noter (1786-1855) are preserved at the SAM. A project drawing (plan) is preserved in Antwerp: Archives of the Belgian Capuchins, I, 8800. Hildebrand 1945-1956, V, pp. 79-93.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God Within the order existed strongly held ideals of poverty and mental mortification. The Constitutiones of the order, which were published for the first time in 1575, stress that churches should be small because they were not used for sermons (Capuchin priests had to preach in other churches and on the streets), and that precious materials such as gold and silver should be avoided for the interior finishes. In order to accentuate the holy character of the building, a small courtyard was essential in front of the church.359 272. Mechelen, Capuchin church, 1637 (drawing by J.B. De Noter). 359

“Le chiese nostre sieno picciole, e povere, mà divote, honeste, e módissime, ne vogliano haverle grandi per poterui predicare; Perche (come diceva il Padre nostro) Miglior’ essempio si dà à predicare nelle Chiese altrui, che nelle nostre, massimamente con offendere la santa Povertà. E vi sia solo una picciola Campana di cento cinquanta libre, ò in circa; E ne’ nostri Luoghi, le Sagrestie sieno povere con une buona chiave, la quale sempre porti seco un Frate Professo ; E s’habbiano communemente due Calici con la coppa d’argento, con le loro Patene den’indorate, e non vi sieno più Calici, ò Paramenti di quello, che richiede la necessità de’luoghi : Ne’Paramenti, e Panni dell’Altare non s’usi Oro, ò Argento, ne altre curiosità, ò pretiosità (secondo la Clementina) & ogni cosa sia netta, e monda,e spetialmente i Pramenti Sacerdotali. I Corporali, e Purificatori sieno mõdissimi,e candidissimi ; I Candelieri fatti al torno di semplice legno : I nostri Messali, e Breviarii, & anco tutti gl’altri nostri libri sieno poveramente legati, e senza Signacoli curiosi. E guardinsi ì Frati, che nelle cose pertinenti al Culto Divino,ne gl’Edificij nostri,e nelle Massaritie, le quali usiamo, non appaia alcuna pretiosità,ò superfluità : Sapendo ch’Iddio vuole (come dice Papa Clemente Quinto) e più si diletta del cuor mondo, e delle sante Operationi, che delle cose pretiose, e ben ornate : Per lo che dobbiamo attendere, che in tutte le cose, che sono ad uso nostro risplenda l’Altissima Povertà, la quale ci accenda alla pretiosità delle Ricchezze Celesti, dov’è ogni nostro Tesoro, Delitie,e Gloria : E però prohibiamo la ricettione di qual si voglia cosa d’Oro, d’Argento,di Veluto,ò Seta,eccetto i Calici,le Bossole del Santissimo Sacramento, i Tabernacoli, & i Veli da tenere sopra i Tabernacoli, e Calici ; Et i Padri Vicarii Procinciali, quando anderanno alla Visita,dove troveranno simili cose, dieno la penitenza à chi l’haurà riceuute,come disobedienti,e poco amatori della nostra semplicità : E facciano,che sieno rendute à’Padroni ; mà non sapendo di chi sieno le facciano dare ad altre Chiese poverelle. Le Celle in longhezza, e larghezza non passino Nove Palme di vano, in altezza Dieci, le Porte alte Sette Palmi, Larghe Due, e mezo, le Fenestre alte Due, e mezo, larghe Uno, e mezo, l’Andito del Dormitorio largo sei Palmi, e l’altezza dal piano del Refettorio insino al Solaio, cioè sino al Tavolato, ò Mattonato non passi

273. Mechelen, Capuchin church, exterior view (drawing by J.B. De Noter).

274. Mechelen, Capuchin church, ground plan.

263

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 The striking uniformity of the Capuchin churches in the Southern Low Countries indicates that there was a centrally imposed model plan, which was – contrary to Jesuit practice – actually used and followed for the building of new convent churches. The fact that the Capuchins managed to impose these plans successfully within the Low Countries can be explained by examining the way the order was structured. Within the Capuchin order, the provincial chapters had the highest authority. Each year representatives of all the convents came together and chose the guardians and vicars of each convent, as well as the provincial minister and his four counsellors, which formed the so-called definitorium. Plans for new churches or convent buildings needed to be approved by the provincial chapters, and their execution was entrusted to the definitorium. Within the Flemish province, the provincial minister and the definitorium were assisted by four master builders, who were employed on all important building sites within the province. The Roman and provincial superiors closely supervised the observation of these regulations to safeguard the order’s ideal of poverty. There is 275. Ghent, Capuchin church, 1632. a well known letter written in 1617 by the general superior, Paulis of Cesena, in which he complained about the expense of four paintings (three of them by Peter Paul Rubens) that had been commissioned for the main altars of the churches at Cambrai, Lille, Antwerp and Enghien.360 In 1632 the provincial superior Juvenalis of Sint-Winoksbergen wrote a letter to the Ghent city council in which he complained about the ‘exaggerated’ finish of the church façade. Apparently, the superior disapproved of the decoration around the windows, and he especially objected to the coat-of-arms on the façade (which nevertheless remained).361 The Capuchin quest for sobriety and poverty can be linked to the debate on the presumed Jesuit ideals of poverty, a debate which, regrettably, has so far been almost exclusively focused on Roman church architecture and the order’s role therein. Our analysis of the Capuchin churches of the Southern Low Countries indicates that standards for ‘poor’ architecture must indeed have existed and were actually applied, at least within some orders.362 However, we can see that the implementation of such ideals was a far from easy task, since it could easily arouse conflicts between the general superiors and the local members of the orders, as well as between the order and private sponsors. We should also difTredici Palmi: Mà quando fosse molto cattiva l’aria, si possa aggiungere insino à Quattordici Palmi; E così l’altre Officine sieno picciole, humili, povere, abiette, e basse; acciò che ogni cosa predichi humiltà, povertà, e disprezzo del Mondo: E perche i Palmi non sono tutti di una medesima misura: Però si è posta in fine del libro la misura del mezo Palmo, secondo la quale si misureranno tanto dette Fabriche, come anco i Vestimenti nostri”. Constitutioni 1609, pp. 30-31. Also Colli 1986.

264

360

Hildebrand 1935; Hildebrand 1945-1956, V, p. 203; Lille 2004, pp. 226-227, 232-233. 361 Hildebrand 1945-1956, V, p. 203. 362 The Constitutiones of the Discalced Carmelites explicitly state that their Roman church of Santa Maria della Vittoria, built between 1610 and 1612 after the example of the Roman Gesù, should be considered as an exception and that the churches of other orders should be built in more modest way. Constitutiones 1631, pp. 78-79.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God ferentiate between the architectural design and the interior finish of the churches. The eighteenth-century inner views of the Mechelen Capuchin church do not show an austere, empty space; on the contrary, there are three rather large altars worked in Baroque style, plus several paintings on the walls. Still preserved in the Ostend Capuchin church is a large and richly decorated eighteenth-century altar, albeit completely executed in unpainted wood.363 This, as well as the directives from the Constitutions, suggests that the Capuchins realized their ideals of poverty not only by choosing a particular style but also by the choice of material. Looking at Rome The Habsburg Court Projects During the first two decades of the seventeenth century, the Brussels Habsburg court initiated a stylistic innovation within the field of religious architecture. New churches were built with Italianate forms and were given a more monumental character. This change was rapidly copied by the superiors of the most educated religious orders 276. Antwerp, Discalced Carmelite church, 1636– for example, the Jesuits – as well as by elitist pri- 1639. vate sponsors. Soon the new style spread through all layers of society and managed to gain general acceptance with patrons of religious architecture and churchgoers alike. The earliest example was the Church of the Discalced Carmelite nuns in Brussels. This was a young order founded by Teresa of Avila (b. 1515 – d. 1582) and recognized by Pope Clemens VIII in 1590. Their convent at Brussels was one of the earliest to be built outside Spain and its foundation must be considered as a personal initiative of the Archdukes. The church, erected next to the Coudenberg Palace between 1607 and 1611 after a design by Wensel Cobergher, was unfortunately destroyed in 1786 (see Part Three, Chapter I). Cobergher created a three-aisled church with a monumental screen façade that had certain similarities to the façade of the church of Santa Susanna in Rome (1597-1603), although the former was executed in a rather flat manner (ills. 167-168).364 Unfortunately, nothing is known about the interior elevation, nor about the decoration, except for the works of art executed under Cobergher’s direction. Most probably the choice of a stately façade design was exclusively due to the patrons of the church; i.e. the Archdukes. Similarly, the Discalced Carmelites were forced to abandon the ideals of sobriety and poverty, typical of this religious order, for the interior finish of their church. Other churches of this order in the Low Countries, such as the one at Antwerp built between 1636 and 1639, indeed show a much more sober design, similar to those of the early Jesuit and Capuchin churches.365

363 Similarly, in the Sint-Truiden Capuchin church (formerly located within the Prince-Bishopric of Liège), a rather large Baroque altar can still be found, completely executed

in unpainted wood. Martens, Vlaeminck & Coolen 1988. 364 Plantenga 1926, pp. 29-32; Meganck 1998, pp. 40-44. 365 Manderyck 1982.

265

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 The church of Scherpenheuvel, erected in honour of a miraculous statue of the Virgin Mary, was built between 1609 and 1627, again to designs made by Cobergher.366 The church was built on a heptagonal plan, a reference to the Seven Joys and Seven Sorrows of Our Lady, and because it was situated at the centre of the fortified town (see ill. 181), it was also given a manifestly anti-Protestant militant character. An impressive emblematic programme can be recognized in both its decoration and layout, and in the layout of the surrounding town. In the treatise Paradisus Sponsi et sponsæ by the Jesuit, Jan David (1607),367 a great number of Marian emblems can be found – many referring to Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon – that are linked with specific elements of the site. Moreover, the fifteenth-century Marian pilgrimage site of Santa Maria di Loreto, which also comprises a domed church in a fortified town, must be considered as an important source of inspiration for the Archdukes.368 The church of Scherpenheuvel belongs to the late fifteenth and sixteenth-century tradition of free-standing Marian pilgrimage churches, characteristic 277. Scherpenheuvel, exterior view of the church, 1609-1627, of Northern Italy. One of these in particuby Cobergher. lar, the church of Our Lady at Mondovì, attracts our attention because it was visited by Archduke Albert on November 14, 1595; i.e. three years before he became regent of the Low Countries.369 The Mondovì church was commissioned by Duke Carlo Emanuele of Savoy, and its first stone was laid on June 19, 1595. At that time the duke was married to the Infanta Catalina Michaela, Isabella’s sister.370 Some interesting parallels can be drawn between the Scherpenheuvel and the Mondovì church projects: the duchy of Savoy was also menaced by the Protestants, who had their stronghold at Geneva, against which Carlo Emanuele unsuccessfully launched several military campaigns between 1589 and 1602. Furthermore, the construction of the Mondovì church must also be considered as a strong anti-Protestant statement because it was built in honour of an image of the Virgin – the so-called Regina Montis Regalis – which had been deliberately damaged by Protestant iconoclasts. There is also the fact that the original design for the Mondovì church (by Ercole Negro di Sanfront) was strongly inspired by Antonio Labacco’s engraving of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger’s design for the church

366

Plantenga 1926, pp. 3-46; Mörsch 1965, pp. 21-82; Duerloo 1997; Duerloo 1998; Lombaerde 1998; De Jonge 1998a; Meganck 1999, pp. 52-94; Banz 2000, pp. 100-116; Duerloo & Wingens 2002. 367 David 1607.

266

368

Duerloo & Wingens 2002, pp. 111-155. See also page 173. 369 Merino 1973, pp. 28-29. 370 Carboneri 1966, pp. 65-97; Vacchetta 1984.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God of San Giovanni dei Fiorentini in Rome,371 and that the same engraving most probably also played an important role in the design of the Scherpenheuvel church.372 In the description of the Scherpenheuvel church included in the Brabantia mariana tripartite (1632) by August Wichmans, later abbot of the Praemonstratensian Abbey of Tongerloo (1644-1661), attention is given to the significance of the domed church from an architectural-historical point of view. The author links the Scherpenheuvel church to the Pantheon, known as Sancta Maria Rotunda, and also to the Temple of Vesta in Rome, thus situating the round shape of the church building and its dedication to the Virgin within ancient, even antique, traditions.373 When discussing the special veneration for the Virgin by the Archdukes and their predecessors, Wichmans explicitly mentions the legendary emperor Charlemagne and the construction of the ‘round’ Palatine chapel at Aachen, which was known during the seventeenth century as an important Marian pilgrimage church.374 This reference to Charlemagne, who also bore the title of Duke of Brabant (Lothringia), might be interpreted as an allusion to the imperial ambitions Albert had cultivated for a certain time. From around 1597 he had hoped to succeed his brother Rudolf II, but all this came to a head around 1605 – when Scherpenheuvel was in the first planning stage – due to Rudolf’s declining mental condition. Albert’s hopes came to an end, however, when his brother Mathias assumed power at Rudolf’s death in 1612, but not before Albert had openly asked for the support of Pope Paul V.375 The Antwerp and Brussels Jesuit Churches In 1612, when the Belgian Jesuit province was split up into a Dutch-speaking Provincia FlandroBelgica and a French-speaking Provincia Gallo-Belgica, the order decided to erect a ‘Professed House’ or training college at Antwerp. Its church was built between 1615 and 1625 to designs by the Jesuits Franciscus Aguilon (b. 1567 – d. 1617) and Pieter Huyssens (b. 1577 – d. 1637), who had the artistic support of Peter Paul Rubens.376 The church was built on a three-aisled basilica ground plan with a large choir, galleries above the side-aisles and oratoria flanking the main altar. All these architectural elements can also be found in earlier Jesuit churches in the Low Countries and therefore should not be considered as new. On the other hand, the rich, abundant decoration on the façade and in the interior is clearly innovative.

371

Labacco 1552, fols. 26-28. Bruschi 1992. Martens & Snaet 1999. 373 “Crescente exinde per Orbem totum Miraculorum famâ, ‘Albertus Pius, & Isabella Clara Eugenia’, Principes nostri, qui locum hunc semper in delitiis habuerunt, & solenni ac stato quasi ritu, annis fermè singulis cum universâ Aulâ visitarunt, magnificam ac verè Regiam à fundamentis, formâ rotundâ Basilicam eidem Divæ excitandam curarunt. Est enim figura circularis omnium capacissima, quæ rectè sanctissimæ Dei Genitrici adaptatur, de quâ canit Ecclesia ‘Quia quem coeli capere non poterant, tuo gremio contulisti’. Eademque figura, quòd undique clausa sit, Virgininalem Dei-Paræ clausurum aptissimè repræsentat: & symbolum etiam munditiæ apud veteres semper extitit, teste Virgilio epigrammate de ‘Viro Bono’ cuius ratio est, quia figura orbicularis angulis caret, in quibus sordes facilè delitescunt: Poniturque æternitatis hieroglyphicum. Quæ omnia B. Virgini quàm mirè conveniunt … Sic Numa Pompilius Romæ Rotundam ædem fertur sacrasse Vestæ. Sic Augustus Caesar, Agrippæ nomine Diis omnibus templum rotundo ambitu 372

deicavit, & inscripsit, ‘Pantheon’: quod posteà B. Bonifacius Papa IV. expurgatum à vanâ gentilium superstitione, in honorem beatæ semper Virginis Mariæ, & omnium Martyrum, tempore Phocæ Imp. Dedicavit: in quod duo de triginta curribus ossa sanctorum Martyrum, è diversis Urbis cœmeteriis essossa, solenniter illata fuerunt: diciturque ‘Sancta Maria Rotunda’”.Wichmans 1632, pp. 507- 509. 374 “ ‘B. Carolus’ (ut talis enim ab antiquo etiamnum colitur in variis ecclesiis Belgii, Germaniae & Franciae) à rerum gestarum magnitudine cognomento ‘Magnus’, & ­Principum Christianorum Maximus, sicuti cum aliis Regnis ­Ducatum Brabantiæ, ita quoque Marianam Suorum Maiorum Pieta­ tem à ‘ipinis’meredavit, atque apud suos propagavit… Ex­cellit inter hæc ‘Basilica Aquis-Granensis’ rotundo schemate constructa, auro, argento, columnis marmoreis Roma & Ravennâ aduectis …”. Ibidem, pp. 69-70. 375 DaCosta Kaufmann 1998. 376 Braun 1907, pp. 151-171; Plantenga 1926, pp. 83-117; Baudouin 1972; Baudouin 1977; Snaet 2002.

267

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

278. Antwerp, Jesuit church (today Carolus Borromeus church), 1615-1625.

279. Antwerp, Jesuit church, interior.

The façade was given great plasticity thanks to the abundant decoration of its projecting middle part – pilasters, niches, statues and other ornaments in high relief – and thanks to details such as the freestanding columns on the corners. We know that major ornaments on this façade, such as the sculpted angels sounding trumpets in the entranceway spandrels, were also designed by Rubens, whose role in the design of the church should not be underestimated. Aguilon had ordered large quantities of marble in Genoa, and this was abundantly applied in the interior. The columns of the nave were all constructed from solid white marble, while the walls were decorated with marble revetments. The nave was covered with a barrel vault showing alternating square and rectangular coffering, each coffer decorated with a different floral or vegetal motif. Rubens had realized a series of thirty-nine paintings for the ceilings of the side-aisles and for the galleries, which unfortunately were lost in the 1718 fire, which also destroyed a major part of the marble decoration. In the letters sent to Rome, the Antwerp Jesuits praised the marble finish of the interior and emphasized how Vitruvian rules had been applied in the construction of the façade, the interior and the tower.377

377

Rome, Archivum Romanum S.I., Fl. B. Hist., 50, II. (Anno 1621), fols. 490-492. See Snaet 2002.

268

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God The grand and elaborately embellished church marked a definite rupture with the previous building policy of the Jesuit order. It is only at this moment that the Jesuits, like the court, suddenly become the great propagators of the contemporary Roman style within the Low Countries. This momentous change coincided with a more general outburst of Italian Baroque influence in the field of painting and sculpture, especially in the towns of Brussels and Antwerp. Within the order, this change became possible due to the advent of new architectural designers; in first place were Aguilon and Huyssens, who replaced the earlier generation. Finally, we should also point out a change of mentality within the order itself, which was perhaps due to the imminent canonization of Ignatius Loyola, the order’s founder, and thus a matter of great prestige. It was by no means a coincidence that the Antwerp church became the first in the world to be dedicated to Loyola. Noteworthy, too, is that the church was consecrated on September 21, 1621; in other words, several months before the actual canonization of the saint, which took place on May 22, 1622. As existing plans for the church show, the Jesuits originally wanted to erect a modern, Italianate church with a dome instead of a three-aisled 280. Antwerp, preliminary design for the Jesuit church, basilica.378 One of these projects recalls the Gesù c. 1613. while two others most probably were inspired by an unexecuted plan for the Jesuit church at Cosenza by the Italian Jesuit architect Giuseppe Valeriano. Despite Aguilon’s protests, the Roman superiors refused the plans: in their judgement “solid and simple” architecture should be the first requirement. However, no limits were imposed in the matter of the interior finish, since a church had to symbolize the House of God.379 This argument echoes the formal prescription made during the first general meeting in 1558. For the Jesuit church of Brussels, too, a gigantic Greek cross plan with a central dome was 380 made. This plan, again most likely by Aguilon, shows great similarity with the ground plan of the Jesuit church in Naples, another design by Giuseppe Valeriano. The Brussels design probably dates from around 1614 when plans were made to restart the construction of the church that Hendrik Hoeymaker had begun in 1606, but which was then abandoned in an unfinished state. Although the Greek cross plan was never sent to Rome, it shows that in Brussels, too, the Jesuits wanted to construct a very modern, thoroughly Italianate church.

378 These plans are preserved in BNP, Cabinet des Estampes, Recueil de plans des maisons, églises, etc. qui appartenaient à la Société de Jésus avant son abolition, Hd 4c 9-12, Vallery-Radot 1960, pp. 288-289. 379 As appears from a letter sent in April 1615 by the Roman vicar general Ferdinand Alber to Carolus Scribanius, referring to an angry letter Aguilon had sent to Rome: “... hac imprimis de templo Antwerpiensi numq. regu fui illud ne

improbent, cum eiusque ornatús impedire, licet enim in ædificem primam persones Soctis solida simpliumq architectura desidere, in templi tamen ornatum, cum domus Dei sit, nec legem ponere volo nec debeo aliam, quam lega prudicé, quae circumspecte ita agit ut nemo merito offendatur”. Rome, Archivum Romanum S.I., FL. B., 3, 234. Ziggelaar 1983, p. 18. 380 AVJH Promptuarium Pictorum, I, 96v-97.

269

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

281. Brussels, Jesuit church, ground plan, 1615 (demolished 1812). Promptuarium Pictorum, vol. I.

282. Brussels, façade design for the Jesuit church. Promptuarium Pictorum, vol. I.

As had happened with the Antwerp church, the Brussels church (which was completely demolished in 1812) was eventually built as a three-aisled basilica once the final plans were approved in 1615. The interior was finished with Doric columns, round-headed arches supporting an entablature decorated with large cartouches, and rib vaults with volute-like consoles. Most probably the foundations and the already finished parts of the walls – built according to a design attributed to Hoeymaker – were reused. Until very recently the design of the church was ascribed to the painter and court architect Jacques Francart (see Part Three, Chapter I). However, a closer look at the draughtsmanship of the preserved execution drawings for the church suggests that these were made by Pieter Huyssens.381 This attribution is confirmed by the fact that the Jesuits only engaged Jacques Francart at the end of 1616. The preserved contract clearly stipulates that the architect had to direct the construction work on site and provide the drawings and models necessary for the realization of the building (all the same it cannot be excluded that Francart strongly influenced the final church design).382

381

AVJH Promptuarium Pictorum, I, 11v, 12.

270

382 The contract has been preserved at ARAB Archieven van de jezuïetenorde, College van Brussel, 969. See Braun 1907, p. 122.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God An Early Christian Basilica? The interior of the Antwerp Jesuit church with its many-columned basilica structure, its semicircular apse, coffered barrel vault and marble-clad surfaces, closely resembled a Roman, Early Christian basilica. Its similarity to the seventh-century Sant’Agnese fuori le Mura, which also has galleries above the side-aisles, is especially striking. The Antwerp Jesuits themselves stressed in the letters sent to Rome how the church was built after the example of a basilica because of the use of marble columns.383 The Antwerp Jesuit church is not the only church within the Low Countries whose interior was inspired by this antique type of church building. The interior elevation of the nave in the Antwerp Augustine church, designed by Cobergher, shows features which are also characteristic of Early Christian basilicas.384 It consists of rows of antique columns, round-headed arches and a clerestory with huge rectangular windows. Before the addition of a depressed wooden vault at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the roof structure was most probably left visible, as is still the case in some Early Christian basilicas. The construction of the Antwerp Augustine church started in 1615 (the same year as the Jesuit church), and continued until 1618. In Rome at that time, the Early Christian era was a source of great interest, amongst other reasons because of the emphasis the popes and their intellectual entourage placed on the papacy’s Roman heritage. From the 1570s onwards, many of the old Roman basilicas underwent extensive restoration or embellishment. The leading figure in this movement, the Oratorian Cardinal Cesar Baronius (b. 1538 – d. 1607), author of the Martyrologium romanorum and Annales ecclesiastici, undertook several remarkable restoration projects, amongst them that of his titular church, dedicated to the Early Christian martyrs, Sts. Nereus and Achilleus. This church, virtually a ruin, was almost completely rebuilt from 1596 onwards. Much attention was paid to the organization and material execution of the interior. With this purpose in mind, antique examples were accurately followed, such as the choir of ancient St. Peter’s, major parts of which were still standing until 1592.385 Also the newly built church of the Oratorians in Naples, known as the Church of the Gerolamini, shows the application of architectural features typical of ancient Early Christian basilicas. It was built from 1590-1592 onwards on a three-aisled basilica plan, and its interior elevation incorporated columns, round-headed arches, a high clerestory with rectangular windows and a flat roof, all features typical of Early Christian basilicas. It was built under the direction of the Oratorian Antonio Talpa (d. 1624), collaborator and close friend of Baronius. In contrast to Sts. Nereo and Achilleo, which has a rather modest appearance, the Naples church was splendidly worked, with monolithic granite pillars and large quantities of marbles in the interior. The choir and transept arms were vaulted with coffered barrel vaults inspired by the ones in the chapel of Gregory XIII (built 1572-1585) in St. Peter’s, Rome.386 The Jesuits also took a special interest in the Early Christian era by propagating the veneration of the Early Christian martyrs, who were honoured because they provided an exemplary role for the order’s missionaries. They also undertook restoration projects of church buildings in Rome, such as Sant’Appollinare, Santo Stefano Rotondo, San Saba and San Vitale, all of which were kept at the order’s disposal. These restorations included the application of series of edifying frescos, with graphic images of the executions of Early Christian martyrs.387 There is no reason to doubt that some of these architectural projects were known in the Low Countries. Cobergher most probably knew Cesare Baronius personally,388 and in 1598 he made a 383 “Templi ædificatio superioribus annis capta magna omnium gratulatione fœliciter soc anno excrevit, spectarunt non sine admiratione cives ordinem marmorearum columnarum, opere ante sine diem Belgis non viso, id quod plurimos ad elargiendas liberaliter impensas iam insigni basilica perficienda inflammavit”. ARAB Archieven van de jezuïetenorde, Provincia Flandro-Belgica, Lettres de P.

Provincial de la province Flandro-Belgique, 991-992 (anno 1617), fol. 292. 384 Meganck 1998, p. 108. 385 Herz 1988. 386 Del Pesco 1992. 387 Levy 1990. 388 De Maeyer 1955, p. 275.

271

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

283. Bruges, Jesuit church, 1619, by Huyssens, interior.

284. Leuven, Jesuit church, 1650, by Willem Hesius.

painting for one of the chapels of the Chiesa Nuova, the mother church of the Oratorians.389 We also should not forget that a large part of his Italian artistic activities between 1580 and 1583 and between 1591 and 1604 were undertaken in Naples, when the construction of the Oratorian church was under way.390 One of the three altar paintings Rubens made between 1606 and 1608 for the Chiesa Nuova in Rome represents St. Domitilla with St. Nereus and St. Achilleus. Its theme and composition were both inspired by a painting by Cristofano Roncalli Pomarancio for the Church of Sts. Nereo and Achilleo.391 Nonetheless, we must point out that the choice of the Antwerp Jesuits to construct the interior of their church after the example of an Early Christian basilica is paradoxical. On the one hand, the project suggests knowledge of the most recent late sixteenth-century insights in Roman church building, while on the other hand, this option was only chosen after the rejection by the superiors in Rome of other prestigious designs, i.e. Italianate domed churches. The decision to build a church in the style of an Early Christian basilica was also to a large extent due to the fact that the Roman Jesuit superiors only approved a traditional three-aisle ground plan, which had incidental parallels with Early Christian basilicas.

389 390

Meijer 1995, p. 37. Meganck 1998, p. 23.

272

391

Jaffé 1977, pp. 85-99.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God Building on a Pattern: Later Jesuit Churches After the Antwerp and Brussels churches, the Jesuit architect Huyssens also made the designs for the Bruges Jesuit church (built from 1619 onwards) and the one in Namur (built from 1621 onwards). 392 In both churches it is clearly noticeable that inspiration has been taken from the Brussels church. The Namur façade is a close copy of the Brussels one, although enriched by rustication. The interior scheme of the Bruges church is almost identical to the one in Brussels. Instead of experimenting, the order started building to a pattern, encouraged by their strongly hierarchical design process and by the fact that designers with Huyssens’ talent and Aguilon’s erudition had become scarce.393 In 1625 Huyssens was actually dismissed as architect by his superiors after being accused of being responsible for the financial deficit of the Antwerp Professed House. Shortly afterwards he made a trip to Rome (1626-1627) on the orders of the Infanta Isabella.394 After his return, he made the designs for the Ghent Benedictine church and most probably also for the Mechelen Beguine church (see below). The construction of the Leuven Jesuit church began in 1650 based on a design by Willem Hesius (b. 1601 – d. 1690), who at that time was the superior of the Brussels Jesuit College.395 Hesius took the typical three-aisled basilica plan of the Jesuit churches cited above, but enlarged it with a wide transept with half-round arms, and a dome. According to Hesius’ presentation drawings, which have been conserved, this dome had to be initially executed using two superimposed drums with the inner cupola detached from the outer dome.396 Because of construction problems, which might have been due to the poorer quality of the stone used in the supporting pillars, the only part of the dome executed was a small part of the lower drum. Had it been realized, it would indeed have looked exceedingly ‘Roman’ from the outside. Building Churches in the Republic The First Classicist Churches The newly developed classical style of architecture promoted by Constantijn Huygens (see Part Two, Chapter III) was soon in use for the construction of church buildings. The first classical churches were at Hooge Zwaluwe (1639-1641) and Renswoude (1639-1640), most probably both designed by Jacob van Campen. They were built on the plan of a Greek cross with slightly projecting arms. The church at Hooge Zwaluwe was a village church, located on the private estate of Prince Frederik Hendrik. It was capped with a pointed roof and a small bell tower.397 The church at Renswoude, on the other hand, served as a mausoleum for the nobleman Johan van Reede, who had been a friend of Constantijn Huygens. Here, the church was given a much more stately character due to the little octagonal dome on top and an interior finish of Ionic pilasters.398 The New Church at Haarlem was built between 1645 and 1647 to a design by Jacob van Campen. It replaced the former St. Anna church, built on the same location, from which it inherited the 1613 tower designed by Lieven de Key. The church was built on a Greek cross plan inscribed within a square. The two central naves were finished with barrel vaults crossing at the centre, while the four corner bays had flat, coffered ceilings supported by Ionic square pillars. The fourth important example was the Marekerk in Leiden (1639-1649) designed by Arent van ’s-Gravesande, who had

392

Braun 1907, pp. 129-141; Plantenga 1926, pp. 117-125; De Smet 1982, Berleur & Vanden Bemden 1991. 393 On Jesuit design practice, see Daelemans 2000. 394 Braun 1907, pp. 105-112. 395 Gilissen 1938; De Jonge, De Vos, Van Langendonck & Van Riet 1997, pp. 78-81.

396

AVJH Promptuarium Pictorum, I, 7-10. Ozinga 1929, pp. 167-168; Ottenheym 1995, pp. 180182. 398 Ozinga 1929, pp. 53-55; Laansma 1980; Ottenheym 1995, pp. 180-187. 397

273

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 worked with Jacob van Campen some years before at Honselaarsdijk. It was built on an octagonal plan with an ambulatory and a large dome. All four churches, though embellished with antique forms, had a restrained character and clear structure, which was bound to please the Protestant churchgoers. The centralized concept of these Classicist churches continued earlier Protestant architectural models, but were now in keeping with contemporary opinions on the ideals of classical architecture.399 The Ideal of the Temple of Solomon

285. Renswoude, Protestant church, 1639, by Jacob van Campen.

286. Renswoude, Protestant church, interior.

399

Ozinga 1929, pp. 53-66, 78-82; van der Linden 1990; Ottenheym 1995, pp. 180-187. 400 de Prado & Villalpando 1596-1604.

274

All four churches also show peculiar curved buttresses in combination with round-arched windows. These elements derived from the ‘ideal’ image of the Temple of Solomon, which was supposedly built according to Vitruvian rules: this interpretation can be found in the treatise on the temple vision of the prophet Ezekiel by the Spanish Jesuits Jeronimo de Prado (b. 1547 – d. 1595) and Juan Bautista Villalpando (b. 1552 – d. 1608?).400 The book originated in the immediate surroundings of the Spanish royal court at the time of the completion of the Escorial, but in 1592 both Jesuits went to Rome. The first part, on the vision of Ezekiel, was written by De Prado and published one year after his death, while the two other parts that dealt with the reconstruction of the Temple proper were written by Villalpando. In this treatise, the Temple of Solomon – which, according to Ezekiel’s vision, was built on God’s advice – is presented as the source of all antique Vitruvian architecture; thus, antique temple forms, the so-called ‘apparatus’, and the ‘divine ideal’ could be united. For his temple reconstruction, Villalpando brought together a huge amount of data taken from the Bible, historical sources and architectural treatises, which in his view testified to God’s original intentions.401 The combination of the Solomonic buttresses and a tabernacle-like dome on top of a square church structure as at Renswoude, inevitably referred to the Temple of Solomon on the summit of the Temple Mount. Neither should we forget that in all Protes-

401

Vogelsang 1981, pp. 181-185; von Naredi-Rainer 1994, pp. 172-199.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God

287. Haarlem, Nieuwe Kerk, 1645, Jacob van Campen.

288. Haarlem, Nieuwe Kerk, interior.

tant churches there are plaques inscribed with the Ten Commandments; since the Bible tells us that the originals were kept inside the first Temple of Solomon, this constitutes another explicit reference.402 Consequently, Vitruvian and Solomonic elements were combined almost naturally in practice, to achieve an ideal, ‘divine’ appearance. For instance, certain architectural elements of the Marekerk at Leiden explicitly refer to Vitruvius’ description of the Tower of Winds in Athens.403 Specifically, these features are the spire on top of the dome, decorated with a figure representing Fame; the letters W, NW, N, NO, O, ZO, Z, ZW on the frieze of the drum, indicating the major points of the compass, and finally the octagonal ground plan, which both buildings have in common. We know that the town of Leiden identified itself with Athens because of its university.404 Moreover, the dimensions of the church can be related to biblical and Vitruvian ideals alike: both the width and the height (of its interior) measure 100 feet. According to Ezekiel (40:1-49, 41: 1-26, 42: 1-200) the Temple of Solomon measured 100 by 100 cubiti or 10,000 by 10,000 ells. On the other hand, Vitruvius states in his book on the construction of the temples (Book III, Chapter I) that ten is an ideal measure. We know that Jacob van Campen advised adding a projecting portico with free-standing pillars to the front of the church, which was undoubtedly inspired by the Pantheon. This portico was never completed, and eventually a flat façade was built instead, using some of the already constructed parts.405 The image of the Temple of Solomon must have pleased seventeenth-century churchgoers, who were at home with symbols and metaphors. The architectural elite evidently had access to Villalpando. Jacob van Campen probably became acquainted with Villalpando’s reconstruction through Constantijn Huygens.406 The Introduction to Architectura Moderna, written by Salomon de Bray (see Part Two, Chapter II), also shows the influence of Villapando’s work. According to the author, the two pillars Jachin and Boaz, as well as the sixteen pillars within the Temple of Solomon, were executed with Corinthian capitals, which prove that within the Temple, antique architectural forms were already present before the Greek or Roman era. Salomon de Bray even states that the famous Vitruvian explanation of the origin of the Corinthian capital was simply a ‘story’.407 Villalpando’s reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon must also have been known to the general public, thanks to, amongst others, the Jew, Jacob Jehuda Leon (d. 1675), who travelled around with a scale model he had made of the

402

405

403

406

van Swigchem, Brouwer & van Os 1984, p. 279. Steenmeijer 2005, p. 186. 404 Ibidem.

Terwen 1964, p. 253; Utrecht 1983, p. 243. van der Linden 1990. 407 Architectura moderna 1631, p. 2.

275

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

289. Leiden, Marekerk, 1639-1649, Arent van ’s-Gravesande.

temple, and also thanks to its diffusion in many pamphlets and books.408 Dutch Protestants understood King Cyrus’ deliverance of the Jews out of the Babylonian exile, where they had denied their beliefs, and the return to Jerusalem where the temple was rebuilt, as a metaphor for the founding of the true Church within the new Reformed Republic.409 As we have seen, this theme also cropped up in sources relating to the first Protestant temple in Ghent. Moreover, one of the lost stained glass windows in the Zuiderkerk depicted Cyrus giving back the treasure of the Jews so that they could rebuild their temple at Jerusalem. In the background of this window, which is known from a drawing, was the temple of the Babylonian gods: the profile of its dome closely resembled that of the Roman St. Peter’s.410 However, one wonders whether the reconstructions of the Temple of Solomon did not please sophisticated patrons far more than purists among the Calvinist churchgoers. As we have seen, Calvin rejected the Jewish synagogue as an example for Protestant church building. Moreover, in contemporary sermons that were preached during the consecration of newly built churches, there appears to be no mention of the Temple of Solomon as an example for church construction. Indeed, the sermons tended to deal with the question – also asked by Luther and Calvin – of whether Protestants required a building for worship and if God actually needed a ‘House on Earth’.411

290. The Temple of Jerusalem as published by Villalpando. 408

Leon 1642. This book was translated into French in 1643, into Hebrew in 1650 and into Latin in 1655. In 1674 Jacob Jehuda Leon went to England after Constantijn Huygens had written some letters of recommendation for him, amongst others to Christopher Wren. Offenberg 1976; Nice 1982, pp. 151-153. 409 van der Linden 1990, pp. 14-15.

276

410

The drawing depicting the window of the guild of goldsmiths and silversmiths is preserved, together with an oil painting made in 1660 by Thomas de Keyser representing the same scene, in the Frits Lugt Collection (Fondation Custodia) in the Institut néerlandais, Paris. Nice 1982, pp. 140-141; van der Linden 1990, p. 27. 411 For example in Clarquius 1648.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God

291. Amsterdam, Remonstrant church (‘De Rode Hoed’), 1630, engraving Frans Brun 1630.

The Classicist churches of the Republic were not the first Protestant churches inspired by antique Vitruvian ideals. For the layout of the temple at Charenton near Paris, built in 1623, Salomon de Brosse (1571-1626) made use of the description of Vitruvius’ basilica on the forum at Fano, which is the only building the Roman architect mentions as his own work. Salomon de Brosse copied the Fano ground plan, which is eight columns long by four wide, and included several other elements from the Fano interior elevation, in particular the massive, two storey high columns. On top of these he added yet a second gallery (where Vitruvius had designed a wall with pilasters), thus allowing a very large number of believers (approximately 3000) to gather around the pulpit.412 The interior of the 1630 Amsterdam ‘hiding church’ of the Remonstrants is sometimes connected with the Charenton project because, here as well, two galleries were installed against three of the four inner walls, and also because the Remonstrant pastor Simon Episcopius lived in France after his condemnation during the Dordrecht Synod.413 However, the main features of the Vitruvian basilica are missing in the Amsterdam church, where the galleries are supported by a simpler superposition of a Tuscan, Doric and Ionic order. Despite their prestigious character, later on in the seventeenth century the Villalpando elements were only used for a small number of churches in the Northern Low Countries. The churches designed by the Amsterdam town architect Daniel Stalpaert and built at ’s-Graveland (1657-1658)

412

Coope 1972, pp. 183-187.

413

This church on the Keizersgracht still exists today. Lievense-Pelser 1975; Kuyper 1981.

277

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

293. Amsterdam, Portuguese Synagogue, 1671-1675, Elias Bouman.

and Oudshoorn (1663-1665) closely imitated the Hooge Zwaluwe and Renswoude churches.414 Stalpaert probably also designed the Amsterdam Oosterkerk, which was built in brick from 1669 onwards as a replacement for a provisional wooden church. Laid out like a Greek cross, the church had the ideal dimensions of 100 by 100 feet, 292. Woubrugge, Protestant church, 1652, Pieter Post. and was crowned by a large dome similar to the one on the (much smaller) Renswoude church.415 Pieter Post also made use of Villalpando elements, such as the curved buttresses in combination with round-headed windows, for the finish of the churches at Woubrugge (from 1652 onwards) and at Moerkapelle (around 1661). The overall design of these churches is, however, different. The Woubrugge church is built on a rectangular ground plan, which has a centralized character because the middle part has been widened, and because of its three-sided extremities. It is crowned by a huge pointed roof-turret, which is visible from a great distance.416 The Moerkapelle church, with its one-aisled nave, four-sided choir, tower with pointed spire and eastern orientation, even looks like a traditional, medieval church building.417 In addition, the Villalpando elements can be found in the two large synagogues that were built soon after 1669 in Amsterdam when the Jews obtained permission to build visible places of worship. The Grote Sjoel was built for the German community between 1670 and 1672 to a design by Daniel Stalpaert, in cooperation with master mason Elias Bouman (b. 1636 – d. 1686) and, probably, Adriaan Dortsman (b. 1635 – d. 1682). The bigger and more prestigious Portuguese synagogue designed by Elias Bouman was erected between 1671 and 1675. Both buildings made use of the architectural forms of earlier Protestants temples, in particular the Amsterdam Oosterkerk, which also had a square plan with four columns in the interior. However, because of the three parallel barrel vaults, synagogue interiors had a longitudinal character more suitable for Jewish worship.418 For their finish Bouman made use of the characteristic Solomonic buttresses combined with the round-headed windows found in the Villalpando treatise, thus referring to the Temple of Solomon. The use of these elements must have pleased the synagogue congregation: the actual reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon is an idea that remains strongly alive in Jewish communities even today.

414

417

415

418

Ozinga 1929, pp. 66-70. Ozinga 1929, pp. 70-72. 416 Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 208-215.

278

Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 212-215. van Agt 1974.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God Roman Catholic ‘Hiding Churches’ in the Northern Low Countries A significant number of Roman Catholic communities survived within the Protestant Republic. Initially, they celebrated mass in hidden places or private rooms. From around 1640, when a degree of religious tolerance evolved, the Catholics, as well as other religious communities, were permitted to construct proper church buildings on condition they were not recognizable as such. A great number of these buildings were installed in private houses, where floors were removed to create one volume, and galleries were installed. The priest’s apartment was often located at the front of the building. Of the twenty-six hiding churches Amsterdam could count in 1681, two have been preserved in more or less their original state: Our Lord in the Attic (1662) and one at the Begijnhof. The latter was constructed in 1672 to a design by Philips Vingboons and is located in a private house in front of the former Beguine chapel, which was given to the English-speaking Protestant community in 1607.419 The main altar of each church has a hidden 294. Amsterdam, Roman Catholic church at the pulley and pivot system by which paintings could be Begijnhof, 1672, Philips Vingboons. shown alternately. The Krijtberg, Amsterdam’s Jesuit ‘hiding church’ had also had such a system. The use of altars with alternating painting cycles was clearly inspired by examples from the Southern Low Countries, such as the Antwerp Jesuit church, the Beguine church of Mechelen, and the (lost) Brussels and Ghent Jesuit churches.420 Another well-preserved example is the Utrecht Roman Catholic ‘hiding church’ of St. Gertrude, which was established in 1645 in a house owned by Johannes Wachtelaer (1583-1652), a canon of the Utrecht Our Lady church. The St. Gertrude church has a three-aisled ground plan and two rows of galleries. The coffering of the lower gallery was embellished with a cycle of paintings of saints, which is strongly reminiscent of the Antwerp Jesuit church.421 Similarly, the art works in the Roman Catholic ‘hiding churches’ show a clear Southern inspiration. The composition and the painting style of the paintings were often copied from Rubens, or Italian masters such as Guido Reni, Caravaggio or Annibale Carracci. When possible they were imported, as was the case with the Adoration of the Virgin by Cornelis Schut (1597-1655) on the main altar of the Jesuit ‘hiding church’ at Gouda. For the Rotterdam ‘hiding church’ of St. Laurence and Mary Magdalen, Guillelmus Kerricx of Antwerp (1652-1719) made an impressive collection of wooden furniture pieces, including a pulpit and a communion bench, all of which were lost during the bombing of 1940.422

419 420

Meischke 1959; Barends 1996; van den Hout 1998. van Eck 1998; Schillemans 1999.

421 422

Kipp s.d.; Smit s.d. Utrecht 1989; van Eck 1994.

279

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Gothic versus Antique Jacob van Campen, champion of the new Dutch Classicism of the 1640s, is said to have roundly condemned the Gothic with the expression ‘t Gothse krulligh mal, a slur on the exuberant forms that characterized the ‘modern’ Gothic of the sixteenth century, while Peter Paul Rubens used the term Gothica as a synonym for ‘barbarous’ in his 1622 Palazzi di Genova (see Part Two). While they did not stand alone in their condemnation of the style, Gothic monuments, and especially churches, still enjoyed widespread admiration in the intellectual circles of their time; for instance, there is the description of Our Lady at Antwerp by the Antwerp Jesuit, Carolus Scribanius (1561-1629) in his Antverpia of 1610. Showing off his erudition and profound knowledge of antiquity, the Jesuit compared the Antwerp cathedral to the ancient temple of Diana at Ephesus, known as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Scribanius emphasized that the Antwerp cathedral was bigger and had more pillars then the antique temple. He also stressed that both buildings were dedicated to the divine Mother of God. In his description of the Antwerp stock exchange (built 1531, see Part Three, Chapter Two), the author describes the three-lobed arcades, richly decorated with vegetal motifs, as opus Gothicum. Possibly, this was the first time the term ‘Gothic’ was used outside Italy to define the medieval style.423 In contrast, however, to Italian authors such as Vasari, Scribanius did not use the word in a negative way, but lauded the varied and elegant appearance of the building. Likewise, in his book on the city, Jan Orlers, mayor of Leiden, gave a description of the Hooglandsche Church in which he lauded the interior because of “its excellent and magnificent structure” (van een seer uytnemende ende heerlicke structure), and described its pillars as “made after the antique manner” (gemaeckt near de oude antijckse wijse).424 Both in North and South, seventeenth-century church building practice reflected the same mindset: far from being condemned to die out, the Gothic style survived and even flourished for a long time after Rubens had sounded its death knell. Gothic in the South Not surprisingly, the Gothic manner of building was deeply rooted in the Southern Low Countries; after all, every church of any importance – whether parish church or abbey church – was built in this way. The survival of the style was helped by the fact that many of these churches still had to be completed or else required restoration.425 Some of these projects could even be included among the biggest urban construction sites known in the seventeenth century, for example the Dominican church of St. Paul’s in Antwerp (choir and transept were reconstructed between 1618-1639 after being demolished by the Protestants), and St. Martin’s at Aalst (important parts of the nave, transept and choir were completed between 1650 and 1660). Rubens himself was buried in a Gothic chapel, attached between 1642 and 1645 to the east side of the choir of St. Jacob’s church in Antwerp. In the same period many ancient churches were provided with ‘Gothic’ rib vaults, such as the cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp (middle aisle and transept between 1613 and 1614), St. Bavo’s in Ghent (choir, from 1628 onwards), St. Maurice’s in Lille (around 1620), St. Vincent’s in Soignies (nave, galleries, and transept dating between 1622 and 1681), the church of Our Lady across the Dyle in Mechelen (middle aisle in 1635), the chapel of St. Anna in Antwerp (after 1670) and St. Waltrudis’ in Mons (interior of the west tower in 1687). The interior of the collegiate church of St. Gertrudis in Nijvel was fitted with round arches and rib vaults between 1643 and 1650, after having been damaged by fire in 1641. At the same time the Romanesque west part of the church was raised by two storeys, pierced with lancet windows, and crowned by an enormous pointed wooden spire.

423 424

De Beer 1948, p. 150. de Jongh 1973, p. 96.

280

425

Snaet & Baisier 2004, pp. 17-21.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God

295. Aalst, St. Martinus church, vaults 1650-1660.

296. Mechelen, church of Our Lady across the Dijle, choir by Francart, 16421652.

Similarly, a considerable number of churches with large parts restored in Gothic style can be found in the countryside, especially in those regions that suffered badly from the war. To the northeast of Antwerp, a significant number of such church buildings can be seen, amongst others at Kontich (restored 1605-1612), at Broechem (except for the tower, completely rebuilt 1612-1634), at Boechout (transept and nave rebuilt 1639-1640), at Stabroek (restoration completed in 1668), at Ranst (restoration completed in 1683) and at Hoeven (restored after 1680 or possibly 1682). As the Boechout example shows, bricks (in combination with layers of sandstone) were often used for the reconstruction of the walls, while the older medieval wall parts were completely built of stone. The choice of the Gothic style for the completion of these churches was, of course, primarily due to practical reasons, but in some cases it seems that obtaining uniformly executed buildings was the primary objective: this is suggested, for instance, by the contract for the vaulting in the middle aisle of the church of Our Lady in Antwerp, which explicitly stated that the shape of the ancient vaults in the choir had to be copied, and that the existing capitals had to be reused.426 How difficult it was to ­integrate antique architectural elements within an existing Gothic structure is shown by what happened at Our Lady across the Dyle in Mechelen. Around 1641, Jacques Francart was commissioned to complete the easternmost part of the choir, which had to match the older, already existing part from the early sixteenth century. Francart used antique columns with Corinthian capitals, rounded arches and windows, as well as enormous volutes (instead of flying buttresses), but these elements were proportionally transformed 426

Grieten 1993, p. 230.

281

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

297. Ghent, St. Michael’s, project by Lieven Cruyl, 1623-1648.

427 428

De Vos 1998, pp. 43-44. Bertels, Callens & Fredricx 2000.

282

in a rather unhappy way to match the Gothic proportions of the already existing parts. The Corinthian capitals in particular, which were made to the same dimensions as the older, Gothic cabbage-leaf capitals, look rather inflated.427 Francart was probably also involved with the chapel of Our Lady at the south side of the choir of Sts. Michael and Gudula’s in Brussels. Its founding is attributed to the Infanta Isabella, but the building was only erected between 1649 and 1655 during the reign of Governor Leopold William of Habsburg. Hieronymus Dusquesnoy the Younger was responsible for its execution. The chapel was set up as the pendant of the monumental chapel of the Holy Sacrament, built by Charles V between 1531 and 1545 as a masterpiece of ‘modern’ (or Flamboyant) Gothic on the north flank of the choir, and has approximately the same dimensions. By using lancet windows with tracery and stepped buttresses, the new chapel received an equally Gothic outlook. In all likelihood this was done consciously so that both chapels would symbolize the continuation of the Habsburg dynasty within the Low Countries. Nevertheless, the vaults of the chapel were finished in a modern way: the transverse ribs have a semi-circular profile and are decorated with coffering, while the consoles which support the ribs are finished with fashionable, grotesque, ear-like shell motifs. Furthermore, in order to mirror the generations of Habsburg monarchs depicted in the windows of the chapel of the Holy Sacrament and the transept, an impressive set of stained glass windows depict the Habsburgs governors. These were designed by Theodore van Thulden but are clearly influenced by the work of Peter Paul Rubens.428 One of the most prestigious building projects initiated in the Southern Low Countries in the seventeenth century was the church of St. Michael at Ghent. Between 1623 and 1648 the entire choir was rebuilt after its destruction in 1579 during the Protestant takeover of the city. During this period (which lasted until 1584), the city council also decided to demolish the choirs in two other churches: St. Nicolas’, and St. Martin’s at Ekkergem, which seems to indicate that such action should be partly seen as a voluntary and recognizable act of turning these Roman Catholic churches into Protestant ones.429 The seventeenth-century reconstruction carefully followed the proportions and the forms of the fifteenth-century nave and transept, and the sixteenth-century vaults (although there is a noticeably poorer quality in the execution of the tracery work and the cabbage-leaf capitals). Around 1650, initiatives were taken to

429

Dambruyne et al. 1992, p. 59.

Bibliography Troje. Het beleg van Oostende 1601-1604, Leuven 2004, 112-125. Lombaerde 2005a P. Lombaerde, ‘Hydraulic Projects by Hans Vredeman de Vries and Their Related Construction Problems’, in: Lombaerde 2005b, 101-116. Lombaerde 2005b P. Lombaerde (ed.), Vredeman de Vries and the Artes Mechanicae Revisited, (Architectura Moderna, 3), Turnhout 2005. Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2002 P. Lombaerde & Ch. van den Heuvel, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries en de technische kunsten’, in: Antwerp 2002, 117-124. Loomba 1998 A. Loomba, Colonialism/Postcolonialism, New York/ London 1998. Loonstra 1985 M. Loonstra, “Het Huys int Bosch”. Koninklijk Paleis Huis ten Bosch historisch gezien, Zutphen 1985. López Torrijos 1987 R. López Torrijos, ‘La scultura genovese in Spagna’, in: La scultura a Genova e in Liguria dalle origini al Cinquecento, Genoa 1987, vol. I, 366-393. López Torrijos 1999 R. López Torrijos, ‘La relación del primer Marqués de Santa Cruz con las Artes. Datos inéditos sobre obras y colecciones’, in: El Arte en las Cortes… 1999, 409418. Lüthgen 1915 E. Lüthgen, Belgische Baudenmäler, Leipzig 1915. Luns 1931 H. Luns, De verovering van de eenvoud (inaugural lecture, University of Delft 1931). Lunsingh Scheurleer 1969 Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘De woonvertrekken van Amalia’s Huis ten Bosch’, Oud Holland 84 (1969), 29-66. Lunsingh Scheurleer 1987 Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Drie brieven van de architect Pieter Post over zijn werk voor Constantijn Huygens en stadhouder Frederik Hendrik in de Fondation Custodia te Parijs’, in: A. Th. van Deursen, E.K. Grootes & P.E.L. Verkuyl (eds.), Veelzijdigheid als levensvorm. Facetten van Constantijn Huygens’ leven en werk, Deventer 1987, 38-51. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock & van Dissel 1986-1992

Th. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C.W. Fock & A.J. van Dissel, Het Rapenburg. Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, 11 vols., Leiden 1986-1992. van Luttervelt 1962 R. van Luttervelt, ‘Renaissancekunst in Breda. Vijf studies. III. De graftombe van Engelbert II van Nassau en Cimburga van Baden’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 13 (1962), 82-104. van Luttervelt 1963 R. van Luttervelt, ‘Renaissancekunst in Breda. Vijf studies. IV. Tommaso Vincidor en het kasteel van Breda’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 14 (1963), 31-60. Maclot & Grieten 2002 P. Maclot & S. Grieten, ‘Het renaissance-interieur van palazzo Ducci: flirt van een Italiaans bankier met keizer Karel’, in: Grieten 2002, 61-92. Madonna 2000 M.L. Madonna, ‘El viaje de Carlos V por Italia después de Túnez: el triunfo clásico y el plan de reconstrucción de las ciudades’, in: Sevilla 2000, 119-153. Maho & Deflandre 1930 H. Maho & M. Deflandre, La Belgique à Marie (Belgium Marianum): répertoire historique et descriptif des églises, sanctuaires, chapelles et grottes dans nos provinces, Brussels 1930. van Mander 1604 C. van Mander, Het Schilder-Boeck, Haarlem 1604. Manderyck 1982 M. Manderyck, ‘Het Karmelietessenklooster aan de Rosier in Antwerpen’, Monumenten en Landschappen 1 (1982) 5, 35-41. March 1951 J. M. March, ‘El primer marqués de Cenete. Su vida suntuosa’, Archivo Español de Arte 24 (1951), 47-65. Marechal 1951 (1985) J. Marechal, ‘Le départ de Bruges des marchands étrangers (XVe et XVIe siècles)’, Handelingen van het Genootschap voor Geschiedenis ‘Société d’Emulation’ te Brugge, 88 (1951), 26-74, republished in: Europese aanwezigheid te Brugge. De vreemde kolonies (XIVde-XIXde eeuw), (Vlaamse Historische Studies, 3), Bruges 1985, 180-210. Marías 1989 F. Marías, El largo siglo XVI. Los usos artísticos del Renacimiento español, (Conceptos fundamentales en la historia del arte español, 5), Madrid 1989. Marías 1990-1992 F. Marías, ‘Sobre el castillo de La Calahorra y el Codex Escurialensis’, Quaderni dell’istituto di storia

383

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Antwerp, Mechelen, and Cologne, as well as with the Amsterdam Old Church and the Westerkerk, whose height and width he also mentions. The three other designs all refer to the Utrecht Dom Tower, but each is nevertheless executed differently. One design known from a drawing ascribed to Willem de Keyser (b. 1603 – d. 1674), consciously copies the Utrecht tower, although one extra storey with large pinnacles on the corners has been added between the second storey and the top to create a more harmonious transition between the two. In one of the two wooden scale models, the so-called ‘Gothic model’, the influence of the Dom tower is only evident in the middle part where each side shows three lancet windows. Generally speaking, its structure, which narrows towards the top, and the rich ornamentation seem rather reminiscent of fifteenth and early sixteenth-century Gothic towers in the Southern Low Countries. The most remarkable design, however, is the wooden scale model ascribed to Jacob van Campen, also called the ‘Palladian model’. It closely resembles the Utrecht Dom tower in its proportions and structure – two square volumes crowned by an octagonal one – but it is finished with antique pilasters, herms, festoons of flowers and a dome-shaped spire. Nonetheless, this design too looks Gothic because of its lancet windows with richly worked ogee curves. Since only a small part of the tower was realized, the present structure cannot be attributed to any of the four designs. However, like the ‘Palladian model’, the existing part shows the merging of Gothic and antique elements: the exterior is constructed with pointed arches, while slender pilasters with antique Corinthian capitals have been used in the interior. Another well known seventeenth-century Gothic building is St. Bavo’s consistory in Haarlem, 298. Amsterdam, project for a new tower of the built in 1658 after a design by Salomon de Bray. ­Nieuwe Kerk, attr. to Van Campen, 1645. The structure, which is rather small, was erected on a rectangular ground plan and was given two transept-like pointed gables, which betray the fact that it was inspired by the Amsterdam Zuiderkerk and Westerkerk. Lancet windows with ogee tracery infill and stepped buttresses were added, so that the consistory building is compatible with the actual church behind.436 Several more examples can be found. During the restoration campaign begun shortly after 1644 (when the famous Jerusalem chapel was pulled down), three new pillars were constructed in the interior of the chapel of St. Olof’s

436

Ottenheym 1999-2000, p. 44.

284

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God in Amsterdam. These pillars were built according to the example of the single remaining Gothic pillar and thus given a high, eight-sided pedestal and round-sectioned capitals decorated with motifs resembling cabbage-leaf work.437 Another remarkable example is the present spire of the St. Laurens church in Rotterdam, which has – except for some antique ornament above the four dials of the clock – a clearly Gothic look, thanks to its pinnacles, pointed arches and balustrades with tracery work. The spire was constructed shortly after 1645, to replace a wooden, antique-looking example with eight arcades and a dome crowned by a vase, designed by Hendrick de Keyser.438 We 299. Lage Vuursche, Protestant church, 1657-1659. also can point out the two entrance gates added in 1646 to the fifteenth-century Noorderkerk at Hoorn. The top part was decorated with a skeleton lying on a straw mat and a skull, themes that are not so exceptional in Protestant church decoration (a skeleton can also be found on the entrance gate entablature of Middelburg’s Oostkerk). In Hoorn, both the skeleton and the skull are completely surrounded by blind ogee curves in accordance with the style of the church. As in the Southern Low Countries, the Gothic style remained in use in the North throughout the seventeenth century, mostly for the repair and completion of a remarkably large number of churches in smaller towns and villages.439 Here also, the choice of style can first of all be linked to practical considerations, since we know that very often, a large part of existing structures and foundations were reused. This was, for example, the case with the churches of Ravenswaay, De Lier and Moordrecht, all of which were restored in Gothic style between 1640 and 1660.440 The church at De Rijp kept its Gothic appearance entirely: after being damaged by fire in 1654, its transept, choir and tower with pointed roof, as well as the stepped buttresses and lancet windows with tracery work, were all preserved. What is remarkable is that the church stands next to the 1630 town hall, designed by Jan Adriaensz. Leeghwater in the up to date antique manner.441 Completely new churches were also built in the Gothic manner. One such example is the church at Lage Vuursche: a choir and transept were built between 1657 and 1659, and the church was oriented, features that Protestant worship no longer required.442 Sometimes the Gothic alternative was preferred to more modern proposals. For the church at Noord Schermer, located within new polders, the church council had initially contacted Pieter Post, who drew up several plans, including two variations of his Woubrugge church. However, in 1662, when preparations for construction had already begun, the council decided to abandon Post’s design. Shortly afterwards, it was decided to build a copy of the nearby Gothic church at Ursem under the supervision of two local masons. Although the reason why the architect’s design was dropped remains uncertain, we can surmise that the connotations involved in both styles led to the replacement of a reputed artist’s modern design with a traditional one.443 In 1692 Henric Piccardt (b. 1636 – d. 1712) had the local church of Harkstede, located near his castle Fraeylemaborg, reconstructed as his mausoleum church. Piccardt had been a gentilhomme de la chambre du Roi at the French court of Louis XIV, as well as a personal friend of William III and, therefore, was in all likelihood well acquainted with the most modern art forms. However, for the

437

441

438

442

Meischke 1958. Utrecht 1983, pp. 27-18. 439 Ozinga 1929, p. 120-126. 440 Janse 1969, p. 73.

Mens & Rosen 2003. Ozinga 1929, p. 124. 443 Terwen & Ottenheym 1993, pp. 208-209.

285

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

300. Harkstede, Protestant church, 1692, by Henric Piccardt.

construction of his church, he preferred a traditional-looking building executed in the Gothic manner. Only the façade was given a more modern character in the form of an antique entrance gate, and a stone bas-relief depicting Adam and Eve.444 Church Projects by the Older Orders in the Southern Low Countries While the Brussels court and the new orders of the Counter-Reformation took the lead in developing a new religious architecture in the Southern Low Countries, the older orders initially spent their resources on the restoration and refurbishment of their churches, which had often been severely damaged during the Revolt. Nevertheless, from 1620 on, many of them also began the construction of new churches in antique style. To date, the church buildings of the older orders in the Southern Low Countries have only been partially studied, with most attention having been paid to the stylistic features of those examples that are still standing today. Therefore, many churches, especially those of the mendicant and female orders whose architectural heritage suffered heavily after the French Revolution, have hardly been studied. Iconographical sources showing, for instance, the lost Tournai Dominican church (from 1624)445 and the Brussels Franciscan church (partly rebuilt in Baroque style at the beginning of the seventeenth century),446 nonetheless suggest that many of these buildings should be considered as prime early examples of the new antique architecture in the Southern Low Countries. We should also take into consideration the fact that remarkable projects were sometimes under­ taken in the old medieval churches. One example was the dome on the Cistercian abbey church of Hemiksem (now completely destroyed), which was probably constructed after a fire in 1672 to replace 444 445

Ronner 1996. Parent 1926, p. 183.

286

446

Coomans 2001, p. 70.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God a Gothic spire. According to the engraving by Erlinger, the dome had a drum with antique pilasters and semi-circular windows, and was crowned by a lantern. Remarkable, however, is the base of the dome, which was partially enclosed by the roof structure and provided with four extra windows diagonally placed on the main axis; a solution that seems very distant from Italian models.447 Architectural historians have not yet considered the dome of the Hemiksem church, although similar constructions can be found in the Brussels Riches Claires church and in the Praemonstratensian abbey churches at Grimbergen and Ninove. The Mendicant Orders The first buildings the older orders commissioned in the new antique style were exclusively the work of the same architects who had played a major role in introducing it: Wensel Coberger, Jacques Francart and Pieter Huyssens. Cobergher made the design for the new Antwerp Augustinian church when the order returned to the city.448 The new church, whose interior we discussed earlier, has a three-aisled basilica ground plan with a deep 301. Antwerp, façade of the Augustine church, choir, characteristic of the mendicant orders. The 1615-1618, by Cobergher. architect also made a design for the façade of the Carmelite church, which was executed between 1618 and 1623, but destroyed along with the church shortly after 1796.449 Both church façades were provided with Italianate porches, windows, niches and volutes, some of whose elements can be related to Michelangelo’s Porta Pia. Instead of structuring them with antique pilasters as he had done at Scherpenheuvel and the Brussels church of the Discalced Carmelites, Cobergher used plain sandstone frames and mullions in combination with brick facing. When considering these choices we should remember that the Augustinians and the Carmelites were almost exclusively sponsored by private benefactors (in both these cases, members of the Van Der Goes family), whose means were more modest than the Archdukes’. On the other hand, the resulting sober and severe character was much better suited to the rules of these mendicant orders, which prescribed poverty and simplicity. Francart designed the Brussels Augustinian church, whose convent was newly erected in 1589.450 The church, built from 1620 onwards, was constructed according to a three-aisled basilica scheme. The interior elevation consisted of Doric columns, and rib vaults with round-headed transversal arches resting on volute-like consoles. The choir was deep, just like the choir of the Augustinian church at Antwerp, and provided with some kind of tribune, whose function is unclear. The two-tiered façade, which was entirely faced with stone, is the only remaining part of the church because it was dismantled and reused for the construction of the church of the Holy Trinity (Heilige Drievuldigheidskerk) at 447

The engraving can be found in Le Roy 1692. Wyllemans 1983. 448 The original Augustinian house in Antwerp, which belonged to the Saxon congregation of the order, had been banished in 1522 because of overt Protestant sympathies.

Because of this suspect past, it took the order till 1607 to obtain permission to found a new house in the city. Meganck 1998, pp. 95-113. 449 Meganck 1998, pp. 118-138. 450 De Vos 1998, pp. 36-39.

287

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Elsene in the late nineteenth century. Its well-balanced composition is quite similar to contemporary Italian churches, with all three lower bays in one plane and a strong emphasis on the horizontal elements. It differed strongly from the façade for the Brussels Jesuit church, which had a projecting middle part and a far more explicitly vertical character due to the addition of a third level. Benedictine Churches St. Peter’s church at Ghent, built from 1629 onwards, was made after designs by Huyssens, and can be described as one of the most original of its group and generation. The church is composed of a domed western part built on a Greek cross plan, and an eastern part that consists of a large, deep choir flanked by an ambulatory, resulting in a three-aisled structure that is the same width as the Greek cross, abutted by a small domed Marian chapel placed on the east side of the main axis. The choir, which was built first, came into use in 1651, after it was closed off on the west side by a provisional wall.451 Until then, the Benedictines had had to make use of the nearby parish church dedicated to Our Lady, whose choir they had occupied since 1584. The Greek cross, which was only finished in 1722, clearly shows the influence of 302. Ghent, Benedictine church (St. Peter’s), 1629-1722, designed by Huyssens. its namesake in Rome, since the drum of the dome was decorated with Corinthian pilasters, and windows alternately topped by triangular and segmental pediments. In the interior, massive piers with Composite pilasters explicitly refer to contemporary Roman church interiors. It should be remembered that, at the time, Huyssens had only recently returned from Rome. For the construction of the church, the foundations and part of the walls of the medieval church were reused, some of which are still visible in the substructures of the Marian chapel, built on exactly the same spot as its predecessor. The eastern and western parts of the church were closed off from each other by a marble rood loft and portals, which were partially removed in the middle of the nineteenth century.452 The long drawn out building period makes it uncertain whether Huyssens’ original designs continued to be respected until the church’s completion. A medal struck on the occasion of the laying of the foundation stone in 1629 shows a church with a large rectangular screen façade, which seems to resemble the façade of St. Peter’s in Rome, designed by Carlo Maderno. The actual church building has, on the contrary, a two-tiered façade with a narrower upper storey flanked by volutes and crowned with a triangular pediment. This is identical to the church depicted (somewhat prematurely) in a completed state in Sanderus’ Flandria illustrata from 1641.453 451

The choir has a gallery installed on top of the ambulatory. This gallery provided a view of the choir by means of large rectangular windows, which were filled with paintings

288

probably only at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The function of this gallery is unknown. 452 Van Driessche 1978; Laleman 1997. 453 Sanderus 1641-1644, I, p. 114-115.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God The explicitly Roman character of Ghent’s St. Peter’s differs strongly from the Benedictine church of St. Amand (at Saint-Amanddes Eaux, actually a part of France), which was built between 1633 and 1675.454 According to tradition, Abbot Nicolas Dubois (b. 1621 – d. 1673) was responsible for its design. The building, destroyed after the French Revolution with the exception of its west tower, had a total length of approximately 150 metres, by far surpassing even Antwerp Cathedral (118 metres). The ground plan and the elevation followed hallowed tradition. The church had a Westwerk consisting of three massive towers, a vaulted crypt underneath the eastern end, a triforium in the choir, and galleries in the transept and nave. Such archi303. The abbey church of St. Amand, 1633-1675, attr. to Abbot tectural elements were also present in the ancient Nicolas Dubois. Romanesque church of St. Bavo, for instance, which belonged to the other Benedictine abbey at Ghent and was mostly constructed during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. At St. Amand’s, the structure of the building was Gothic, with rib vaults supported by external flying buttresses. Despite these traditional characteristics, antique forms were used in abundance to give the church a rich, modern appearance. The interior was finished with composite Corinthian pillars, and a dome with drum and lantern was constructed on the crossing. The remaining tower complex shows the unrestrained application of cartouches, scrollwork elements, rustication and antique pilasters, which almost completely cover the surface. The abundance of ornament seems more in keeping with the quest for decorative richness so typical at the turn of the sixteenth century (or even indeed of the ‘modern’ Gothic or Flamboyant styles used at the beginning of the sixteenth century – see Parts One and Two), rather than with the almost classical, Roman monumentality that Huyssens demonstrated in the choir of St. Peter’s in Ghent. At the centre of the façade one sees a triumphal arch in perspective, crowned by a round niche containing a sculpture of a seated Christ. Again, this round niche seems to recall medieval architecture, since it somehow echoes the rose windows of Gothic cathedrals. Beguine Churches The Beguines at Mechelen had to build a new church after Calvinists destroyed their old church located outside the city walls.455 The project was most probably also one of Huyssens: his name already appears in the accounts for the delivery of drawings in 1629. As had been the case with the Brussels Jesuit church, we may surmise that Huyssens made the drawings for the project, while Francart, who was only contacted at the end of 1630, was responsible for the church’s execution. The façade, with a projecting middle part and full-blown third storey shows a building scheme close to those of the Brussels and Namur Jesuit churches. The church was built on a three-aisled basilica ground plan without a transept, and had a wide, shallow choir (which again shows some similarity with the Jesuit churches), but instead of simple columns, massive piers finished with Composite pilasters were used for the interior elevation. Again, these strongly recall the contemporary Roman church interiors that

454

Héliot 1955; Faille 1981.

455

De Jonge, De Vos, Van Langendonck & Van Riet 1997, pp. 74-75; Devos 1998, pp. 39-43.

289

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700

304. Mechelen, Beguine church, 1629-1630, by ­Huyssens and Francart.

305. Brussels, Beguine church (St. John), 1657.

Huyssens must have seen during his stay in Rome. Despite the use of this antique system, however, the aisles were covered in a most un-Roman way by rib vaults, whose slender ribs created a sense of verticality within the interior. Later Beguine churches at Hoogstraten (1640-1687), Lier (1664-1667)456 and Ghent (Our Lady ter Hoye, 1658-1720),457 follow the same ground plan, but their elevation shows simple columns instead of piers, reinforcing the resemblance to the standard Jesuit scheme of the first half of the seventeenth century. However, we should point out that this scheme also corresponds to Beguine tradition, since medieval Beguine churches, such as the ones at Sint-Truiden (thirteenth century) and at Leuven (built from 1305 onwards), have a three-aisled ground plan with a broad, shallow choir and no transept.458 Both the Ghent and Lier churches were richly embellished with sculpted antique decorations, but the richest by far was the Brussels Beguine church (built from 1657 onwards).459 The foundations and walls of its medieval predecessor were at least partially reused: the pillars of the middle aisle were most probably kept in place, while the side-aisles were widened to create more space. This might explain why, most unusually, the façade has been constructed in three separate, almost independent bays, each topped by an individual gable. All three gables have been abundantly embellished with antique ornament – a late variant of scrollwork, of Vredeman de Vries and De Keyser descent – and every available surface is decorated. Inside, large cherub heads have been placed in the spandrels of the arcades, while the entablature has been broken up by large cartouches. 456 457

Mees & Grieten 1999. Ghent 1984.

290

458 459

Van Aerschot & Heirman 2001. Coekelberghs & Loze s.d.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God Praemonstratensian Churches Within the Praemonstratensian order (also known in the Low Countries as the Norbertine order, after its main patron saint), the abbeys of Antwerp and Dieleghem near Brussels were the first to undertake major construction works in the antique style. Both abbeys have been destroyed, but are known from iconographic sources. Shortly after 1620, when the abbey church of St. Michael’s in Antwerp suffered fire damage, an impressive antique marble porch altar was erected there showcasing Peter Paul Rubens’ Adoration of the Magi.460 During the term of office of Joannes Chrysostomus Van der Sterre (1629-1652) an impressive seven-bayed entrance porch leading to the church was erected, which showed a striking resemblance to the Rubens House portico.461 In 1635 the abbey church of Dieleghem acquired a new façade, executed in antique style, with two tiers of columns (Ionic and Corinthian respectively). The restoration of the abbey church was undertaken by Abbott John Baptist de Haseler (1623-1645); he also commissioned a Birth of Christ by Theodore van Loon for the new main altar.462 The choir of the abbey church of Park (Heverlee) was restored under Abbot Drusius (16011634) between 1628 and 1634.463 It was considerably enlarged using both modern and traditional elements. The new abutments were decorated with antique pediments, while the arched corbel course under the cornice, also present in the preserved medieval section of the choir, was extended to join the new construction. The round-headed windows were presumably completed with traditional-style tracery. A similar, though more monumental, project was executed at the abbey church of Floreffe, which was completed in 1638.464 The choir was extended through the addition of four bays (resulting in a total of five), and a polygonal apse and two minor side chapels built on a rectangular plan, thus showing a combination of modern, antique and traditional elements. The two chapels were given a modern finish, but the choir was completed with tall, Gothic, lancet windows. Here, too, the arched corbel course, already present in the Romanesque church, was repeated in the new parts to ensure the building retained its formal unity. Plans were made to construct a new church at Ninove from 1635 onwards. One such plan known as the Situs Fundamentalis that dates from this period shows a church with a deep choir, a transept and a nave composed of three aisles.465 There is a close resemblance to the lost sixteenth-century Gothic abbey church of Tongerloo, constructed between 1523 and 1555 by, amongst others, Rombout II (d. 1531) and Laureys Keldermans (d. 1534), which also had a longitudinal choir (such choirs were evidently already in use before the Counter-Reformation).466 An engraving by Vedastus Du Plouich, included in the second part of Antonius Sanderus’ Flandria illustrata published in 1644, shows the Ninove church in a finished state, entirely executed in a traditional repertory of forms. The church is depicted with a pointed tower on the transept, round-headed windows with Gothic tracery, a gabled façade and a lancet window in the transept façade.467 The second Praemonstratensian building boom took place in the 1660s, including the second building phase at Ninove and the construction of new churches at Grimbergen and Averbode. In 1660 Ninove Abbey signed a contract with the Ghent architect Gillis Van Waesberge, and work on the church was resumed on the basis of the old ground plan, although it is likely that the elevation was modernized. Construction did not finish until 1722 under Abbot Van der Haeghen (1712-1754).

460

Haeger 1997. This portico is known from an engraving by Antonius Sanderus, Chorographia sacra coenobii S. Michaelis Antverpiae included in Sanderus 1659-1669. 462 The façade is known from an engraving from Antonius Sanderus, Abbatia Jettensis vulgò Diligem ordinis praemonstratensis included in Sanderus 1659-1669. Verbouwe 1936. 461

463

Smeyers 1979. Gillet-Mignot, Warzée & Chariot 1996. 465 The project Situs Fundamentalis aedificatorum Abbatiae Nineviensis is preserved at Ghent, Rijksarchief, Kaarten en Plannen, inv. 244. Van de Perre 1985a; Van de Perre 1985b. 466 Van Spilbeeck 1888. 467 Sanderus 1641-1644, II, p. 534. 464

291

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 The abbey church at Grimbergen was built from 1660 onwards according to the plan of the Jesuit church of Leuven, where the eastern part resembled a clover leaf with a semi-circular apse and rounded transept arms, the whole anchored by a (never executed) dome on the crossing (see above).468 At Grimbergen, however, the choir was extended by the addition of several rectangular bays to provide space for the choir stalls. Moreover, the dome is built within the roof structure instead of rising above it; thus only the lantern rises towerlike above the roof, while light shines in from above through four round windows sited on the diagonals at the crossing. Like the dome, the lantern is entirely composed of wood and stuccowork, lightening the stresses on the underlying parts and making heavy crossing piers unnecessary. For the interior elevation, Ionic pillars and pilasters were used to support the rib vaults. The main frieze is decorated with pairs of cartouches that show little affinity with contemporary Romanizing elements, but were derived instead from sixteenth-century scrollwork motifs. In contrast with sixteenth-century architectural practice, however, they were not encapsulated in a decorative, heavily ornate surface 306. Grimbergen, cupola of the Norbertine abbey church, from 1660. integrated into the entablature, but appear as independent, stuck-on elements. Construction started at Averbode in 1664 under Abbot Vaes (1647-1698).469 A few years before, Lucas Faydherbe had been approached to draw up a plan for the new church, but this project was rejected, and the Antwerp-born sculptor-architect Jan Van den Eynde (b. 1620 – d. 1702) was selected instead.470 The ground plan presents a combination of a centralized nave and a longitudinal choir. The nave consists of a Greek cross inscribed in a circle, with rectangular extensions on each axis; the stellar vaulting above the central bay is supported by four, free-standing square pillars faced with pilasters. The choir, on the other hand, is flanked by a passage on each side; these were connected to another corridor under the large rood loft, and open near the third bay of the choir. The Greek cross inscribed in a circle is unique to the Southern Low Countries and may well have come from the North where, following Amsterdam’s Noorderkerk, a whole series of churches were built according to a similar cruciform plan with ambulatory.471 Jan Van den Eynde may have been familiar with this plan through Bosboom’s treatise published in 1657. In one particular design included in this treatise, the corner spaces that form the ambulatory are indeed inscribed within the shape of a circle, just like in Averbode.472 Both the interior and exterior of the abbey church show a highly original assimilation of Gothic building traditions and contemporary Italian architectural forms. The choir and the nave combine

468

471

469

472

Delestré 1978-1987; Snaet 1999b. Lefèvre 1924; Lefèvre 1937; Jansen & Janssens 1999. 470 Jansen & Van Herck s.d..

292

Mörsch 1965, p. 165. Bosboom 1657, fol. 51r.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God

307. Averbode, church of the Norbertine abbey, from 1664, by Jan van den Eynde.

308. Averbode, Norbertine church, interior.

Corinthian piers with rib vaults; the large stellar vault in the crossing is suspended from the roof trusses by iron anchors. Every horizontal feature is interrupted or fragmented at some point. In the choir, the tall round-headed windows disrupt the entablature that separates the two tiers of the elevation, thus creating a spatial effect of striking verticality. In the nave, the entablature that serves as an impost between the crossing piers and the stellar vault is broken up above the arches in the side bays in order to provide room for a pediment containing a leaf-shaped cartouche. At this point the entablature is reduced to a cornice that juts out at the highest point, while the frieze and the architrave have been omitted. Such inventive detail is strongly reminiscent of certain architectural details by Francesco Borromini, such as the entablature on the lower tier of the main façade of the oratory of San Filippo Neri in Rome, built between 1637 and 1650. Marian Chapels Variations on the Centralized Concept During the seventeenth century a remarkably large number of Marian chapels were erected in the Southern Low Countries, many of which must be considered as carrying a clear anti-Protestant message. Most of these chapels, like the ones at Havré (1625-1632), Seneffe (1628-1644), Feluy (1642-1644), Heffen (1643), Noorderwijk (1652), Heverlee (1652) and Buggenhout (1644), were built on a simple, one-aisled ground plan and had a façade decorated with antique ornaments. Others were built on a centralized plan, in accordance with the Italian tradition that the construction of the

293

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 Scherpenheuvel church had introduced into the Southern Low Countries. Nevertheless, most turn out to have nothing to do with Italian models, but show original variations on the type. Some very early Marian chapels with a centralized plan can be found in the Cistercian abbeys of Villers-la-Ville and Orval. The Villers-la-Ville chapel was erected between 1613 and 1616, after the Antwerp bishop Joannes Miraeus (1604-1611) had donated a wooden statue of the Virgin carved from the miraculous Scherpenheuvel oak in 1608. The chapel, now in a ruinous state like the abbey itself, was built on a simple octagonal ground plan and finished with a bell-shaped roof with lantern. It sits on top of a ridge at the east side of the abbey, a site that might have been chosen to evoke the Scherpenheuvel sanctuary located on a hill.473 At Orval the remains of a former Marian chapel can still be found at the top of the hillside at the north side of the church. This chapel was built during the first decades of the seventeenth century on an elongated octagonal ground plan, and its façade was topped with a pointed gable. Dedicated to the Virgin of Scherpenheuvel it was built under Bernard de Montgaillard (1605-1627), who later wrote the funeral oration for 309. Loupoigne, chapel of Our Lady, 1625, by Archduke Albrecht, Le Soleil eclipsé.474 Robert de Celles. Marian chapels on a cruciform plan were erected at Loupoigne and at Péruwelz. The former, built shortly after 1625 by Baron Robert de Celles, has a plan consisting of a central octagonal space with four rectangular extensions. Despite the use of the centralized ground plan, the church showed some rather traditional features: the central space and the four extensions were all covered by pointed roofs, while the windows still have pointed arches.475 A similar ground plan was used for the Marian chapel at Péruwelz, which was built from 1643 onwards and destroyed around 1883. Here, the central octagonal space was covered by a dome with a large window, whereas the other windows were still lancets.476 The Praemonstratensians in particular built a great number of Marian chapels, some of which were on a centralized ground plan. At Duffel, Augustus Wichmans, abbot of Tongerloo Abbey and author of the Brabantia mariana tripartite treatise that describes Scherpenheuvel (see above), commissioned a new church in 1646 to replace an older chapel erected around 1637. The new chapel was built on a cruciform ground plan inscribed within a square. Because of its form, and its finish of a high pointed roof and antique portico, the building seen from the outside looked more like a civic building than a chapel or church.477 Waltman Van Dyck (b. 1605 – d. 1668), a Praemonstratensian from St. Michael’s Abbey in Antwerp and brother of Antoon Van Dyck, founded a chapel at Minderhout in 1650. It was constructed on a central square with four projecting arms, soberly finished with Tuscan pilasters and windows. During several later building campaigns, amongst others in 1691 and 1745, it was consider-

473

745

474

476

Coomans 2001, p. 523. de Montgaillard 1622. Brussels 1998-1999, cat. 380, pp.  276-278.

294

Maho & Deflandre 1930, pp. 322-323. Philippart 1978-1982. 477 Maho & Deflandre 1930, pp. 135-138.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God ably enlarged.478 At Retie, an octagonal chapel was built around 1665 to replace an older one built in 1645 with the aid of Abbot Wichmans. The chapel has a very sober character since the walls were built of brick and the roof was pointed. In a later phase, the church was given a rectangular projecting choir in which the altar with the miraculous statue was placed.479 Our Lady of Hanswijk at Mechelen The largest Marian church built in the Southern Low Countries is Our Lady of Hans­ wijk at Mechelen, designed by Lucas Faydherbe (b. 1617 – d. 1697).480 The church basically consists of a three-aisled basilica structure with a large 310. Mechelen, church of Our Lady of Hanswijk, from twelve-sided dome in the centre. At this point the 1663, Lucas Faydherbe. central aisle expands into a circle with the side aisles encircling it so that the interior looks like a rotunda with an ambulatory. The middle aisle is spanned by coffered barrel vaults in the westernmost two bays of the nave and in the choir, apparently inspired by the Antwerp Jesuit church (in its original state). However, it was easier to vault the trapezoidal bays with rib vaults radiating outwards from the central domed space; the same solution was used in the side aisles of the choir and the western part of the nave. In the central rotunda, the transition space between the arcades and the drum is cut by the barrel vaults on the main axis, and decorated with semi-circular niches of the same dimensions on the transversal axis; the latter are filled with large stucco bas-reliefs. The four arches define spandrels that have been left undecorated, and which resemble the pendentives of a classical dome, (although their construction is not of this type). During the construction of the church, Faydherbe was obliged to reinforce the columns ringing the central space because of the weight of the domed structure. This was done by connecting the ones placed on the diagonals with iron tie-bars, which were then camouflaged with sculpted porticos and rustication. Consequently, the central domed part became visually separated from the side-aisles, an effect that differed greatly from the original architect’s intentions. The dome was not built according to the original design either. The initial plan was for a much higher dome with a drum on two levels, most probably inspired by the unexecuted project for the dome of the Leuven Jesuit church, with which Faydherbe must had been acquainted. The Brussels Marian Churches In 1663 the small single-aisled church of the Carmelite nuns in Vilvoorde received an addition on a centralized plan, meant to accommodate the faithful and pilgrims. The new part had a hexagonal ground plan with projecting apses.481 In the interior, between the cupola and the arcades a richly decorated zone was created instead of a simple cornice: large cartouches with volutes were placed above the arcades, and small angel-headed consoles were placed under the ribs of the domed vault. The domed vault is thus directly connected to the pilasters of the arcade, which results in a clearly structured space with a somewhat vertical effect. 478 479

Huet 2002. Sneyers 1972, pp. 197-198.

480

De Jonge, De Vos, Van Langendonck & Van Riet 1997, pp. 91-105. 481 Buonocore, Cassaro & Windmolders 2000.

295

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 The convent’s archives still conserve a ground plan showing the situation before the renovation, and four unexecuted designs for the extension of the church. Each design (and the actual church) preserves both part of the volume of the Gothic church, and the tower. The drawings clearly indicate that the centralizing ground plan was not actually the first choice. Two of the designs show a simple addition based on a rectangular space (in one case an addition alongside the preserved choir, and in the other a considerable enlargement of the first bays of the Gothic part), while the two other plans show an octagonal extension. However, each plan includes a separate raised gallery for the convent sisters. In the first plan it is to be found flanking the nave; in the second, it is on the rood loft, supported by two pillars that stand between the small choir and the enlarged section for the congregation. In both designs with an octagonal extension, the sisters take their place on a gallery supported by four pillars to be constructed in the first two church bays. This series of plans clearly shows how functional requirements played a primary role in the design phase. The hexagonal plan, for which we have found no contemporary Italian example, was used a second time in the construction of a new chapel 311. Vilvoorde, design for a hexagonal extension to for our Lady of the Assistance (Onze Lieve Vrouw the Carmelite church. van Goede Bijstand) at the old pilgrims’ hospital of St. Jacob in Brussels.482 The construction of the new church was started in 1664 following J. Cortvrindt’s plans. In this church, which is considerably larger than the one at Vilvoorde, a short, three-aisled nave was planned at the entrance side. This, in spite of the central ground plan, oriented the church along clearly defined axes towards the three apses where the altars were erected. This space, too, has an unusual character due to the fact that the hexagonal central space and the short nave (which is the same width as the dome) do not constitute separate volumes but converge harmoniously, thanks to the addition of ingeniously placed galleries. Our Lady’s church of the Riches Claires, begun in 1665, was originally divided in two sections, just like the church in Vilvoorde.483 The single-aisled nave was reserved for the convent sisters, while the eastern part was accessible to the congregation who came to pray before the miraculous statue. The central part, with a dome on the crossing, was constructed on the basis of a cruciform ground plan with narrow semi-circular apses, and thus bears a certain resemblance to the ground plan of the Leuven Jesuit church. The dome was constructed within the roof structure with, as at Grimbergen, only the lantern rising above the roof. Four windows in the dome were positioned diagonally to the church’s main axis, as at Hemiksem and Grimbergen. It is not known if the dome was already constructed in this way before the bombing of Brussels in 1695 that severely damaged the church. An anonymous seventeenth-century drawing of the church shows a dome construction that is somewhat different from the current one since an octagonal pointed roof structure with a lantern is depicted on the crossing.

482

Plantenga 1926, pp. 201-205.

296

483

Ibidem, pp. 197-201.

Chapter Three: For the Greater Glory of God This is supported by an octagonal drum that is raised above the roof and has four oculus windows, placed (just like the current dome construction) at right angles to the axis of the church. Unfortunately it is unclear whether this is a project drawing or a survey drawing, or even when exactly it was done.484 Conclusion The traditional interpretation of a sober, classicizing, Protestant architecture versus an ornate, Baroque Catholic architecture is wholly insufficient to describe the wide variety of Northern and Southern church designs. Contrary to the views expressed in traditional historiography, Protestants were not merely interested in erecting simple halls for preaching, and continued to attach great importance to the way in which their churches were built. Private sponsors and city governments desired dignified and 312. Brussels, church of Our Lady of the ‘Riches Claires’, stately designs as an appropriate expression of their (drawing from the former Arenberg collection). personal status or the city’s prestige; references to antique architecture and ornament played a pivotal role in achieving this. Neither does the relationship between the religious architecture of the Southern Low Countries in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century and the “opulent” Baroque style of the Counter-Reformation seem so clear-cut. The first Jesuit churches show features typical of the Counter-Reformation period, but they can hardly be considered Baroque since Gothic forms and traditional building schemes were still applied. Furthermore, the term ‘Baroque’ seems hardly appropriate to describe the Capuchins’ austere churches, even though the order must be counted among the foremost champions of the Counter-Reformation. This overview also questions the assumption that the evolution of religious architecture in the Northern and Southern Low Countries must, of necessity, be considered as two completely separate lines of development. Roman Catholics in the North in particular maintained lively artistic relations with the South, as evidenced by their ‘hiding churches’. Conversely, the example of the cross-shaped nave of the abbey church at Averbode constitutes a possibly unique case of a Roman Catholic church inspired by a typically Protestant design. Besides these artistic exchanges, attention should be drawn to other common ground between North and South. Protestant and Roman Catholic patrons alike felt the need to establish their religious architecture within a long tradition – a tradition common to North and South alike – in order to justify the foundation of their beliefs. Both also wished to give their churches perfect and ideal forms that would express the important nature of the buildings. To this end, Protestants and Roman Catholics both made use of the same antique and biblical models. Within the Protestant context, the Temple of Solomon is already mentioned in comments on the first, round-shaped Protestant temples. A great number of Classicist Protestant churches were given features inspired by Villalpando’s reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon, which had the advantage of offering a synthesis based on Vitruvian rules. Roman Catholic leaders on the other hand, used the example of Temple of Solomon to justify the rich finish of their churches. The Antwerp Jesuits explicitly referred to Vitruvius when proudly announcing the completion of their majestic church. In the Scherpenheuvel

484

Anonymous exterior elevation drawing of the church of the Brussels Riches Claires, seventeenth century, 652 x 637

mm. The Romantic Agony, Brussels, Books & Prints, Auction 25/04/1998, cat. 182.

297

Part Three: Patrons and Patronage 1600-1700 project, the Temple of Solomon served as emblematic example that was incorporated into the church architecture and the layout of the site. Also striking is the fact that Gothic architecture maintained its relevancy in the field of religious architecture in both the North and South. Despite the disapproval voiced by the artistic avant-garde, the Gothic style was still widely used in the urban and rural context during the seventeenth century in both the Southern and Northern Low Countries. Not only was the style used throughout the century for the completion and restoration of older churches, but Gothic forms were also deliberately used to give newly built churches a traditional appearance and to make them recognizable as places of worship. This phenomenon survived much longer in the North, especially in the countryside. In the South lancet windows and tracery were quite common until around 1630, while stellar vaults and rib vaults remained in use at least till the last decades of the century. Certain large-scale urban projects even suggest that the Gothic style had ‘nationalistic’ connotations at the time. This seems to be the case with the tower projects for the Amsterdam New Church and those of St. Michael’s church in Ghent, where characteristic forms were explicitly taken from older medieval examples.

298

Part Four Building Materials

and

Trade

313. Sources of supply of natural stone, applied in the Northern Low Countries up till 1650. The building materials were shipped. Only in few known examples the stone was conveyed by land (drawing author).

Chapter I: Building Materials and Trade. Changes in the Organization of the Building Industry in the North and the South (1500-1650)1

In the year 1488 master Johan Oosterhuys from Deventer under­took a journey to Namur in order to buy stone for the new Noorden­berg tower in the aforementioned city.2 His jour­ney was remarkable to say the least. Deventer, in the east of the Northern Low Countries, traditionally bought its stone from the Rhineland, as did the rest of the Northern Low Countries in the Middle Ages. At the end of the fifteenth century, the city of Deventer imported sandstone from the duchy of Bentheim in particular.3 For the building of the Noordenberg tower, however, apart from Bent­heim sandstone, ‘blue’ limestone from Namur was also selected.4 The reason Oosterhuys chose to go to Namur proba­ bly lay in the fact that, at the time, an alternative to the high cost of transport tolls on the River Vecht between Bentheim and Deventer was being sought. Yet on the other hand, the Namur stone had to come a longer way: from the South, over the River Meuse, and from there, shipped to the North by way of Gorinchem. The Deventer example shows that around 1500 there were several regions exporting stone for construction in the Northern Low Countries. The stone trade produced raw materials, ones that were partially worked, and ready-made products, depending on the local traditions and the demands of buyers in the North.5 These demands in particular were on the verge of a decisive change that would lead to the emancipa­tion of the building industry in the North. Up until the sixteenth century, the relationship between the Northern and Southern Low Countries indeed seemed to be a one-way trade, at least as far as stone was concerned. The lack of this mate­rial in the North, combined with the fact that a well organized network of stonema­sons, tra­ders and building masters had existed in the South from an early date, led to the widespread diffusion of Gothic architecture from Southern Brabant. The products of this ‘exported architecture’ can be found all over Zealand and Holland; the hegemony of these building masters (Keldermans, De Waghemakere etc.) was so absolute that, already in the early fifteenth century, the only two church building lodges that existed in the North started to buy ready-made products from the regular stone traders.6 The first was ’s-Hertogenbosch, which is in fact situated in Northern Brabant and, as the fourth main city of the duchy, was naturally linked to the South on the professional and political level; the second was Utrecht, centre of the most important Northern bishopric. Quarrymen, traders and building masters – often members of the same family – sold their materials along with pre-prepared architectural elements.7 The ‘Brabantine Gothic’ made from the white, sandy limestone from Lede, Balegem and Gobertange was therefore the dominant form of architecture in both North and South. Regions like the Meuse Valley, the Rhineland and the Bentheim area had a much looser grip on the development of architecture in the North at the time. This late medieval tradition would drastically change in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For a long time the war between North and South has been considered as the main reason for this change, but the socio-economic situation changed too at that time: for the construction industry in

1

This chapter is based on the author’s Ph.D. dissertation: see van Tussenbroek 2001a, published as van Tussenbroek 2006. 2 Bloemink & Roetert Steenbruggen 1991, p. 51. 3 Voort 2000.

4

Janse & de Vries 1991, p. 16. See also Van Belle 1990; Slinger, Janse & Berends 1980; de Vries 1994; Stenvert 1996; van Tussenbroek 2001a. 6 van Tussenbroek 2001b. 7 Janse et al. 1987, passim. 5

301

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade

314. Already in the 15th century the building lodge of ’s-Hertogenbosch was supplied with ready made products from the regular stone trade. Saint John’s cathedral, ’s-Hertogenbosch.

the North this meant that, instead of importing architecture, a more independent role could gradually be assumed. The expansion of the Dutch cities and the collapse of the nobility and Church as building commissioners, led to changes such as the institutionali­zation of construction and the growth of speci­ali­zation from the 1530s onward. The munici­pal building companies emancipated themselves; i.e. they started desig­ning, organi­zing and realizing major projects on their own. For the stone tra­ders and for the traditional building mas­ters, such as the Keldermans family, this meant a reduction in their part and influence in architectural developments.8 In this same period, white limestone from Brabant became scarce and was only found in smaller blocks, while around 1530 trade from the Meuse Valley received a major boost, since one of its main impediments fell away. The staple right of the Gelderland city of Venlo – at that time Gelderland was not yet part of the Habsburg empire – came increasingly under pressure, especially from the industrial town of Liège; after the disappearance of the staple right, Meuse traders were able to sell their products directly to the North, with Dordrecht becoming the major trading city.9 Stone trader Willem I van Neurenberg profited greatly from this change. From the 1530s onward he became a presence in the Northern market, first of all in Nijmegen, his first Northern outpost, where he delivered stone for the town hall, the harbour, the fortress and other projects. 8

The changes in the design process were also influenced by the presence of Italian masters in the Low Countries. De Jonge 1994a; Duverger 1964, pp. 181-182.

302

9

Although the abolition of Venlo’s staple right only became official in 1545, the export of building materials from the Meuse Valley had increased since the end of the 1520s. Kleintjes & Sormani 1910-1919.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization Although continuity in stone trading between North and South was maintained, a medieval stone trading business as run by the Brabantine Kelder­mans only bears a slight comparison to the activities of the successive sixteenth and seventeenth-century leading stone trading family, the Van Neuren­bergs from the Meuse Valley. Their activities will play a central role in the present chap­ter. The change in the traditional trade pattern together with the consequences this had for the Van Neuren­berg family, and the relati­onship between the different stone producing areas, all form part of this study. Building Materials and Techniques

315. Town hall of Antwerp by Cornelis Floris (1561-1565), detail. The building was covered with blue limestone from Namur and various Belgian marbles.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century there were few indications of the changes that were about to occur in the construction industry. The expansi­on in population, combined with a professionalization in munici­pal organization, formed the basis for this change. Throughout the Low Countries, cities and trade were booming and various regional centres had developed. In around 1500, internatio­nal trade was concentrated in Antwerp, which had taken over the position Bruges had formerly enjoyed, and this also led to increased profit and prosperity in the nearby Zealand cities. Products from Brabant and Flanders were transported by way of Antwerp, and with regard to the construction industry, the city was to become a major port for the international marble and stone trade. This was evidenced by the construction of the town hall designed by Corne­lis II Floris (1561-1565), with a façade completely covered with blue limestone from Namur and various ‘Belgian’ marbles, all from the Meuse region.10 In the far north it was the town of Dordrecht that played an increasing role in North Netherlandish stone trading, although this city lost its position in the seventeenth century in favour of Amsterdam. In the north-east it was the Hanseatic cities of Zwolle, Kampen, Zutphen and Deventer that held an essen­tial position in the trade with Northern Germany.11 In the south-east where the main bulk of stone was carried over the River Meuse, the trade became more important and developed into a deep-rooted and long lasting situation, due to the abolition of Venlo’s staple right. As was said earlier, the withdrawal of the nobility and Church as buil­ding commissio­ners marks the end of the Brabantine stone trade. From about 1450 onwards there had been a boom in church buil­ding, but by 1530 these projects had either been completed or halted.12 Craftsmen and buil­ding masters lost their jobs, and so were forced to take on freelance commissions or turn to municipal building. With this change, the building sector moved toward a more independent form of organization in the North.13 Another change that took place was in the design of applied architectural forms, as has been described in the preceding chapters of this book. When the first ‘antique’ elements appeared during the early decades of the sixteenth century, the stone trade in the Meuse valley tried to export products in its own version of this new style, which can still be seen in Maastricht, Nijmegen and Zaltbommel.14 This last surviving trace of traditional practice, albeit clothed in the new style, was based upon the influ10

13

11

14

Adriaenssens 1980; van Tussenbroek 2001c. Jappe Alberts 1980, p. 14. 12 Peeters 1987, pp. 163-169.

Peeters 1987; van Tussenbroek 2001b. Vos & Leeman 1986, p. 11.

303

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade ence of Liège as a centre of artistic renewal, at the heart of which stood the buildings commissioned by the prince, bishop Erard de la Marck, as we shall see in the example of the Nijmegen Cloth Hall. This export of Southern forms and architec­ tu­re was nevertheless bound to decay due to the North’s newly found inde­pendence. From a building-archaeological point of view, the sixteenth century was also a period of renewal. The use of brick patterns changed: the traditional ‘standing’ or English bond, relieved by a cross bond, can especially be seen in façades; for example, the aforementioned Maarten van Rossumhuis in Zaltbommel (1537, dated by dendrochronology). However, in the early Renaissance façade of Korte Nieuwstraat 2 in Utrecht (1540), a (until that moment) rarely applied header bond was used, thus the introduction of Renais­sance forms also brought about a change in brick patterns. At the same time, brick sizes continued to decrease. High-quality small bricks from Hol­ land (IJssel­steentjes) were exported all over the Northern Low Countries, but a similar trend can be noted in local production. The range of traditional roofing materials (roof tiles, over-andunder tiles, slates) was extended by the invention 316. The house of Maarten van Rossum in Zaltbommel: of a new pantile. New city legislation – often example of early renaissance decoration in the Northern spurred by a dramatic fire (Harderwijk 1503, Zalt­ Netherlands, influenced by stone traders from the Meuse bommel 1524, Delft 1536, Breda 1538) – forbade Valley. the use of ‘soft’ materi­als like straw (thatched roofs) and encouraged the use of fire-proof roofing materials. This led to a increased demand for simple curved pantiles, which spread from the province of Overijssel to the rest of the Low Countries.15 In the middle of the sixteenth century roof construction took another turn. In the fourteenth century, the traditional medieval common rafter had already been rein­forced with trusses that transferred the weight of the roofing materials onto the load-bearing walls beneath in a much more effective way. Running lengthwise, on both sides of the trusses there was a roof plate over the upper tiebeam: this horizontal piece of wood supported the rafters at mid-height. In the middle of the sixteenth centu­ry these roof plates were more and more frequently replaced by purlins, which were positioned parallel to the roof’s inclination, and (partially) let into the truss posts. In this way the raf­ters received even better support. Two other features, the ridge-purlin and the central post, were also inventions of the sixteenth century. The use of oak had dominated the construction of wooden buildings for hundreds of years, but by around 1600, the diminishing size of deciduous forests, the troubling war and trade situation, plus the increa­sing demand for wood for housing and ship building, led to the use of pine – imported from the Baltic and other areas – from the time of the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621) onward. Cornelis Cornelisz.’ invention of the crank in 1598 led to an industrialization of wood. Trunks were no longer squared by hand, but cut in sawmills.16 It was not long before changes in construction 15

de Vries et al. 1985.

304

16

Janse 1989, pp. 125-146.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization occurred: the disappearance of the wooden skeleton (an important construction principle in the Northern Low Countries) and the building of simple floors were typical consequences of the use of pine. These new principles were first applied from about 1580; by around 1650 they had become commonplace.17 The sixteenth century also saw an increasing use of iron nails in North Netherlandish roof con­structions, and of wall-cramps. Iron came mostly from Liège; ratio­nalization and better production techniques, especially the possibility to heat furnaces to higher tempe­ratures, had led to much lower prices.18 A remarkable example of how renewal in society, architec­tural principles and building techniques went hand in hand is Huis Ten Bosch in Maarssen (1628), designed by Jacob van Campen (ill. 141). Apart from being a prime example of the latest architectural fashion, i.e. Dutch Classicism, the building also displays new technical features. First of all, it shows a combination of simple and combined floors.19 Even more striking is the fact that Van Campen’s building is one of the earliest examples of a house with a cavity wall, which ensures better insulation from both heat and cold. Such walls are also present in the works of his contemporary Philips Vingboons, whose final design for House Vredenburg in the Beem­ster (1643) is the earliest architectural drawing to show a cavity wall. The reason for this is undoubtedly that the wealthy commissio­ners wished to have more comfort in their homes.20

317. Pedigree of the stone trading family Van Neurenberg, which was active in this sector for almost 150 years. The family lived in Maastricht, Namur, Dordrecht and Amsterdam.

The Municipal Building Company Between 1514 and 1622 the population in Hol­land increased by 245%, and the rate of urbani­ zation was equally high,21 which led to a rapid growth in building activities. As a side effect, the increased frequency of fires in cities also contributed to expansion in the construction industry. Monetary renewal brought about an increase in the flow of hard currency, and financial trade traffic was being professi­ ona­lized.22 Together, all these factors contributed to the demand for a well organized trade in building materials.23 Applying the golden rule that a self-run organization is cheaper then hiring specialists, the larger cities of the sixteenth century created their own municipal building companies, with city stonemasons becoming the leading figures within them.24 The growing importance and independence of the cities in the North is illustrated by the municipal building commissions assigned to the Kelder­mans family in the last years of their activity, up until 1557. The commissions between 1450 and 1530 were mainly concen­trated in the South (the

17

Jehee 1996, pp. 42-43. Yernaux 1939. 19 Ottenheym 1995, pp. 161-163. 20 Kooij 1996. 21 Groenveld & Schutte 1992, pp. 6-7. 22 A sign of this is also the increase of printed lists, schedules etc., in relation to currencies and tolls. de Vries & van der 18

Woude 1995. 23 Also older materials were being re-used. See De Jonge 1999e. 24 This applies especially to the larger cities. Smaller cities maintained their former organizational structure for a longer time. van Tussenbroek 1999a.

305

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade

318. Blue Namur stone belongs to a large quantity of carboniferous limestone, extended from Tournai up till Aachen. The hey-day of stone from Tournai was in the 12th and 13th century, and that of blue stone from Namur in the 16th and 17th century (drawing author).

319. Like the carboniferous limestone, various marbles are extended over a large area. The exploitation was taken up in the 16th century, especially around Rance, Agimont and Limbourg (drawing author).

town halls of Hoog­straten, Middel­burg, Zoutleeuw);25 it was only in the last decades that Lau­reys and Marcelis Keldermans received municipal commissions in the Northern Low Countries (Harderwijk, Hattem, Rhenen, Tiel, Utrecht, Wage­ningen) and worked on fortifications there.26 The Van Neurenberg family from the Meuse Valley can be seen as successors or heirs to the Keldermans family. By about 1500 they already had a substantial position in traditional stone trading and ambulant building activities. Early commissions such as those in Averbode, Herkenrode and Huy show that Coenraad I and Willem I van Neurenberg were responsible for building design, the supply of stone, and building supervision. At the same time Coenraad I was assigned werckmeester (master of building works) for Maastricht’s St. Servaas church, and he also worked as master builder for the town.27 The main difference between the two families was their geographical origin: both were closely linked to the still strictly divided but inevitable rivers, the Schelde and the Meuse, which were so crucial for transport to the North. The Keldermans family, traders in white limestone from Brabant, were exponents of the Schelde trade, while the Van Neurenbergs, trading in blue limestone from Namur, ‘Belgian’ marbles and mergel (marlstone), used the River Meuse. Once the Van Neurenbergs began to operate in the Northern market, its dependence on the Keldermans family was over. Only the first commissions in Nijmegen in the 1530s show traces of the medieval tradition, as we shall see below. From their traditional way of working as designers, stone suppliers and building masters, the demands of the Northern market soon forced the Van Neurenbergs into the position of mere stone suppliers, under conditions completely controlled and laid down by the North. The cities took over the role of developing architectu­re, with stone traders pushed into a position of serving their needs, although this dramatic change did not mean that the amounts of material shipped from the South diminished. The Van Neurenbergs succeeded in retaining a dominant positi­on in the architec­tural history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centu­ries.28 25

Meischke 1987a, passim. van Wylick-Westermann 1987, pp. 22-23. See also Janse 1987, pp. 189 f. 27 “[…] den stadts meester van Tricht”. van Tussenbroek 2001a, chapter III. 26

306

28

Only rarely were complete façades ordered at the quarry. The architecture therefore became less and less a matter for the stone trade. Meischke et al. 1997, chapters IV, V en VI. The guilds impeded the ordering of complete architecture. Kolman 1993, p. 135.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization In the cities it was the masters of the building lodges, the master masons and stonemasons – all members of the relevant guilds – who were responsible for the supervision and development of building. Some of them had their own workshops or were assigned as municipal building masters, which was the case with Jan Darkennes in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, Joost Jansz. Bilhamer and Hen­drick de Keyser in Amsterdam, and Lie­ven de Key in Haar­lem.29 In the bigger cities the institutionali­zation led to a profes­sional organization, in which the city itself took over regular municipal construction such as building bridges and locks, the maintenance of streets and, of course, the fortress (see Part III, Chapter Two). A city stonemason was responsible for the design of prestigious architectural projects, and the building team was supervised by municipal officials, with the so-called stads­fa­bryk as the head. However, this buil­ding supervisor was not necessarily someone who had practical experien­ce in the building trade.30 Public Contracts Whereas designer, stone supplier and building master had formerly been concentrated in one person, the division of these roles led to a new system of communication within the building trade. It meant that the public call for tenders for specialized building commissions increased, and that the contracts drawn up contained detailed lists of the work that had to be done. This principle of public contracts was not new.31 However, the division of construction work into separate specialized areas did cause an increase in the number of public contracts, which were normally limited to stone working, carpentry and bricklaying. The person responsible for drawing up the specifications did not automatically receive the commission. For the building of the new Schuttersdoelen (archers’ butts) in Gorinchem in 1589, the separate aspects of the building work were put out to tender. Jan Gerritz opened the bidding for the carpentry work at 2,000 guilders. It was laid down that the person who wrote the technical specificati­ons would be paid 25 guilders if he were not the one to win the commission.32 The fact that design, building specifications and the building crafts themselves were becoming increasingly separated also meant that the overall responsibility for the building was shared by a number of people. The commissioner often had a design ready before he commissioned the actual construction works. It is consequently difficult to ascribe the building to any one person. The result of these developments was that the buil­ding process constituted a new phase, separate from and subsequent to the design phase. Not only did the practice of commissioning technical specifica­tions increase, but also the demand for architectural drawings as a means of communication between the different specialists, which meant that new architectural fashions spread more rapidly and widely than ever before. Specifications were copied or even printed; published drawings could be seen at the commissioner’s, and both served as guidelines for those attempting to win a commission. Publicizing designs meant that not just one, but many potential building masters could view the designs, so that even if they did not receive the commission, they learned more about current architecture and its possible novelties, which they might also make use of on other projects. Where a municipal stonemason was employed, generally speaking he was responsible for the design of a new project, although the building masters were still free to ask someone else to make

29

Kolman 1993, p. 170. Like Jan van Hoppen in Amsterdam or Peter Fransz. (Timmer­mans) in Antwerp. 31 This does not mean that the separation of design and construction had not occurred before. In 1376 the carpentry works of the belfry in Ghent and in 1386 the works for the town hall of Nivelles were put out to tender. Janse 1964, p. 26. After the decision to build a new town hall, the 30

magistrate of Damme wrote a letter in 1461 to carpenters and stonemasons of several lands and cities in order to get the lowest price. Copies of the project, divided in stone and woodwork, were sent to Ghent, Brussels, Mechelen and Antwerp. Devliegher 1965, pp. 148, 151. In the same year in Utrecht we find the word verdingen (negotiate) in the church bills of the cathedral. Janse 1964, p. 26. 32 Ibidem, p. 27.

307

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade a drawing, which was why city stonemasons like Joost Jansz. Bilhamer, Hendrick de Keyser and Lieven de Key not only opera­ted in Amsterdam and Haarlem, but also in Hoorn (the weigh house), ’s-Hertogenbosch (registry, rood loft) and Leiden (Rijn­landshuis). In the following section we will consider the position of the stone supplier within the building industry. Early Building Activities of the Van Neurenberg Family Until around 1530 the Van Neurenbergs worked as a traditional stone tra­ding and master builder’s family, like the more famous Keldermans. Coenraad I van Neurenberg’s activities were concentrated within more or less regio­nal boundaries, with their centre in Maastricht where he had his own workshop and from which he sold microarchitecture such as altars and rood lofts, as in the 320. Part of Nijmegen’s cloth hall with the church case of Averbode Abbey. On other occasions, such arch. The hall, built in the 14th century, was renewed as at Herkenrode Abbey, Coenraad acted as both a by Willem I van Neurenberg in the years 1533-1545. stone trader and a builder. Coenraad’s son Willem I had a similar practice.33 When the staple right of Venlo was abolished and the River Meuse trade began to boom, Willem I van Neurenberg soon went North. One of Willem I’s main projects was the construction of the Nijmegen Cloth’ Hall, which was almost completely rene­wed between 1533 and 1545. From the 321. Ground plan of the cloth hall in Nijmegen early 1530s onwards, Willem managed to become the major blue stone supplier in Nijme­gen.34 The (drawing author, after Weve 1889). stone was meant for the harbour, the fortress, and the new Hezel Gate built by local municipal craftsmen. Van Neurenberg’s role had by now been reduced to solely that of a supplier of carved stone.35 More exemplary of the medieval tradition in the building industry was Willem’s part in the renewal of the Clothmakers’ Hall. In 1533 he was asked to inspect the old hall dating from the fourteenth century, and in the same year talks took place about him supplying the blue stone for the new hall. In all likelihood, Claes de Waell, a surveyor from Nijmegen, made the basic design for the new hall. Since the city accounts are not quite clear on this point, we may suppose that his design had to take into account the existing situation since the older cellars and north wall were to be retained in the new hall. Van Neurenberg supplied the stone, including the capitals and the Renaissance decoration for the centre part of the hall. In 1542 he was paid for the 89 days he had been present in Nijmegen supervising the building activi­ties.

33

van Tussenbroek 2001b, pp. 54-61. In the city accounts of 1533 there is the entry “Derick geweest aen meister Wilhelm tot Tricht des blouwen­ steenshalve, hem gegeven 3 gulden, 4 stuiver”. Ibidem.

34

308

35 The price difference between both ship­ments is interesting: one cost 10 Brabantine guilders per 100 feet, the other 18 guilders per 100 feet. This was a matter of the way the stones were cut.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization

322. One of the Renaissance elements in the cloth hall in Nijmegen.

323. Tomb of Catharina van Bourbon, the mother of Duke Karel van Gelre, in the St. Steven’s church in Nijmegen. The tomb consists of eleven pieces of blue stone and has a renaissance moulding. The copper plates on the sides are older.

Building-archaeological research shows that parts of the fourteenth-century cloth hall still exist in the present building, such as the cellars and north wall mentioned above. The main parts date from the time of Willem van Neuren­berg, who built a hall with pillars of blue stone and traditi­onal wooden floors made by local carpenters. The building was covered with a huge roof.36 Although the Clothmakers’ Hall contains some Renaissance ele­ments, the building is mainly Gothic, with a mixture of ‘old’ and ‘new’ decorations. Despite the later changes, it can be seen as one of the important municipal building commis­sions of its time – one where the traditi­onal and the modern meet. Further Expansion to the North-west Willem I van Neurenberg extended his activities in the North. He delivered the tomb for Catharina van Bourbon, mother of Karel van Egmond, Duke of Gelre, which should be seen as an item from the Van Neurenberg family’s earlier line in rood lofts and altars. Throughout the period in which the family was present in the market, the trade in black and coloured marbles from the region around

36

A dendrochronological survey was unsuccessful. Glaudemans & van Tussenbroek 2000. See also Weve 1889.

309

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade

324. In order to finance the enlargement of the tower of the Oude Kerk of Amsterdam, a lottery print was published in 1558, on which the old situation is depicted.

Rance, Philippevil­le and Agimont developed into a substantial part of its activities. In Nijmegen Willem was assigned as lockmaster­, he supplied stone for the Moerkens­gate in Roer­mond, probably also for the house of Maarten van Rossum in Zaltbom­mel, and worked in ’s-Hertogenbosch on a bulwark at the Orthen­ Gate, designed by Ale­ssandro Pasquali­ni (see Part One, Chapter III).37 In the following decades the family extended its range but decreased its actual building activities due to the changes in the organization of the building industry discussed above. In the late 1540s Coenraad II van Neurenberg supplied stone for the church of St. Walburgis in Zutphen; in 1570 he supplied columns of blue Namur stone for the new entrance portico of Cologne’s town hall, designed by Cornelis II Floris from Antwerp.38 The supply of materials for the new Clothmakers’ Hall of Sittard, designed by Maximilian Pasqualini (b. 1534 – d. 1572) in the 1560s follows the same pattern.39 Coenraad was merely the stone supplier; the reali­zation of the building had been taken over by municipal craftsmen.

37

van Tussenbroek 1999b. Kiene 1991. 39 Oremus 1993. 38

310

40 This was instigated by parish priest Florentius Egbertz., who in the 1550s had already provided the impetus for the enlarge­ment of the middle nave and the building of a chapel dedicated to Mary. Noach 1939, p. 31.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization

325. Genealogical tree of the Van Neurenberg family.

A similar picture emerged when the tower of St. Nicholas in Amsterdam, also known as the Old Church, was enlarged in the years 1563-1565 as part of a bigger building campaign.40 In 1563 the church authorities decided that the me­die­val tower had to be extended, for which Joost Jansz. Bilha­mer, Amsterdam’s city stonemason, probably made a design. Tenders sought for the stonework resulted in a consortium of Coenraad II van Neurenberg, together with Pierçon Lambillon, another leading blue stone tradesman in that period. The work was clearly described in the technical specifications, which were presented with a drawing showing the difficult parts. Van Neurenberg finished his part of the project in 1565.41 Family Circumstances In the 1570s and 1580s some important changes occurred in the Van Neurenberg family’s circumstances. Coenraad II van Neurenberg stopped working in the North to become ducal master mason in Namur. In 1571 he was appointed Maître des ouvrages de maçon­nerie.42 In Namur he was to be responsible for the for­tress, and he also built the town hall in 1572, and the meat hall in 1588-1590.43 In addition to this, he may have continued to guarantee the stone supply to the North.

41 42

Ibidem, p. 172. Courtoy 1912, p. 510.

43

van Tussenbroek 2001a, pp. 120-121.

311

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade It was his son, Coenraad III (b. 1548) who continued the company in the North. In 1577 he delivered a supply of 4.000 blocks of stone for the Arnhem fortress in response to a commis­sion from the Spanish king.44 A year later he was in Amsterdam, supplying blue stone for a number of bridges. He continued living in the South until 1585 when he moved with his wife Marie le Bidart (also from a stone trading family) and their four children from Namur to Dor­drecht.45 In doing so he was only one of the many: other Protestant (stone) traders from the Meuse Valley, such as Willemot, Lambillon and De Geer, also moved to Dordrecht. The city had an excellent geographical position in terms of supplying Holland, and developed an active incentives policy to attract traders, craft­smen etc. from other regi­ons. In addition, there was a tolerant environ­ment regarding religious mat­ters.46 In that same year, after the Siege of Antwerp by Alexander Farnese the River Schelde was closed. Brabantine traders could no longer ship their products to the North. The move to Dordrecht by the traders from the Meuse Valley can be seen as an aggressive attempt to control and take over the market, a move that for the most part succeeded. Although the conflict also affected trade on the Meuse, this commercial lifeline was kept open despite blockades in the years 1584-1586 and 15991602 when it was temporarily closed.47 The traders were well orga­nized and tried to lower the costs of the tolls.48 The system of licent and convooi money, introduced by William of Orange in 1573 as a contribution to offset the costs of war, was copied by the Duke of Parma, so that in the North as in the South, the traders could continue to cross the lines with passports recognised by both parties. In this way the River Meuse was kept open for transport. Stone Supply in the West From his base in Dordrecht, Coenraad III worked in Holland and Zealand. He delivered stone for the restoration of the church of Etten and for the Haarlem weigh house.49 He built locks, among others ones in Amster­dam (1594) and Middelburg (1598).50 In 1596 Joris Rochet, another stone trader from the Meuse region, supplied the blue stone of Namur for the Vlissinger Gate in Mid­delburg,51 but there is no evidence that these traders were also responsible for designing architecture. Their operational range, however, was extended to Flanders. In the 1560s Coen­raad II was already supplying stone for a city gate in Bruges,52 and at the end of the 1570s Coen­raad III delivered red marble from Agimont for the town hall of Antwerp after damage to it in 1576.53 Coenraad III was in Antwerp more often: he had personal contacts with Peter Timmer­mans, also known as Peter Frans, the municipal werckmester, surveyor and building master who bought stone from the Van Neurenbergs. The stone was shipped over the Meuse via Dordrecht to Antwerp.54 An interesting building commission at the time was the first (stone) Protestant church in the Low Countries, built in Willem­stad in the years 1594-1610 (see ills. 260-261).55 Untypically, part of the de­sign and building of the church were in the hands of Coenraad III van Neurenberg. Willem­ stad had been founded as a fortress against the Spanish at the end of the sixteenth century.56 In 1584 the location, which was then not much more than a small village, was given to William of Orange as compensation for losses he had personally suffered in Spanish-dominated Brabant.57

44

Classen 1951. de Bruijn & Huisman 1992. 46 The traders from the Meuse Valley were mostly members of the Walloon church. GAD Doop­boeken Waalse kerk. 47 Meulleners 1886. 48 Knoors 1993, p. 290. 49 van Tussenbroek 2001a, chapter XII. 50 Japikse 1925, part VIII 1593-1595, p. 337 and Huisman 1986, p. 34. 45

312

51

Meischke et al. 1997, p. 83. Parmentier 1948. 53 About ‘Belgian’ marbles: van Tussenbroek 2001c. 54 Lombaerde 1999, p. 240, n. 28 and SAA Insol­vente Boe­ delka­mer 1562. 55 Juten 1922 and Ozinga 1929, pp. 12-19. See also page 255. 56 Juten 1922, p. 11 and van Nispen 1983. 57 Dane 1950, p. 21. 58 Ibidem, p. 56. 52

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization The village needed to be fortified and thus was made into a garrison town.58 The Prince died on July 10, 1584, and two years later, on August 12, 1586 Prince Maurits granted city rights to the town. There was a town hall, also used ‘to preach God’s Word therein’ (Godts Woord daerinne te ver­ condig­hen).59 Maurits donated 600 guilders to build a church, but it took until 1594 for building to begin. On August 2, 1594, the Middelburg carpenter Adriaan de Muyr was commissioned to make a model of the church. As we have seen in the preceding chapter, on Prince Maurits’ personal instructions, a centralized structure was designed.60 The prepara­tions and the design resulted in an order for stone from Coenraad III van Neurenberg worth 5,800 guilders.61 In addition to supplying the stone, Van Neurenberg was also asked to adapt the exis­ting design in order to make a larger church, and to add a tower. He also wrote the technical specifications for the church foundations in De Muyr’s design. The fact that Van Neuren­berg received this commission was due to his fame as a lock builder and builder of foundations.62 He was responsible for the realization of the first phase of the work, even though this was an unusual procedure since no member of the family had been known to work as a master builder since 1542. However, the reason is not hard to find: as mentioned earlier, Wil­lemstad at the time was hardly more than a village with a few dozen houses and lacked the professional municipal building company Van Neurenberg normally had to deal with in other, larger cities. This lack of facilities, specialists and guilds should be seen as the main reason why Van Neurenberg operated as a master builder in Willemstad. His know-how stret­ched beyond that of a mere supplier of stone. From October 1596, the start of the actual constructi­on work, until his death on November 2, 1603, Coenraad III supervised the laying of the foundations, the supply of stone, and a part of the bricklaying. After 1603 Cornelis Verhoeven from Rotter­dam oversaw the works. Dynastic Developments: the Politics of Marriage Coenraad II died in 1595 after having operated mainly in Namur since 1570. When Coenraad III died eight years later on November 2, 1603, the two members of the family who had led and developed the company since 1570 were gone. Coenraad III, however, had three sons who, following the family tradition, also become active as stone traders. These were Coenraad IV (b. 1571), Willem II (b. c. 1575), and Pieter van Neuren­berg (b. c. 1580).63 At the time of Coenraad II’s death, the youngest of the three, Pieter, was sent to Namur to ensure that continuity was maintained and that the family could be sure of the essential supply of stone from the South while Coenraad IV and Willem II remained to operate in the North. Although Coenraad IV was the oldest son, it was Willem II who stayed on in the family home in Dordrecht and became its owner. Shortly after 1610, Willem II must have married Marie Wijmoth, a daughter of Jan Wijmoth, a stone trader from Liège whose family, like the Van Neurenbergs, had come to Dordrecht in 1585. In 1606 Willem became a member of the Dordrecht bricklayers’ guild. A year earlier he completed the façade of the Nijmegen church arch, which was part of the Clothmakers’ Hall that had been built by Willem I van Neuren­berg around 1540.64

59

Ibidem, p. 64. See Part Three, Chapter III, note 329. De Muyr became Middelburg’s municipal carpenter on April 1, 1587. Dane 1950, p. 116. 60

61

Juten 1922, p. 12. Two iron feet were made as measures, one of which Van Neurenberg received for use in the quarry; the other was for the city. 62 More in van Tussenbroek 2001b. 63 Ibidem, chapter IX. 64 Ibidem, pp. 126-127.

313

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade In 1594 his brother, Coenraad IV, married Marie Avondeaulx van Schie. They had two sons, Coen­raad (1601) and Johan (1603), neither of whom became a stone trader. Coenraad’s wife died in childbirth with the second son, and subsequently Coenraad married Yde Jans. Twenty years later, in 1627, he married a third time. His wife was Judith Dermelle van Nijvel who was living in Amsterdam. Coenraads activities as a trader were diversified: he traded in blue stone and marbles, but also in coal. He was active as a lock builder and took out a patent for a dredging machine.65 The third brother, Pieter, remained in the South. In 1601 in Namur he married Anne d’Harscamp, who was from a family of master smiths and iron casters. For a time Pieter went to the North where his main activity must have been focus­sed on the supply of stone from the quarries to his brothers in order to guarantee the continuity of the company, although the lack of personal or family records makes it hard to establish the company’s internal structure. One piece of evidence we do have concerns Pieter’s activi­ties on October 9, 1614, when he drew up a contract with Gilles van Maasniel and his father-in-law Hubert Misson to supply them with a year’s supply of gravestones. 326. The arch of the cloth hall in Nijmegen, compThe stone was to be shipped in Bouvignes, and was leted by Willem II van Neurenberg in the year 1605 without doubt meant for the Northern market.66 (Weve 1889). Demographic expansion and economic prospe­rity had a positive effect on the quantity of building activi­ties. In addition, structural changes within the construction industry continued. Division and specialization grew, and municipal building companies became centres of creativity. They were the major commissioners of traders like Van Neurenberg, but the court and the patriciate also increased their position in this area. The masters of the municipal building companies were responsible for the design of city buildings (to which in this period chur­ches also belonged) and were the main commissioners of stone. Sometimes they had their own stone masonry workshops, as Lieven de Key had in Haarlem and Joost Jansz. Bilhamer and Hendrick de Keyser in Amster­dam. The growing importance of these municipal masters is reflected in the networking and marriage politics of the Van Neurenbergs. The group of Meuse River traders that came to Dordrecht in 1585 formed a close society that tended to intermarry. In the following decades, however, more traders married local girls or went to Amsterdam. For stone tra­ders it was a clear sign that the old hegemony of traders from the stone producing areas had collap­sed: Dutch entrepreneurs started to take over the mar­ket, which can be seen from the marriages of Anna

65

Doorman 1940, p. 115.

314

66

Courtoy 1920, pp. 236-237.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization

327. Weigh house (right part of the ground floor) and meat hall (at the left on the ground floor) of Nijmegen. The upper storey was for the civic guard. Pieter van Delft, married to Anna van Neurenberg, supplied the sandstone for this building in 1612.

328. Application of Belgian red and black marbles in the Baltic Area. Claes Adriaensz. van Delft supplied this epitaph for Johann Füchting in the Marienkirche in Lübeck.

van Neuren­berg, daughter of Coenraad III, and Marie le Bidart, baptized on November 1, 1585.67 In Dordrecht Anna married Jac­ques Save­rij, a trader from the South with whom she had one son, Matthijs.68 The father died young, and on May 28, 1616 Anna, by then thirty years old, married for a second time – to Pieter Adri­aensz. van Delft from Amsterdam. Van Delft, who did not come from the South, was one of the leading independent stonemasons and traders of his time. His main trade was focussed on Bentheimer sandstone. He, too, had been previously married – to Mayke Steenwinckel, who was quite possibly related to the well known Steenwinckel family of sto­ne traders and master builders from Antwerp: Louwrens, Hans the Elder, Hans the Younger, Laurens and Willem, then active in Denmark and elsewhere in the North.69 Pieter van Delft’s activities were concentrated in Amster­dam, where by 1610 he had his own business, wor­king on a great many projects.70 Between 1611 and 1629 he is found building the office of the Huiszittenmeesters (wardens) of the Old Church in Amsterdam, where he also supplied stone for

67

GAD Klapper Waalse kerk. GAA, NA 502-76. Not. J. Westfrisi­us. 69 Louwrens worked from 1578 onward on the town hall of Embden and Hans the Elder, his son, was royal archi­tect 68

for Christian IV of Denmark from 1582. Roding 1991, pp. 27, 30. 70 Meischke 1994, p. 117.

315

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade

329. The Blue Gate in Leiden, seen from the land­ side, in an engraving of the 18th century.

the sexton’s house, gravestones and other items.71 Outside Amsterdam, he sup­plied sandstone for the new weigh house in Nijme­gen in 1612,72 and his work is known as far to the east as Lübeck.73 Most of his activi­ties, however, were con­cen­trated in Amsterdam. In June 1622 he was paid for blue stone he supplied for the house: St. Lucien­steeg 25.74 On Au­gust 13, 1625, he earned 187 guil­ders and 4 sti­vers for an Italiaanse vloer (Italian floor).75 The advantages of the marriage between Anna van Neurenberg and Pieter van Delft are clear: for the Van Neurenbergs it meant an opportunity to marry into a ‘new’ stone trading family that focussed on the sandstone trade and had a vast network within municipal administration. On the other hand, the Van Delft family had the advantage of marrying into an ‘old’ stone trading family, thus assuring itself of a supply of marbles and blue stone. In the following section we will see the importance of the Amsterdam connection, such as when Van Neurenberg collaborated with municipal stonemason Hendrick de Keyser.76

The Blue Gate in Leiden One of Coenraad IV’s first major commissions was to supply stone to the city of Leiden. In addition to providing approximately 6,000 feet of blue stone for the fortress, Coenraad was asked to undertake the renovation of the old Lopsen or Rijnsburger Gate, dating from around 1355, and by 1599 plans were underway. The gate stood in a strategically important position, and after the siege of the city in 1574 it was reinforced with a half bulwark and a bridge in front. “Coenraet van Noerenberch de jonge” was responsible for the design of the new gate, which meant that he wrote the tech­nical specificati­ons for the stonework, which were then printed and circulated. The stonework was put out to public tender and had to be of good blue Namur stone. Coenraads specifications, ground plan and designs were on view for inspection in the town hall.77 Four tenders were received: * Mr. Coenraad van Neurenberg for 11,000 guilders * Andries de Valckenier from Middelburg for 13,500, 13,000 and 12,800 guilders * Cornelis Roelandtsz. from Delft for 9,900 guilders * Jeroen Gerytz. antycsnyder (antique sculptor) from Leiden for 11,000 guil­ders.

71 Between 1614 and 1640 Pieter van Delft supplied approxima­tely 650 tombstones for the Old Church. Unpublished article Ruud Koopman, Zaandam. 72 Meischke 1994, pp. 118-119. 73 Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock & van Dissel, 1986-1992, Va, p. 141, n. 143. 74 Meischke 1975, p. 154.

316

75

Ibidem, p. 155. van Tussenbroek 2001a. Not only Pieter, but also his brothers Claes, Dirck and Herman were in the stone business. 77 “[…] goeden blaeuwen onver­valschten ofte onbe­rispe­ licken Naemschen steen”. van Oerle 1975, p. 344. 76

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization The contract was given to Cornelis Roelandtsz. on March 10, 1603, but because one of his competitors was by then willing to make the same offer, Roelandtsz. was forced to lower his price to 9,700 guilders.78 The actual realization of the gate was the task of the municipal carpenter, Cornelis Egbertsz.. His successor, Jan Ottensz. van Seyst, took over the work in 1604. The bricklaying contract was given to Jacob Dircksz., who was succeeded by Hendrick Cornelisz. van Bilderbeeck in 1603. It took until 1610 to finish construction. The technical specifications for the gate are contained in a seven page printed document, the oldest Dutch example of printed building specifications meant for circulation. Most probably, it was Coenraad IV van Neurenberg who wrote them, but this does not necessarily mean that he was also responsible for the design of the gate. In the written sources it says that Coen­ raad ’t patroon van de poorte heeft ge­maeckt ende geteyckent,79 which could mean that he also made a technical dra­wing.80 The specifications relate 330. First page of the builders’ estimate for the stone for the only to the stonework. Those for the woodwork Blue Gate, written by Coenraad IV van Neurenberg. On the would not have been written by Van Neur- right side, six inches of the prescribed foot unit. enberg but by someone specializing in wood, since the material, techniques and terminology required expertise that was different from that of a stonemason.81 Taking this into account, it becomes less probable that the writers of the technical specifications are also the architects or designers of the work. The writing of technical specifications comes after the design stage, which in this case means that there is no certainty that Van Neurenberg was also the architect of the so-called Blue Gate, as it was henceforth called. The ’s-Hertogenbosch Rood Loft Probably an even more noteworthy example than the Blue Gate in Leiden is the rood loft from ’s-Hertogenbosch.82 In 1610 Coenraad IV van Neurenberg received the commission to replace the 1584 rood loft, damaged when the cathedral spire caught fire and fell into the church.83 Repairs took a long time, and it was 1610 before plans for a new rood loft were developed. In the light of CounterReformational activities, the realiza­tion of the representative rood loft was given priority over repair works on the organ, the sacrament tower and the bell in the west tower.84

78

82

79

83

Ibidem, p. 345. Ibidem, p. 344. 80 The term patroon, pattern, can mean the entire design, but also a working drawing that accompanies the specifi­cations. Haslinghuis & Janse 1997, p. 348. 81 Janse 1989, p. 333 f.

Avery 1969. Mosmans 1931, p. 436. 84 Westermann 1994, p. 389.

317

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade

331. The rood loft in Saint John’s cathedral, ’s-Hertogenbosch. Coenraad IV van Neurenberg supplied materials and craftmen. Only the alabaster sculptures were ­contracted out. Sold in 1869 to the South Kensington Museum in London ­ (Victoria and Albert Museum).

Once the decision to build a new rood loft had been taken, the church authorities investigated the splendid examples of rood lofts in the Southern Low Countries. The Twelve Years’ Truce made travelling easier, and an example was soon found in the rood loft renewed after 1585 in the cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp.85 It comprised a tribune with a balustrade supported by three round-headed arches, and was decorated with sculptures.86 The ’s-Hertogenbosch church authorities commissioned two drawings based on the Antwerp model, but with architectural variants. One design showed five passageways, whereas the other, which followed the Antwerp example more strictly, showed three. Neither the author of these designs nor that of the Ant­werp loft is known. 85

This was modelled after ones in St. John’s in Ghent and Cambrai. Steppe 1952, pp. 274-275, n. 34. 86 It was Ra­fael van den Broecke (Palu­danus) who build the rood loft. Jacob Anthonis prepared two designs in 1594, based on an older one from 1589. Construction took from

318

1597 to 1599, whereafter Robert and Hans de Nole made the sculptures. The materials were black and red marbles and alabaster. Ibidem, p. 277.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization Although technical specifications were drawn up for the five-passageway variant, it was the rood loft with three passageways that was finally built. The materials, supplied by Van Neurenberg, were extre­mely luxurious and costly. Black, polished touchstone was decided upon for the plinth. The floor was to be laid with red marble and white alabaster, with a two foot wide piece of black touchstone between each arch. The ten pedestals to be placed on the floor were to be made from black stone inlaid with red marbles from Rance or Agimont, depending on where the best quality could be acqui­red.87 In June 1610 Coenraad IV van Neurenberg was asked by the church board to prepare an estimate of costs for both designs, which had clearly been ordered already from someone else.88 After preparing his estimate – which leaves no doubt that Coenraad was asked because of his leading position in the marble trade – the church board decided on December 13, 1610, to draw up a contract with him to build the rood loft according to the second design. The contract was signed eight days later, on December 21.89 At the start of 1611, the church board made its decision on the iconography for 332. The alabaster sculpture of Saint John on the the rood loft and reported their decisions to the ’­s-Hertogenbosch rood loft, made by Hendrick de city council, who were to pay for the work and Keyser (collection Victoria and Albert Museum, who agreed with the choices made.90 Because the London). design was subsequently added to and altered, the eventual costs went over the proposed budget of 11,000 guilders by many thousands.91 Once the stone had been delivered, the actual carving and sculp­ting was done in ’s-Hertogenbosch by several unknown engineers or masters.92 In the years 1611-1612 the craftsmen were given 10 guilders’ pay. By 1613 the rood loft was finished, and the craftsmen left town on September 28.93 Most probably, the same craftsmen did not make the sculptures on the rood loft and the architectural parts. When on January 27, 1611, the church authorities presented their views on the sculptural parts for the rood loft several sculptures from white alabaster had already been made.94 Although the report stressed that Coenraad van Neuren­berg would also be res­ponsible for supplying the sculptu­res, this does not therefore mean that he himself was a sculptor, as has been stated in earlier studies.95 For this work he hired other craftsmen and artists, among whom the most famous was Amsterdam city

87

For details: Buschman 1918, pp. 30-32. Coenraad IV van Neurenberg was already in ’s-Hertogenbosch in 1608, strangely enough as a citizen. Mosmans 1931, p. 437. What his activities were between 1608 and 1610 is not known. See also Meischke et al. 2000, p. 119. 89 Buschman 1918, pp. 33-34. 90 Steppe 1952, p. 281. 91 Mosmans 1931, p. 439 and Buschman 1918, pp. 34-35. 88

92 van Zuijlen 1863-1876, II, p. 1212. See also Neurdenburg 1938, p. 39. 93 Van Zuijlen 1863-1876, II, p. 1205 and 1212. They were also paid in Septem­ber 1613 “voor den patroon te maecken vanden hoogen Aultaer metten Crucifix” (for the design of the main altar with the crucifix). 94 Buschman 1918, p. 33. 95 Bergé 1990, pp. 439-463, cat. 179.

319

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade

333. The weigh house of Hoorn, renewed in the beginning of the 17th century. The design was made by ­Hendrick de Keyser, blue stone was supplied by Willem and Pieter van Neurenberg (photograph before ­restauration).

stonemason Hendrick de Keyser, although we have no information on the extent of his commission for the sculptural parts of the rood loft. Once it became known in Amsterdam that De Keyser had been com­missioned for a certain marble sculpture of St. John for the church in ’s-Hertogenbosch, he was halted by the Amsterdam city council on the charge of “idolatry”, and the work was stopped.96 De Keyser was reprimanded by the city, and further sculpture work was most probably completed by his future son-in-law and apprentice, Nicolas Stone.97 Commissions in Hoorn, Middelburg and Utrecht Collaboration with De Keyser must be seen in the light of the Van Neurenberg network. The growing prosperity, the compa­ratively stable political situation in the years 1609-1621, and the booming building industry are reflected in the family’s work, for example in Hoorn where a new weigh house was built.98 The States of Hol­land and West Frie­sland had granted the city of Hoorn the right to build a new weigh house on January 13, 1602, and construction of a new building fol96 “[…] seker S. Jans­beeld uitt merbre te houwen voor die van S. Herto­gen­bosch, om aldaer in de kerck tot afgodery ge­bruyckt te worden”. Kannegieter 1942, pp. 110-111.

320

97 Neurdenberg 1938, p. 43. Stone was in the Low Countries until 1615, when he married Hendrick de Keyser’s daughter and moved to London. 98 Dröge 1991, p. 2.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization lowed a few years later.99 On May 8, 1608 the city council decided to begin the project, and for the design they turned to Hen­drick de Keyser, who received more than 32 guilders for the desig­n of verscheyden uytwer­pen ende patro­nen (different designs and patterns).100 On June 2, 1608, the city council agreed to commissio­n Hendrick de Keyser to supply the blue stone.101 De Keyser did not buy the materials directly from the quarry where the stone would be cut, but used Willem II and Pieter van Neuren­berg as middlemen. On June 13, 1609, 33 guilders were paid for the transport of blue stone from Dor­drecht to Hoorn.102 Pieter Jansz. Livor­no, head of the municipal building company of the city 334. The Catharijnepoort in Utrecht, seen from the city side of Hoorn, declared in September and November in 1844. 1609 that he, together with Hendrick de Keyser, Willem II and Pieter van Neurenberg, had surveyed the stone for the new weigh house to determine the total amount to be paid to De Keyser.103 The Van Neuren­berg family was not only asked to undertake new building projects, smaller adaptations and changes to buildings were also part of their work, as had been the case for the whole of the sixteenth century. The family also remained active in a broad range of building activities. In 1613 Coenraad IV was occupied with the blue stone supply for the new entrance to the Middelburg town hall, from the Noordstraat to the market. The work itself was carried out by the mason Daniel Carlier.104 Another commission the family received was for the Catharijnepoort in Utrecht, one of Willem II’s better-known projects. The gate was designed by painter-archi­tect Paulus Moreelse and was built between 1621 and 1625, as was mentioned in Part Three, Chapter II.105 The first plans were discussed on May 29, 1620.106 The exact position of the gate was decided on September 7, 1620, and models were commissioned on September 21. In the magi­strates’ resolution of October 16, 1621, it was recorded that the model of the gate and the foundations had been inspected. At that time, Mayor Corne­lis van de Poll and Paulus Moreelse decided to send a letter to the traders in Dordrecht in order to gather informa­tion about the stone required. In an attempt to keep prices as low as possi­ble it was stated expli­citly that the blue stone traders were to be contacted separate­ly, in order to avoid competitors knowing one another’s business. The decision to contact Dordrecht traders may indicate that it had already been decided to cover the gate with blue stone from Namur. If sandstone had been sought, it is much more likely they would have turned to Zwolle or Am­sterdam rather than Dordrecht. The resolution of November 21, 1621, states that the commis­sion for the supply of stone was granted to

99 On January 15, 1608, the city bought the house that stood to the north of the weigh house in order to incor­porate its ground into the new project. Kiem 1996b, p. 83. 100 Dröge 1991, p. 4; Kiem 1996b, p. 88. “Ter saecke vande Waege geleijc in delibera­tie is goetgevonden datmen de oude Waege zal laten staen, ende preparatie maecken van materialen tot een nieuwe Waege”. From: GAH Resolutie­ boek van Burge­meeste­ren, May 8, 1608. Inv. no. 103. Ibidem. De Keyser came twice to Hoorn. 101 “Hen­drik de Key­ser Ingenieur wonende tot Amster­ dam”. Kerkmeyer 1911, p. 237. 102 Dröge 1991, p. 19.

103

Kiem’s statement of 1996 (Kiem 1996b, p. 87) that: “Am 7. Sep­tem­ber 1609 war der Neubau dann so weit fertiggestellt, daß die Natursteinarbeiten aufgemessen werden konnten” is dubious. The measuring of the stone is related to the delivery, before construction works were started. 104 Unger 1932, p. 11. Coenraad would have collaborated with stonemason Esaias Schae­p. Kesteloo 1883. 105 Besides the Catharijne Gate, the town hall of Vlissingen has also been ascribed to him, though on unclear grounds. Ver­meu­len 1931-1941, II, pp. 283-285. 106 HUA, Stadsarchief II, 121. Resoluties van de Vroed­schap.

321

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade Willem II van Neuren­berg, at a cost of 17 stivers per foot.107 An apprentice was present in Utrecht while the stone was being used to build. The general conclusion, however, is that Willem’s role in the design and building of the gate was limited to supplying and overseeing the stone for it. Stone trading on a smaller scale is also found in Leerdam, where in 1615 Willem II van Neurenberg supplied stone for doorsteps and other parts of the town hall. Most probably it was required for a minor alteration in the building, which was completely renewed after 1631.108 Willem II van Neurenberg also supplied sto­ne for the rebuilding of the Sommelsdijks church in 1632.109 Dutch Classicism on the Construction Site In this period, a new architectural language developed, as has been discussed in the preceding chapters. Dutch Classicism, the latest architectural innovation of the time, was promoted by the court; i.e. Frederik Hendrik of Nassau, Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen and Constantijn Huygens. Their example was followed by magistrates and traders, of whom Joan Huydecoop­er and the Trip family are well known examples.110 After the gene­ration of Hendrick de Keyser and Lie­ven de Key, a new group of intellectual painter-architects stepped into the foreground, in particular Jacob van Campen, Pieter Post and Philips Ving­boons.111 The Van Neurenberg family’s involvement with this milieu not only meant a shifting of their professional contacts towards the new class of architectural practitioner, but also a potential broadening of their clientele in the uppermost echelons of society. Nevertheless, the stone supplier, stonemason and trade­r kept their subservient positions in the newly evolved professional structure in the North, which meant that the Van Neurenberg’s role did not really change, no matter how successful their business. One point of interest is the fact that the demand for luxury mar­bles increased, not only from the Southern Low Countries, but also from Carrara.112 The activities of the Van Neurenbergs show that they were able to maintain their leading position in the building sector, and especially their almost monopolistic role in the trade of red and black marbles. The contacts with the South also remained active, thanks to the efforts of Pieter van Neurenberg. The Northern network provided an ongoing stream of commissions for the supply of marbles and blue stone. It was in this particular environment that the Van Neurenbergs were active from the 1620s,113 with the family and their network closely involved in the realization of designs by Jacob van Campen. For instance, in the 1630s Pieter van Delft was involved in the renovation of the Burghers’ Orphanage in Amsterdam. In addition to the boys’ gallery, probably built by Pieter de Keyser in 1634, he sup­plied stone for the girls’ court, and he was also the main supplier for the girls’ gallery. The design was, of course, made by Jacob van Campen (ill. 42). The governors of the orphanage had bought the necessary sandstone – fifteen shipments – in Zwolle, under the supervision of Pieter van Delft. It was to be cut by Pieter’s workshop according to Van Campen’s instructions. Moreover, Pieter was also responsible for the supply of paving stones for the floors.114 The same pattern of collaboration can be noted during the construction of the playhouse, commissioned by the orphanage in 1637. Van Campen was responsible for the architecture, Van Delft was again solely the stone supplier.115 Coenraad III van Neurenberg had already worked for the Nassau family in Willemstad in the sixteenth century, while their temporary partner, Hendrick de Keyser, built the monumental tomb for Willem of Orange in the New Church in Delft, and brother-in-law Pieter van Delft worked closely with Jacob van Campen. In 1621 Willem II van Neuren­berg supplied stone for alterations to the Nassau

107

112

108

113

Ozinga 1931, p. 19. van den Berg 1979, pp. 100-102. 109 Based on Huisman 1986. 110 Ottenheym 1997a. 111 Terwen & Ottenheym 1995, pp. 155-200. About painter­ architects, see Ottenheym 1999-2000.

322

Scholten 1993. Ottenheym 1997b and De Vos 1999. 114 Meischke 1975, pp. 180-183. 115 Meischke 1994, p. 119.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization palace in Breda.116 Prince Maurits’ stonemason – most probably Adriaen Willeboortsz. Spie­rinxhouck – contracted Willem II to supply blue stone for the Breda palace. He was first required to show samples of the stone before the final commission was given.117 When these samples were approved, Willem supplied 1,950 feet of blue and grey stone. In the years 1620-1621 the gardens of the castle were laid out under the supervision of Balthasar Baldi. Mau­rits embellished them with a gallery and an aviary with two arcades. The works were supervised by Melchior van Harbach. Within a relatively short period of time, another palace was built: Honselaarsdijk in Naaldwijk. The building campaign lasted from 1621 to 1647, and the responsible archi­tects and building masters were those at the very top of the contem­porary building hierarchy (see Part Three, Chapter I). Together with Huis Ter Nieu­burg, Honse­laarsdijk was one of the most prestigious buil­dings of its time, with Jacob van Campen as one of the architects.118 The use of expensive building materials must be seen in relation to the representational status of the building. The huge loads of ‘Belgian’ marbles already supplied in the 1620s would have been considered an appropriate use of materials given the royal context. Indeed, a model for this can be found in the ancient world where the use of some of the most precious marbles was limited to the noblest members of society. Only an emperor could be buried in a sarcophagus made of porphyry; for people of lower social status, a sarcophagus in any material other than simple white marble was considered inappropriate.119 This attitude is reflected in seventeenth-century Holland. Under the influence of Vitruvius and other classical authors, modern thinking pointed out that ostentation in the use of materials was a sign of bad taste. Architecture of quality was defined by its correct proportions rather than by its ornament. Or, as Constan­tijn Huygens wrote: “Many marbles and much gold decorates your foolish carpentry/ on the outside wildfowl and inside even worse.”120 Such reflections did not apply to Frederik Hendrik. As Prince of the Northern Low Countries he was free to use exceedingly expen­sive materials in his buildings. His status demanded the overt appearance of wealth. In the case of Honselaarsdijk, it was again Willem II van Neurenberg who provided the Prince with materials, and huge quantities of red and black marbles were sent to the site. In 1625 Willem was paid 1,100 pounds artois for three pairs of marble columns, possibly meant for the portico of the middle pavilion, which was under construction in those years.121 Other supplies were paid for in 1631, including the chimneys, floors and stone and marble elements that Willem had shipped to Honselaarsdijk in the years 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629, 1630 and 1631, for which he received more than 8.000 pounds artois.122 This stone, used for building the eastern, northern and western wings of the palace, also serves to demonstrate the Van Neurenbergs’ financial position: they had to advance money for the stone over many years before finally receiving the payment they were due.123

116 Based on ARADH Nassause Domeinraad, inv. no. 8414, Rekening van de rentmees­ter N.N., over het jaar 1621. Copy without date [seventeenth century], fols. cxci v – cxcij r. With thanks to Annemie De Vos. 117 In the stone trade such examples are very rare. In the jewellery trade, it was a common procedure. Gelderblom 2000, p. 128. 118 Ottenheym 1995, p. 174. 119 Jongste 1995, p. 109. 120 “Veel marmers en veel gouds verçiert uw mal getim­mer/ Dat buyten wildsangh is, en binnen­wercks noch slim­mer”. Worp Gedichten, V, p. 25. 121 Slothouwer 1946, p. 261: “... betaelt aen Guil­laum van Nore burch mr. steen­hou­wer, ende cooper tot Dordrecht, de som­me van elff hondert ponden artois, voor drie paer

marbere pos­ten, bij hem aen Sijn Vor­stel. Gen. huijs te Honse­lerdijck gelevert”. 122 Ibidem, p. 262: “…betaelt aen Guil­lau­me van No­renb., coop­man van steen ende mr. steen­houwer te Dor­drecht de somme van acht duijsent veer­tien­den ponden tien schel­ lingen artois, over soo veele den selven van Sijne Furst. Door­lucht­icheijt, was compe­terende, over marber ende hart­steen­werck bij hem aen schoor­steen­mantels vloe­ren, lijsten &c aent gebou vant huijs te Honshol­re­dijck inde jaren XVIC ses­sen­twin­tich XVIC sevenen­twintich XVIC achtentwin­tich XVIC negen­twin­tich, XVIC dertich ende XVIC eenendertich gele­vert [...] 8014 ponden artois en 10 schellin­gen”. 123 Meischke & Ottenheym 1992, p. 120.

323

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade The End of the Family’s Trading Activities Providing stone supplies for Honselaarsdijk represents both the culmination and the end of the Van Neurenberg trading era. As with the Keldermans in the middle of the sixteenth century, the Van Neurenberg trading activities came to an abrupt halt some years later. This phenomenon, however, should be seen in a broader context: families that gained status and power by their trade and money acceded to the select circle of the cities’ elite and began to concentrate their activities to an important degree on governmental issues. Not infrequently this was a very lucrative business, which created opportunities to stimu­late profitable trading situations, so that the ties with their ‘former’ identity and business were not completely severed.124 The main Dutch trading families, who at the same time were represented on city councils, boards etc., had very close ties, which contributed considerably to the monopolistic atmosphere of the Dutch staple market.125 How those families were linked, and how their activities coincided can be seen in the interrelationships of, amongst others, the Van Neurenberg, Trip, De Geer and Lambillon families. For example, at the end of the seventeenth century Peter Lambillon took part in Adriaen Trip’s peat polder project in Wildervank, toge­ther with Steven and Louis de Geer. Earlier examples of business collaboration between the Trip and Van Neu­renberg families can already be found at the end of the sixteenth century. Texti­le entrepreneurship led to the building of a textile mill in Dordrecht by Jacob Trip and Johan van Neurenberg. Another Johan van Neurenberg was involved with Hendrick and Samuel Trip in a cloth-making company whose products were exported to Bor­deaux and Swe­den. Trade in iron and the extraction of salt also formed part of their activities.126 The Van Neurenberg business developed international links: supplying stone to the tropics and exploiting lime kilns in Malmö were part of their expanding trade. The governmental activities of the Van Neurenbergs were strengthened from about 1640 onward. After the deaths of Coenraad IV, Willem II and Pieter van Neurenberg, Johan I van Neurenberg, the eldest son of Willem II, lived in the family house at the Nieuwe Haven in Dordrecht. During his life he occupied a large number of public offices.127 His wife, whom he married on July 21, 1634, was Elisabeth Trip, a daughter of Jacob Trip and Margaretha de Geer.­128 With him, the trade in stone came to a definitive end. Conclusions The Van Neurenbergs were active in the building sector between approximately 1480 and 1640 during which period they domi­nated the trade in stone from the Meuse Valley. The family’s activities reflect the changes that occurred in the building industry and in the political situation, which in turn partly explain the changes in the competitive position of the Meuse Valley vis-à-vis other areas. The sixteenth century was a time of rapid demographic expansion. On top of this, the second half of the century saw an explosive increase in prices while salaries lagged behind. For a large group of workers this resulted in economic and social decline. Only a small group of entrepreneurs and traders, such as the Van Neurenbergs, managed to turn events to their advantage. For them, several exception­ally favou­rable changes occur­red in the sixteenth century. Up until that time, trade in Namur stone had primarily been a regional affair, but once the century was

124

See further Prak 1985 and Kooijmans 1997. Klein 1965, p. 16. 126 Ibidem, pp. 54, 84, 103 and 116. 127 He was raad (councillor) in 1650 and 1651, schepen (alderman) in 1654, 1655, 1662, 1663 and 1673. In 1646 and 1648 he was a member of the Acht­raad and on Sep125

324

tember 17, 1685 he was reinstated in the Veertigraad by the Stadhouder. From 1650 on he was in the Oudraad, and in 1673, 1674, 1680, 1681 and 1685 he was may­or. De Bruijn 1992, p. 77. 128 See also van Eeghen 1983, p. 109.

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization

335. Due to smart trade politics, the Van Neurenbergs managed to extend their company from a rather local activity in Maastricht, to an international operating company (drawing author).

underway a situati­on developed in which traders managed to develop lasting foot­holds in the North. Under the influence of the impro­vements in iron making, the increase and expansion of industry, and the changing political situation, direct trade developed be­tween the Northern Low Countries and the Meuse Valley. An essen­tial part of this development was the fact that Venlo lost its position as a staple town, thus enabling the stone traders from the Meuse Valley to trade direct­ly with the North. These expansionist tendencies from the Meuse Valley itself were consolidated by an increasing demand from the North for supplies of stone. Within the urban con­text in particular there was a major increase in building due to population growth. This was ex­pressed through building commissions and the setting up of the municipal public works depart­ments. With the separation of the Northern and Southern Low Countries, international trade with the Baltic and the Mediter­ranean was increasingly concentrated in Amsterdam, while inland trade also opted for Amsterdam as its locus. After the fall of Antwerp in 1585 and the closing of the River Schelde, the internati­onal stone trade became entirely concentrated in Amsterdam. However, there

325

Part Four: Building Materials and Trade was also a major consequence for the trade in stone within the country: the relationship between the principal stone produc­tion areas – the Meuse Valley, Brabant/Hainaut and Bentheim – changed dramatically. The Brabant and Hainaut trade, which had been entirely dependent on the Schelde for transport to the North, came to a virtual stands­till. At the same point in time, a group of stone traders from the Meuse Valley decided to permanently establish themselves in Dordrecht in the Northern Low Countries. These traders had acquired a more or less fixed share of the market in the North during the preceding decades. Economic, religious and perso­nal considerations, in combination with favourable pre­conditions, motivated them to emigrate together, although without cutting their ties with the South. The decision proved to be a highly advantageous one: they filled the vacuum created by the disappearance of trade from Brabant and Hainaut by expanding their existing activities. Establishing themselves in the North did not mean they were cut off from their suppliers, since they managed to obtain licences for the import of stone from the Meuse Valley. Thus, for these traders, any negative consequences resulting from the wartime situation were marginal. The development of architecture that was independent of the trade in materials obviously did not happen by it­self. The rise of public works departments is one of the reasons for the independence of the buil­ding trade (see also Part Three, Chapter II). The more the towns increa­sed in importance as the initiators of building projects in the sixteenth centu­ry, the more the institutiona­lization of muni­ cipal buil­ding increased: the town council appointed a head of public works and sometimes there was even a separate administ­ration for the building sector in the form of a municipal building company. In various towns, such as Amster­dam, Leiden and Haarlem, there was the quite rapid appoint­ment of municipal officials who were responsi­ble for the town’s mason­ry, brick or timberwork. These people were to leave their mark on municipal buil­ding. One of the principal consequences of this develop­ment was the disappearance of the former need to hire the services of master masons from outside the town. Instead, the towns employed their own masters to do as much of the work as they could and only called in outsiders if the situation made it inevitable. This meant almost no change at all to the business of stone traders in terms of supplying materials, but where, of old, they had also been active as master masons it meant a new limitation on their activities. In the case of the Van Neurenberg family, the turning point came in about 1550. From this point on, the family was forced to adopt a specialized role. The major difference with the preceding period was not so much due to a change in the acti­vities themselves but more of a narrowing of scope. Except for the disappearance of their position as master masons their activities remained the same. This limitation did, however, mean that other specialists determined the architectural form the delivered materials took. The way that building work was organized, including the design of the building, was determined by the patron so that the stone supplier’s influence in the construction process was reduced. In the Van Neurenberg family practice we encounter multiple proofs of this. Only in Willemstad was Coenraad III still active as master mason, which was due to the lack of a building company in what was virtually a small village that had recently received town rights. The building sector continued to be subdivided in the seventeenth century. It was not just the stone traders who specialized, but also the designers. There was often a separa­tion between building design and building specifica­tions, with the execution in yet other hands again. A constant factor in the seventeenth century was the composition of the group of stone suppliers: families from the Meuse Valley had traditionally dominated the trade in Namur stone, marlstone and ‘Belgian’ marble, and this situation had hardly changed since about 1585, when a group of traders had established themselves in Dordrecht. These families had close ties with one another, due, naturally, to their origins, but also due to mutual famili­al ties which meant that a strong network had moved North in its entirety. Research has revealed that it took a number of decades before this group began to integrate into their new environment in terms of trade and marriage. During the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century, the trade in stone became largely a matter of logistics. The stone was bought in the South while its design was dictated in the

326

Chapter I: Changes in the Organization North. Examples include the tower of the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam, the weigh house in Hoorn, the Catharijne­ Gate in Utrecht and Frederik Hendrik’s palaces. Most of the time the working of the raw material still took place at the quarry in the South. Various contracts have revealed how the material was worked at the kuyl (quarry) and then shipped North ready for use. This situation quickly changed, as the example of Amsterdam shows. In the sixteenth century the town still acquired most of its ready-cut stone elsewhe­re, whereas in the seventeenth century a flouris­hing local stonemasonry sector developed. Dozens of larger and smaller stonemasons’ yards and stonecutters were active. Stone was purchased from the Meuse Valley, Bentheim and the Mediter­ranean then cut in the town it­self. Within a century, a position of Northern dependence on the South had metamorphosed to a situation where, to a large extent, the cutting of stone had been taken over by the Northern Low Countries themselves.

327

Conclusions Epilogue

Conclusions Continuity and Change in Architectural Relations between the Southern and Northern Low Countries 1530-1700

This book has offered a closer look at early modern architecture in the Low Countries both before and after the separation of the North from the South, which was finally consolidated by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. From the early decades of the sixteenth century, architects in the Burgundian Federation had had to come to terms with a number of momentous changes in their field, such as the introduction of a new repertory of forms called ‘antique’, the concomitant change in their professional situation including, indeed, the status of their art, and the partial disappearance of the stone trading networks they relied upon. The changing political and religious circumstances in the second half of the century only compounded these difficulties. Yet already by around 1600, out of this turmoil came some of the most original and creative phenomena in Netherlandish architectural history, which is all the more surprising when one takes into account that this is, according to mainstream national historiography, officially a period of war, crisis and decline. It is the period in which the neologism architectuur – the common word for ‘architecture’ used today in the standard Netherlandish language – gradually replaces the medieval metselrije (literally, ‘masonry’), and the practitioner of the art of building begins to be called an architect: signs of a pivotal moment in Netherlandish architectural history. Close reading of contemporary architectural sources has confirmed that there was a continuation in the dialogue between North and South on the most important architectural issue of the time: antique versus modern, and underlying it, the earliest affirmation of a ‘national’ way of building to which this newly developed, foreign repertory had to adapt. Vredeman de Vries’ affirmation in 1577 of a Netherlandish way of building (deses landes ghebruycinghe en dienst) – or at least an Antwerp one – indeed marks an important turning point: henceforth Netherlandish construction modes constitute one continuous thread of theoretical reflection that runs across the better-known theoretical production of the time, which was occupied in finding the best guide to the most correct antique architecture. It would be interesting to explore this sense of architectural identity even further, particularly in view of the influential position this architecture occupied in Northern Europe at the close of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the next. Did the public outside the Low Countries view these models as ‘Netherlandish’? But investigating that would be the subject of another book. Traditional Belgian and Dutch historiography has been encumbered not only by nationalistic clichés describing their separate pasts – a nineteenth-century construct – but also by rigid stylistic concepts, and thus has so far failed to do justice to this complex situation. Vasarian standards still abound in the literature on the so-called ‘Flemish Renaissance’, which has led to one-sided interpretations of the earliest period of creativity in the sixteenth century, which was in fact characterized by stylistic pluralism: the most modern Gothic (now called Flamboyant) and the first antique lived together on an equal footing. Furthermore, the concept of ‘Mannerism’ with its myriad definitions tends to hide the fact that underneath his exaltation of new inventions in ornament, the architect of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century was as obsessed with the antique as his predecessors and his heirs were. Neither has the stylistic dichotomy ‘Flemish Baroque’ versus ‘Dutch Classicism’ turned out to be all that efficient when tackling seventeenth-century architecture, unless one accepts the nineteenth-century notion of a great cultural divide between the Republic in the North and the ‘Spanish Provinces’ in the South. In this concluding chapter we would once again like to review architectural production in the Low Countries for the period 1530-1700 in order to emphasize the interaction between North and South from three points of view: language of forms, building types, and the interaction between patrons and architects.

331

Conclusions The Quest for Correct Forms: A Comparison between North and South 15301700 Architectural changes in the Low Countries during the sixteenth century must be understood as a mutual development in the North and South. The complex, rich tradition of ‘modern’ (late Gothic) architecture can be found in both parts. However, the epicentre of this new ornamental splendour lay in the South, in the cities of Brabant, due to Antwerp’s economic prosperity and the installation of the Habsburg court in Mechelen and Brussels. Similarly, the introduction of ‘antique’ details in architecture had its origin in the circles of the highest nobility, and leading clerics close to the court of Charles V. Again, examples in the North can only be understood as spin-offs of these new developments, which were concentrated in the South. From the 1530s and 1540s onwards, cities in both the North and South also turned to the new ‘antique’ forms; as a result, urban architecture would never be the same again, since the new specialists in the antique, often ‘foreigners’ from out of town, broke up the ancient monopolies the building guilds had traditionally enjoyed. Notwithstanding the prominent position of Antwerp, some leading centres also emerged in the North, such as the network around Colijn De Nole (although, it must be said that he too came from the southernmost border region of the Low Countries), or Jan van Scorel in Utrecht, or again, the one in Amsterdam around Joost Jansz. Bilhamer. From that time on, more and more inventions in an antique style became available in print. Antwerp was the leading centre of production for architectural manuals and ornamental prints, but the formal language presented on paper must be regarded as the mutual achievement of both North and South: the product of what could almost be described as an example of ‘culture shock’ between Hans Vredeman de Vries, an immigrant from Frisia in the very north of the Low Countries and the most active producer of this kind of paper architecture, and Cornelis Floris and Pieter Coecke, the creators of a successful synthesis between the classical orders and new ornament. These prints, with their numerous variations on this formula, had an enormous influence in North and South alike, as well as in other regions of Northern Europe. Around 1600 the repertoire of formal inventions was replenished by the introduction of new ornaments that had originated in the circle around Michelangelo. This occurred in parallel in both parts of the Low Countries: in the South they were launched by Cobergher and Francart, whereas in the North, De Keyser was mainly responsible. Up until the 1630s in both regions, this kind of ‘modern’ architecture was a favourite with patrons at the Court as well as those in the cities. Apparently, both in North and South, this kind of architecture was seen as suitable for expressing dignity and even magnificence. When we try to pinpoint the moment of discontinuity in the architecture of the Low Countries, we need to focus on the period from 1640 onwards. After some isolated experiments in the preceding years, from the late 1630s a stricter, more orthodox interpretation of classical architecture, inspired by Italian models such as those by Palladio and Scamozzi, became dominant in the North. Instead of admiring the newest inventions and variations on the theme of the Five Orders, as had been the case in previous generations, architects and patrons now demanded that the classical orders be applied in the purest way possible, in strict adherence to the treatises. Patrons such as Huygens and Count Johan Maurits of Nassau, were soon followed by the Prince of Orange, and many of the civic elite, the socalled ‘regents’. Before long, architects such as Van Campen, Post, Vingboons and Van ’s-Gravesande were imitated by master builders and carpenters, all of whom turned to the same Classicist treatises for their details. Apparently, a similar switch did not occur in the Southern Low Countries, although in the light of contemporary evidence, the South was equally preoccupied with the correct application of classical rules, and a close study of Antiquity and its architecture was a necessity for every selfrespecting architect, especially if he wanted a career at court. In spite of this, however, the increased demand for decorum in the South was too powerful to accept the classical orders in their purest form as a fitting expression of dignity. In contrast to the North, the correct application of the orders did

332

Conclusions

336. Antwerp, De Fraula House, 1737, by J.P. van Baurscheit Jr. (demolished 1963, façade rebuilt 1986).

337. The Hague, Huguetan House, 1734-1737, by J.P. van Baurscheit Jr. .

not suffice for the highest categories of building: additional ornamentation such as cartouches, broken pediments, scrolls, stepped architraves etc. on façades and portals remained essential to underline the supreme status of churches and noble residences. One of the richest fields of experimentation in the use of the orders and of this inventive ornament can be found in the altars of the time, especially those by Lucas Faydherbe. During the second half of the seventeenth century, the contrast seems to increase between the sober Classicist attitude in the North and the taste for more richly adorned architecture in the South. Moreover, we should be aware that in those decades especially, the types of building that dominate architectural production in the two regions are completely different. In the South during this period, the most important building projects in terms of scale and investment invariably concern Catholic churches, while in the North the emphasis is on private houses and public buildings. What seems to be first and foremost a difference in taste should be interpreted rather as a conscious differentiation between various categories of building. The contrast between the North and the South appears to reach an extreme in the last decade of the seventeenth century if, for instance, we compare the new façade of the Deventer Town Hall by Roman, to the newly erected guild houses on the Grote Markt in Brussels. Yet in fact the difference exists only on the thin outer surface of the buildings. The grand but sober, distinguished classical country houses of the last quarter of the seventeenth century were built by the new Orangeist elite at the court of William III, Stadholder of the Dutch Republic and King of England. At this court, as at any court in Europe at that time, the French court style of Louis XIV was a widespread point of reference. The Huguenot immigrant Daniel Marot was warmly welcomed at the Dutch court to introduce the latest French interior style in the manner of Jean Lepautre, which unified furniture, ceiling and wall decorations into one design. Dutch architects learned swiftly, and some of them, for example Steven Vennecool from Amsterdam, gained an important reputation for his designs in the new French manner. The taste for rich and lavishly decorated interiors dominated the rooms of the very sober and almost abstract brick country residences erected in those decades.

333

Conclusions Less that a generation later, this new, so-called ‘French-style’ also affected the exteriors of prestigious buildings in Holland. From 1715 onwards more and more elements from the interior design system were applied as ornamentation on façades. At this point in time sculptors once again took over the leading role in architecture, replacing the painter-architects who had dominated developments during the 1640s. Here again, the situation in the North is almost identical to that in the Southern Low Countries, where the grand French manner began to influence the design of façades as early as the first years of the eighteenth century, most notably during the reconstruction of the devastated central neighbourhoods in Brussels. And as had been the case in former centuries, the most gifted artists received commissions in both North and South. For example, one of the most influential and admired sculptor-cum-architects in the Low Countries during the first half of the eighteenth century was Jan Pieter van Baurscheit, who worked both in his home town of Antwerp and for prestigious patrons in the North, especially in the province of Zeeland and in The Hague. Dominant Building Types: A Comparison of North and South 1530-1700 If we ignore the differences in the use of architectural ornament and instead examine the changes in the use of various building types in the Low Countries during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the following observations can be made on their evolution. In the sixteenth century the most important court residence in the Low Countries, in terms of frequency of use and financial investment in its architecture and gardens, was the Coudenberg Palace in Brussels, the seat of the Emperor, and later, of the representative of the King of Spain. As the main symbol of political continuity with the Burgundian era, no fundamental changes could be permitted to this complex: the weight of tradition prohibited replacement with more up to date palace architecture in both the sixteenth and seventeenth century. No such complex existed, or could even be contemplated in the Republic. But from the late sixteenth century onwards, when Maurits of Nassau established his court in The Hague, the former ducal complex there, the Binnenhof, gradually came to be regarded as a kind of Northern counterpart to the Coudenberg Palace in contemporary propaganda. The largest and most innovative noble residences of the sixteenth century were also found in the South, in the duchy of Brabant (Heverlee, Breda) and in the county of Hainaut (Boussu), and they evidently belong to one single typological family, just as their patrons belonged to one single class, linked by multiple political and personal relationships. They have in common spacious square courts surrounded by galleries on four sides arranged on an almost perfectly symmetrical plan, with impressive scrolled gables at the end of the wings, monumental staircases on the main (or entrance) axis, brickand-stone masonry in the ‘Brabantine’ manner and, in most cases, monumental corner pavilions with tall roofs. In the seventeenth century this type of nobleman’s residence continued to be built in both regions, albeit in a slightly modernized manner. Instead of four wings, three were erected, creating a U-shaped plan with an open vista of the countryside, as in Jan van Nassau’s palace at Ronse, and the Prince of Orange’s property, Honselaarsdijk. The higher nobility had always been part of international society, and these new U-shaped palaces are clearly connected with developments elsewhere in Europe, especially in France. In both parts of the Low Countries, seventeenth-century country houses built for noblemen of lesser importance consist, for the most part, of a single volume, if possible surrounded by a moat, as in a medieval castle. In Holland these buildings became a point of reference for the mercantile elite that had started to build numerous smaller bourgeois country houses from the mid-seventeenth century onwards. Similarly, in the Brussels periphery the new nobility created by Philip IV eagerly imitated the architectural models of the past when they could not buy an old manor house. One major field of interaction between North and South, and indeed between the Low Countries and Europe has been omitted from this book. We refer to military fortifications, built by the cities at the behest of the monarch in a complicated process involving urban professionals, military architects and engineers in the service of the government, as well as the noblemen who served as mili-

334

Conclusions tary commanders for a particular town. Here, the court and civic authorities meet as patrons, as do all the levels of the class of professional architects. This complex subject could fill yet another book and must be kept in mind as the missing complement to the court architecture we have evoked, and to the urban architecture discussed below. The only truly imperial architecture in the sixteenth-century Low Countries is indeed military: from the Ghent citadel with its (never executed) imperial palazzo in fortezza, to the projected citadel on the Lastage in Amsterdam. The development of civic types of buildings shows fewer contemporary parallels in North and South due to great differences in economic prosperity. The heyday of the Southern cities was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when most town halls and other public buildings were erected. The greatest economic expansion in the North began at the end of the sixteenth century and reached its peak in the 1650s and 1660s. In various cases we can see in the sixteenth-century South the start of a modernization of civic types of building, or even the origin of new, specialized forms, especially when we look at Antwerp’s great mercantile infrastructure created by Gilbert van Schoonbeke and other speculators. With the shift of economic power from Southern to Northern cities, the modernizing trend continued into the seventeenth century in the cities of Holland. Thus the sixteenth-century South and the seventeenth-century North must be considered as the two halves of a single, continuous story of urban development. The results of the comparison between seventeenth-century church architecture in North and South are the most complex. Both share the common heritage of the sixteenth century, with the great late Gothic building projects (some of which continued well into the seventeenth century), and the introduction of new, Italian-inspired ideas about church architecture. The Reformation in the late sixteenth century caused a sharp rupture, but then so did the Counter-Reformation with its new liturgical codes and renewed discussion about proper liturgical space. Here (and only here) the contrast between the Catholic South and the Calvinist North is evident. After the Reformation it is almost impossible to compare church buildings of both religions, but if we do so, we should always be aware that in theory, these are now completely different types of building. A Catholic church is the House of God, surpassing everything else in magnificence, whereas a Calvinist church has a much lower position in the architectural hierarchy. According to Calvin, God lives in the spirit of the community, not in a building. As a result, the church building has to be regarded as a noble kind of school building, erected solely to spread the Word of God and to instruct the people in the proper religion. In spite of these essential differences, however, we can still trace some remarkable similarities. In both religions people were eagerly searching for the true origin of Christian architecture. This explains the general interest in the Temple of Solomon, a paradigm for the perfect religious space, and the reconstruction of the Early Christian basilica, both with and without Vitruvian connotations. One paradoxical result of this search was the popularity of a Jesuit’s (Villalpando) image of the Temple in the Protestant North. Contemporary fashion also affected both North and South: thoroughly modern models of centralized churches in the Italian manner found their way into both the Catholic South and the Calvinist North, where they were creatively transformed. Patrons and Architects: A Comparison between North and South 1530-1700 When one considers patronage, it is not difficult to understand why sixteenth-century architecture in both parts of the Low Countries can be only described as a unity. Most prominent secular building commissions came from the high nobility at the court of Charles V: the Croÿ family at Heverlee and many other sites; the De Hennin in Boussu, the Nassau in Breda, and the Egmond in IJsselstein and Buren. The ‘supra-national’ character of these families has been stressed in recent literature on the new Burgundian-Habsburg nobility, and the same applies to their architectural patronage. For some of their more prestigious building projects in the ‘antique’ manner these patrons invited specialized designers of Italian origin, such as Pasqualini and Thomaso Vincidor, but their role been greatly overestimated in

335

Conclusions current literature. The impact of the sculptor-architects Jean Mone and Jacques Du Broeucq – whose mastery of the all’antica language gained them the title of artiste de l’empereur – was far greater and can be detected across the country, even reaching Spain in the latter’s case. The military architects and engineers who worked for Charles V, and especially for Mary of Hungary, constituted the top of the professional hierarchy and their activities, by definition, did not tie them to any one place. In some noteworthy instances – from Bruges and Antwerp to Amsterdam and Kampen – we find these toplevel specialists acting as consultants or jury members for urban projects, which was one mechanism for the diffusion of avant-garde architectural language within the urban context. On a lower level in the professional hierarchy, sculptors such as De Nole and Cornelis Floris similarly obtained commissions from various parts of the country, from noblemen as well as from members of the civic elite in the cities. The city governments in North and South were the commissioners of several public buildings and also (indirectly) of the enlargement of the great urban parish churches that took place in many cities in the Low Countries during the first half of the sixteenth century. Specialized workshops were invited to design or to construct these major projects, like those of the Keldermans and the Van Neurenberg families. In the sixteenth century the Southern monopoly on the best quality stone created possibilities for these families to participate actively in major projects undertaken by cities in the Northern provinces of the Low Countries. The revolt of the 1560s and the war that followed caused a temporary break in prestigious building projects. The first major urban projects after the outbreak of the war were the rebuilding of the guild houses at the Grote Markt in Antwerp and, in the late 1570s and early 1580s, the extension of the Ghent Town Hall by the addition of the Bollaertskamer. The two leading cities in the South seemed once again to take the lead in matters of architecture. However, the triumph of Alessandro Farnese, commander-in-chief of the Spanish forces, over Ghent in 1584 and Antwerp in 1585, caused a decisive change in the balance between North and South. Until then the South had been the leading region of the two, also in terms of architectural innovation. The economic rise of the Northern cities was strongly stimulated by the exodus of people, money and talent from South to North; this increase in population, together with the new prosperity, created an unprecedented building boom and considerable possibilities in the field of architecture. It would be false, however, to regard the new architectural developments in the North as exclusively the result of these gifted immigrants from the South. Architects of Southern origin, for example Lieven de Key in Haarlem, certainly played an important role in Dutch architecture around 1600, but many other architects, sculptors and master carpenters were natives of the North. Gifted architects from the South found it easy to continue their craft because there had not been any major change in architectural taste. Their architectural language did not, in fact, differ much from what had been practised up to that time in the North. During the seventeenth century the most important patrons of architecture in each part of the Low Countries came to differ in type, not only due to the changes in economic prosperity in the cities, but also because of the establishment of the Prince of Orange as Stadholder of the Republic. Added to this were the religious differences. In contrast to the preceding century, the Northern cities now became the most important commissioners of architecture, whilst those in the South had much less opportunity for new prestigious projects. Civic building companies also expanded as the cities themselves grew. In some cases a qualified artist was even appointed as architectural designer next to more traditional masters. In other cases specialist designers were hired for new prestigious civic buildings. It is important to notice that the building boom in the Dutch Republic created the possibility for a new category: the professional architect. This was a private person who earned his money by designing buildings and overseeing their construction, but without holding any formal position at the court or within city bureaucracy, or indeed without any direct link with building crafts or the trade in building materials. For this professional class, a more sober use of the classical language without the sensation of additional new inventions was the order of the day; these architects did not deal in magnificence. There was also a shift in the professional hierarchy, especially at the topmost level. Archduke

336

Conclusions Albert and the Infanta Isabella had a strictly organized professional corps of architects and engineers at their disposal for court projects, such as the renovation of the Brussels palace – still the epicentre of court life – and of Mariemont, as well as for the construction of Scherpenheuvel. The most important members of this corps, with the ‘architect-general’ Cobergher in first place, were even made officers of the Court. Initially, nothing of this kind existed in the North: the archducal architects had evolved out of the administrative reforms initiated by the Dukes of Burgundy in Brabant. However, within the Archduke’s lifetime a new court emerged in the North, located in The Hague where Maurits of Nassau had established the government of the Dutch Republic. In particular it was Frederik Hendrik and his wife Amalia who created a court that sought to emulate in its appearance the international standards of ruling sovereigns. At first designs were obtained randomly, for instance by commissioning private builders, or even by direct requests to architects in Paris. It was only in the 1630s and 1640s that the first official architect to the court was appointed: Simon de la Vallée, who was succeeded by Pieter Post. For most of the second half of the seventeenth century, however, the courts in both North and South were virtually insignificant as patrons of architecture. This situation changed once more in the last fifteen years of the century when William III built two major country residences: Het Loo (from 1685) and De Voorst (from 1695), while in the South, governor Maximilian of Bavaria intervened in the reconstruction of Brussels after the bombardment of 1695. When we consider who was involved in architecture – patrons as well as architects – the greatest contrast between North and South is again to be found in the field of religious architecture. In the Protestant North, church building was a task for the local authorities, city governments, and local nobility in the countryside. In most cases they employed either the civic building masters or renowned architects, which meant that church architecture did not become the monopoly of one specific group of designers, contrary to the situation in the Catholic South. There, in the first half of the seventeenth century, only two kinds of important patrons of church buildings could be said to exist: the archducal court and the various religious orders. Both groups had their own preferred architects, although these were not exclusive to either group; for example court architect Jacques Francart worked for the Jesuits, court architect Wensel Cobergher worked for the Augustines, and Jesuit architect Pieter Huyssens worked both for the court and for the Benedictines. Whatever their original profession or training – in the arts and building crafts or the priesthood – they all shared easy access to the most up to date Italian material, in particular the latest solutions of Counter-Reformation church design. Artist or priest, all of these architects had travelled to Italy, or at least had close connections with Rome. Enhancing the standard classical schemes with fashionable inventions was the proper mode of expression for this group, a trend that overflowed into the civic domain. In the second half of the century in particular, when court patronage had dwindled to nothing, church building remained the principal category of prestigious architecture in the South (until the reconstruction of Brussels city centre after 1695). The pilgrimage churches in honour of Our Lady and the new monastery churches built for the Praemonstratensians display the most original architecture produced in the South in that century. The architects employed in this period were indeed mostly secular master builders or artists (like Van den Eynde en Faydherbe), who had no direct experience of Italian examples. There is no counterpart for the creative combinations of the centralized plan and the basilica scheme they invented. The Northern and Southern Low Countries share a common architectural history well into the seventeenth century: unity is only followed by discontinuity around the time of the Peace of Westphalia. A similar preoccupation with the correct use of antique forms and the most authentic type of Christian liturgical building; a common quest for magnificence – although gradually expressed differently due to a different interpretation of decorum – and a common architectural heritage in both the civic and religious domains are the factors that bind the North and the South together. In the field of architecture, separation only became a fact after the consolidation of the major shifts in the structure of the architect’s profession and patronage, resulting from the changing political and economical situation.

337

Epilogue Acculturation, Transculturation, Cultural Difference and ­Diffusion? Assessing the Assimilation of the Renaissance Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann

The publication of the present volume marks a significant moment in the historiography of architecture.1 This book represents the culmination of a project that has been devoted to demonstrating the international aspect of building in the Northern and Southern Low Countries, and the connections between these regions. This concluding essay attempts to situate this project within the larger context of historiography and history. This project and the contributors to it have done much to recuperate the history of architecture of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the Low Countries. Although the wealth of the Netherlandish architectural tradition and its merit as a field for scholarly study may finally be becoming clearer, in part as a consequence of this present effort and the contributors to it, this was not at all the case until quite recently. It is worth recalling that even a decade ago, actually until the mid-1990s, the history of sixteenth and seventeenth-century architecture (and also sculpture) in the Low Countries was still a comparatively neglected field.2 Through the attention that has been given to Netherlandish sculpture and architecture in lectures, publications, and exhibitions,3 much more knowledge has been accumulated, not just relating to the history of the Low Countries. Missing parts are being filled in of a more general European, and even global picture, in which Netherlandish art and architecture played a role.4

1

This paper, along with some others in this collection, originated as a lecture given at the conference Eenheid & Twee­ spalt. Architectonische Relaties tussen de Zuidelijke en Noordelijke Nederlanden 1530-1700, November 23, 2000. Like the pre­ sent volume, the colloquium also represented a significant moment in Netherlandish historiography. While to a degree updating references to literature that has appeared in the last six years (to the completion of this revision in May, 2006), for the most part I have kept much of the content and tone of the original lecture, although eliminating some of the more personal references, or placing them in the notes. 2 At the end of a lecture given in 1994 at a conference held in the Rijksmuseum on occasion of the Amsterdam exhibition Dawn of the Golden Age (see cat. Amsterdam 1993) I could thus utter what may at the time have seemed a rather unusual, if hopeful exhortation. After having tried to set ‘Dutch Mannerism’ into an international context, I called upon the audience composed of students and professors to study the rich heritage of sculpture, and especially of architecture in the Netherlands. It seems that this call has been quickly answered. 3 Recent literature on architecture is cited in the chapters above. The foundation of the Low Countries Sculpture Society by Leon Lock, and the activities, including lectures that it has sponsored (e.g. the author’s own ‘Low Countries

Sculptors: The Problem of Transnational Histories’, delivered on July 7, 2002 at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London) is significant in this regard. Outstanding examples of exhibitions devoted to Netherlandish sculptors are those on Adriaen de Vries (Amsterdam 1998; Augsburg 2000; Williamstown 2001) and on Willem van Tetrode (Amsterdam 2003). Netherlandish sculpture of the period has also been brought to the attention of a broader, international public by exhibitions organized for various venues by Frits Scholten; Scholten’s own publications have done much to bring attention to this field. (See further, and for more bibliography on architecture and sculpture, the essays by Konrad A. Ottenheym and Frits Scholten in DaCosta Kaufmann 2002b). 4 For the impact of Dutch architecture, see Ottenheym 2003c; and for the more global picture Temminck Groll & van Alphen 2002. On the worldwide impact of art from Flanders, see DaCosta Kaufmann 2002. Recent publications of symposia associated with the exhibition devoted to Vredeman de Vries also contained many other studies on his broad impact, among other things on architecture and sculpture: see Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005; RuszkowskaMacur et al. 2006. See further Kaputska 2003 and also, for sculpture and painting Legnica 2001.

339

Epilogue This book provides much new information and many insights about architecture in the Low Countries and its international connections. As a result, some established paradigms of categorization and periodization no longer seem adequate. In the light of recent studies, earlier scholarship – and consequently broader beliefs about the history of architecture and sculpture in the Low Countries – appears to have made incorrect distinctions between the Northern and Southern Low Countries. Period and related stylistic distinctions between Renaissance and Baroque or Classicism and Baroque also seem to have helped but little to explain apparent differences, or to characterize local phenomena correctly.5 As other essays in the present volume argue strongly, both regional and period definitions therefore need to be reconsidered. The process of revision can proceed further. If older interpretations and hypotheses no longer seem to fit, what other ways are there to comprehend the architecture (and art) of the Low Countries? What schemes of interpretation may be employed? This task is part of a larger problem of the reinterpretation of artistic and architectural production and their reception during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe and the Americas. This essay suggests, first of all, why such a broader view is justified, and then examines some concepts that might prove useful in dealing with what may be called – to use a term that is chosen to be as neutral as possible – the assimilation of the Renaissance. Involved are both issues of the history of art, the study of continuity and change over time, and the geography of art; in other words, the consideration of spatial processes or constants that might affect its local manifestations.6 In the first instance, it seems warranted to frame questions in a more general manner, because many of the arguments that have been made about the architecture of the Northern and Southern Low Countries between 1530 and 1700 may be expanded to apply to other geographical areas. It has been noted that the separation of Belgium from the Netherlands in 1830 had consequences for the consideration of cultural products in the nineteenth and twentieth century. As can be inferred from the arguments presented in some of the essays assembled here, and those by other art historians and historians, such as Hans Vlieghe and Hugo de Schepper, the construction of separate histories of Flemish and Dutch art and architecture may have had as much, or perhaps even more, to do with processes that can be related to the nationalist tendencies of the nineteenth century, to the needs of nation building, and consequently to national cultural definition, as they did with the realities of the culture of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which were supposed to be their subjects for investigation.7 But the same holds true for many other countries. Similar problems apply to the history and geography of art – considerations of time and place – in many lands. Both the exclusions and the inclusions that have directed scholarship on architecture in Belgium and the Netherlands parallel similar developments in the historiography of art and architecture of many other countries. The establishment of art history as an academic discipline, and the growth of scholarship in this field, coincided with the foundation or unification of many other nations, including Germany and Italy, or with their modern self-definition, as in France. As a consequence, art history played a similar role in many places. Many recent studies of historiography have made manifest that in the twentieth century as well as in the nineteenth, scholarship in art history often served the interests of cultural ideology, of national and even nationalistic concerns. In any event, monuments have continued to be treated most often in relation to their location in modern nation states, and rarely with respect to earlier parameters; materials have been organized according to considerations of these states, or of ethnic groups, in response to contemporary interests and politics which do not necessarily coincide with the realities of past distinctions. In this

5

In addition to the present volume, see previously Ottenheym 2005a. 6 For a fuller account of these ideas, see DaCosta Kaufmann 2004b and DaCosta Kaufmann & Pilliod 2005, Introduction (pp. 1-19).

340

7

See especially Vlieghe 1998b, pp. 192 f., and see further Vlieghe 1998a and De Schepper 1987.

Epilogue light, the historiography of the art of many countries, not just that of the Low Countries, has often appeared to be in need of revision.8 Attempts to deal with what is now often called the Early Modern Period, as opposed to the Renaissance and Baroque periods, demonstrate some of the difficulties that have been created by the historiographic situation. It is still the tendency to deal with the arts of many European countries (and even cities and regions), not just those of Belgium and the Netherlands, independently from one another, thus handling in different studies or even syntheses such subjects as the Golden Age of Spain, the German Renaissance or Dürerzeit, French Classicism, or the Renaissance in Bohemia, and treating them accordingly as if they were separate and distinct entities. But similar patterns of treatment of function and form are to be found throughout much of Early Modern Europe. The existence of these patterns also provides a kind of historical legitimation for the response offered by the broader based treatment of art historical questions proposed here. It hardly seems necessary, for example, to state that church, palace and house designs, city planning, monuments, and civic institutions in general posed related, if not identical tasks (given differences in religious confession and social class) that seem more or less similar throughout Europe. More interesting, more telling in terms of what have been called Renaissance and Baroque, and certainly more pertinent to the problems of this project, is what can be said about questions of form in relation to the antique. In the preface to his Palazzi di Genova, Peter Paul Rubens talked of the transformation he had observed in Antwerp and Brussels, from a manner of architecture which was called barbarous, or Gothic, to a new manner of building, full of splendour and ornament, which had introduced the true symmetry of that architecture in conformity with the rules of the Ancient Greeks and Romans.9 Moreover, many other authors, from Hans Vredeman de Vries and Salomon de Bray in the Low Countries, to Giorgio Vasari in Italy, made similar contrasts between ancient and modern, of an internationally inspired architecture based on the antique, and buildings which were called Gothic or barbarous.10 Similar views were expressed in many countries throughout Europe, in many places where architecture, which was ultimately comparable with what had initially been built in Italy in the fifteenth century, was erected in contrast to buildings in earlier styles that supposedly were related to local traditions. To echo John Summerson,11 this new architecture spoke a classical language, whether it be termed Renaissance or Baroque, and whether it be found in Belgium, the Netherlands – or to look farther afield – in Russia or Colombia. For this reason, it seems justifiable to use the advent of a classical style, what was known as the style all’antica, to provide a touchstone for the definition of a common tradition evinced not only in the Low Countries, as this project so employs it, but in much of Europe and beyond.12 In fact, this criterion has already been applied as an historical marker for many other areas of Europe, even though the arts and architecture of the individual European countries are most often treated separately, distinct from one other – a tendency this collection has tried to contravene. For example, in his history of the Renaissance in France, Henri Zerner talks of the invention of Classicism, and places the start of the Renaissance at the moment of the advent of classical forms.13 Summerson begins his standard history of architecture in England with the first forms that can be related to the classical tradition.14 Jan Białostocki, in his authoritative book on the art of the Renaissance in Eastern Europe (for him Poland, Hungary,

8

Details of this historiography are provided in Chapters 2 and 3 of DaCosta Kaufmann 2004; see also Idem, ‘Introduction’, DaCosta Kaufmann & Pilliod 2005, especially pp. 1-8; and DaCosta Kaufmann 2007b. 9 P. P. Rubens Palazzi di Genova, Antwerp 1622, I; this text is tellingly cited by Krista De Jonge in her ‘Inleiding’ in De Jonge, De Vos & Snaet 2000, p. 7. See also Part Two, Chapter III.

10

For Vasari’s treatment of foreign artists, see Bonsanti 1976. For Vredeman de Vries, see Architectura 1577, fol. 2r; for De Bray see Architectura Moderna 1631, Introduction. See also Part Two, Chapter II. 11 Summerson 1966. 12 Gombrich 1971, pp. 122-128. 13 Zerner 1996. 14 Summerson 1977.

341

Epilogue

339. Prague, window of the Vladislav hall on the Hradcin, 1490-1502.

338. Cracow, Sigismund Chapel cathedral, architecture by Berecci; sculpture by Padovani, 1519-1528.

Bohemia) also starts with the first signs of Italianism in Russia, Hungary, Poland and Bohemia.15 In a book on art and architecture in Central Europe from 1450 to 1800 (including Germany and Austria in addition to the places mentioned by Białostocki), the present author has also taken the response to the classical tradition, to humanism and the Italian Renaissance, as a basic benchmark or touchstone for considering artistic developments.16 This approach can be justified because of the historical circumstances in which Renaissance architecture (and art) first appeared. The present book suggests that the new style, which may be related to the Renaissance, came to the Low Countries in association with the courts around 1530. Yet a similar pattern can again be observed in many other places, at a variety of times. The transmutation of the arts in almost every country in Europe may be associated with courts, for it was at the courts (and at residences of aristocrats who were also courtiers) that the forms, and also the content that evoke the antique in building, ornament, and sculpture (and to a lesser extent, painting) first appeared, based on or connected with the example of what had been designed earlier in Italy. Białostocki expressed what happened quite well when he said that the Renaissance came to Eastern Europe as a royal fancy. Except for some isolated instances in France, it first arrived from Italy at the Eastern European (and Central European) courts, even antedating its appearance in some Italian cities. In Hungary Matthias Corvinus, who ruled from 1458, rebuilt the Buda castle with a series of superimposed arcades, although the ensuing wars with the Turks have left only fragments. The remains in Hungary of this splendid Italianate culture are therefore easier to discern in some extant sculpture, and in manuscripts. A later architectural example, associated with a courtier, is the splendid chapel built by Florentines in the early sixteenth century for Tamás Bakócz in the cathedral of Esztergom. In Poland, ruled by members of the Jagellonian dynasty who were also the successors of Corvinus in Hungary, 15

Białostocki 1976.

342

16

DaCosta Kaufmann 1995a.

Epilogue

340. La Calahorra, courtyard, c. 1510.

341. Murcia, cathedral, capilla de Los Vélez, 14911507.

traces of the Renaissance appear first in works we know were made by Florentines for tombs of the king in Kraków Cathedral, and the Sigismund Chapel in the Wawel Cathedral. In Bohemia proper (as distinct from Moravia, which was for a time ruled by Hungary), the first signs of the Renaissance appear in the windows of the Vladislav Hall of the Prague castle.17 In France some quattrocento monuments are associated with King René of Anjou, and the first important tomb monuments, followed by châteaux revealing Renaissance motifs, are again associated with royalty in Brittany and France.18 In England, the tombs of Catharine of Aragon and Henry VII by the Florentine Pietro Torrigiani, and sculpture and architecture at the royal palaces associated with Henry VIII and his minister, Wolsey – the palaces of Richmond, Nonesuch, Hampton Court, and elsewhere – speak, at least in part, of a familiarity with Italians, and in some instances, as in the relief sculpture of Hampton Court, of the actual presence of Florentines.19 In Spain, except for the remarkable courtyard in La Calahorra, which was shipped over from Genoa to be reassembled in Andalusia, and the façade of Murcia Cathedral, where a Florentine intervened, the first important signs of the Renaissance are again the royal tombs in Granada, designed by Italians and by Spaniards who were familiar with them, and the palace of Charles V, designed by Pedro 17

See in general for these points, Białostocki 1976 and Wetter 2004. 18 Zerner 1996. 19 An older introduction to this subject in regard to British architecture is provided by Summerson 1977 (1st ed. 1953); while there is an increasing amount of newer work on the

subject, no complete new overview has yet been published. Study of British sculpture of the period is even more badly in need of a new survey, as the comparable volume to Summerson’s, Whinney 1964 [Pelican History of Art] was never revised; see however Llewellyn 2000.

343

Epilogue Machuca, a Spaniard who had been to Rome.20 In Sweden, the first royal residences built in a Renaissance style, such as the one at Kalmar, were again the work of Italians, this time from the north.21 And the residences of many smaller German princes, such as Landshut in Bavaria, with its recollections of Mantua, also point to knowledge of Italian Renaissance sources, if not indeed directly to the hand or designs of Italian artists and artisans.22 Apart from the apparent stylistic differences that seem to be expressed in many European countries, similar tendencies in thinking about architecture can also be found in theoretical tracts on art and architecture throughout Europe. For example, during the sixteenth and 342. Landshut, Stadtresidenz, Italienischer Bau, 1537. seventeenth centuries an interest in Vitruvian theory, which has been noted as characteristic of both the Southern and Northern Low Countries, was a European-wide phenomenon. The ­rediscovery of Vitruvius, both in Latin, (his text became widely available in Latin editions starting in 1486), and then in translation into various languages, took effect first in Italy, and is most famously represented in the interpretations by such figures as Palladio and Serlio. But Palladio, Serlio, and Da­niele Barbaro had their equivalents (and later their interpreters) in many places elsewhere in Europe. In Spain the Medidas del Romano of Diego de Sagredo represents an early attempt to apply the classical orders to local circumstances, as do the writings of the important architect Rodrigo Gil de Hontañón who, moreover, worked at times with problems of vaulting. In the sixteenth century Vitruvius was translated into German and also adapted and commented on in another work by Walther Rivius, and he was edited numerous times in France.23 Most notable is the commentary by Guillaume Philandrier, who also adapted ‘Vitruvian’ forms to a Gothic tradition in the cathedral at Rodez.24 Furthermore, by the end of the sixteenth century and on into the seventeenth, the Italian interpreters of Vitruvius had also come to enjoy a European-wide reception, so that, as is well known from the Dutch example, one may speak of Northern Palladianism. As exhibitions have also demonstrated, Northern Palladianism is another widespread phenomenon, found not only in England, but also in many other lands.25 Yet, as editions of Serlio’s work by Pieter Coecke van Aelst and Vredeman de Vries26 suggest, one may also speak of Northern Serlianism. The impact of Serlio is equally widespread, as is evident in Poland. As Jerzy Kowalczyk has demonstrated, Italian architectural treatises, chiefly that of Serlio, were important in Poland, where his ideas were used in projects such as the design of the city of Zamo´sc´ .27 Far away from Poland, Serlio was also an important architectural influence in a completely different region: in what was known as Upper Peru (now Ecuador), a design by Serlio found in a publication of his work is replicated in the stairway leading up to the entry of the Franciscan church in Quito.28 20 For the Spanish situation in sculpture and architecture see in general Checa 1983 and Nieto, Morales & Checa 1993; for Granada see Rosenthal 1985; for the importation of Italian marbles in Spain, see further pages 75-76. 21 The Swedish examples are discussed by Larsson 1997. 22 Forster 1989. 23 The most comprehensive overview with an introduction to this literature is Kruft 1994.

344

24

For Philandrier see most thoroughly Lemerle 2000. Bracker 1997, and Vicenza 1999. 26 For Coecke van Aelst and Vredeman, see Part One, Chapter II. See further for Vredeman Antwerp 2002. 27 Kowalczyk 1973. 28 See Gutierrez 1992, pp. 52-53. 25

Epilogue Hence tendencies revealing the impact of Italianate forms and ideas are to be found expressed in buildings throughout Europe from the sixteenth century onward. Centrally planned churches (and other buildings) were not only produced in the Low Countries, both north and south, but also featured in many other European lands during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Nor did religious divisions limit the spread of such forms. The centrally planned church was a favoured design of the French Huguenots.29 This type of church was also favoured by Calvinists in Brandenburg.30 Less familiar perhaps is the predilection for centrally planned buildings in the Czech lands, where they were used by different faiths. One example is the oval Vlášská Kaple in Prague, for the Italian (Catholic) community; synagogues also employ this type.31 Finally, similar points can be made about architecture at the end of the period under discussion. Similar comparisons can be made about the arts and architecture throughout Europe in the period c. 1700, where forms can again be related to the classical tradition, even if on an entirely different scale, and for a different purpose.32 Much as in preceding centuries, the competition between rulers in many parts of Europe also made a mark on the arts at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century. From Portugal to St. Petersburg, from Scandinavia to Sicily, tremendous palaces, castles and villas were erected or enlarged. Gardens, fountains, statues and orangeries adorned their grounds; picture galleries, porcelain cabinets and splendid chapels decorated their interiors. Versailles and Vienna were only two of the models – the Low Countries supplied others – that led to the creation of an architecture that was specifically associated with the concept of grandeur (grandezza), leading to what may be called a theatre of magnificence.33 Although some of these examples may be familiar, the inferences to be made from them are more than merely trivial. First, the observation of series of phenomena which may be compared with one another throughout the period, and the possibility of relating these phenomena to common stimuli, such as responses to the classical tradition, gives the lie to an argument that stylistic, formal, or functional change in any particular land can be treated simply as an independent or autochthonous development. The evidence against autochthonous developments can be brought to bear to contradict the thesis that stylistic change, or any other sort of cultural invention, occurs independently in different cultures: that major culture change occurs within a community without contact with those outside. Thus one interpretive tendency can be rejected. This is the undeniable temptation, perhaps a response to the mass of data that it might otherwise seem necessary to master, to eschew any larger generalization, and to focus exclusively on indigenous developments, and the overwhelming importance of the local. To be sure, taking the whole picture into consideration might seem to blur the focus on particular cultural or artistic differences that one might want to emphasize. But cultural differences, ‘forms of cultural identity’ as the introduction to this volume has put it, can really only be clearly defined when seen against something else, when contrasted within a larger scheme. If, however, particularistic or national histories of art be eschewed, what other models exist to replace them? Art and architectural history have, of course, long operated with a number of concepts that suggest some answers. If, like other forms of culture, artistic forms and ideas do not arise independently, then it may be possible to trace them back to the source of their invention. Hence, on the one hand arises the question of source, and on the other, the question of the spread or adaptation of forms or ideas. Among the answers to the question of invention, art historians have developed the concept of artistic genius: artistic inventions are attributed to a genius such as Michelangelo, and are then seen to have spread throughout the world. This thesis is still consciously or unconsciously embodied in many

29

Guicharnaud 1999. Schönfeld 1999. 31 Krčálová 1976. 30

32 See Ottenheym 2005a and Ottenheym 2005b with other essays in the volume providing further context for this discussion. 33 DaCosta Kaufmann 1999.

345

Epilogue arguments, even when the specific term ‘genius’ is not used, as for example when one talks about Michelangelesque ideas being adapted in Francart’s architectural treatise.34 One may therefore seem to be attributing the origins of forms to the ideas of an original, inventive genius. When coupled with the tendency to generalize in nationalist terms, this sort of argument gave licence to the thesis that national genius expressed itself in the arts, and that its routes could also be traced. Such a thesis is reflected in the title of a series of books, Il genio italiano all’estero, which were produced from the 1930s until the 1960s. With regard to the history of the Renaissance, one could talk about the spread of Italianate ideas – as defined in relation to classical forms and ideas – as the dissemination of ideas from Italy: the product of Italian genius. As a similar problem regarding Italian sculpture and sculptors outside Italy indicates, this approach is inadequate. It ignores instances in which local artists or architects, with no direct knowledge of Italy or Italian sources, employed forms that were related to those found there. It also ignores the importance of artists and architects in Italy who were foreign-born or of foreign descent. Yet Lambert and Frederik Sustris, Giambologna, and François Duquesnoy argue equally for the presence of Netherlandish genius in Italy.35 Discussion of the spread of artistic forms and ideas has often resorted to another well-worn notion, that of influence. Forms and contents are accordingly described as if they flowed from one area to another. Whereas art historians often fall back on this notion as an ultimate form to explain change, influence may nevertheless seem quite vague and insubstantial. Discussions of ‘influence’ may nevertheless be related to another concept that is still frequently employed in cultural anthropology and geography: the concept of cultural diffusion. According to the theory of diffusion, or ‘diffusionism’, culture change is “the result of a process in which the idea or its material effect (such as a tool, an art style, etc.) came into the community, in some part of the landscape”.36 In an essay published almost three decades ago, Earl Rosenthal in fact already specifically invoked the concept of diffusion in order to counter the thesis that the Renaissance style had a panEuropean or pluralistic genesis. Rosenthal presented evidence for the activity of Italians outside Italy, and of ‘aliens’ who emulated Italian art, in the media of architecture, painting, and sculpture. He charted these occurrences against artistic genres, social classes, and nationalities of artists. Speaking about themes that have also been stressed in this present project, Rosenthal argued that princes and seigniors were the primary patrons of these changes, and that the genres they commissioned in the ‘new style’ of the Renaissance were sought for symbolic reasons. Rosenthal also suggested that what took place was a form of social group diffusion, involving patrons who were of a common supra-national governing class that “had regular channels of communication through diplomacy, war, and also intermarriage”.37 As opposed to cultural difference, the theory of diffusion accounts for some of the similarities in form, function, and theory already noted. But a stress on diffusion may lead onto a theory of diffusionism, according to which art and ideas emanate from a centre. Rosenthal for one specifically seems to have adhered to this belief: he argued, for instance, that in painting as well as in sculpture and architecture, ideas formulated in Florence were spread to secondary centres in Italy, and then to tertiary centres abroad. The theory of diffusionism thus posits the existence of a relation between centre and periphery or province. In this regard it resembles similar theories of economic development and relationships. But this sort of theory, whether applied to the arts or to other aspects of society or economy, encounters numerous problems. When calling attention to the usefulness of theories of cultural diffusion for stud-

34

For which see most completely De Vos 1998b. For the discussion in these paragraphs, see more fully DaCosta Kaufmann 1995, revised in DaCosta Kaufmann 2004b, pp. 187-216; relevant to the importance of Netherlanders abroad are also ibidem, pp. 114-135. 35

346

36

Properly speaking, this is the theory of diffusionism: see Blaut 1993, p. 11. 37 Rosenthal 1978.

Epilogue ies of Spanish art, one scholar has pointed out that ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’ carry the connotations of ‘original’ and ‘derivative’.38 Moreover, in the Early Modern era, several regions, and most conspicuously several northern cities: Paris, Antwerp, and later Amsterdam, were hardly provincial, even in the artistic sense. They may indeed be considered to have been metropolises. In many ways, they were at least for a time as important as the smaller places in Italy from which cultural innovations were supposedly derived, and they were centres of art also, at least for a while.39 Thus, it has often seemed more productive to treat issues that have previously been handled as examples of cultural diffusion by means of the theory of acculturation. This theory was developed by anthropologists who studied situations of continuing contact between peoples of different traditions. The theory of acculturation depended initially upon a model in which one people or culture was militarily (or culturally) dominant, and it overlooked the creative role of the recipient culture – thus landing in a conundrum similar to the one already discussed. More recently, acculturation theory has been modified to allow for a more active role on the part of the recipient. Influences, it is thought, can be adapted selectively.40 In this way the theory of acculturation has also entered into some art historical discussions, and it could be applied to current questions. An example of acculturation might thus be seen in a building such as the Antwerp Town Hall, where classical orders have been applied to a traditional structure, like that encountered in many other Netherlandish cities, and selective use has been made of Italianate or classical forms, such as in the top gallery, the columns and pillars. A remaining problem is that the theory of acculturation assigns too passive a role to reception. Even in its revised form, this theory retains a model related to that of influence, and thus still largely suggests an image of a dominant donor and a passive recipient. For, by definition, acculturation assumes that there is a cultural change which occurs through one culture’s interaction with another, but in such a way that the dominant culture continues to be the one that causes this cultural change. The problem with this interpretation in relation to present concerns is clear. The foreign is valued, and the local is dismissed or downplayed. The transfer seems to be one way, with the North, or the non-Italian, always being the receiver.41 More fruitful efforts to deal with cultural transformation and differentiation as the result of a complex interchange have, however, gained ground in the past decades through an increasing emphasis placed on the role of reception, not just on production. In place of acculturation, the theory of transculturation has come into fashion. As Fernando Ortiz who coined the term believed, the prefix ‘trans’, meaning ‘across’, more adequately expressed what was involved in cultural exchange, whereby new cultural phenomena were created from contacts between cultures, than did the ‘ad’, implying movement toward, as in acculturation. In this context cultural interchange can be regarded as possibly affecting the occurrence of cultural change in a number of directions.42 This view certainly may be applied to some of the instances of cultural interchange involving Italy and the North. With regard to the arts, it does help describe such phenomena as the presence of 38

Brown 1998, p. 1. For fuller treatment of the ideas on diffusion, centres and peripheries, acculturation, and transculturation discussed in these pages, see DaCosta Kaufmann 2004b; see also Bailey 1999. 40 This idea was introduced for example in Glick & PiSunyer 1969, and has been subsequently applied elsewhere, e.g. by Brown 1998. 41 Among other things this sort of view has produced an equally strong and problematic reaction. In response to biases in favour of Italian art and its progenitors, and a historiography shaped in reference to it, it is understandable that some art historians, including those who were not 39

nationalist, might have wanted to shake off the imposition of paradigms derived from Italian art history, and to seek what was distinctive and creative in the lands they studied. This accounts in part for the approach of scholars who have sought to find criteria for the study of Northern art which did not depend on Italian models, e.g. Alpers 1983. 42 See Ortiz 1940, pp. 136, 142 and also Malinowski, ‘Introduction’, ibidem, p. xvi. This notion was approved by the anthropologist Malinowski, because according to him it avoided ethnocentric implications involved in acculturation; it better fit cultural exchanges, since these always involved both giving and receiving.

347

Epilogue Fiamminghi a Roma and, as it were, in Firenze, Napoli, Venezia and elsewhere.43 As is well known, while the Netherlanders appreciated Italians, the commissioning and collecting of works of art from Netherlandish artists and the high regard in which they were held, which in turn led to many opportunities for them to work in Italy, are phenomena that are seen from the fifteenth century onwards.44 While the concept of transculturation may be applied to the complicated process of the circulation of art and artists, it encounters difficulties when applied to specific situations. Many Northerners, having made contributions in the South, came back North to be active as architects, sculptors, and painters: these include such important figures such as Wensel Cobergher, Adriaen de Vries, and the Dutch Italianate landscape painters. Through the model of their work and success, they also affected things at home. But it is often hard to equate the terms of the exchange, or what was exchanged. For example, while Cobergher had become one of the leading painters in Naples, the works painted by him and the other Netherlanders who dominated the artistic scene in Naples c. 1600 are hard to distinguish from those of their Italian colleagues. However, when this multi-talented figure returned north, his artistic activity was mainly that of an architect. The churches he designed in Brussels, Antwerp, and in Scherpenheuvel can be examined for their Italian traits.45 Hence other terms are needed to describe how the Renaissance was assimilated, absorbed, reworked, domesticated, and transformed, both inside and outside of Italy.46 Some terms may be appropriated from other discourses, especially from colonial and post-colonial studies, where they have been raised in regard to questions of cultural exchange. Some such notions are misinterpretation, mimicry, multiplication, and hybridity.47 For many reasons, however, similar to those discussed previously, many of these terms do not seem appropriate, or entirely fortunate in their choice. Misinterpretation and mimicry most evidently carry negative overtones; hybridity, too, also relies on questionable assumptions. Among them, it relies on the implicit assumption that some authentic local stock exists (for example, that there is something essentially or eternally Netherlandish, on which something else is grafted, or with which it is combined, so that a hybrid results). Although in colonial studies hybrids may be seen as something positive, in the way the term has been applied to the European Renaissance, indeed specifically in relation to Netherlanders who used Italian forms, hybridity has been regarded as a cause of the second-rate.48 Another way of regarding these questions is suggested by Netherlandish writers themselves. Rather than thinking about misinterpretation, one might think of ‘reinterpretation’, and rather than misunderstanding, one might examine where forms were in fact understood, but intentionally used in different manners, thus adapted and transformed according to local tastes. According to Vredeman de Vries, Italy supplied models derived from Antiquity, but in Italy these had been seen in the Italian manner and custom according to the character of the land, whereas in the Netherlands other conditions prevailed. As Vredeman de Vries put it, in great mercantile cities space was limited and expensive, so it was necessary to build upwards, to have a façade, and to seek light from above. For Vredeman, the Netherlands had also had many architects who had known how to create the greatest commoditas according to the occasion: they had known how to accommodate their buildings to the circumstances of the character and custom of the land, something that had never been necessary for the ancients. And so ‘modern’ forms of ornament had also arisen, on outstandingly decorated portals, for instance, which are also in good ‘ordinance’.49 43

I am alluding to the exhibition held in Brussels and Rome Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608. Artistes des Pays-Bas et de la Principauté de Liège à Rome à la Renaissance (Brussels/Rome 1995). 44 See for the fifteenth century Nuttall 2004, and Belozerskaya 2002. 45 See especially Meganck 1998b. 46 For this litany of terms see Burke 1989, p. 28.

348

47

See for convenient definitions of these terms Loomba 1998. 48 As suggested for example by Baxandall 1980, p. 216. See however for a discussion of the varieties of this term Burke 2003. The issues argued in these paragraphs are reconsidered in relation to the issue of cultural transfer in DaCosta Kaufmann 2006a. 49 Architectura 1577, fol. 2r. See also Part Two, Chapter II.

Epilogue Similarly, Salomon de Bray believed that the ancient models were to be followed according to customs and uses in the Netherlands, not just because ancient mausolea, circuses, colossea and the like were not be found in the Netherlands, but more importantly because of geographical differences. The sorts of buildings found in ancient Italy or Greece could not be borne by the weak or swampy ground of the North, where stones of sufficient size were lacking; nor could such buildings be made, due to the considerable amount they would cost. Also the many open galleries and relatively transparent buildings appropriate for the mild and warm climate of Italy were inappropriate for a clime ruled by the cold winds, rain, and snow of the North. Like Vredeman de Vries, De Bray thus adopted the Vitruvian principle, according to which the architect should pay heed to the location: he argued that the nature and climate of the land should be considered. Thus the Netherlands were free to follow the forms of the ancients in terms of decoration and “general well being”, but should not employ all their types of buildings. Instead, says De Bray, one should follow “the custom and occasion of our time”.50 The approach suggested by De Bray and by Vredeman de Vries points to another way of interpreting the questions at issue here. It indicates that painter-architects like De Bray – and Hendrick de Keyser, who was De Bray’s point of reference – were not receiving the classical heritage passively, nor were they misunderstanding it. Rather, like many other Northern architects, they were adapting ornamental forms to different purposes, places, materials, and climes. Elsewhere, Vredeman’s text has been employed to argue the case for a consideration of local customs.51 It may be added that the argument basically opens onto issues of artistic geography. According to these writers, location determines what can be, and has been, built. Moreover, De Bray clearly suggests that thinking in terms of the geography of art does not necessarily mean thinking in terms of geographical determinism. Artists and architects can choose their means. However, as both Vredeman de Vries and De Bray suggest, there may be givens and patterns imposed. These are matters of economics, society, and of location, climate, and material. Some of these issues, including questions of anthropological and social modelling, have been discussed in this essay. But other questions that have been suggested by these theorists also call for examination. Further attention needs to be given to questions of materials, forms, functions, and adaptations. These point to such characteristic Northern (Netherlandish) features as the use of particular materials. In the absence of stone, these include brick, both in the North and South. But they also include other substances, such as Mechelen alabaster, for trim and sculpture, or ‘Belgian’ black and red marbles. And, as suggested, because of limited space, buildings tend to rise rather than widen; gables are placed at an angle to the street, rather than alongside it, and even though galleries may be present, such as on the town hall in Antwerp, they are dwarfed. Gardens may be created, but arcades seem rare. Much wood appears. None of these forms or materials, which are related to climate and location, is exclusive to the Low Countries, but the way they are combined may help us to determine what is specific about Netherlandish art. These are, of course, not original observations. But that does not mean that they do not deserve renewed attention, especially when taken into account with other conditions and factors.52 The adaptation of the international classical language of architecture, the Grundbass of this volume, may be understood in relation to such geographical particularities. Avoiding the traps of determinism, and keeping in mind questions of exchange and interaction, one may thus come to the conclusion that these may be considered to be geographical questions. For in the end the question of what is specific about Northern or Southern Netherlandish architecture is a geographical one.53

50

Architectura Moderna 1631, especially p. 11. See Part Two, Chapter I. 52 These points are emphasized in the DaCosta Kaufmann 2004b. 53 The arguments first outlined here have been expanded by the author in 2004 (DaCosta Kaufmann 2004b), and 51

also touched upon in several papers related to the artistic geography of the Baltic, and its historiography: DaCosta Kaufmann 2003; DaCosta Kaufmann 2004a; DaCosta Kaufmann 2006b; DaCosta Kaufmann 2007a.

349

List of Abbreviations used in the footnotes

AEM AGS ARAB AVJH BGL BNP CBIBL GAA GAD GAH GAL HAB HUA KBB KBDH LB UU NADH ÖNB RACM SAA SAB SAG SAM SHAT UBG

Archives de l’Etat, Mons Archivo General de Simancas Algemeen Rijksarchief, Brussels Archief van de Vlaamse Jezuïeten, Heverlee Bibliotheek Godgeleerdheid, Universiteit Leuven Bibliothèque nationale, Paris Centrale Bibliotheek, Universiteit Leuven Gemeente Archief Amsterdam Gemeente Archief Dordrecht Gemeente Archief Hoorn Gemeente Archief Leiden Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel Het Utrechts Archief, Utrecht Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, Brussels Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague Letterenbibliotheek, Universiteit Utrecht Nationaal Archief, The Hague Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumentenzorg Stadsarchief, Antwerp Stadsarchief, Brussels Stadsarchief, Ghent Stadsarchief, Mechelen Service historique de l’Armée de Terre, Vincennes Universiteitsbibliotheek, Ghent

351

Bibliography

Works Abraham Ortelius 1998 R.W. Karrow et al., Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598), cartograaf en humanist, Turnhout 1998. Abrahamse 2004 J.E. Abrahamse, ‘Over schoonheid, nut en geld. Motieven in de 17e-eeuwse stadsontwikkeling van Amsterdam’, in: R.M. van Heeringen, E.H.P. Cordfunke et al., Geordend Landschap. 3000 Jaar ruimtelijke ordening in Nederland, Hilversum 2004, 103-124. Ackerman 1949 J.S. Ackerman, ‘ “Ars sine Scientia Nihil Est”. Gothic Theory of Architecture at the Cathedral of Milan’, Art Bulletin 31 (1949), 84-11. Adams 2002 N. Adams, ‘L’architettura militare in Italia nella prima metà del Cinquecento’, in: A. Bruschi (ed.), Storia dell’architettura italiana. Il primo Cinquecento, Milan 2002, 546-561. Adorni 1982 B. Adorni, L’architettura Farnesiana a Piacenza, Parma 1982. Adriaenssens 1980 R. 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.

Albrecht 1995 U. Albrecht, Der Adelssitz im Mittelalter. Studien zum Verhältnis von Architektur und Lebensform in Nord- und Westeuropa, Munich/Berlin 1995. Albrecht 1998 U. Albrecht, ‘Fürstliche Mausoleen und Grabmäler der Renaissance in Norddeutschland und Dänemark’, in: L. Unbehaun (ed.), Die Künste und das Schloß in der frühen Neuzeit, (Rudolstädter Forschungen zur Re­sidenzkultur, I), Munich/Berlin 1998, 111-130. Albrecht 2003 U. Albrecht, ‘Le début de la Renaissance en Allemagne du Nord’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), L’invention de la Renaissance. La réception des formes “à l’antique” au début de la Renaissance, (De Architectura, 9), Paris 2003, 67-78. Alpers 1983 S. Alpers, The Art of Describing, Chicago/London 1983. Altringer 1998-1999 L. Altringer, ‘Hadrian VI.’, in: Bonn 1998-1999, 4754. Ampzing 1628 Samuel Ampzing, Beschryvinge ende Lof der stad Haerlem in Holland: in Rym bearbeyd: ende met veele oude ende nieu­ we stucken buyten Dicht uyt verscheyde Kronyken, Hand­ vesten, Brieven, Memorien ofte Geheugeniszen, ende dierge­ lyke Schriften verklaerd, ende bevestigd, Haarlem 1628.

Adriaenssens 1981 R. Adriaenssens, ‘Tot Cieraet deser Stadt’, Volkskunde 82 (1981), 313-324.

Anderson 1997 C. Anderson, ‘Masculine and Unaffected. Inigo Jones and the Classical Ideal’, Art Journal 56 (1997) 2, summer, 48-54.

Aerts & Van Langendonck 1989 W. Aerts, L. Van Langendonck et al., De restauratie van de Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekathedraal te Antwerpen 19651983. 1984-1989, Antwerp 1989.

Anderson 2000 C. Anderson, ‘Monstrous Babels. Language and Architectural Style in the English Renaissance’, in: Clarke & Crossley 2000, 148-161.

van Agt 1974 J.F. van Agt, Synagogen in Amsterdam, The Hague 1974.

Anglo 1973 S. Anglo (ed.), La trymphante entrée de Charles prince des Espagnes en Bruges 1515, (Renaissance Triumphs), Amsterdam/New York 1973.

Albèri 1839-1863 E. Albèri (ed.), Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Se­ nato, Ser. I, Relazioni degli stati europei, tranne l’Italia, Florence 1839-1863.

Antique edificien 1546 Pieter Coecke van Aelst (ed.), Die aldervermaert­ ste Antique edificien va[n] temple[n]/ theatre[n]/

353

Bibliography amphiteatre[n]/ paleisen/ therme[n]/ obelisce[n]/ brugge[n]/ arche[n] triu[m]phal. etc. bescreve[n] en[de] gefigureert met haren gronde[n] en[de] mate[n] oock de plaetsen daerse staen en[de] wiese dede make[n], Antwerp 1546.

Balis 1993 A. Balis, ‘Antwerpen, voedster der kunsten: haar bijdrage tot de artistieke cultuur van Europa in de 17de eeuw’, in: Antwerpen 1993, 115-127.

Architectura 1577 Hans Vredeman de Vries, Architectura Oder Bauung der Antiquen auss dem Vitruuius, woellches sein funff Col­ lummen orden, daer auss mann alle Landts gebreuch vonn Bauuen zu accomodieren dienstlich fur alle Bawmaystren Maurer, Stainmetzlen, Schreineren Bildtschneidren, und alle Liebhabernn der Architecturen…, Antwerp 1577.

Baguet 1985 L. Baguet, Historique des carrières d’Ecaussinnes, (Anna­ les du Cercle Archéologique du Canton de Soignies 31 [1985]), Soignies 1985.

Architectura Moderna 1631 Salomon de Bray, Architectura Moderna ofte Bouwinge van onsen tyt. Bestaende in verscheyde soorten van gebouwen zoo gemene als bysondere, als Kercken, Toornen, Raedhuyse, Poorten, huyse, Graven, en dergelyke gestichten, staende soo binnen dese stat Amsteldam als elders, alle Gedaen by den zeervermaerde en vernufte Mr. Hendrick de Keyser, Beeltthouwer en Bouwmeester der stat Amsterdam, en in weesen gebracht by den zeer ervaren Cornelis Danckerts, Mr. Metselaer en Bouwmeester der voors. Stadt. Met een Byvoegsell van eenige wercken en gestichten van verscheyde andere Meesters deses tegenwoordigen tyts, ed. C. Dan­ ckerts van Sevenhoven, Amsterdam 1631. Asaert 2004 G. Asaert, 1585. De val van Antwerpen en de uittocht van Vlamingen en Brabanders, Tielt 2004. Avery 1969 C. Avery, ‘The Rood-Loft from Hertogenbosch’, Victoria and Albert Museum Yearbook 1 (1969), 1-27. Baalman 1991 D. Baalman, ‘Neerlands eerste hoogleraar bouwkunde: Eugen Gugel’, De Sluitsteen 7 (1991) 2-3, 43-66. Baelde 1968 M. Baelde, ‘Keizer Karel en de opbouw van de St.Baafskerk te Gent’, in: Miscellanea Jozef Duverger. Bij­ dragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden II, Ghent 1968, 604-613. Baetens 1976 R. Baetens, De nazomer van Antwerpens welvaart. De diaspora en het handelshuis De Groote tijdens de eerste helft der 17de eeuw, (Pro Civitate, Historische Uitgaven van het Gemeentekrediet, ser. in-8°, 45), Brussels 1976. Bailey 1999 G.A. Bailey, Art on the Jesuit Missions in Asia and Latin America 1542-1773, Toronto 1999. Bailleul et al. 1975 B. Baillieul, G. Milis-Proost, M.C. Laleman & F. Dambre-Van Tyghem, ‘Stadsontwikkeling en architectuur’, in: Ghent 1975, vol. I, 1-155.

354

van Balen 1930 C.L. van Balen, De Blijde Inkomst der Renaissance in de Nederlanden, Leiden 1930. Banz 2000a C. Banz, Höfisches Mäzenatentum in Brüssel. Kardi­ nal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (1517-1586) und die Erzherzöge Albrecht (1559-1621) und Isabella (15661633), (Berliner Schriften zur Kunst, XII), Berlin 2000. Banz 2000b C. Banz, ‘Zwischen Repräsentation und Humanismus – Zu Funktion und Anspruch von Granvelles Mäzenatentum’, in: K. De Jonge & G. Janssens (eds.), Les Granvelle et les anciens Pays-Bas, (Symbolae Fa­ cultatis Litterarum Lovaniensis, series B, 17), Leuven 2000, 389-409. Barbeito 1992 J.M. Barbeito, El Alcázar de Madrid, Madrid 1992. Barbeito 1998 J.M. Barbeito, ‘Felipe II y la arquitectura. Los años de juventud’, in: Madrid 1998-1999, 83-103. Barbet 1633 (1972) J. Barbet, Livre d’Architecture d’Autels et de Cheminees, Paris 1633 (fac.sim. ed. Th. Besterman 1972). Barends 1996 F. Barends, Geloven in de schaduw. Schuilkerken in Amsterdam, Ghent 1996. Barry 1995 F. Barry, ‘I marmi loquaci: Painting in Stone’, Daidalos 56 (1995), 106-121. Bartetzky 2000 A. Bartetzky, Das Große Zeughaus in Danzig. Bau­ geschichte, Architekturgeschichtliche Stellung, Repräsentative Funktion, (Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Mitteleuropa, 9), 2 vols., Stuttgart 2000. Bartetzky 2005 A. Bartetzky, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries’ geschweifte Beschlagwerkgiebel. Zu ihrer Herkunft, Aneignung und Verbreitung in der Architektur Mittel- und Nord­ europas’, in: Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005, 75-82.

Bibliography Battard 1948 M. Battard, Beffrois, halles, hôtels de ville dans le Nord de la France et la Belgique, (Commission départementale des monuments historiques du Pas-de-Calais, Etudes historiques, II), Arras 1948. Bayard 1923 E. Bayard, Les styles Flamands et Hollandais, (L’art de reconnaître les styles), Paris 1923.

Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten, 49), Brussels 1990. Becker 1999 J. Becker, ‘Ketters in de kunst. Nederlandse kunst als afwijking van de regel’, in: H. Hendrix & T. Hoenselaars (eds.), Vreemd volk. Beeldvorming over buitenlanders in de vroegmoderne tijd, (Utrecht Renaissance Studies, IV), Amsterdam 1999, 21-54.

Baudouin 1977 F. Baudouin, Pietro Pauolo Rubens, Antwerp 1977.

Becker 2002 J. Becker, ‘ “Greater than Zeuxis and Apelles”: Artists as Arguments in the Antwerp Entry of 1549’, in: J.R. Mulryne & E. Goldring (eds.), Court Festivals of the European Renaissance. Art, Politics and Performance, Aldershot/Burlington 2002, 171-195.

Baudouin 2002 F. Baudouin, ‘Peter Paul Rubens and the Notion “Painter-Architect” ’, in: Lombaerde 2002b, 15-36.

van Beek-Mulder & Polman 1993 I. van Beek-Mulder & M. Polman, De hallen van Haar­ lem, Zwolle 1993.

Baudouin 2005 F. Baudouin, ‘Rubens en de keizersbeelden in de galerij van het paleis op de Coudenberg te Brussel’, in: A. Balis, P. Huvenne, J. Lambrecht & Ch. Van Mulders (eds.), Florissant. Bijdragen tot de kunstgeschie­ denis der Nederlanden (15de-17de eeuw). Liber Amicorum Carl Van de Velde, Brussels 2005, 335-346.

Beelaerts van Blokland 1931 W.A. Beelaerts van Blokland, ‘Alexander Pasqualini, bouwmeester van het kasteel te Buren en andere sloten, krijgs- en vestingbouwkundige van naam’, Gelre. Bijdragen en mededeelingen 34 (1931), 154-168.

Baudouin 1972 F. Baudouin, Rubens en de Antwerpse jezuïetenkerk, Antwerp 1972.

Baxandall 1980 M. Baxandall, The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany, New Haven/London 1980. BDEH 3na S. Van Aerschot (ed.), Bouwen door de eeuwen heen. Inventaris van het cultuurbezit in België. Architectuur. Deel 3na Stad Antwerpen, Ghent 1976. BDEH 4na S. Van Aerschot-Van Haverbeeck (ed.), Bouwen door de eeuwen heen. Inventaris van het cultuurbezit in België. Architectuur. Deel 4na Stad Gent, Ghent 1976. BDEH 9n S. Van Aerschot-Van Haverbeeck (ed.), Bouwen door de eeuwen heen. Inventaris van het cultuurbezit in België. Architectuur. Deel 9n Stad Mechelen. Binnenstad, Ghent 1984. BDEHB S. Van Aerschot-Van Haeverbeeck (ed.), Bouwen door de eeuwen heen in Brussel. Inventaris van het cultuurbezit in België. Architectuur. Deel Brussel, 1A-1C. Stad Brussel. Binnenstad, 3 vols., Liège 1989-1994. Becker 1990 U. Becker, Studien zum flämischen Altarbau im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone

de Beer 1948 E.S. de Beer, ‘Gothic: Origin and Diffusion of the Term. The Idea of Style in Architecture’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 11 (1948), 143-162. Béguin 1975 S. Béguin, ‘Remarques sur la chambre du Roi’, in: A. Chastel (ed.), Actes du colloque international sur l’art de Fontainebleau, Paris 1975, 199-231. Béguin 1997 S. Béguin, ‘Quelques remarques à propos des échan­ ges entre la Flandre, Rome, Fontainebleau et Paris’, in: Dacos 1997, 231-246. Beheydt 2002 L. Beheydt, Eén en toch apart: kunst en cultuur van de Nederlanden, Leuven 2002. Bellarminus 1588-1593 Robertus Bellarminus, De Controversiis Christianæ fidei, adversus huius temporis hæreticos, Ingolstadt 15881593. Belozerskaya 2002 M.G. Belozerskaya, Rethinking the Renaissance: Burgun­ dian Arts across Europe, Cambridge/New York 2002. Benedetti 2001 S. Benedetti, ‘L’avvio pauperista alla prima stagione dell’architettura gesuitica’, in: G. Sale et al., Pauperismo architettonico e architettura gesuitica. Dalla chiesa ad aula al Gesù di Roma, Milan 2001, 9-20.

355

Bibliography Berckmans 1977, 1979 O. Berckmans, ‘Mariembourg et Philippeville, villes neuves et fortes de la Renaissance’, Bulletin de la Commission royale des monuments et des sites, new ser. 6 (1977), 67-85; 8 (1979), 109-138. van de Berg 1979 R. van de Berg, Leerdam in de gouden eeuw, Ameide 1979. Bergé 1990 W. Bergé, ‘Het voormalige hoogaltaar in de Sint Jan’, in: A.M. Koldewey (ed.), In Buscoducis, bijdragen, Maarssen 1990, 439-463. van Berkel 1985 K. van Berkel, In het voetspoor van Stevin. Geschiedenis van de natuurwetenschappen in Nederland 1580-1940, Meppel 1985. Berleur & Vanden Bemden 1991 J. Berleur & Y. Vanden Bemden (eds.), Les jésuites à Namur 1610-1773: mélanges d’histoire et d’art à l’occasion des anniversaires ignatiens, Namur 1991. Bers 1999 G. Bers, ‘Alessandro Pasqualini und der Wiederaufbau des “Groβen Turms” im herzoglichen Schloss zu Kaster (1553ff.)’, Neue Beiträge zur Jülicher Geschichte 10 (1999), 191-201.

Białostocki 1976 J. Białostocki, The Art of the Renaissance in Eastern Europe. Hungary. Bohemia. Poland, Oxford/Ithaca 1976. Bierens de Haan 1921 D. Bierens de Haan, Het houtsnijwerk in Nederland tijdens de Gothiek en de Renaissance, The Hague 1921. Blaeu 1649 Joan Blaeu & Nicholas Blaeu, Novum ac magnum theat­ rum urbium Belgicæ fœderate, Amsterdam 1649. Blankert 1995 A. Blankert, ‘De Dageraad van de Gouden Eeuw’, Art Bulletin 77 (1995) 1, 145-148. Blaut 1993 J. M. Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World. Geo­ graphical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History, New York/London 1993. Bloemink et al. 2003 W. Bloemink, N. Herweijer, H. Nalis & R. Stenvert, De Waag in Deventer. 475 Jaar geschiedenis, Zutphen 2003. Bloemink & Roetert Steenbruggen 1991 W. Bloemink & H.A.J. Roetert Steenbruggen, ‘De Noordenberg­toren’, Deventer Jaarboek (1991), 35-55.

Bers & Doose 1994 G. Bers & C. Doose (eds.), Der italienische Architekt Alessandro Pasqualini (1493-1559) und die Renaissance am Niederrhein: Kenntnisstand und Forschungsperspe­ ktiven, Jülich 1994.

van der Blom 1995 A. van der Blom, Lieven de Key. Haarlems stadsbouw­ meester. Een Vlaams emigrant en zijn rijke nalatenschap, Haarlem 1995.

Bers & Doose 1999 G. Bers & C. Doose (eds.), Italienische Renaissance­ baukunst an Schelde, Maas und Niederrhein. Stadtanlagen – Zivilbauten – Wehranlagen, Jülich 1999.

Blom, Bruin & Ottenheym 1999 F.R.E. Blom, H.G. Bruin & K.A. Ottenheym, Domus. Het huis van Constantijn Huygens in Den Haag, Zutphen 1999.

Bertels, Callens & Fredricx 2000 I. Bertels, K. Callens & D. Fredricx, ‘…omnia excedit ingenia ingenium Marianum archiducis. De Onze-LieveVrouwkapel van de Sint-Michielskerk te Brussel’, in: De Jonge, De Vos & Snaet 2000, 161-173.

Blunt 1962 (1994) A. Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy 1450-1600, Oxford 1994 (1st ed. 1962).

Bertini 1997 G. Bertini, Le nozze di Alessandro Farnese. Feste alle corti di Lisbona e Bruxelles, Milan 1997. Bevers 1985 H. Bevers, Das Rathaus von Antwerpen (1561-1565). Architektur und Figurenprogramm, (Studien zur Kunstgeschichte 28), Hildesheim/Zürich/New York 1985. Bezemer Sellers 2001 V. Bezemer Sellers, Courtly Gardens in Holland 16001650. The House of Orange and the Hortus Batavus, Amsterdam/Woodbridge 2001.

356

Blunt 1977 A. Blunt, ‘Rubens and Architecture’, The Burlington Magazine 119 (1977), 609-621. Bochius 1602 Joannes Bochius, Historica narratio profectionis et inaugu­ rationis serenissimorum Belgii principum Alberti et Isabellæ Antwerp 1602. Bösel 1986 R. Bösel, Jesuitenarchitektur in Italien (1540-1773). Teil I: Die Baudenkmäler der römischen und neapolitanischen Ordensprovinz, (Österreichische Akademie für Wissenschaften, Historisches Institut in Rom, Abteilung 1, Band 7), 2 vols., Wien 1986.

Bibliography Bollanus, Henschenius & Papenbrochius 1865 J. Bollanus, G. Henschenius & D. Papenbrochius, Acta Sanctorum, Martii Tomus Primis, Paris/Rome 1865. Bonke 1996 H. Bonke, De kleyne mast van de Hollandse coopsteden. Stadsontwikkeling in Rotterdam 1572-1795, Amsterdam 1996. Bonsanti 1976 G. Bonsanti, ‘Gli artisti stranieri nelle Vite del Vasari’, in: Il Vasari Storiografo ed Artista (Atti del Congresso Inter­ nazionale nel IV Centenario della Morte), Florence 1976, 717-734. van den Boogert 1992 B.C. van den Boogert, ‘Habsburgs imperialisme en de verspreiding van renaissance-vormen in de Ne­ derlanden: de vensters van Michiel Coxcie in de SintGoedele te Brussel’, Oud Holland 106 (1992), 57-79. van den Boogert 1993a B.C. van den Boogert, ‘De triomfen van de kei­zer. De verheerlijking van Karel V en de toepassing van an­ tieke motieven in de Nederlandse kunst’, in: Utrecht/ ’s-Hertogenbosch 1993, 220-268. van den Boogert 1993b B.C. van den Boogert, ‘Macht en pracht. Het mecenaat van Maria van Hongarije’, in: Utrecht/’s-Hertogenbosch 1993, 269-353. van den Boogert 1998 B. C. van den Boogert, Habsburgs hofmecenaat en de introductie van de Italiaanse Hoogrenaissance in de Lage Landen, Ph.D. dissertation, Amsterdam 1998.

Bos 2004 H. J. M. Bos, ‘Simon Stevin, wiskundige’, in: G. Vanden Berghe et al. (eds.), Simon Stevin (1548-1620). De geboorte van de nieuwe wetenschap, (Catalogus Konink­ lijke Bibliotheek van België), Turnhout 2004, 4961. Bosboom 1657 Symon Bosboom, Cort Onderwys Vande Vyf Colommen door Symon Bosboom Stadts Steen-houwer tot Amsterdam uyt den scherpsinnigen Vinsent Schamozzij getrocken en in Minuten gestelt seer gemacklich voor de jonge Leerlingen en dienstlich voor alle Ionge Liefhebbers der Bouw-Const, Amsterdam 1657. Boschma-Aarnoudse 1992 C. Boschma-Aarnoudse, Renaissance-raadhuizen boven het IJ, Zutphen 1992. Boschma-Aarnoudse et al. 1998 C. Boschma-Aarnoudse et al., Het Sint Jans Gasthuis te Hoorn. ‘Den Oudtgeworden Mensch, die men in dit huis laat woonen’, Hoorn 1998. Bosman 1998 L. Bosman, ‘De geschiedenis van de Nederlandse architectuurgeschiedenis: middeleeuwse bouwkunst’, in: P. Hecht, A. Hoogeboom & Ch. Stolwijk (eds.), Kunstgeschiedenis in Nederland, Amsterdam 1998, 6387. Boudon 1988 F. Boudon, ‘Les livres d’architecture de Jacques Androuet Du Cerceau’, in: Chastel & Guillaume 1988, 367-396.

Borggrefe 2002 H. Borggrefe, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries 1526-1609’, in: Antwerp 2002, 15-38.

Boudon & Blécon 1998 F. Boudon & J. Blécon, Le château de Fontainebleau de François Ier à Henri IV. Les bâtiments et leurs fonctions, (De Architectura), Paris 1998.

Borggrefe 2005 H. Borggrefe, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries and the Conditions of Artistic Profession in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp’, in: Lombaerde 2005b, 7-14.

Bouza álvarez 2000 F. Bouza álvarez, ‘ “F”. Cultura nobiliaria y ejercicios de guerra’, in: Hernando Sánchez 2000, 94-115.

Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005 H. Borggrefe & V. Lüpkes (eds.), Hans Vredeman de Vries und die Folgen, (Studien zur Kultur der Renaissance, 3), Marburg 2005. Borromeo 1577 (1952) C. Borromeo, Arte sacra (De fabrica Ecclesiae), Milan 1577, eds. C. Castiglione & C. Marcora, Milan 1952. Borsi 1974 F. Borsi, Firenze del Cinquecento, Rome 1974.

Bracker 1997 J. Bracker (ed.), Palladio: Bauen nach der Natur. Die Erben Palladios in Nordeuropa, Ostfildern 1997. Bragard 1997-1998 Ph. Bragard, Les ingénieurs des fortifications dans les PaysBas espagnols et dans la principauté de Liège (1504-1713). Contribution à une histoire de l’architecture militaire dans l’Europe des temps modernes, Ph.D. dissertation, Louvain-la-Neuve 1997-1998. Bragard 1998 Ph. Bragard, ‘The Archducal Engineers’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 213-215.

357

Bibliography Bragard 1999 Ph. Bragard, ‘Le bossage et la fortification du XVIe siècle. Analyse de cas des anciens Pays-Bas et en principauté de Liège’, in: Bers & Doose 1999, 167-190. Bral et al. 2000 G.J. Bral et al., De kathedraal van Sint-Michiel & SintGoedele, Tielt 2000. Brants 1912 V. Brants, Recueil des ordonnances des Pays-Bas, règne d’Albert et Isabelle 1597-1621, tome deuxième conte­nant les actes du 8 mai 1609 au 14 juillet 1621, Brussels 1912. Braun 1907 J. Braun, Die belgischen Jesuitenkirchen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Kampfes zwischen Gotik und Renaissance, Freiburg im Breisgau 1907. Brenninkmeijer-de Rooij 1982 B. Brenninkmeijer-de Rooij, ‘Notities betreffende de decoratie van de Oranjezaal in Huis ten Bosch’, Oud Holland 96 (1982), 133-185. Briels 1985 J. Briels, Zuid-Nederlanders in de Republiek 1572-1630. Een demografische en cultuurhistorische studie, Sint-Niklaas 1985. Briels 1987 J. Briels, Vlaamse schilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw 1585-1630, Antwerp 1987. Briels 1997 J. Briels, Vlaamse schilders en de dageraad van Hollands Gouden eeuw 1585-1630, Antwerp 1997. Brinkhoff 1977 J.M.G.M. Brinkhoff, ‘De waag in eer hersteld’, Numa­ ga 3 (1977), september, 65-72. Brouwers 1961 L. Brouwers, Carolus Scribani S.J. Een groot man van de Contra-Reformatie in de Nederlanden, Antwerp 1961. Brown 1998 J. Brown, Painting in Spain 1500-1700, New Haven/ London, 1998. Bruchet 1922 M. Bruchet, ‘Notice sur la construction du palais Rihour à Lille’, Bulletin de la Commission historique du Département du Nord 31 (1922), 209-299. Bruin 1999 H.G. Bruin, ‘Het Plein en het Huis’, in: Blom, Bruin & Ottenheym 1999, 47-86.

358

de Bruin & Huisman 1992 C.M. de Bruin & J. Huisman, ‘Het huis Nieuwe Haven 29 en zijn bewoners tot 1864’, in: Th.E.A. Bosman et al., Leven met het verleden; gedenkboek honderd jaar ‘Oud-Dordrecht’, Dordrecht 1992, 67102. v. Büren 1995 G. v. Büren, ‘Schlosser und Bastionen – Impor­tierte Renaissance. Alessandro Pasqualini (1493-1559) Architekt und Festungsbaukundiger in Nord-West­ europa – Stand der Forschung’, Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 34 (1995), 57-79. v. Büren, Kupka & Perse 1994 G. v. Büren, A. Kupka & M. Perse, ‘Der Forschungs­ stand zu Alessandro Pasqualini und die Ergebnisse der Jubiläumausstellung im Stadtgeschichtlichen Museum Jülich’, in: Bers & Doose 1994, 142-202. Buonocore, Cassaro & Windmolders 2000 M. Buonocore, G. Cassaro & N. Windmolders, ‘De kerk van Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-ten-Troost te Vilvoorde’, in: De Jonge, De Vos & Snaet 2000, 127-159. Burke 1989 P. Burke, The Renaissance, Atlantic Highlands (N.J.) 1989. Burke 2003 P. Burke, Hibridismo cultural (trans. Leila Souza Mendes), São Leopoldo 2003. Bury 1989 J.B. Bury, ‘Serlio. Some bibliographical notes’, in: C. Thoenes (ed.), Sebastiano Serlio, Milan 1989, 92-101. Busken Huet 1879 C. Busken Huet, Het land van Rubens. Belgische reisherinneringen, Amsterdam 1879. Busken Huet 1882 C. Busken Huet, Het land van Rembrandt. Studiën over de Noordnederlandsche beschaving in de zeventiende eeuw, Amsterdam 1882. Buschman 1918 P. Buschman, ‘Het oksaal van ’s-Hertogenbosch’, Onze Kunst 17 (1918) 34, 1-35. Bustamante García 1998 A. 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. Buvelot 1995 Q. Buvelot, ‘Ontwerpen voor geschilderde decoratieprogramma’s’, in: Huisken, Ottenheym & Schwarz 1995, 121-153.

Bibliography Byrne 1973 J.S. Byrne, ‘Jacopo della Nave or Jacques Androuet Du Cerceau ?’, Metropolitan Museum Journal 7 (1973), 143-149. Byrne 1977 J.S. Byrne, ‘Een zeldzaam ornamentboekje uit het atelier van Jacques Androuet DuCerceau’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum, 25 (1977)1, 3-15. Cabanillas 1549 Hieronymo Cabanillas, Relacion muy verdadera de las grandes fiestas que la Serenissima Reyna doña Maria ha hecho al Príncipe nuestro señor en Flandes, Medina del Campo 1549. Cahn 1979 W. Cahn, ‘Towards the Enduring Monument: Nantes, Brou, Margaret of Austria’, in: Id., Masterpieces. Chap­ ters in the History of an Idea, Princeton 1979, 43-64. Calvete de Estrella 1552 Juan Cristoval Calvete de Estrella, El felicísimo viaje del (…) principe Don Phelippe, Hijo d’el Emperador Don Carlos Quinto Maximo, desde España à sus tierras de la baxa Alemana: con la descripción de todos los Estados de Brabante y Flandes, Antwerp 1552. Cámara 1998 A. Cámara, Fortificación y ciudad en los reinos de Felipe II, Madrid 1998. Cámara 2000 A. Cámara, ‘Las fortificaciones del emperador Carlos V’, in: Granada 2000a, 123-137. Calvin 1561 Johannes Calvin, Institutio christianæ religionis in libros quatuor nunc primum digesta, certisque distincta capitibus... aucta etiam tam magna accessione ut propemodum opus novum haberi possit, Johanne Calvino authore, Geneva 1561. Caracciolo 1997 M.T. Caracciolo, ‘Le voyage à Rome du temps des “Fiamminghi”: la route française et l’étape à Lyon’, in: Dacos 1997, 23-40. Caron & Clauzel 1997 M.-T. Caron & D. Clauzel (eds.), Le banquet du Fai­ san. 1454: l’Occident face au défi de l’Empire ottoman, Arras 1997.

de Carvalho-Roos 1996 R. de Carvalho-Roos, ‘Binnenhof 1A-3: van “Nieuw­ bouw” tot “Oudbouw” ’, in: P.E. Spijkerman (ed.), Tweede Kamer. Van doolhof naar eenheid, The Hague 1996, 16-49. Casteels 1961 M. 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. Cátedra 2000 P.M. Cátedra, ‘Fiestas Caballerescas en Tiempos de Carlos V’, in: Sevilla 2000, 92-117. Celis 1998 M. Celis, ‘Les sous-sols de la chapelle de CharlesQuint’, in: A. Smolar-Meynart & A. Vanrie (eds.), Le quartier royal, Brussels 1998, 115-131. Cerutti 1961 F.F.X. Cerutti, ‘Gegevens over Bredase kunst en kunstenaars in de zestiende eeuw, II’, Jaarboek van de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige Kring van Stad en Land van Breda “De Oranjeboom” 14 (1961), 17-45. Chantelou 1972 Paul Fréart de Chantelou, Journal de Voyage en France du Cavalier Bernini, New York 1972 (reprint of the 1930 edition). Chastel 1986 A. Chastel, The Palace of Apolidon, (The Zaharoff Lecture for 1984-5), Oxford 1986. Chastel 1988 A. Chastel, La Grottesque, Paris 1988. Chastel & Guillaume 1988 A. Chastel & J. Guillaume (ed.), Les traités d’architecture de la Renaissance, Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 1er au 11 juillet 1981, (De Architectura, 3), Paris 1988. Chatelain 2000 J.-M. Chatelain, ‘L’illustration d’Amadis de Gaule dans les éditions françaises du XVIe siècle’, in: Les Amadis en France au XVIe siècle, (Cahiers V.L. Saulnier, 17), Paris 2000, 41-52.

Carpo 1998 M. Carpo, L’architettura dell’età della stampa. Oralità, scrittura, libro stampato e riproduzione meccanica dell’imagine nella storia delle teorie architettoniche, Milan 1998.

Chatenet 1987 M. Chatenet, Le château de Madrid au bois de Boulogne. Sa place dans les rapports franco-italiens autour de 1530, (De Architectura), Paris 1987.

Carrillo & Pereda 2000 J. Carrillo & F. Pereda, ‘El caballero: identidad e imagen en la España imperial’, in: Granada 2000a, 183-200.

Chatenet 1991 M. Chatenet, ‘Une nouvelle “cheminée de Castille” à Madrid en France’, Revue de l’Art 91 (1991), 36-38.

359

Bibliography Chatenet 2002 M. Chatenet, ‘Francesco I architetto: i documenti’, in: Il principe architetto, Atti del convegno internazionale, Man­ tova, 21-23 ottobre 1999, Florence 2002, 533-544. Checa 1983 F. Checa, Pintura y Escultura del Renacimiento en España 1488-1599, Madrid 1983. Checa Cremades 1999 F. Checa Cremades, Carlos V. La imagen del poder en el Renacimiento, Madrid 1999. Checa Cremades 2000 F. Checa Cremades, ‘Carolus. Una imagen del Renacimiento en la Europa de la primera mitad del siglo XVI’, in: Toledo 2000-2001, 10-33. Cheyns 1979 M. Cheyns, De stadsmeesters-metsers te Leuven (14251526). Bijdrage tot de studie van een eeuw artistieke activiteit en maatschappelijk leven, 3 vols., unpublished Master’s Thesis, Leuven 1979. Chueca Goitia 1986 F. Chueca Goitia, ‘La influencia de los Países Bajos en la arquitectura española’, in: El Escorial, piedra profética, Madrid 1986, 195-215. Chipps Smith 1994 J. Chipps Smith, German Sculpture of the Later Renais­ sance c. 1520-1580. Art in an Age of Uncertainty, Princeton 1994. Ciapponi 1984 L.A. Ciapponi, ‘Fra Giocondo da Verona and his Edition of Vitruvius’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 47 (1984), 72-90. Clarke & Crossley 2000 G. Clarke & P. Crossley (eds.), Architecture and Lan­ guage. Constructing Identity in European Architecture c. 1000 – c. 1650, Cambridge 2000. Clarquius 1648 Jacobus Clarquius, Evangelische Olye Uytgestort Ter inwyinghe van de Nieuwe Kerck Binnen Harelem, op den 3de May Anno 1648, Ende wijders gedruckt uyt het Olijf-bladt des Vredes op den 10 Iunij des Selvigen jaers, door Jacobus Clarquius, Predikant tot Haerlem, Haarlem 1648. Classen 1951 W. Classen, ‘Baunachrichten aus den Klevischen Zoll­ akten’, Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch 45 (1951), 136-146. Clijmans 1941 F. Clijmans, De beurs te Antwerpen, beknopte aantee­ keningen, Antwerp 1941.

360

Cockx-Indestege & Glorieux 1968 E. Cockx-Indestege & G. Glorieux, Belgica Typogra­ phica 1541-1600. I. Bibliotheca Regia Bruxellensi, (Nationaal Centrum voor de archeologie en de geschiedenis van het boek, II), Nieuwkoop 1968. Coebergh-Surie & van Eck 2002 C.E. Coebergh-Surie & X. van Eck, The stained-glass windows in the St.-Janskerk at Gouda. The work of Dirck and Wouter Crabeth, (Corpus Vitrearum, The Netherlands, II), Amsterdam 2002. Coekelberghs & Loze s.d. D. Coekelberghs & P. Loze, L’église Saint-Jean-Baptiste au Béguinage à Bruxelles et son mobilier, (Monographies artistique de la Belgique), s.l. s.d.. Colinet 1874 E. Colinet, Restes de l’Art national en Belgique et en Hol­ lande / Verzameling der Overblijfsels onzer nationale kunst der XIe tot de XVIIIe eeuw, Brussels 1874. Colli 1986 A. Colli, ‘Un trattato di architettura Cappucina e le “Instructiones Fabricae” di San Carlo’, in: San Carlo e il suo Tempo (Atti del Convegno Internazionale nel IV centenario della morte, Milan, 21-26 May 1984, Acca­ demia di San Carlo), Rome 1986, 663-688. Constitutiones 1631 Constitutiones Fratrum Discalceatorum Congregationis S. Eliæ ordinis Beatissimæ Virginis Mariæ de Monte Carmelo, Rome 1631. Constitutioni 1609 Constitutioni de Fratri Minori Capuccini di S. Francesco, Rome 1609. Cools 2001a H. Cools, ‘Equilibres ou déséquilibres régionaux au sein de l’aristocratie des Pays-Bas (1477-1530)’, in: J.M. Cauchies (ed.), Les élites nobiliaires dans les Pays-Bas au seuil des temps modernes. Mobilité sociale et service du pouvoir, (Centre de recherches en histoire du droit et des institutions. Cahier 16), Brussels 2001, 63-82. Cools 2001b H. Cools, Mannen met macht. Edellieden en de Moderne Staat in de Bourgondisch-Habsburgse landen (1475-1530), Zutphen 2001. Coomans 2001 Th. Coomans, ‘L’architecture médiévale des ordres mendiants (Franciscains, Dominicains, Carmes et Augustins) en Belgique et aux Pays-Bas’, Belgisch tijd­ schrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 70 (2001), 1-109.

Bibliography Coope 1972 R. Coope, Salomon de Brosse and the Development of the Classical Style in French Architecture from 1565 to 1630, London 1972. Corbet 1936 A. Corbet, ‘Cornelis Floris en de bouw van het stadhuis van Antwerpen’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oud­ heidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 6 (1936), 223-264. Corbet 1950 A. Corbet, Pieter Coecke van Aelst, (Maerlandtbibliotheek, XXI), Antwerp/Utrecht 1950. Cosemans 1935 A. Cosemans, ‘Correspondentie van Cornelis Floris betreffende het Merode-praalgraf te Geel’, Belgisch tijd­ schrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 5 (1935), 251-261. 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. Courtoy 1912 M.F. Courtoy, ‘Les Nurenberg architectes des XVIe et XVIIe siècles’, Wallonia 20 (1912), 508-512. Courtoy 1920 M. F. Courtoy, ‘Les arts industriels à Dinant au début du dix-sep­tième siècle’, Annales de la société archéologique de Namur 34 (1920), 217-253. Culot et al. 1992 M. Culot et al., Le bombardement de Bruxelles par Louis XIV et la reconstruction qui s’en suivit 1695-1700, Brussels 1992. Cuperus 1952 P.H. Cuperus, ‘De Witte Vrouwenpoort van Ut­recht’, Jaarboek Oud-Utrecht (1952), 110-117. Dacos 1969 N. Dacos, La découverte de la Domus Aurea et la formation des grotesques à la Renaissance, London/Leiden 1969. Dacos 1980 N. Dacos, ‘Tommaso Vincidor. Un élève de Raphaël aux Pays-Bas’, in: Relations artistiques entre les Pays-Bas et l’Italie à la Renaissance. Etudes dédiées à Suzanne Sulzberger, (Etudes d’histoire de l’art publiées par l’Institut historique belge de Rome, IV), Brussels/Rome 1980, 61-99. Dacos 1989 N. Dacos, ‘L’Anonyme A de Berlin: Hermannus Posthumus’, in: R. Harprath & H. Wrede (eds.),

Antikenzeichnung und Antikenstudium in Renaissance und Frühbarock, Mainz 1989, 61-80. Dacos 1995 N. Dacos, Roma quanta fuit. Tre pittori fiamminghi nella Domus Aurea, (Saggi. Arti e lettere), Rome 1995. Dacos 1996 N. Dacos, ‘Léonard Thiry de Belges, peintre excellent. De Bruxelles à Fontainebleau en passant par Rome’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1996) 3, 199-212; (1996) 4, 23-36. Dacos 1997 N. Dacos (ed.), Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608, Atti del convegno internazionale Bruxelles 24-25 febbraio 1995, (Bollettino d’Arte, 100 [1997], suppl.), Rome 1997. DaCosta Kaufmann 1995a Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, Court, Cloister, and City. The Art and Culture of Central Europe 1450-1800, London/ Chicago 1995. DaCosta Kaufmann 1995b Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Italian Sculptors and Sculpture Outside of Italy (Chiefly in Central Europe): Problems of Approach, Possibilities of Reception’, in: C. Farago (ed.), Reframing the Renaissance, New Haven/London 1995, 47-66. DaCosta Kaufmann 1998 Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Archduke Albrecht as an Austrian Habsburg and Prince of the Empire’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 15-25. DaCosta Kaufmann 1999 Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Das Theater der Pracht. Charlottenburg und die europäische Hofkultur um 1700’, in: Sophie Charlotte und ihr Schloß. Ein Musenhof des Barock in Brandenburg-Preußen, Munich/London/ New York 1999, 43-56. DaCosta Kaufmann 2002a Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Die Kunstmetropole Antwerpen und ihr Einfluß auf Europa und die Welt’, in: Lemgo 2002, 41-50. DaCosta Kaufmann 2002b Th. DaCosta Kaufmann (ed.), L’art flamand et hollan­ dais. Belgique et Pays-Bas 1520-1914, Paris 2002. DaCosta Kaufmann 2003 Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Early Modern Ideas about Artistic Geography Related to the Baltic Region’, Scandinavian Journal of History 27 (2003), 263-272. DaCosta Kaufmann 2004a Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Das Ostseeraum als Kunst­ region: Historiographie, Stand der Forschung, und Perspektiven künftiger Forschung’, in: M. Krieger &

361

Bibliography M. North (eds.), Land und Meer. Kultureller Austausch zwischen Westeuropa und dem Ostseeraum in der Frühen Neuzeit, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 2004, 9-21. DaCosta Kaufmann 2004b Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, Toward a Geography of Art, Chicago/London 2004. DaCosta Kaufmann 2006a Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Cultural Transfer and Arts in the Americas’, in: Stanford 2006, 18-25. DaCosta Kaufmann 2006b Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Ways of Transfer of Netherlandish Art’, in: M. Ruszkowska-Macur et al. (eds.), Netherlandish Artists in Gdańsk in the Time of Hans Vrede­ man de Vries, Material from the Conference Organized by the Museum of the History of the City of Gdańsk/Muzeum His­ toryczne Miasta Gdańska and the Weserrrenaissance-Museum Schloβ Brake Lemgo, Main City Town Hall, Gdańsk 20-21 November 2003, Gdańsk/Lemgo 2006, 13-22. DaCosta Kaufmann 2007a Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘The Baltic Area as an Artistic Region. Historiography, State of Research, Perspectives for Further Study’, in: P. Oszczanowski & M. Wisłocki (eds.), On the Opposite Sides of the Baltic Sea, Wroclaw 2007 (forthcoming). DaCosta Kaufmann 2007b Th. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘The Geography of Art: Historiography, Issues, Perspectives’, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 2007 (forthcoming). DaCosta Kaufmann & Pilliod 2005 Th. DaCosta Kaufmann & E. Pilliod (eds.), Time and place. The geohistory of art, (Histories of Vision), Aldershot/Burlington 2005. Daelemans 2000 B. Daelemans, ‘Het Promptuarium Pictorum als spiegel van de ontwerppraktijk der Vlaamse Jezuïetenar­ chitecten in de 17de eeuw’, in: De Jonge, De Vos & Snaet 2000, 175-198. Dambruyne 1989 J. Dambruyne, ‘Het versteningsproces en de bouwactiviteit te Gent in de zeventiende eeuw’, Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis 102 (1989) 1, 30-51. Dambruyne et al. 1992 J. Dambruyne et al., Een Stad in opbouw. I. Gent voor 1540. II. Gent van 1540 tot de wereldtentoonstelling van 1913, 2 vols., Tielt 1992. Dane 1950 K. Dane, Willemstad; historisch overzicht van stad en pol­ der, Klundert 1950.

362

Daniel 1603 (1925) Samuel Daniel, Defence of Ryme, s.l. 1603, reprint ed. G.B. Harrison, (The Bodley Head Quartos, 14), London/New York 1925. Dann 1988 I. Dann, ‘Walther Ryff’, in: H. Günther (ed.), Deutsche Architekturtheorie zwischen Gotik und Renaissance, Darmstadt 1988, 79-88. David 1607 Jan David, Paradisus sponsi et sponsæ: in quo messis myrrhæ et aromatum, ex instrumentis ac mysterijs passionis Christi colligenda, ut ei commoriamur. Et pancarpium marianum, septemplici titulorum serie distinctum, Antwerp 1607. Davies 1954 D. W. Davies, The World of the Elseviers 1580 – 1712, The Hague 1954. Davies & Hemsoll 1983 P. Davies & D. Hemsoll, ‘Renaissance Balusters and the Antique’, Architectural History 26 (1983), 1-23. Debergh 1990 J. Debergh, ‘Luc Lange “molleur en plattre” actif en Hainaut entre 1550 et 1553’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oud­ heidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 59 (1990), 75-90. Debergh 1994 J. Debergh, ‘Luc Lange et Jacques Du Brœucq. Quatre considérations’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedeni/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 63 (1994), 63-72. De Bie 1661 C. De Bie, Het Gulden Cabinet vande edel vry Schilder­ const, Antwerpen 1661. De Bruyn 1870 H. De Bruyn, Archéologie religieuse appliquée à nos monu­ ments nationaux, vol. II, Brussels 1870. Decavele 1975 J. Decavele, De dageraad van de reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520-1565), Brussels 1975. Decavele et al. 1984 J. Decavele et al., Het eind van een rebelse droom. Opstel­ len over het calvinistisch bewind te Gent (1577-1584) en de terugkeer van de stad onder de gehoorzaamheid van de koning van Spanje (17 september 1584), Ghent 1984. Decavele 1986 J. Decavele, ‘Ontstaan van de evangelische beweging en ontwikkeling van de protestantse kerkverbanden in de Nederlanden tot 1580’, in: Utrecht 1986, 4157.

Bibliography Decavele s.d. J. Decavele, ‘Private gevelarchitectuur: Gent 17de-18de eeuw, bronnen voor studie’, in: Tijs s.d., 30-35. De Ceulaer 1988 R. De Ceulaer, De Sint-Catharinakerk te Hoogstraten, (Inventaris van het kunstpatrimonium van de provincie Antwerpen, 2), Ghent 1988. De Clercq et al. 1992 G. De Clercq et al., Ter Beurze. Geschiedenis van de aandelenhandel in België, 1300-1990, Bruges/Antwerp 1992. Defoer & Dirkse 1986 H.L.M. Defoer & P. Dirkse, ‘Het grafmonument van Jan van Scorel’, Oud Holland 100 (1986), 171-196. De Groof & Galdieri 1993 B. De Groof & E. Galdieri (eds.), ‘La dimensione europea dei Farnese’, Bulletin van het Belgisch Historisch Instituut te Rome 63 (1993), special issue. De Jonge 1991a K. 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 1991b K. De Jonge, ‘Rencontres portugaises. L’art de la fête au Portugal et aux Pays-Bas méridionaux au XVIe et au début du XVIIe siècle’, in: Brussels 1991, 84-101. De Jonge 1993 K. De Jonge, ‘Sites et monuments’, in: A. Balis et al., Les chasses de Maximilien, Paris 1993, 80-101. De Jonge 1994a K. De Jonge, ‘Architekturpraxis in den Niederlanden in der frühen Neuzeit: Die Rolle des italienischen Militärarchitekten; der status quæstionis’, in: Bers & Doose 1994, 363-383. De Jonge 1994b K. De Jonge, ‘Le palais de Charles Quint à Bruxelles. Ses dispositions intérieures aux XVe et XVIe siècles et le cérémonial de Bourgogne’, in : J. Guillaume (ed.), Architecture et vie sociale. L’organisation intérieure des grandes demeures à la fin du moyen age et à la Renaissance, (De Architectura, 6), Paris 1994, 107-125. De Jonge 1997a K. De Jonge, ‘Exemplum di progettazione rinascimentale nei Paesi Bassi: l’opera di Jacques Du Broeucq’, Annali di architettura 9 (1997), 218-232.

De Jonge 1997b K. De Jonge, ‘ “Fiamminghi a Roma”. Influences romaines sur l’architecture Renaissance des anciens Pays-Bas: l’état de la question’, in: Dacos 1997, 201214. De Jonge 1997c K. 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 kun­ stgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 64 (1997), 75-105. De Jonge 1998a K. De Jonge, ‘Building Policy and Urbanisation during the Reign of the Archdukes: the Court and its Architects. Court Residences and Court Architects’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 191-198. De Jonge 1998b K. De Jonge, ‘Le langage architectural de Jacques Du Broeucq’, in: De Jonge & Capouillez 1998, 161187. De Jonge 1998c K. De Jonge, ‘Les jardins de Jacques Du Broeucq et Jacques Hollebecque à Binche, Mariemont et Boussu’, in: C. Añón (ed.), Felipe II, el rey íntimo. Jardín y Natu­ raleza en el siglo XVI, Madrid 1998, 191-220. De Jonge 1998d K. De Jonge, ‘Triunfos flamencos: Felipe II y la arquitectura del Renacimiento en Flandes’, in: J. Martínez Millán (ed.), Felipe II (1527-1598). Europa y la Monar­ quía Católica, IV. Literatura, Cultura y Arte, Madrid 1998, 347-369. De Jonge 1998e K. De Jonge, ‘Vitruvius, Alberti and Serlio. Architectural Treatises in the Low Countries 1530-1620’, in: V. Hart & P. Hicks (eds.), Paper Palaces. The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, New Haven/London 1998, 281-296. De Jonge 1999a K. De Jonge, ‘Aktuelle Probleme der Renaissanceforschung in den Niederlanden. Hof und Hofarchitekten – der Casus Jacques Du Broeucq’, in: Bers & Doose 1999, 51-70. De Jonge 1999b K. De Jonge, ‘Hofordnungen als Quelle der Residenzenforschung ? Adlige und herzogliche Residenzen in den südlichen Niederlanden in der Burgunderzeit’, in: W. Paravicini & H. Kruse (eds.), Höfe und Hofordnun­ gen 1200-1600, Sigmaringen 1999, 175-220.

363

Bibliography De Jonge 1999c K. De Jonge, ‘L’environnement des châteaux dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux au XVIe siècle et au début du XVIIe siècle’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), Architecture, jardin, paysage. L’environnement du château et de la villa aux XVe et XVIe siècles, (De Architectura, 8), Paris 1999, 185-206. De Jonge 1999d K. De Jonge, ‘’t 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 1999e K. De Jonge, ‘Stedenbouwkundige aspecten. Verwoesting als motor voor de beheersing van de stedelijke ruimte in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden tot in de achttiende eeuw’, in: Verwoesting en wederopbouw van steden, van de middeleeuwen tot heden, 18de internatio­naal colloquium Spa 10-12 september 1996, Handelingen, (Pro Civitate, Historische Uitgaven van het Gemeentekrediet, ser. in-8°, 100), Brussels 1999, 385-409. De Jonge 2000a K. 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 K. De Jonge, ‘El emperador y las fiestas flamencas de su época (1515-1558)’, in: Sevilla 2000, 48-71. De Jonge 2000c K. De Jonge, ‘Las empresas arquitectónicas del empe­ rador y de su corte en los Países Bajos. El contexto europeo’, in: Toledo 2000-2001, 34-53. De Jonge 2000d K. De Jonge, ‘Le palais Granvelle à Bruxelles: premier exemple de la Renaissance romaine dans les anciens Pays-Bas’, in: De Jonge & Janssens 2000, 341-387. De Jonge 2000-2001 K. De Jonge, ‘Ein Netz von Grotten und Spring­ brunnen – Die “Warande” zu Brüssel um 1600’, in: Hamm/Mainz 2000-2001, 89-105. De Jonge 2002a K. De Jonge, ‘ “Anticse wercken”: la découverte de l’architecture antique dans la pratique architecturale des anciens Pays-Bas. Livres de modèles et traités 1517-1599’, in: M.-C. Heck, F. Lemerle & Y. Pauwels (eds.), Théorie des arts et création artistique dans l’Europe du Nord du XVIe au début du XVIIIe siècle, (Travaux et recherches), Lille 2002, 55-74.

364

De Jonge 2002b K. De Jonge, ‘Anticse wercken: “Vreemd gebouwd” in de 16de eeuw’, in: Grieten 2002, 35-59. De Jonge 2002c K. De Jonge, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries en de Europese tuinkunst’, in: P. Fuhring (ed.), De wereld is een tuin. Hans Vredeman de Vries en de tuinkunst van de Renais­ sance, Ghent 2002, 50-67. De Jonge 2002d K. De Jonge, ‘Les grands jardins princiers des anciens Pays-Bas’, in: L. Baudoux-Rousseau & Ch. Giry-De­ loison (eds.), Le jardin dans les anciens Pays-Bas, (Collection Histoire), Arras 2002, 29-41. De Jonge 2003a K. De Jonge, ‘Antikisch und Antikisierendes im höfischen Kontext. Adelsarchitektur in den südlichen Niederlanden im frühen 16. Jahrhundert’, in: Nuβbaum, Euskirchen & Hoppe 2003, 186-209. De Jonge 2003b K. De Jonge, ‘ “Up die maniere van Brabant”. Brabant en de adelsarchitectuur van de Lage Landen (14501530)’, in: De Brabantse stad. Dertiende colloquium, Leu­ ven 18-19 oktober 2002, (Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 86 [2003] 3-4), 409-423. De Jonge 2004a K. De Jonge, ‘Anvers: les premières traductions du traité d’architecture de Serlio’, in: S. Deswarte-Rosa (ed.), Sebastiano Serlio à Lyon. Architecture et imprimerie, vol. I, Le traité d’architecture de Sebastiano Serlio. Une grande entreprise éditoriale au XVIe siècle, Lyons 2004, 262-283. De Jonge 2004b K. De Jonge, ‘Schloss Heverlee bei Leuven und die Residenzbildung in den südlichen Niederlanden um 1500’, in: G.U. Groβmann (ed.), Burgen und Schlösser in den Niederlanden und in Nordwestdeutschland, (For­ schungen zu Burgen und Schlössern, 8), Munich 2004, 69-80. De Jonge 2005a K. De Jonge, ‘Interiors, Chimneypieces and Portals’, in: Lombaerde 2005b, 139-152. De Jonge 2005b K. De Jonge, ‘Mariemont, “Château de chasse” de Marie de Hongrie’, Revue de l’art (2005) 149, 45-57. De Jonge 2005c K. De Jonge, ‘Vredeman de Vries as a Disseminator of Architectural Novelties’, in: Borggrefe & Lüpkes 2005, 83-90.

Bibliography De Jonge 2006 K. De Jonge, ‘Images inédites de la villégiature dans la périphérie de Bruxelles, XVIe-XVIIIe siècles. Maisons des champs et maisons de plaisance’, in: M. Chatenet (ed.), Maisons des champs dans l’Europe de la Renaissance, Actes des premières Rencontres d’architecture européenne, Château de Maisons, 10-13 juin 2003, (De Architectura), Paris 2006, 269-282.

à l’occasion du quatrième centenaire de la fondation de la Compagnie de Jésus 1540-1940, (Institut supérieur de théologie Enghien), 5 vols., Enghien 1949-1957.

De Jonge (forthcoming) K. De Jonge, ‘L’image de la domus noble dans les anciens Pays-Bas de la Renaissance: le cas de Boussu’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), Vraie et fausse fortification: les “signes militaires” dans l’architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 13 au 16 juin 2000, (De Architectura), Paris (forthcoming).

Delestré 1978-1987 D.J. Delestré, Uit het verleden van Grimbergen door Daniël J. Delestré, Bewerkte en geannoteerde uitgave door leden van ‘Eigen Schoon’, (ed. H. De Schepper), 2 vols., Grimbergen 1978-1987.

De Jonge & Capouillez 1998 K. De Jonge, M. Capouillez (eds.), Le château de Bous­ su, (Etudes et Documents, Monuments et Sites, 8), Namur 1998. De Jonge & De Vos 2000 K. De Jonge & A. De Vos, ‘Architectuur ten tijde van de aartshertogen: het hof achterna’, in: De Jonge, De Vos & Snaet 2000, 11-42. De Jonge, De Vos & Snaet 2000 K. De Jonge, A. De Vos & J. Snaet (eds.), Bellissimi ingegni, grandissimo splendore. Studies over de religieuze architectuur in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden tijdens de 17de eeuw, (Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum Lovaniensis, series B, 15), Leuven 2000. De Jonge, De Vos, Van Langendonck & Van Riet 1997 K. De Jonge, A. De Vos, L. Van Langendonck & S. Van Riet, ‘Lucas Faydherbe als architect’, in: ­Mechelen 1997, 71-122. De Jonge & Janssens 2000 K. De Jonge & G. Janssens (eds.), Les Granvelle et les anciens Pays-Bas, (Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum Lovaniensis, series B, 17), Leuven 2000. De Jonge & Snaet 2002 K. De Jonge & J. Snaet, ‘Vera simmetria, ware proportie: “Vreemd gebouwd” in de 17de eeuw’, in: Grieten 2002, 113-135. Dekker 1986 A.M.M. Dekker, Janus Secundus (1511-1536). De tekst­ overlevering van het tijdens zijn leven gepubliceerde werk, (Bibliotheca humanistica & reformatorica, XXXVIII), Nieuwkoop 1986. Delattre 1949-1957 P. Delattre, Les établissements des Jésuites en France depuis quatre siècles. Répertoire topo-bibliograhique publié

Delen 1931 A.J.J. Delen, ‘Illustrations de livres par Pierre Coeck d’Alost’, in: Mélanges Hulin de Loo, Brussels/Paris 1931, 105-115.

Delmarcel 1999 G. Delmarcel, Het Vlaamse wandtapijt van de 15de tot de 18de eeuw, Tielt 1999. Delmarcel 2000 G. Delmarcel, Los Honores. Vlaamse wandtapijten voor keizer Karel V, Ghent 2000. De Maegd 1998 Ch. De Maegd, ‘Een einde en een nieuw begin: de creatie van een Hof van Plaisantie’, Monumenten & Landschappen 17 (1998) 1, 6-44. De Maeyer 1955 M. De Maeyer, Albrecht en Isabella en de schilderkunst: bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de XVIIde-eeuwse schil­ derkunst 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. De’ Marchi 1566 Francesco De’ Marchi, Narratione particolare del Capi­ tan Francesco de’ Marchi da Bologna, delle gran feste, e trionfi fatti in Portogallo, et in Fiandra nello sposalitio dell’Illustrissimo, & Eccellentissimo signore, il Sig. Alessan­ dro Farnese, Prencipe di Parma, e Piacenza, e la Sereniss. Donna Maria de Portogallo, Bologna 1566. Del Pesco 1992 D. Del Pesco, ‘Alla ricerca di Giovan Antonio Dosio: gli anni napoletani 1590-1610’, Bollettino d’arte 71 (1992), 15-66. Demeester 1978-1981 J. Demeester, ‘Le domaine de Mariemont sous Albert et Isabelle (1598-1621)’, Annales du cercle archéologique de Mons 71 (1978-1981), 181-282.  De Potter s.d. F. De Potter, Gent van den Oudsten tijd tot heden. Geschiedkundige beschrijving der stad, 8 vols., Ghent s.d..

365

Bibliography De Ren 1982 L. De Ren, De familie Robijn-Osten. Ieperse renais­ sance-kunstenaars in Duitsland, (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten, 44), Brussels 1982. Derez et al. 2002 M. Derez et al., Arenberg in de Lage Landen. Een hoog­ adellijk huis in Vlaanderen & Nederland, Leuven 2002. De Ridder 1889 A. De Ridder, La Cour de Charles-Quint, Bruges 1889. De Rycke 1992 J.-P. De Rycke, ‘L’architecture’, in: Namur 1992, 202-208. Des antiquités 1550 Pieter Coecke van Aelst (ed.), Des antiquités, le troisièsme livre de Sebastien Serlio…, Antwerp 1550. Descartes 1637 (1943) René Descartes, Discours sur la méthode, Leiden 1637, première partie ed. 1943. Descartes 1659 René Descartes, Les Passions d’Ame, of Lydinghe van den Ziel, Amsterdam 1659 (1st ed. 1648, in latin). De Schepper 1987 H. De Schepper, “Belgium nostrum” 1500-1600: over integratie en desintegratie van het Nederland, Antwerp 1987. Des Marez 1927 G. Des Marez, L’origine et le développement de la ville de Bruxelles. Le quartier Isabelle et Terarken, Paris/Brussels 1927. De Smet 1982 H. De Smet, ‘Pieter Huyssens, architect van de SintWalburgakerk’, in: Sint-Walburga, een Brugse kerk vol geschiedenis, Bruges 1982, 77-86. De Smidt & Dhanens 1980 F. De Smidt & E. Dhanens, De Sint-Baafskathedraal, Amsterdam/Tielt 1980. Devliegher 1965 L. De­vliegher, ‘De bouw­re­keningen van het stad­huis te Damme 1461-1470’, Handelin­gen van het “Genoot­ schap voor Geschiedenis” te Brug­ge 102 (1965), 134202. Devliegher 1987 L. Devliegher, De Keizer Karel-schouw van het Brugse Vrije, (Kunstpatrimonium van West-Vlaanderen, 10), Tielt 1987.

366

Devliegher & Goossens 1980 L. Devliegher & M. Goossens, Huisgevels te SintWi­noksbergen, Tielt 1980. De Vocht 1928 H. De Vocht, Literæ Virorum Eruditorum ad Franciscum Craneveldium 1522-1528, (Humanistica Lovaniensis, 1), Leuven 1928. De Vos 1994 A. De Vos, ‘Premier Livre d’Architecture (1617) van Jaques Francart: een post-Michelangelesk, maniëristisch traktaat’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 63 (1994), 73-90. De Vos 1998a A. De Vos, ‘Jacques Francquart (1583-1561), Architect to the Court, and the Rue Isabelle in Brussels’, in: Duerloo & Thomas 1998, 210-213. De Vos 1998b A. 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. De Vos 1999 A. De Vos, ‘Hof van Den Haag en hof van Brussel (1590-1630). Structurele organisatie van de bouwprojecten tijdens de regering van prins Maurits en van de aartshertogen Albrecht en Isabella’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 98 (1999), 201-204. De Vos, van den Heuvel & Ottenheym 2000 A. De Vos, Ch. van den Heuvel & K. Ottenheym, ‘Propaganda voor staat en huis’, in: Amsterdam 2000, 123-127. Devoto 1960 D. Devoto, ‘Folklore et politique au Château Ténébreux’, in: Jacquot 1960, 311-328. Devreux 1935-1936 E. Devreux, ‘Les châteaux de Binche. Premier essai de reconstruction du château du XIIe et du palais du XVIe siècle’, Annales du cercle archéologique de Mons 54 (1935-1936), 3-21. De Win 1980 P. De Win, ‘De adel in het hertogdom Brabant van de vijftiende eeuw. Een terreinverkenning’, Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis 93 (1980), 391-409. De Win 1986 P. De Win, ‘De lagere adel in de Bourgondische Nederlanden’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 68 (1986), 171-207.

Bibliography De Win 2001 P. De Win, ‘Etre noble au XVe siècle. A la recherche de critères et d’une définition’, in: J.-M. Cauchies (ed.), Les élites nobiliaires dans les Pays-Bas au seuil des temps modernes. Mobilité sociale et service du pouvoir, (Centre de recherches en histoire du droit et des institutions. Cahier 16), Brussels 2001, 1-8. Dhanens 1945-1948 E. Dhanens, ‘Jan van Roome alias van Brussel, schilder’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 11 (19451948), 41-146. Dhanens 1956 E. Dhanens, Jean Boulogne. Giovanni Bologna Fiam­ mingo. 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.

Domínguez Casas 1993 R. Domínguez Casas, Arte y etiqueta de los reyes católicos. Artistas, residencias, jardines y bosques, Madrid 1993. Domínguez Casas 2000 R. Domínguez Casas, ‘Fiesta y ceremonial borgoñón en la corte de Carlos V’, in: M.J. Redondo Cantera & M.A. Zalama (eds.), Carlos V y las artes. Promoción artística y familia imperial, Valladolid 2000, 13-44. Domínguez Casas 2001 R. Domínguez Casas, ‘Carlos V y la introducción del sistema administrativo y estético del ducado de Brabante en los palacios reales españoles’, in: Bruxelles et la vie urbaine. Archives, art, histoire. Recueil d’études dédiées à la mémoire d’Arlette Smolar-Meynart, Brussels 2001, vol. II, 749-791. Donnay 1970 G. Donnay, ‘Le ‘château’ de Mariemont au temps de Raoul Warocqué’, Les Cahiers de Mariemont, 1 (1970), 52-56.

Dhanens 1976 E. Dhanens, ‘L’importance du peintre Jean van Roome, dit de Bruxelles’, in: Brussels 1976, 231238.

Doorman 1940 G. Doorman, Octrooien voor uitvindingen in de Nederlanden uit de 16e – 18e eeuw: met besprekingen van enkele onder­ werpen uit de geschiedenis der techniek, The Hague 1940.

Dhanens 1985 E. Dhanens, ‘Het graf van Rooms-koning Willem II en de rol van Jan Gossaert in de wederuitrusting van de koorkerk te Middelburg in Zeeland’, Academiae Analecta. Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 46 (1985).

Dorren 1993 G. Dorren, ‘Plichtsgetrouw tegen wil en dank. Abdicatie en laatste levensjaren van Maria van Hongarije’, in: Utrecht/’s-Hertogenbosch 1993, 208-216.

D’Hondt 1989 E. 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 1985 R. Didier, ‘Les œuvres du sculpteur Jacques Du Brœucq’, in: Mons 1985, 31-102. Didier 2000 R. Didier et al., Jacques Dubroeucq. Sculpteur et Maî­ tre-Artiste de l’Empereur (1500/1510 – 1584), Mons 2000. Dierickx 1950 M. Dierickx, De oprichting der nieuwe bisdommen in de Nederlanden onder Filips II, Antwerp/Utrecht 1950. Dierickx 1960-1962 M. Dierickx, Documents inédits sur l’érection des nou­ veaux diocèses aux Pays-Bas, 1521-1570, 3 vols., Brussels 1960-1962.

Dröge 1991 J.F. Dröge, De Waag aan het Rode Steen te Hoorn. Anno 1609, (Rapport bouwhisto­risch onderzoek), Leiden 1991. Duerloo 1998 L. Duerloo, ‘Archducal Piety and Habsburg Power’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 267-283. Duerloo & Wingens 2002 L. Duerloo & M. Wingens, Scherpenheuvel, Het Jeru­ zalem van de Lage Landen, Leuven 2002. van Duinen 1997 H.A. van Duinen, De Koorbanken van de Grote- of Onze Lieve Vrouwekerk te Dordrecht, Leiden 1997. von der Dunk 1993a Th. H. von der Dunk, ‘De Amsterdamse stadhuisplannen uit de jaren voor 1648’, Bulletin Koninklijke Neder­ landse Oudheidkundige Bond 92 (1993), 165-179. von der Dunk 1993b Th. Von der Dunk, ‘Hoe klassiek is de gothiek? Jacob van Campen en de toren van de Nieuwe Kerk te Amsterdam. Een nieuwe benadering van een oude kwestie’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 85 (1993), 49-90.

367

Bibliography Dunckler & Weiss 1983 D.R. Dunckler & H. Weiss, Het hertogdom Brabant in kaart en prent, Tielt/Bussum 1983. Dupuys 1515 Remy Dupuys, La tryumphante et solenelle entrée faicte sur le nouvel et joyeux advenement de… Charles, prince des Hespaignes… en la ville de Bruges, Paris 1515. Duverger 1930 J. Duverger, ‘Vlaamsche Beeldhouwers te Brou’, Oud Holland 47 (1930), 1-27. Duverger 1941 J. Duverger, ‘Cornelis Floris II en het stadhuis te Antwerpen’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 7 (1941), 37-72. Duverger 1964 J. Duverger, ‘De architect Philip Lammekens ca. 1493-1548’, in: H.W.M. van der Wyck, C. Boschma & H. M. Van den Berg (eds.), Opus musivum, een bun­ del studies aangeboden aan Professor Doctor M.D. Ozinga ter gelegenheid van zijn zestigste verjaardag op 10 november 1962, Assen 1964, 181-189. Duverger 1968 E. Duverger, ‘Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de artistieke betrekkingen tussen Antwerpen en de Noordelijke Nederlanden tussen 1632 en 1648’, in: Miscellanea Jozef Duverger. Bijdragen tot de kunstgeschie­ denis der Nederlanden, Ghent 1968, 336-373. Duverger 1972 J. Duverger, ‘Marie de Hongrie, gouvernante des Pays-Bas, et la Renaissance’, in: Evolution générale et développements régionaux en histoire de l’art. Actes du XXIIe congrès international d’Histoire de l’Art, Budapest 1969, Budapest 1972, 715-726. Duverger 1980 J. Duverger, ‘Margareta van Oostenrijk (1480-1530) en de Italiaanse Renaissance’, in: Relations artistiques entre les Pays-Bas et l’Italie à la Renaissance. Etudes dédiées à Suzanne Sulzberger, (Etudes d’histoire de l’art publiées par l’Institut historique belge de Rome, IV), Brussels/Rome, 1980, 127-142. Duverger 1982 J. Duverger, ‘Het statuut van de zestiende-eeuwse hofkunstenaar in de Nederlanden’, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1982), 61-95. Duverger & Onghena 1938 J. Duverger & M.J. Onghena, ‘Beeldhouwer Willem van den Broecke alias Guilielmus Paludanus (1530 tot

368

1579 of 1580)’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 5 (1938), 75-140. Duverger & Onghena 1942 J. Duverger & M.J. Onghena, ‘Enkele nieuwe gegevens betreffende beeldhouwer W. van den Broecke alias Paludanus (1530-1580)’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunst­ geschiedenis 8 (1942), 173-204. Duverger, Onghena & van Daalen 1953 J. Duverger, M.J. Onghena & P.K. van Daalen, ‘Nieuwe gegevens aangaande XVIde eeuwse beeldhouwers in Brabant en Vlaanderen’, Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 15 (1953) 3, 3-95. Duvosquel 1990 J.-M. Duvosquel (ed.), Comté de Hainaut. III. Prévô­ tés de Mons et Soignies, (Albums de Croÿ), Brussels 1990. Duvosquel 1991 J.-M. Duvosquel (ed.), Comté de Hainaut. VII. Prévôté Binche, Baillages du Roeulx, de Braine-le-Comte, Flobecq et Lessines, Enghien, Hal, (Albums de Croÿ), Brussels 1991. Eberhardt 1993 J. Eberhardt, Die Zitadelle von Jülich – Wehranlagen, Residenzschloβ und Schloβkapelle – Forschungen zur Pla­ nungs- und Baugeschichte, Jülich 1993. van Eck 1994 A. van Eck, Kunst, twist en devotie. Goudse katholieke schuilkerken, 1572-1795, Ph.D. dissertation, Amsterdam 1994. van Eck 1998 A. van Eck, ‘De jezuïeten en het wervende wissel­ altaarstuk’, De zeventiende eeuw, Cultuur in de Nederlan­ den in interdisciplinair perspectief, “Ad maiorem Dei ­gloriam”, jezuïeten in de Nederlanden, 14 (1998) 1, 81-94. van Eeghen 1970 I.H. van Eeghen, ‘Adriaan Dortsman en Jan Six’, Maandblad Amstelodamum 57 (1970), 151-159. van Eeghen 1983 I.H. van Eeghen, ‘De familie Trip en het Trip­penhuis’, in: R. Meischke & H.E. Ree­ser (eds.), Het Trip­penhuis te Amsterdam, Amsterdam etc. 1983, 27-127. Eichberger 2002 D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst. Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von Öster­ reich, Regentin der Niederlande, (Burgundica, V), Turnhout 2002.

Bibliography Eichberger & Beaven 1995 D. Eichberger & L. Beaven, ‘Family Members and Political Allies: The Portrait Collection of Margaret of Austria’, Art Bulletin 77 (1995) 2, 225-248. Eisler 1983 W.L. Eisler, The Impact of the Emperor Charles V upon the Visual Arts, The Pennsylvania State University, Ph.D. dissertation, University Park 1983. Eisler 1990 W. Eisler, ‘Celestial Harmonies and Hapsburg Rule: Levels of Meaning in a Triumphal Arch for Philip II in Antwerp, 1549’, in: B. Wisch & S. Scott Munshower (eds.), ‘All the world’s a stage…’. Art and Pageantry in the Renaissance and Baroque. Part 1. Triumphal Celebra­ tions and the Rituals of Statecraft, (Papers in Art History from The Pennsylvania State University, VI), 2 vols., University Park 1990, 332-356.

de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 99 (2000), 101-120. van Essen-Lambrechtsen 1993 I. van Essen-Lambrechtsen, De stadspoorten van Willem van der Helm, Utrecht 1993. Estella 1994 M. Estella, ‘Los Leoni, escultores entre Italia y España’, in: Madrid 1994b, 29-62. Estella 1999 M. Estella, ‘Escultores cortesanos del siglo XVI’, in: El Arte en las Cortes… 1999, 49-68. Ewerbeck & Neumeier 1883 F. Ewerbeck & A. Neumeier, Die Renaissance in ­Belgien und Holland, Leipzig 1883. Faider & Delanney 1928 P. Faider & H. Delanney, Mons, Mons 1928.

Eisler 1993 W. Eisler, ‘The “Wunderkammer” of Charles V: The Emperor, Science, Technology and the Expanding World’, Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 19 (1993), 11-52.

Faille 1981 R. Faille, ‘La Flandre, le Hainaut et l’Artois au début du XVIIIe siècle d’après les ingénieurs géographes Masse’, Bulletin de la Commission historique du Départe­ ment du Nord 41 (1981), 119-136.

El Arte en las Cortes… 1999 El Arte en las Cortes de Carlos V y Felipe II, IX Jornadas de Arte, Departamento de Historia del Arte ‘Diego Velázquez’, Centro de Estudios Históricos CSIC, Madrid 1999.

Fairbarn 1998 L. Fairbarn, Italian Renaissance Drawings from the Collec­ tion of Sir John Soane’s Museum, 2 vols., London 1998.

Elliott 1989 J.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. Enggass 1992 R. Enggass, ‘Two contrasting Concepts of Color in the Architecture of the Roman Baroque’, in: H.A. Millon & S. Scott Munshower (eds.), An Architectural Progress in the Renaissance and Baroque. Sojourns In and Out Italy, (Papers in Art History from the Pennsylvania State University, VIII), 2 vols., 1992, 406-411. Erens 1928 A. Erens, ‘Bestek voor het herstel van den toren te Groot-Zundert 1610’, Taxandria 35 (1928), 9-14. Ertz 1979 K. Ertz, Jan Brueghel der Ältere (1568-1625). Die Gemälde mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog, Cologne 1979. van Essen 2000 G. van Essen, ‘Daniel Stalpaert (1615-1676) stadsarchitect van Amsterdam en de Amsterdamse stadsfabriek in de periode 1647 tot 1676’, Bulletin van

Fara 1999 G.M. Fara, Albrecht Dürer, teorico dell’architettura, una storia italiana, Florence 1999. Fara 2000 A. Fara, ‘Alberto Durero y Fernando I de Austria’, in: Hernando Sánchez 2000, 338-353. Farago 1995 C. Farago, ‘Introduction. Reframing the Renaissance’, in: Id. (ed.), Reframing the Renaissance. Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America 1450-1650, New Haven/London 1995, 1-20. Faries 1997 M. Faries, ‘Jan van Scorel’s Clerical Patronage’, in: Dacos 1997, 107-116. Fischer 1996 A. Fischer, Daniel Specklin aus Straβburg (1536-1589). Festungsbaumeister, Ingenieur und Kartograph, Sigma­ ringen 1996. Fock 1979 C.W. Fock, ‘The Princes of Orange as Patrons of Arts in the Seventeenth Century’, Apollo (1979), 466475.

369

Bibliography Fokkens 1664 Melchior Fokkens, Beschrijvingh der wijdt-vermaarde koopstadt Amstelredam, van haar eerste beginselen, zedert den jare 1203 ... tot den iare 1664 toe, Amsterdam 1664.

Franke 1996 B. Franke, ‘Gesellschaftsspiele mit Automaten – “Merveilles” in Hesdin’, Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissen­ schaft 24 (1997), 135-158.

Foncke 1938 E. Foncke, ‘Aantekeningen betreffende Hieronymus van Busleyden. Zijn paleis te Mechelen, de kollekties en de muurschilderingen aldaar voorhanden’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 5 (1938), 179-220.

Franke 1998 B. Franke, ‘Salomon de Caus (1576-1626) and the Grotto Phenomenon in Court Art’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 201-204.

Fontaine 1968 W. Fontaine, La façade de la maison “Le Saumon” (15301537), unpublished Master’s Thesis, Leuven 1968. Fontaine & Brown 2001 M.-M. Fontaine & E.A.R. Brown, Jean Lemaire de Bel­ ges. Des Anciennes pompes funeralles, (Société des textes français modernes), Mayenne 2001. de la Fontaine Verwey 1975 H. de la Fontaine Verwey, ‘Pieter Coecke van Aelst en zijn boeken over architectuur’, in: Id., Uit de wereld van het boek I. Humanisten, dwepers en rebellen in de zestiende eeuw, Amsterdam 1975, 51-68. de la Fontaine Verwey 1976 H. de la Fontaine Verwey, ‘Pieter Coecke van Aelst and the publication of Serlio’s book on architecture’, Quærendo 6 (1976), 167-194. Forssman 1956 E. Forssman, Säule und Ornament. Studien zum Problem des Manierismus in den nordischen Säulenbüchern und Vorlageblät­ tern des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Stockholm 1956. Forster 1989 K. W. Forster, ‘Il palazzo di Landshut’, in: E.H. Gombrich et al., Giulio Romano, Milan 1989, 512-515.

Frommel 1998 S. Frommel, Sebastiano Serlio architetto, Milan 1998. Frijhoff 1997 W. Frijhoff, ‘The Princely Court at The Hague : a National and European Perspective’, in: M. Keblusek & J. Zijlmans (eds.), Princely Display. The Court of Frederik Hendrik of Orange and Amalia van Solms, The Hague/Zwolle 1997, 10-17. Frijhoff & Prak 2004 W. Frijhoff & M. Prak (eds.), Geschiedenis van Amster­ dam 1578-1650. Centrum van de wereld, Amsterdam 2004. Fris 1922 V. Fris, La citadelle de Charles-Quint et le château des Espagnols à Gand, Antwerp 1922. Gachard & Piot 1874, 1876, 1881 L.-P. Gachard & C. Piot, Collection des voyages des souve­ rains des Pays-Bas, 3 vols., Brussels 1874, 1876, 1881. García García 1998 B. García García, ‘Bruselas y Madrid: Isabel Clara Eugenia y el duque de Lerma’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 67-77.

Fortini Brown 1996 P. Fortini Brown, Venice & Antiquity. The Venetian Sense of the Past, New Haven/London 1996.

Gauricus-Grapheus 1528 Pomponius Gauricus, De Sculptura, sei Statuaria, libel­ lus sanè elegantissimus, pictoribus, sculptoribus, statuarijs, architectis, etc. mire utilis, & lectu iucundus, ed. Cornelis Grapheus, Antwerp 1528.

Francart 1617 Jacques Francart, Premier Livre d’Architecture de Jacques Francart. Contenant diverses inventions de portes serviables à tous ceux qui desirent bastir & pour sculpteurs, tailleurs de pieres, escriniers, maisons et autres, 1617.

van Gelder 1911 H.E. van Gelder, ‘Iets over Bartold van Bassen, ook als bouwmeester van het koningshuis te Rhenen’, Bulletin van den Nederlandschen Oudheidkundigen Bond (1911), 234-240.

Francart 1622 Jacques Francart, Cent tablettes et escussons d’armes pour sculpteurs, peintres et orfevres, pour s’en servir aux ornemens d’inscriptions ensembles et armes, Brussels 1622.

van Gelder 1949 J.G. van Gelder, ‘De opdrachten van de Oranjes aan Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert en Gonzales Coques’, Oud Holland 64 (1949), 40-56.

Francini 1631 Alessandro Francini, Livre d’architecture contenant plu­ sieurs portiques de differentes inventions, sur les cinq ordres de Colomnes, Paris 1631.

Gelderblom 2000 O. Gelderblom, Zuid-Nederlandse kooplieden en de opkomst van de Amsterdamse stapelmarkt (1578-1630), Hilversum 2000.

370

Bibliography Geleyns & De Jonge 2003 P. Geleyns & K. De Jonge, ‘New light on specialized XVIth century construction techniques in the Low Countries’, in: S. Huerta (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction History, Madrid 2003, vol. II, 987-995. Gemaynen reglen 1542 [1543 ?] Pieter Coecke van Aelst (ed.), Die gemaynen reglen von der Architectur uber die funf  manieren der Gebeu, zu wissen, thoscana, dorica, ionica, corintia, und composita…, Antwerp 1542 [1543 ?]. Genard 1870 P. Genard, ‘Notices sur les architectes Herman (le Vieux) et Dominique de Waghemakere’, Bulletin des commissions royales d’art et d’archéologie 9 (1870), 429-494. Generale Reglen 1539 Pieter Coecke van Aelst (ed.), Generale Reglen der Architecturen op de vyve manieren van edificien, te weten, thuscana dorica, ionica, corinthia ende composita, met den exemplen der antiquiteiten die int meeste deel concorderen met de leerinhge van Vitruvio, Antwerp 1539. Genicot 1973 L.-F. Genicot (ed.), Het groot kastelenboek in België II. Kastelen en buitenplaatsen, Brussels 1973. Gent 1995 L. Gent, ‘Introduction’, in: Id. (ed.), Albion’s Classi­ cism: The Visual Arts in Britain 1550-1660, (Studies in British Art, 2), New Haven/London 1995, 1-18. Gérard 1984 V. Gérard, De castillo a palacio. El Alcázar de Madrid en el siglo XVI, Madrid 1984. Gérard 1991 V. Gérard, ‘L’organisation des chantiers royaux en Espagne au XVIe siècle’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), Les chan­ tiers de la Renaissance, Actes des colloques tenu à Tours en 1983-1984, (De Architectura), Paris 1991, 155-163.

Noordelijke Nederlanden, Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht 2004. Geyl 1930 P. Geyl, ‘De Kunsthistorie onder de ban van de mo­ derne staat’ (1930), in: Id., Eenheid en Tweeheid in de Nederlanden, Lochem 1946, 182-192. von Geymüller 1882 H. von Geymüller, Cento disegni di architettura d’ornato e di figure di Fra Giovanni Giocondo, Florence/Vienna 1882. von Geymüller 1887 H. von Geymüller, Les du Cerceau. Leur vie et leur œuvre, d’après de nouvelles recherches, Paris 1887. von Geymüller 1891 H. von Geymüller, ‘Trois Albums de Dessins de Fra Giocondo’, Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Ecole française de Rome 11 (1891), 133-158. Gijsbers 1996 P.M. Gijsbers, ‘Resurgit Pamphilij in Templo Pamphiliana Domus: Camillo Pamphilj’s Patronage of the Church of Sant’Andrea al Quirinale’, Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome. Historical Studies, Papers of the Netherlands Institute in Rome 55 (1996), 293-335. Gillet-Mignot, Warzée & Chariot 1996 P. Gillet-Mignot, G. Warzée & C. Chariot (eds.), L’ancienne abbaye de Floreffe, 1121-1996, (Etudes et Documents, Monuments et Sites, 2), Namur 1996. Gilissen 1938 J. Gilissen, ‘Le Père Guillaume Hesius. Architecte du XVIIe siècle’, Annales de la Société royale d’Archéologie de Bruxelles: mémoires, rapports et documents 42 (1938), 216-255. Glaudemans & van Tussenbroek 2000 R. Glaude­mans & G. van Tussenbroek, Nijmegen: Achter de Hoofdwacht 3. Bouwhis­torische opname. BAACrapport, ‘s-Hertogenbosch 2000.

Gérard 1998 V. 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.

Glick & Pi-Sunyer 1969 T. F. Glick & O. Pi-Sunyer, ‘Acculturation as an Explanatory Concept in Spanish History’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 11 (1969), 136-54.

Gerritsen 1997 E.O. Gerritsen, ‘De architectuurtekening in de 17de eeuw’, in: J. Boonstra (ed.), Soo vele heerlijcke gebouwen … Van Palladio tot Vingboons, Amsterdam 1997, 40-61.

Glotz 1995 S. Glotz, De Marie de Hongrie aux Gilles de Binche. Introduction critique aux Triomphes de Binche célébrés du 22 au 31 août 1549, (Les cahiers binchois, 13 [1995]), Binche 1995.

Gerritsen 2004 E.O. Gerritsen, Architectuurtekeningen. De tekening in de zeventiende-eeuwse ontwerp- en bouwpraktijk in de

Glotz 2000 S. Glotz, Lettre-harangue adressée à Charles Quint, par les chevaliers errants de la Gaule Belgique. Bruxelles et Binche,

371

Bibliography 1549. Un document viennois inédit, (Les cahiers binchois, 17 [2000]), Binche 2000. Glotz & Milet 1958-1961 S. Glotz & A. Milet, ‘Une découverte archéologique à Binche: matériaux de la chapelle du palais de Marie de Hongrie, remployés en l’église des Récollets’, Annales du cercle archéologique de Mons 64 (1958-1961), 173184. Goetghebuer 1827 P.-J. Goetghebuer, Choix des Monumens, édifices et maisons les plus remarquables du royaume des Pays-Bas, Ghent 1827. Gombrich 1971 E.H. Gombrich, ‘The Style all’antica: Imitation and Assimilation’, reprinted in: Id., Norm and Form. Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, New York/London 1966 (2nd ed. 1971), 122-128. Gómez-Moreno 1941(1983) M. Gómez-Moreno, Las águilas del Renacimiento espa­ ñol. Ordóñez, Siloee, Machuca, Berruguete, Madrid 1941 (2nd ed. 1983). Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero 2002 J.L. Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero, ‘La biblioteca de María de Hungría en España: Corte, Humanismo e Inqui­ sición’, in: A. Crespo Solana & M. Herrero Sánchez (eds.), España y las 17 provincias de los Países Bajos. Una revision historiográfica (XVI-XVII), Córdoba 2002, 731-765. Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero s.d. J.L. Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero, Regia Bibliotheca. El libro en la corte española de Carlos V, 2 vols., Mérida s.d.. Goossens & Vermeer 1992 E.-J. Goossens & G. Vermeer, ‘De “strenge stijl” van Alessandro Pasqualini’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Ne­ derlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 91 (1992), 177-181. Goris 1940 J.A. Goris, Lof van Antwerpen. Hoe reizigers Antwerpen zagen, van de 15de tot de 20ste eeuw, Brussels 1940.

Gorse 1990 G.L. Gorse, ‘Between Empire and Republic: Triumphal Entries into Genoa During the Sixteenth Century’, in: B. Wisch & S. Scott Munshower (eds.), ‘All the world’s a stage…’. Art and Pageantry in the Renais­ sance and Baroque. Part 1. Triumphal Celebrations and the Rituals of Statecraft, (Papers in Art History from The Pennsylvania State University VI), 2 vols., University Park 1990, 188-256. Goudeau 1995 J. Goudeau, ‘Nicolaus Goldmann (1611-1665) en de praktijk van de studeerkamer’, Bulletin van de Konin­ klijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 94 (1995), 185-203. Goudeau 2005 J. Goudeau, Nicolaus Goldmann (1611-1665) en de wiskundige architectuurwetenschap, Groningen 2005. Graf Wolff Metternich 1974 F. Graf Wolff Metternich, ‘Alessandro Pasqualini da Bologna e la diffusione del linguaggio Bramantesco in Germania’, in: Studi Bramanteschi, Rome 1974, 591-601. Grendi 1997 E. Grendi, I Balbi. Una famiglia genovese fra Spagna e Impe­ ro, (Biblioteca di cultura storica, 216), Turin 1997. Grieten 1993 S. Grieten, ‘De 17de eeuwse afwerking van de Antwerpse kathedraal. Nieuwe gegevens over Hans en Cornelis van Mildert en over Robrecht en Jan de Nole’, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1993), 227-285. Grieten 2002 S. Grieten (ed.), Vreemd gebouwd. Westerse en niet-Wes­ terse elementen in onze architectuur, Turnhout 2002. Grodecki et al. 1965 L. Grodecki et al., Belgische steden in reliëf. Plannen opgenomen door Franse militaire ingenieurs – XVIIe-XIXe eeuw, (Pro Civitate), Brussels 1965. Groenveld 1997 S. Groenveld. Wezen en boefjes. Zes eeuwen zorg in wees- en kinderhuis, Hilversum 1997.

Gorse 1985 G.L. Gorse, ‘The Villa of Andrea Doria in Genoa: Architecture, Gardens, and Suburban Setting’, Jour­ nal of the Society of Architectural Historians 44 (1985) 1, 18-36.

Groenveld 2003 S. Groenveld, ‘Könige ohne Staat: Friedrich V. und Elizabeth als Exilierte in Den Haag 1621-1632-1661’, in: Augsburg 2003, 162-186.

Gorse 1986 G.L. Gorse, ‘An unpublished description of the Villa Doria in Fassolo in Genoa during Charles V’s Entry, 1533’, Art Bulletin 68 (1986), 319-322.

Groenveld, Leeuwenberg & Mout 1983 S. Groenveld, H.L.Ph. Leeuwenberg & N. Mout, De kogel door de kerk?, De Opstand in de Nederlanden 15591609, De Tachtigjarige Oorlog, I, Zutphen 1983.

372

Bibliography Groenveld & Schutte 1992 S. Groenveld & G.J. Schutte, Nederlands verleden in vogel­vlucht; de nieuwe tijd: 1500 tot 1813, Leiden etc. 1992.

Günther 2000 H. Günther, ‘Die deutsche Spätgotik und die Wende vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit’, Kunsthistorische Arbeits­ blätter (2000) 7-8, 49-68.

Groenveld & van Maanen 2003 S. Groenveld, R.C.J. van Maanen (eds.), Leiden. De geschiedenis van een Hollandse stad 2 (1574-1795), Leiden 2003.

Günther 2003a H. Günther, ‘Die ersten Schritte in die Neuzeit. Gedanken zum Beginn der Renaissance nördlich der Alpen’, in: Nuβbaum, Euskirchen & Hoppe 2003, 31-87.

Gronowicz 2002 K. Gronowicz, ‘De schilderijencyclus van Hans Vredeman de Vries in Dantzig’, in: Antwerp 2002, 153178. de Groot 1984 A. de Groot, ‘Het stadhuis van Delft. Aspecten van zijn bouw- en restauratiegeschiedenis’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 83 (1984), 1-42. Grossmann 1995 D. Grossmann, ‘L’église à tribunes et les tribunes des églises en Allemagne au XVIe siècle’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), L’église dans l’architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 28 au 31 mai 1990, (De Architectura, 7), Paris 1995, 257-266. Günther 1985 H. Günther, ‘Gli ordini architettonici: rinascita o invenzione ? Parte seconda’, in: M. Fagiolo (ed.), Roma e l’antico nell’arte e nella cultura del Cinquecento, Rome 1985, 272-310. Günther 1988a H. Günther, Das Studium der antiken Architektur in den Zeichnungen der Hochrenaissance, (Römische Forschungen der Bibliotheca Hertziana, XXIV), Tübingen 1988. Günther 1988b H. Günther, ‘Herman Postma und die Antike’, Jahr­ buch des Zentralinstitutes für Kunstgeschichte 4 (1988), 7-17. Günther 1994 H. Günther, ‘La rinascita dell’antichità’, in: H. Millon & V. M. Lampugnani (eds.), Rinascimento da Brunelles­ chi a Michelangelo. La rappresentazione dell’architettura, (Cat. Pal. Grassi,Venezia), Milan 1994, 259-305. Günther 1997 H. Günther, ‘ “Als wäre die Peterskirche mutwillig in Flammen gesetzt”. Zeitgenössische Kommentare zum Neubau der Peterskirche und ihre Massstäbe’, Müncher Jahrbuch der bildende Kunst 3rd ser. 48 (1997), 67-112.

Günther 2003b H. Günther, ‘Visions de l’architecture en Italie et dans l’Europe du Nord au début de la Renaissance’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), L’invention de la Renaissance. La récep­ tion des formes “à l’antique” au début de la Renaissance, (De Architectura, 9), Paris 2003, 9-26. Gugel 1869 E. Gugel, Geschiedenis van de bouwstijlen in de hoofdtijd­ perken der architectuur, Rotterdam 18691, 18862, (with additional chapters by J.H.W. Leliman on contemporary architecture: 19033, 19164). Guicciardini 1567 Lodovico Guicciardini, Descrittione… di tutti i Paesi Bassi, altrimenti detti Germania inferiore…, 1st ed., Antwerp 1567. Guicciardini 1582 Lodovico Guicciardini, Description de touts les PaisBas, autrement appellés la Germanie inférieure, ou Basse Allemagne…, 2nd revised ed., trans. F. de Belleforest, Antwerp 1582. Guicciardini 1612 Lodovico Guicciardini, Beschryvinghe van alle de Neder-landen; anderssins ghenoemt Neder-Duytlandt…, revised ed. Petrus Montanus, trans. Cornelius Kiliaan, Amsterdam 1612. Guicciardini-Jacqmain 1987 Lodovico Guicciardini, De idyllische Nederlanden. Ant­ werpen en de Nederlanden in de 16de eeuw, ed. M. Jacqmain, Antwerp/Amsterdam 1987. Guicharnaud 1999 H. Guicharnaud, ‘An Introduction to the Architecture of Protestant Temples Constructed in France before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes’, in: P.C. Finney (ed.), Seeing Beyond the Word. Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition, Michigan/Cambridge 1999, 133-161. Guillaume 1988 J. Guillaume, ‘Philibert de L’Orme: un traité différent’, in: Chastel & Guillaume 1988, 347-354.

373

Bibliography Guillaume 1992 J. Guillaume, ‘Les Français et les ordres, 15401550’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), L’emploi des ordres dans l’architecture de la Renaissance, (De Architectura 5), Paris 1992, 193-218. Guillaume 1993 J. Guillaume, ‘La galerie dans le château français: place et fonction’, Revue de l’art 102 (1993), 3242. Guillaume 2000 J. Guillaume, ‘Modèles italiens et manière nationale. L’Invention d’une architecture nouvelle en France au milieu du XVIe siècle’, in: M. Seidel (ed.), L’Europa e l’arte italiana, Venice 2000, 236-253. Guillaume 2003 J. Guillaume, ‘Avant-propos: Renaissance ou Renaissances ?’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), L’invention de la Renais­ sance. La réception des formes “à l’antique” au début de la Renaissance, (De Architectura 9), Paris 2003, 7-8. Gukovskj 1963 M. Gukovskj, ‘Ritrovamento di tre volumi di disegni attribuiti a Fra Giocondo’, Italia medioevale e umanistica, 6 (1963), 263-265. Gutierrez 1992 R. Gutierrez, Arquitectura y Urbanismo en Iberoamerica, Madrid 1992. Haeger 1997 B. Haeger, ‘Rubens’s Adoration of the Magi and the program for the high altar of St. Michael’s Abbey in Antwerp’, Simiolus 25 (1997), 45-71. Halloix 1615 Pierre Halloix, Triumphus sacer SS. Terentiani et socii martyrum, sive Sacrorum utriusque corporum Atrebato Dua­ cum gloriosa translatio…, Douai 1615. Hardenberg 1959 H. Hardenberg, ‘Pasqualini architecte bolonais, aux Pays-Bas (1530-1548)’, in: Studi in onore di Riccardo Filangieri, Naples 1959, vol. II, 383-395. van Harten-Boers & van Ruyven-Zeman 1997 H. van Harten-Boers & Z. van Ruyven-Zeman, The stained-glass windows in the Sint-Janskerk at Gouda. The glazing of the clerestory of the choir and of the former monastic church of the Regulars, (Corpus Vitrearum, The Netherlands, I), Amsterdam 1997. Haslinghuis & Janse 1997 E.J. Haslinghuis & H. Janse, Bouwkundige termen. Ver­kla­rend woor­denboek van de westerse architectuur- en bouwhis­to­rie, Leiden 1997.

374

Heartz 1960 D. Heartz, ‘Un divertissement pour Charles Quint à Binche’, in: Jacquot 1960, 329-342. Hecht 1998 P. Hecht, ‘Rembrandt and Raphael back to back: the contribution of Thoré’, Simiolus 26 (1998), 162178. Hedicke 1911 R. Hedicke, Jacques Dubrœucq de Mons, (Annales du cercle archéologique de Mons, 40 [1911]), Brussels 1912. de Heer & Minis 1985 A.R.E. de Heer & S. Minis (eds.), “Een seer magnifick Stadthuy”. Tien studies over de bouw en de inrichting van het stadhuis van Maastricht, Leiden/Delft 1985. Helbig & Vandenbemden 1974 J. Helbig & Y. Vandenbemden, Les vitraux de la pre­ mière moitié du XVIe siècle conservés en Belgique. Brabant et Limbourg, (Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi, Belgium, III), Ledeberg 1974. Held 1996 J.S. Held, ‘Carolus Scribanius’s Observations on Art in Antwerp’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 59 (1996), 174-204. Heldring 1967 H.H. Heldring, ‘De portrettengalerij op het huis Ter Nieuburch te Rijswijk’, Jaarboek Vereniging ‘Die Haghe’ (1967), 66-71. Héliot 1955 P. Héliot, ‘La filiation médiévale de la dernière abbatiale de Saint-Amand’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oud­ heidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 24 (1955), 3-15. Henne & Wauters 1845 (1975) A. Henne & A. Wauters, Histoire de la ville de Bruxelles, Brussels 1855, revised edition by M. Martens, 4 vols., Brussels 1975. Hernando Sánchez 2000 C.J. Hernando Sánchez (ed.), Las fortificaciones de Car­ los V, (Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V), Madrid 2000. Herz 1988 A. Herz, ‘Cardinal Cesare Baronio’s restoration of SS. Nereo ed Achilleo and S. Cesareo de’ Appia’, Art Bulletin 70 (1988) 4, 590-620. Het Schilder-Boek 1943 A.F. Mirande & G.S. Overdiep (eds.), Carel van Mander, het leven der doorluchtige Nederlandsche en hoog­

Bibliography duitsche schilders in hedendaagsch Nederlandsch overge­ bracht, Amsterdam 1943. von Heusinger 2001 C. von Heusinger, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zur Editions­ geschichte des Triumphzugs Kaiser Karls V. und Papst Clemens VII. nach der Kaiserkrönung am 24. Februar 1530 in Bologna von Nicolas Hogenberg, mit einem Anhang: Der Holzschnittfries von Robert Peril’, Jahr­ buch der Berliner Museen, new ser. 43 (2001), 63-108. van den Heuvel 1982 C. van den Heuvel, ‘De verspreiding van de Italiaanse vestingbouwkunde in de Nederlanden in de tweede helft van de zestiende eeuw’, in: Vesting. Vier eeuwen vestingbouw in Nederland, The Hague 1982, 9-18. van den Heuvel 1991 C. van den Heuvel, ‘Papiere Bolwercken’. De introductie van de Italiaanse stede- en vestingbouw in de Nederlanden (1540-1609) en het gebruik van tekeningen, Alphen aan den Rijn 1991. van den Heuvel 1993 C. van den Heuvel, ‘Italiaanse ontwerpen voor citadellen in de Nederlanden (1567-1571). Het model van Paciotto versus de locatie gerichte methode van Campi’, in: Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 44 (1993), 165-184. van den Heuvel 1994a C. van den Heuvel, ‘De Architectura (1599) van Charles De Beste. Een onbekend architectuurtractaat van een Brugs bouwmeester’, Handelingen van het genootschap voor geschiedenis 131 (1994), 65-93. van den Heuvel 1994b C. 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 1994c C. van den Heuvel, ‘ “Tsamenspreeckinghe betreffende de Architecture ende Schilderkonst”. Schilders, architecten en wiskundigen over de uitbeelding van architectuur’, Incontri, new ser. 9 (1994), 69-85. van den Heuvel 1995 C. van den Heuvel, ‘De Architectura (1599) van Charles De Beste. Het vitruvianisme in de Nederlanden in de zestiende eeuw’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 94 (1995), 11-23. van den Heuvel 1995-1996 C. van den Heuvel, ‘De Huysbou, De Crychconst en de Wijsentijt. Stevins teksten over architectuur, stede-

en vestingbouw in het licht van zijn wetenschappelijk oeuvre’, in: Spiegeling en Daet. Simon Stevin van Brugghe (1548-1620), Bruges 1995-1996, 45-69. van den Heuvel 1996 C. van den Heuvel, ‘Een atlas voor Gilles de Berlaymont, baron van Hierges. Belegeringsscenes, plattegronden en fortificatie-ontwerpen voor een “soldatgentilhomme”, 1570-1578’, Caert-thresoor. Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis van de kartografie in Nederland 15 (1996) 3, 57-96. van den Heuvel 1997a C. van den Heuvel, ‘Stevin, Beeckman en Perrault. De voorafschaduwing in de Nederlanden van de “revolutie” in de Franse architectuurtheorie in de zeventiende eeuw’, in: R. Rolf (ed.), Vitruviuscongres 1995, Heerlen 1997, 52-62. van den Heuvel 1997b C. van den Heuvel, ‘Willem Goeree (1635-1711) en de ontwikkeling van een algemene architectuur­theorie in de Nederlanden’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Neder­ landse Oudheidkundige Bond 96 (1997), 154-176. van den Heuvel 1998 C. van den Heuvel, ‘Pierre Le Poivre (1546-1626), Engineer of the King, and the Representation of Architecture’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 198202. van den Heuvel 2000 Ch. van den Heuvel, ‘Wisconstighe ghedachtenissen. Maurits over de kunsten en wetenschappen in het werk van Stevin’, in: Amsterdam 2000, 107-121. van den Heuvel 2004 C. van den Heuvel, ‘Simon Stevin, de Crychkonst en de Duytsche Mathematique’, in: Vanden Berghe et al. 2004, 103-113. van den Heuvel 2005 C. van den Heuvel, “De Huysbou”. A reconstruction of an unfinished treatise on architecture, town planning and civil engineering by Simon Stevin, (History of Science and Scholarship in the Netherlands, 7), Amsterdam 2005. van den Heuvel & Roosens 2000 C. van den Heuvel & B. Roosens, ‘Los Países Bajos. Las fortificaciones y la coronación de la defensa del imperio de Carlos V’, in: Hernando Sánchez 2000, 578-605. van den Heuvel & van Wezel 1999 C. van den Heuvel & G. van Wezel, ‘A PasqualiniPuzzle? Building fragments of Buren’, in: Bers & Doose 1999, 495-511.

375

Bibliography Hildebrand 1935 O.F.M. Hildebrand, Rubens chez les capucins. Un témoignage de 1617, (Extrait des Etudes Franciscaines, 47, 270-271), s.l. 1935. Hildebrand 1945-1952 O.F.M. Hildebrand, De Kapucijnen in de Nederlanden en het prinsbisdom Luik, Antwerp 1945-1952. Himler 1974 A. Himler, ‘Historiek en voorgeschiedenis van het Hanzehuis te Antwerpen 1564-1893’, Tijdschrift der Stad Antwerpen 20 (1974), 99-111, 166-175. Hipp 1979 H. Hipp, Studien zur “Nachgotik” des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland, Böhmen, Österreich und der Schweiz, Hannover 1979. Hipp 2000 H. Hipp, ‘Manierismus als Stilbegriff in der Architekturgeschichte’, in: W. Braungart (ed.), Manier und Manierismus, Tübingen 2000, 169-201. Hitchcock 1978 H.R. Hitchcock, Netherlandish Scrolled Gables of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries, New York 1978. Hitchcock 1981 H.R. Hitchcock, German Renaissance Architecture, Princeton 1981. Hofmann 1985 C. Hofmann, Das Spanische Hofzeremoniell von 15001700, (Erlanger Historische Studien, 8), Frankfurt 1985. Hollstein (1953) F.W.H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engrav­ ings and Woodcuts ca. 1450-1700, vol. IX, Amsterdam s.d. (1953). Hörsch 1994 M. Hörsch, Architektur unter Margarethe von Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande (1507 - 1530). Eine bau- und architekturgeschichtliche Studie zum Grabkloster St-Nicolasde-Tolentin in Brou bei Bourg-en-Bresse, (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 54), Brussels 1994. Hopkins & Witte 1997 A. Hopkins & A. Witte, ‘Van luxe architectuurtraktaat tot praktische handleiding: de Nederlandse uitgaven van Scamozzi’s L’Idea della Architettura Universale’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 96 (1997), 137-153.

376

Hoppe 2000 S. Hoppe, ‘Die ursprüngliche Raumorganisation des Güstrower Schlosses und ihr Verhältnis zum mitteldeutschen Schloβbau. Zugleich Beobachtungen zum “Historismus” und zur “Erinnerungskultur” im 16. Jahrhundert’, in: Burgen und frühe Schlösser in Thüringen und seinen Nachbarländern, (Forschungen zu Burgen und Schlössern, 5), Munich 2000, 129-148. Hopper 1983 F. Hopper, ‘De Nederlandse klassieke tuin en André Mollet’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oud­ heidkundige Bond 82 (1983), 98-115. Horst 1930 C. Horst, Die Architektur der Renaissance in den Nie­ derlanden und ihre Ausstrahlungen. I. Architektur in den Niederlanden. 1. Architektur in der Malerei und Innenar­ chitektur, The Hague 1930. Hospinianus 1587 Rodolphus Hospinianus, De origine et progressu tem­ plorum ac rerum ad templa pertinentium, libri V, Zürich 1587. van den Hout 1998 A.H.P.J. van den Hout, Vroomheid op de Oudezijds: drie Nicolaaskerken in Amsterdam: de Oude Kerk, Ons’ Lieve Heer op Solder, de Sint Nicolaaskerk, Amsterdam 1988. Howard 1987 D. Howard, Jacopo Sansovino. Architecture and Patronage in Renaissance Venice, 2nd ed., New Haven/London 1987. Huet 2002 L. Huet, ‘Een barok kleinood op een Kempens akker. De kapel van Onze-Lieve-Vrouw van Zeven Weeën in Minderhout’, in: S. Grieten (ed.), Vreemd gebouwd, Westerse en niet-westerse elementen in onze architectuur, Antwerp 2002, 131-157. Huisken, Ottenheym & Schwartz 1995 J. Huisken, K.A. Ottenheym & G. Schwartz (eds.), Jacob van Campen. Het klassieke ideaal in de Gouden Eeuw, Amsterdam 1995. Hunt & de Jong 1988 J.D. Hunt & E. De Jong (eds.), The Anglo-Dutch garden in the Age of William and Mary, (Journal of Garden His­ tory 8 [1988] 2-3), London/Amsterdam 1988. Hurx (forthcoming) M. Hurx, ‘De verbouwing van het stadhuis van Den Bosch in de zeventiende eeuw’,  Bulletin van de Konink­ lijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond, forthcoming.

Bibliography Huygens 1653 Constantijn Huygens, Vitaulium. Hofwijck, The Hague 1653. Huygens-Blom 2003 Constantijn Huygens, Journaal van de reis naar Venetië, ed. F.R.E. Blom, Amsterdam 2003. Huygens-Heesakkers 1987 Constantijn Huygens, Mijn jeugd, ed. C.L. Heesakkers, Amsterdam 1987. Huysmans, Van Damme, Van de Velde & Van Mulders 1996 A. Huysmans, J. Van Damme, C. Van de Velde & C. Van Mulders, Cornelis Floris 1514-1575 beeldhouwer architect ontwerper, Brussels 1996. Icking 1999 B. Icking, ‘Der Turm der Nikolauskirche zu IJsselstein zwischen niederländischer Bautradition und italienischer Renaissance’, in: Bers & Doose 1999, 513-530. Imesch 2000 K. Imesch, Magnificenza als architektonische Katego­ rie. Individuelle Selbstdarstellung versus ästhetische Ver­ wirklichung von Gemeinschaft in den Villen Palladios und Scamozzis, Luzern/Zürich 2000. Imray 1997 J. Imray, ‘The Origins of the Royal Exchange’, in: A. Saunders (ed.), The Royal Exchange, London 1997, 20-35. Iñiguez Almech 1952 F. Iñiguez Almech, Casas reales y jardines de Felipe II, (Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas, de­ legación de Roma), Rome 1952. Installé, Hillaert & Jonckeer 1981 H. Installé, G. Hillaert & R. Jonckeer, 100 jaar stenen gevels 1767-1867, manuscript inventory, Mechelen 1981. Inventie der colommen 1539 P. Coecke van Aelst, Die Inventie der colommen met haren coronamenten ende maten. Uut Vitruvio ende andere diversche Auctoren op corste vergadert voer scilders, beeltsni­ ders, steenhouders, &c. Ende allen die ghenuechte hebben in edificien der Antiquen, Antwerp 1539.

(Crédit Communal de Belgique, Collection Histoire, série in-4°, 15), Brussels 1988, 135-205. Jacquot 1960 J. Jacquot (ed.), Fêtes et cérémonies au temps de Charles Quint, IIe Congrès de l’Association Internationale des His­ toriens de la Renaissance, Bruxelles, Anvers, Gand, Liège, 2-7 septembre 1957, Paris 1960. Jaffé 1977 M. Jaffé, Rubens and Italy, New York 1977. Janse 1964 H. Janse, Bouwers en bouwen in het verle­den, Zaltbommel 1964. Janse 1969 H. Janse, De Lotgevallen der Nederlandse Kerkgebouwen, Zaltbommel 1969. Janse 1987 H. Janse, ‘Het bouwbedrijf en de steenhandel ten tijde van de Keldermans-familie’, in: Janse, Meischke, Mosselveld &Van Tyghem 1987, 173-182. Janse 1989 H. Janse, Houten kappen in Nederland 1000-1940, Delft 1989. Janse & de Vries 1991 H. Janse & D.J. de Vries, Werk en merk van de steen­ houwer: het steenhouwersam­bacht in de Nederlanden voor 1800, Zwolle 1991. Janse, Meischke, Mosselveld & Van Tyghem 1987 H. Janse, R. Meischke, J. H. van Mosselveld & F. van Tyghem (eds.), Keldermans. Een architectonisch netwerk in de Nederlanden, The Hague/Bergen op Zoom 1987. Jansen 1960 L. Jansen, ‘De derde vergroting van Amsterdam’, Jaar­ boek Amstelodamum 52 (1960), 42-89. Jansen & Janssens 1999 J. Jansen & H. Janssens, Beeldhouwkunst in de Premon­ stratenzerabdij van Averbode, Brussels/Averbode 1999. Jansen & Van Herck s.d. A. Jansen & C. Van Herck, De Van den Eynde’s, Ant­ werpsche bouwmeesters en beeldhouwers uit de XVIIe eeuw, (Reprint from: Koninklijke Oudheidkundige Kring van Antwerpen, Jaarboek 20-21), s.l. s.d.

Israel 1989 J.I. Israel, Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585-1740, Oxford 1989.

Janssen 1996 H.L. Janssen et al., 1000 jaar kastelen in Nederland. Functie en vorm door de eeuwen heen, Utrecht 1996.

Jacquet-Ladrier 1988 F. & Ph. Jacquet-Ladrier, ‘1600-1750’, in: Namur, le site, les hommes, de l’époque romaine au XVIIIe siècle,

Janssen, Hoekstra & Olde Meierink 2000 H.L. Janssen, T.J. Hoekstra & B. Olde Meierink, ‘Fortification of castles in the Northern Netherlands

377

Bibliography during the Gelre-Habsburg conflict (1492-1543)’, in: Château Gaillard, Etudes de castellologie médiévale, XIX, Caen 2000, 123-147. Japikse 1925 N. Japikse, Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal van 1576 tot 1609, part VIII, 1593-1595, The Hague 1925. Jappe Alberts 1980 W. Jappe Alberts, De Nederlandse Hanzesteden, 2nd ed., Haar­lem 1980. Jehee 1985 J.J. Jehee, Resultaten van het bouwkundig historisch onder­ zoek van het Paleis Noordeinde te Den Haag, Zeist 1985 (documentation Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg). Jehee 1996 J. Jehee, ‘Balklagen: een schets van typen, toepassing, verspreiding en ontwikkeling in historische Nederlandse woon­huizen’, Jaarboek Monumentenzorg (1996), 39-46. Jodoigne 1991 P. Jodoigne (ed.), Lodovico Guicciardini (1521-1589), (Travaux de l’Institut Interuniversitaire pour l’étude de la Renaissance et de l’Humanisme, X), Leuven 1991. Johannsen 2004 H. Johannsen, ‘The Protestant Palace Chapel. Monument to Evangelical Religion and Sacred Rulership’, in: N. H. Petersen, C. Clüver & N. Bell, Signs of Change. Transformation of Christian Traditions and their Representation in the Arts, 1000-2000, Amsterdam/ New York 2004, 137-164. de Jong 1993 E. de Jong, Natuur en Kunst. Nederlandse tuin- en land­ schapsarchitectuur 1650-1740, Amsterdam 1993. de Jongh 1973 E. de Jongh, ‘ “’t Gotsche krulligh mall”. De houding tegenover de gotiek in het zeventiende-eeuwse Holland’, Nederlands kunsthistorisch jaarboek 24 (1973), 85-145. de Jongh 1983 E. de Jongh, ‘Over ambachtsman en kunstenaar: de status van de schilder in de 16de en 17de eeuw’, Utrecht Renaissance Studies 2 (1983), 29-57. Jongste 1995 P.F.B. Jongste, Het gebruik van marmer in de Romeinse samenleving, Leiden 1995. Jottrand 1979-1980 M. Jottrand, ‘Le château de Mariemont en 1780 et après’, Les Cahiers de Mariemont 10-11 (1979-1980), 43-58. 

378

Jous 1979 L. Jous, ‘Contribution à l’histoire des maîtres de carrières écaussinois’, in: Actes du Colloque international [de glyptographie] de Mons, 28-29 avril 1979, Brainele-Château 1979, 241-281. Juten 1922 G.C.A. Juten, ‘De koepelkerk van Willemstad’, Ta­ xandria 29 (1922), 11-25. Kabza 1911 A. Kabza, ‘Eine Studienreise des deutschen Festungbaumeisters Daniel Specklin in die Niederlande’, Oud Holland 29 (1911), 166-171. Kalf 1912 J. Kalf, De monumenten in de voormalige baronie van Breda, (De Nederlandse monumenten van geschiedenis en kunst I.1), Utrecht 1912. Kannegieter 1942 J.Z. Kannegieter, ‘Het St. Jansbeeld van het Bossche oxaal’, Oud Holland 59 (1942), 110-111. Kaputska 2003 M. Kaputska (ed.), Niderlandyzm na Śląsku i w Krajach Ościennych, Wrocław 2003. Karwacka Codini 1989 E. Karwacka Codini, Piazza dei Cavalieri. Urbanis­ tica e architettura dal Medioevo al Novecento, Florence 1989. Kavaler 1994 E.M. Kavaler, ‘The Jubé of Mons and the Renaissance in the Netherlands’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 45 (1994), 348-381. Kavaler 1995 E.M. Kavaler, ‘Being the Count of Nassau. Refiguring identity in Space, Time and Stone’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 46 (1995), 13-51. Kavaler 2000 E.M. Kavaler, ‘Renaissance Gothic in the Netherlands: The Uses of Ornament’, Art Bulletin 82 (2000), 226-251. Kavaler 2004 E.M. Kavaler, ‘Margaret of Austria, Ornament, and the Court Style of Brou’, in: S.J. Campbell (ed.), Artists at Court. Image-Making and Identity 1300-1550, Boston/Chicago 2004, 124-137. Kellenbenz 1965 H. Kellenbenz, ‘Jakob Rehlinger, ein Augsburger Kaufmann in Venedig’, in: Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Stadtgeschichte. Festschrift für Hektor Ammann, Wiesbaden 1965, 362-379.

Bibliography Kemp (forthcoming) W. Kemp, ‘Les contrefaçons lyonnaises de livres d’Aldo Manuzio et le premier livre sur l’architecture imprimé en France: le Vitruve de 1523’, in: S. Deswarte-Rosa (ed.), Sebastiano Serlio à Lyon. Architecture & Imprimerie, vol. II, L’imprimerie à Lyon au temps de Serlio, Lyons (forthcoming). Kendall Frieder 1997 B. Kendall Frieder, The Perfect Prince: Tournaments, Armor and the Iconography of Succession on the Grand Tour of Philip of Spain, 1548-1551, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison 1997. Kerkhoff 1993 J. Kerkhoff, ‘Het hof van Maria van Hongarije in de Nederlanden’, in: Utrecht/’s-Hertogenbosch 1993, 162-174. Kerkmeyer 1911 J. Kerkmeyer, ‘De waag in Hoorn’, Het huis oud en nieuw 9 (1911), 235-246. Kesterloo 1883 H.M. Kesterloo, ‘De stadsrekeningen van Middel­burg van 1365-1810’, Archief Zeeuws genootschap 5, 6 (1883). Kiem 1987 K. Kiem, ‘Rammekens, eine frühe Bastionärfestung in den Niederlanden (De Boni, ab 1547)’, Architectura. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baukunst 1 (1987), 67-75. Kiem 1994 K. Kiem, ’Die Waage von Deventer (1528) als Handelshalle’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oud­ heidkundige Bond 93 (1994), 53-61. Kiem 1996a K. Kiem, ‘Ideal und Wirklichkeit. Die Identifizierung des Entwurfs für die Waage von Haarlem: Lieven de Key, 1598’, Architectura. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baukunst 10 (1996), 24-32. Kiem 1996b K. Kiem, Die Waage als Bautyp, Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam 1996. Kiene 1991 M. Kiene, ‘Zur Planungsgeschichte der kölner Rathausvorhalle’, Wallraf-Richartz Jahrbuch. Westdeutsches Jahr­ buch für Kunstgeschichte 52 (1991), 127-156. Kipp s.d. A.F.E. Kipp, ‘Van verscholen huis tot schuilkerk’, in: Gertrudis, Utrecht s.d., 3-8. Klein 1965 P.W. Klein, De Trippen in de zeventiende eeuw, Assen 1965.

Kleintjes & Sormani 1910-1919 J. Kleintjes & L. Sormani, Rekeningen der stad Nijme­gen, 8 vols., Nijme­gen 1910-1919. Klep 1990 P.M.M. Klep, ‘Het Brabantse stedensysteem en de scheiding der Nederlanden, 1565-1650’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 73 (1990), 101-127. de Klerk 1998 A. de Klerk, Bouwen aan de hofstad. De geschiedenis van het bouwtoezicht in Den Haag 1250-1900, in sociaal en cultureel perspectief, Delft 1998. Klück, Hemmes & de Kam 2004 B. Klück, A. Hemmes & R. de Kam, Het Utrechtse antwoord. De bastions van Karel V, (Utrechtse stadsgeschiedenissen), Utrecht 2004. Knoors 1993 J.A. Knoors, ‘De hertogelijke controle over de Maas bij Ur­mond’, in: P.L. Nève (ed.), Sittard, uit bronnen geput, vol. I, Sittard 1993, 271-292. Koch 1982 A.C.F. Koch (ed.), In en om het Deventer stadhuis, Deventer 1982. Koch 1988 C. Koch, ‘Albrecht Dürer, Unterricht zur Befestigung’, in: H. Günther (ed.), Deutsche Architekturtheo­ rie zwischen Gotik und Renaissance, Darmstadt 1988, 180-193. Koldeweij & van Wezel 2003 J. Koldeweij & G. van Wezel (eds.), De Onze-LieveVrouwekerk en de grafkapel voor Oranje-Nassau te Breda, (De Nederlandse monumenten van geschiedenis en kunst), Zeist/Zwolle 2003. Kolman 1993 C. Kolman, Naer de eisch van ’t werck. De organisatie van het bouwen te Kampen, 1450-1650, Utrecht 1993. Kolman & Stenvert 1994 C. Kolman & R. Stenvert, ‘Nieuwe vormen en traditionele bouw: het Vleeshuis te Kampen in het midden van de 16de eeuw’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Neder­ landse Oudheidkundige Bond 93 (1994), 81-99. Konrad 1923 M. Konrad, ‘Antwerpener Binnenräume im Zeitalter des Rubens’, in: P. Clemen (ed.), Belgische Kunstdenk­ mäler, vol. II, München 1923, 185-242. Kool 1999 M. Kool, ‘die conste vanden getale’. Een studie over Ne­derlandstalige rekenboeken uit de vijftiende en zestiende

379

Bibliography eeuw, met een glossarium van rekenkundige termen, Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht 1999, Hilversum 1999.

Kubler 1982a G. Kubler, A arquitectura portuguesa chã. Entre as Espe­ ciarias e os Diamantes 1521-1706, Lisbon 1982.

Kooij 1996 B. Kooij, ‘De spouwmuur in oude Nederlandse buitenhuizen. Een eerste verkenning van de oudste voorbeelden’, Jaarboek Monumentenzorg (1996), 80-85.

Kubler 1982b G. Kubler, Building the Escorial, Princeton 1982.

Kooijmans 1997 L. Kooijmans, Vriendschap en de kunst van het overleven in de zeventiende en achttien­de eeuw, Amsterdam 1997. Kowalczyk 1973 J. Kowalczyk, Sebastiano Serlio a Sztuka Polska. O Roli Włoskich Traktatów Architektonicznych w Dobie Nowożytnej, Wrocław etc. 1973. Krčálová 1976 J. Krčálová, Centrální stavby Ceské renesance, Prague 1976. Kramer 1998 W. Kramer, De Noorderkerk in Amsterdam, Zwolle 1998. Kravtsov 2005 S.R. Kravtsov, ‘Juan Bautista Villalpando and Sacred Architecture in the Seventeenth Century’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 64 (2005) 3, 312-339. Krinsky 1971 C.H. Krinsky, ‘Cesariano and the Renaissance without Rome’, Arte Lombarda 16 (1971), 211-218. Kruft 1970 H.W. Kruft, ‘Antonio della Porta, gen. Tamagnino,’ Pantheon 28 (1970), 401-414. Kruft 1972 H.W. Kruft, ‘Un cortile rinascimentale italiano nella Sierra Nevada: La Calahorra’, Antichità Viva 11 (1972), 35-51. Kruft 1994 H.W. Kruft, Geschichte der Architekturtheorie. Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, 2nd ed., Munich 1994 (1st ed. 1985). Kruimel 1939 H.L. Kruimel, ‘Proeve eener genealogie van het uitgestorven Amsterdamsche geslacht Danckerts’, Ne­ derlandsch Archief voor Genealogie en Heraldiek 2 (1939), 97-101, 131-137, 145-149, 176-181, 204-210, 150255, 282-285. Kubler 1964 G. Kubler, ‘Francesco Paciotto, architect’, in: L.F. Sandler (ed.), Essays in the Memory of Karl Lehmann, New York 1964, 176-189.

380

Küffner & Spohr 1999 H. Küffner & E. Spohr, Burg und Schloß Düsseldorf. Baugeschichte einer Residenz, (Jülicher Forschungen, 6), Jülich 1999. Kuyper 1980 W. Kuyper, Dutch Classicist Architecture. A Survey of Dutch Architecture, Gardens and Anglo-Dutch Architectural Relations from 1625 to 1700, Delft 1980. Kuyper 1981 W. Kuyper, ‘Het voorbeeld van de Christelijke Kerk: een tempel en zijn reconstructie’, Jaarboek Amsteloda­ mum 73 (1981), 69-81. Kuyper 1994 W. Kuyper, The Triumphant Entry of Renaissance Archi­ tecture in The Netherlands. The Joyeuse Entrée of Philip of Spain into Antwerp in 1549, Renaissance and Mannerist Architecture in the Low Countries from 1530 to 1630, 2 vols., Alphen aan den Rijn 1994. Labacco 1552 Antonio Labacco, Libro d’Antonio Labacco appartenente a l’architettura nel qual si figurano alcune notabili antiquità di Roma, Rome 1552. Labouchère 1922 G. Labouchère, ‘De toren der N.H. St. Nicolaaskerk te IJsselstein. Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van den strengen Renaissance stijl in Nederland’, Oudheidkun­ dig Jaarboek (1922), 37-59. Labouchère 1938 G.C. Labouchere, ‘Aanteekeningen over Alexander Pasqualini en zijn werk’, Oudheidkundig Jaarboek (1938), 7-12. La galerie François Ier 1972 La galerie François Ier au château de Fontainebleau, Revue de l’Art 16-17 (1972). Laleman 1985 M. C. Laleman, ‘Gotiek, renaissance of barok? Een spiegel van de Gentse architectuur in de 17de eeuw’, in: N. Poulain (ed.), Gent & Architectuur. Trots, schande en herwaardering in een overzicht, Bruges 1985, 56-75. Laleman 1997 M. C. Laleman, ‘Het stenen verleden, Een beknopt overzicht van bouwactiviteiten, bouwkundige ontwikkeling en monastieke architectuur’, in: G. Declercq

Bibliography (ed.), Ganda en Blandinium: De Gentse abdijen van SintPieters en Sint-Baafs, Ghent 1997, 115-146.

guignons, (Studies in European Urban History 11001800, 4), Turnhout 2004.

Lamberini 1988 D. Lamberini (ed.), L’architettura militare veneta del ’500, Milan 1988.

Lefèvre 1924 P. Lefèvre, L’abbaye Norbertine d’Averbode pendant l’époque moderne (1591-1797), Leuven 1924.

Lampo 1993 J. Lampo, Het stadhuis van Antwerpen, Brussel 1993.

Lefèvre 1937 P. Lefèvre, ‘Textes pour servir à l’histoire artistique de l’abbaye d’Averbode aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/ Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 7 (1937).

Landwehr 1971 J. Landwehr, Splendid Ceremonies. State Entries and Royal Funerals in the Low Countries, 1515-1791. A Bibliography, Nieuwkoop/Leiden 1971. Langereis 2001 S. Langereis, Geschiedenis als ambacht. Oudheidkunde in de Gouden Eeuw: Arnoldus Buchelius en Petrus Scriverius, (Hollandse Studiën, 37), Hilversum 2001. Lanoye 1998 D. Lanoye, ‘Structure and Composition of the Household of the Archdukes’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 107-119. Larsson 1997 L.O. Larsson, ‘Palladios Erben in Schweden: Pro­bleme der Legitimität’, in: Bracker 1997, 213-228. Lauwers 2003 B. Lauwers, Studie van het iconografisch corpus in Antonius Sanderus’ Flandria Illustrata (1641-1644), unpublished Master’s Thesis, Leuven 2003. Lauwerys 1960 J. Lauwerys, ‘De kerk van Hoogstraten, I (tot 1555)’, Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Hoogstratens Oudheidkundige kring 38 (1960). Lauwerys 1971 J. Lauwerys, ‘De kerk van Hoogstraten, II. Symboliek en iconografie’, Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Hoogstratens Oudheidkundige kring 39 (1971). Lauwerys 1978-1979 J. Lauwerys, ‘Het kasteel van Hoogstraten’, Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Hoogstratens Oudheidkundige kring 46 (1978); 47 (1979). Lebeer 1981 L. Lebeer, ‘Note concernant la plus ancienne vue générale gravée de la Cour de Brabant à Bruxelles’, Annales de la société d’archéologie de Bruxelles 58 (1981), 141-149. Lecuppre-Desjardin 2004 E. Lecuppre-Desjardin, La ville des cérémonies. Essai sur la communication politique dans les anciens Pays-Bas bour­

Lefèvre 1964 J. Lefèvre, ‘Maximilien de Hénin-Liétard, comte de Boussu’, in: Biographie Nationale, Supplément 4, vol. XXXII, Brussels 1964, 63-64. Lemaire 1993 C. Lemaire, ‘De Librije van Maria van Hongarije’, in: Utrecht/’s-Hertogenbosch 1993, 179-188. Lemaire 1996 C. Lemaire, ‘La bibliothèque des imprimés de la reine Marie de Hongrie régente des Pays-Bas, 1505-1558’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 58 (1996), 119-139. Lemerle 2000 F. Lemerle, Les Annotations de Guillaume Philandrier sur le De Architectura de Vitruve Livres I à IV, (De Architectura), Paris 2000. Lemerle & Pauwels 2002 F. Lemerle & Y. Pauwels, ‘Introduction à la diffusion des traités en Europe du Nord’, in: M.-C. Heck, F. Lemerle & Y. Pauwels (eds.), Théorie des arts et créa­ tion artistique dans l’Europe du Nord du XVIe au début du XVIIIe siècle, (Travaux et recherches), Lille 2002, 3-11. Lemoine-Isabeau 1979-1980 C. Lemoine-Isabeau, ‘Mariemont au XVIIIe siècle. Du temps de Charles de Lorraine’, Les Cahiers de Mariemont 10-11 (1979-1980), 9-42. Leon 1642 Jacob Jehuda Leon, Afbeeldinghe van den Tempel Salo­ monis, In welcke cortelijkck beschreven is de forme van ’t ghebou des Tempels, ende van alle de vaten en instrumenten waer mede den selven bedient wierdt: Welckers Model den Autheur is hebbende/ als een yder by den selven sien can, Middelburg 1642. Le Roy 1692 [Baron] Jacob [Jacques] Le Roy, Topographia historica Gallo-Brabantiæ. Qua Romanduæ oppida, municipia & dominia illustrantur, atque monasteria, nobiliumque

381

Bibliography prætoria castellaque in æs incisa exhibentur, Amsterdam 1692. Lesage, Lottin & Duvosquel 1985 C. Lesage, A. Lottin & J.M. Duvosquel, Châtellenies de Lille, Douai, Orchies, 1. Généralités, abbayes, villes et villages, (Albums de Croÿ, XII), Brussels 1985. Letérron & Gillot 1996 I. Lettérron, D. Gillot, L’Hôtel de Bourgtheroulde, Rouen. Demeure des Le Roux, (Cahier du patrimoine, 44), Rouen 1996. Lettere di artisti italiani 1979 Lettere di artisti italiani ad Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, Tiziano, Giovan Batista Mantovano, Primaticcio, Giovan­ ni Paolo Poggini ad altri, Madrid 1979, (Documenti e ricerche 7). Levy 1990 E. Levy, ‘ “A Noble Medley and Concert of Materials and Artifice”, Jesuit Church Interiors in Rome, 1567-1700’, in: Rome 1990, 47-61. Leys 1987 J. Leys, ‘De invloed van Anthonis I en Rombout II Keldermans op de kasteelfortificaties’, in: Janse, Meisch­ ke, Mosselveld & Van Tyghem 1987, 159-171. Lievense-Pelser 1975 E. Lievense-Pelser, ‘De Remonstranten en hun kerk’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum 67 (1975), 121-136. Lievense-Pelser 1980 E. Lievense-Pelser, H.J. Zantkuijl et al., Vrijburg. Geschiedenis en toekomst van een Amsterdamse schuilkerk, Amsterdam 1980. van der Linden 1990 C.J.R. van der Linden, ‘De symboliek van de Nieuwe Kerk van Jacob van Campen te Haarlem’, Oud Holland 104 (1990), 1-31. Lleó Cañal 1994 V. Lleó Cañal, ‘La casa de Pilatos’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), Architecture et vie sociale. L’organisation intérieure des grandes demeures à la fin du moyen age et à la Renaissance, (De Architectura, 6), Paris 1994, 181-192. Llewellyn 1977 N. 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 1988 N. Llewellyn, ‘Diego de Sagredo and the Renaissance in Italy’, in: Chastel & Guillaume 1988, 295-306.

382

Llewellyn 1998 N. Llewellyn, ‘ “Hungry and Desperate for Knowledge”: Diego de Sagredo’s Spanish point of view’, in: V. Hart & P. Hicks, Paper Palaces. The Rise of the Renaissance Architec­ tural Treatise, New Haven/London 1998, 122-137. Llewellyn 2000 N. Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England, Cambridge 2000. Lipsius 1585 J. Lipsius, De amphitheatro liber. In quo forma ipsa loci expressa, and De amphitheatris quae extra Romam libellus, 2nd edition, Antwerp 1585 (1st ed. Leiden 1584). Lombaerde 1983 P. Lombaerde, ‘Het theoretische en praktische aandeel van Simon Stevin en Wenceslas Cobergher bij de heropbouw van Oostende na 1604’, Het Ingenieursblad 52 (1983), 331-338. Lombaerde 1991 P. Lombaerde, ‘Pietro Sardi, Georg Müller, Salomon de Caus und die Wasserkünste des Coudenberg-Gartens in Brüssel’, Die Gartenkunst 3 (1991), 159-173. Lombaerde 1998 P. Lombaerde, ‘Dominating Space and Landscape: Ostend and Scherpenheuvel’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 173-183. Lombaerde 1999a P. Lombaerde, ‘Continuïteit, vernieuwingen en verschillen. Het concept van de stad in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Neder­landen rond 1600’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 98 (1999), 237-248. Lombaerde 1999b P. Lombaerde, ‘Herrschaftsarchitektur. Über den Abbruch von Zitadellen und den Bau neuer Paläste in den Niederlanden’, in: Bers & Doose 1999, 317-333. Lombaerde 2002a P. Lombaerde, ‘De Waterpoort en de middeleeuwse muur langs de Schelde in Antwerpen’, in: L. De Vos (ed.), Burchten en forten en andere versterkingen in Vlaan­ deren, Leuven 2002, 126-129. Lombaerde 2002b P. Lombaerde (ed.), The Reception of P.P. Rubens’s Palazzi di Genova during the 17th century in Europe: Questions and Problems, (Architectura Moderna, 1), Turnhout 2002. Lombaerde 2004 P. Lombaerde, ‘De heropbouw van Oostende na 1604’, in: W. Thomas (ed.), De val van het nieuwe

Bibliography Troye. Het beleg van Oostende 1601-1604, Leuven 2004, 112-125. Lombaerde 2005a P. Lombaerde, ‘Hydraulic Projects by Hans Vredeman de Vries and Their Related Construction Problems’, in: Lombaerde 2005b, 101-116. Lombaerde 2005b P. Lombaerde (ed.), Vredeman de Vries and the Artes Mechanicae Revisited, (Architectura Moderna, 3), Turnhout 2005. Lombaerde & van den Heuvel 2002 P. Lombaerde & Ch. van den Heuvel, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries en de technische kunsten’, in: Antwerp 2002, 117-124. Loomba 1998 A. Loomba, Colonialism/Postcolonialism, New York/ London 1998. Loonstra 1985 M. Loonstra, “Het Huys int Bosch”. Koninklijk Paleis Huis ten Bosch historisch gezien, Zutphen 1985. López Torrijos 1987 R. López Torrijos, ‘La scultura genovese in Spagna’, in: La scultura a Genova e in Liguria dalle origini al Cinquecento, Genoa 1987, vol. I, 366-393. López Torrijos 1999 R. López Torrijos, ‘La relación del primer Marqués de Santa Cruz con las Artes. Datos inéditos sobre obras y colecciones’, in: El Arte en las Cortes… 1999, 409418. Lüthgen 1915 E. Lüthgen, Belgische Baudenmäler, Leipzig 1915. Luns 1931 H. Luns, De verovering van de eenvoud (inaugural lecture, University of Delft 1931). Lunsingh Scheurleer 1969 Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘De woonvertrekken van Amalia’s Huis ten Bosch’, Oud Holland 84 (1969), 29-66. Lunsingh Scheurleer 1987 Th. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Drie brieven van de architect Pieter Post over zijn werk voor Constantijn Huygens en stadhouder Frederik Hendrik in de Fondation Custodia te Parijs’, in: A. Th. van Deursen, E.K. Grootes & P.E.L. Verkuyl (eds.), Veelzijdigheid als levensvorm. Facetten van Constantijn Huygens’ leven en werk, Deventer 1987, 38-51. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Fock & van Dissel 1986-1992

Th. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C.W. Fock & A.J. van Dissel, Het Rapenburg. Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, 11 vols., Leiden 1986-1992. van Luttervelt 1962 R. van Luttervelt, ‘Renaissancekunst in Breda. Vijf studies. III. De graftombe van Engelbert II van Nassau en Cimburga van Baden’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 13 (1962), 82-104. van Luttervelt 1963 R. van Luttervelt, ‘Renaissancekunst in Breda. Vijf studies. IV. Tommaso Vincidor en het kasteel van Breda’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 14 (1963), 31-60. Maclot & Grieten 2002 P. Maclot & S. Grieten, ‘Het renaissance-interieur van palazzo Ducci: flirt van een Italiaans bankier met keizer Karel’, in: Grieten 2002, 61-92. Madonna 2000 M.L. Madonna, ‘El viaje de Carlos V por Italia después de Túnez: el triunfo clásico y el plan de reconstrucción de las ciudades’, in: Sevilla 2000, 119-153. Maho & Deflandre 1930 H. Maho & M. Deflandre, La Belgique à Marie (Belgium Marianum): répertoire historique et descriptif des églises, sanc­ tuaires, chapelles et grottes dans nos provinces, Brussels 1930. van Mander 1604 C. van Mander, Het Schilder-Boeck, Haarlem 1604. Manderyck 1982 M. Manderyck, ‘Het Karmelietessenklooster aan de Rosier in Antwerpen’, Monumenten en Landschappen 1 (1982) 5, 35-41. March 1951 J. M. March, ‘El primer marqués de Cenete. Su vida suntuosa’, Archivo Español de Arte 24 (1951), 47-65. Marechal 1951 (1985) J. Marechal, ‘Le départ de Bruges des marchands étrangers (XVe et XVIe siècles)’, Handelingen van het Genootschap voor Geschiedenis ‘Société d’Emulation’ te Brugge, 88 (1951), 26-74, republished in: Europese aanwezigheid te Brugge. De vreemde kolonies (XIVde-XIXde eeuw), (Vlaamse Historische Studies, 3), Bruges 1985, 180-210. Marías 1989 F. Marías, El largo siglo XVI. Los usos artísticos del Renacimiento español, (Conceptos fundamentales en la historia del arte español, 5), Madrid 1989. Marías 1990-1992 F. Marías, ‘Sobre el castillo de La Calahorra y el Codex Escurialensis’, Quaderni dell’istituto di storia

383

Bibliography dell’architettura, new ser. (1990-1992) 15-20, 539553. Marías 1995 F. Marías, ‘Las iglesias de planta central en España’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), L’église dans l’architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 28 au 31 mai 1990, (De Architectura, 7), Paris 1995, 133146. Marías 2000a F. Marías, ‘El palacio de Carlos V en Granada: formas romanas, usos castellanos’, in: M.J. Redondo Cantera & M.A. Zalama (eds.), Carlos V y las artes. Promoción artística y familia imperial, Valladolid 2000, 107-128. Marías 2000b F. Marías, ‘La casa real nueva de Carlos V en la Alhambra: letras, armas y arquitectura entre Roma y Granada’, in: Granada 2000a, 201-221. Marinus 1995 M.-J. Marinus, De contrareformatie te Antwerpen (15851676), kerkelijk leven in een grootstad, (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten, 57), Brussels 1995. Marinus 1996 M.-J. Marinus, ‘De financiering van de contrareformatie te Antwerpen (1585-1700)’, in: E. Put, M.-J. Marinus & H. Storme (eds.), Geloven in het verleden. Studies over het godsdienstig leven in de vroegmoderne tijd, aangeboden aan Michiel Cloet, (Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum Lovaniensis, ser. A, 22), Leuven 1996, 239252. Marlier 1966 G. Marlier, La Renaissance flamande. Pierre Coeck d’Alost, Brussels 1966. Marnef 1987 G. Marnef, ‘Brabants Calvinisme in opmars: de weg naar de calvinistische republieken te Antwerpen, Brussel en Mechelen, 1577-1580’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 70 (1987), 7-21. Marnef 1996 G. Marnef, Antwerpen in de tijd van de Reformatie. Ondergronds protestantisme in een handelsmetropool 15501577, Amsterdam 1996. Marquet & Glotz 1991 L. Marquet & S. Glotz, Une relation allemande méconnue (1550) des fêtes données par Marie de Hongrie, à Binche et à Mariemont, en août 1549, (Les cahiers binchois, [1991], special issue), Binche 1991.

384

Martens 1999 P. Martens, ‘An early sixteenth-century drawing of two bulwarks at Arras’, FORT The International Jour­ nal of Fortification and Military Architecture 27 (1999), 67-92. Martens 2004 P. Martens, ‘Pierre-Ernest de Mansfeld et les ingénieurs et architectes militaries’, Hémecht. Revue d’Histoire Luxemboureoise/Zeitschrift für Luxemburger Geschichte 56 (2004), 475-495. Martens (forthcoming) P. Martens, ‘Albrecht Dürer’s Treatise on Fortification (1527). From Italy to the North’, in: N. Fau­cherre & K. De Jonge (eds.), The Genesis of the Bastionated Sys­ tem in Europe/La genèse du système bastionné en Europe 1500-1540, Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 4 au 6 juin 2002, (forthcoming). Martens & Hemmes (forthcoming) P. Martens & A. Hemmes, ‘The development of bastioned fortification at Utrecht (1528-1558): local tradition versus Italian innovation’, in: N. Faucherre & K. De Jonge (eds.), The Genesis of the Bastionated Sys­ tem in Europe/La genèse du système bastionén en Europe 1500-1540, Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 4 au 6 juin 2002, (forthcoming). Martens, Mousset & Röder 2006 P. Martens, J.-L. Mousset & B. Röder, ‘La donación Mansfeld a Felipe II: un primer resumen de la investigaciones’, Reales sitios (2006) 168, 30-49. Martens & Snaet 1999 P. Martens & J. Snaet, ‘De Mariale bedevaartskerk van Scherpenheuvel. Een onderzoek naar dynastieke relaties en de verspreiding van ontwerpen en denk­ beelden over architectuur’, Bulletin van de Konink­ lijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 98 (1999), 214-225. Martens, Vlaeminck & Coolen 1988 J. Martens, S. Vlaeminck & L. Coolen, ‘Het Capu­ cijnenklooster te Sint-Truiden. Een maatschappelijke toekomst voor een religieus verleden’, Monumenten en Landschappen 7 (1988) 1, 41-60. Martin 1968 J.R. Martin, The Ceiling Painting for the Jesuit Church in Antwerp, (Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, I), Brussels/New York/London 1968. Martin 1972 J.R. Martin, The Decorations for the Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi, (Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, XVI), London/New York 1972.

Bibliography Martínez Tercero 1985 E. Martínez Tercero, ‘Valsaín: un Real sitio Flamenco en el Bosque de Segovia’, Reales sitios 22 (1985) 84, 12-24. Massarette 1930 J. Massarette, La vie martiale et fastueuse de Pierre-Ernest de Mansfeld (1517-1604), 2 vols., Paris 1930. Materné 1992 J. Materné, ‘ “Schoon ende bequaem tot versame­ linghe der cooplieden”. De Antwerpse beurs tijdens de gouden 16de eeuw’, in: G. De Clercq et al., Ter Beurze. Geschiedenis van de aandelenhandel in België, 1300-1990, Antwerp/Bruges 1992, 50-85. McGowan 2000 M.M. McGowan, The Vision of Rome in Late Renais­ sance France, London/Yale 2000. Meadow 1998 M.A. Meadow, ‘Ritual and Civic Identity in Philip II’s 1549 Antwerp “Blijde Incompst” ’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 49 (1998), 37-67. Medidas del Romano… 1986 Medidas del Romano por Diego de Sagredo, ed. F. Marías & A. Bustamante, (Colección Tratados, Dirección general de Bellas Artes y Archivos, Instituto de conservación y restauración de bienes culturales), Madrid 1986. Mees & Grieten 1999 M. Mees & S. Grieten (eds.), De begijnhofkerk van Lier, Bouwgeschiedenis en inventaris van het kunstpatrimonium van de Sint-Margarethaker, (Liers genootschap voor geschiedenis), Bruges 1999. Meganck 1998a T. Meganck, ‘Court Artist Wenzel Cobergher (1557 to 1561?-1634)’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 204-210. Meganck 1998b T. Meganck, De kerkelijke architectuur van Wensel Cober­ gher (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. Meganck 1999 T. Meganck, ‘Abraham Ortelius, Hubertus Goltzius en Guido Laurinus en de studie van de Arx Britannica’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkun­ dige Bond 98 (1999), 226-236. Meganck 2003 T. Meganck, Erudite Eyes. Artists and Antiquarians in the Circle of Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598), Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton 2003.

Meganck 2005 T. Meganck, ‘Cornelis Floris and the “Floris-school” in the Baltic’, in: A. Balis, P. Huvenne, J. Lambrecht & Ch. Van Mulders (eds.), Florissant. Bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden (15de-17de eeuw). Liber Amicorum Carl Van de Velde, Brussels 2005, 171-184. Meijer 1995 B.W. Meijer, ‘Van Spranger tot en met Rubens: naar een nieuwe gelijkwaardigheid’, in: Brussels/Rome 1995, 32-47. Meischke 1952 (1988) R. Meischke, ‘Het architectonische ontwerp in de Nederlanden gedurende de late middeleeuwen en de zestiende eeuw’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond (1952), 161-230, republished in: Id., De gothische bouwtraditie, Amersfoort 1988, 127-207. Meischke 1958 R. Meischke, ‘De oudste gedaante van de St. Olofs- of Oudezijdskapel’, Amstelodamum 45 (1958), 133-141. Meischke 1959 R. Meischke, ‘Amsterdamse kerken van de zeventiende eeuw’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond (1959), 85-130. Meischke 1966 R. Meischke, ‘De vroegste werken van Jacob van Campen’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oud­ heidkundige Bond 65 (1966), 131-145. Meischke 1975 R. Meischke, Amsterdam Burgerweeshuis, (Nederlandse Monumenten van Geschiedenis en Kunst), The Hague 1975. Meischke 1975 (1988) R. Meischke, ‘Huizen en keuren’, in: Rotterdam Papers II. A contribution ot medieval archaeology, Rotterdam 1975, 89-116, republished in: Id., De gothische bouwtra­ ditie, Amersfoort 1988, 208-253. Meischke 1981 R. Meischke, ‘De grote trap van het Huis Honselaarsdijk, 1633-1638’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 31 (1981), 86-103. Meischke 1983 R. Meischke, ‘De modernisering van de twee grote zalen van het Huis Honselaarsdijk’, Nederlands Kunst­ historisch Jaarboek 33 (1983), 191-206. Meischke 1985 R. Meischke, ‘Het Mauritshuis te Willemstad’, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 3 (1984). Bouwen in Nederland, Delft 1985, 265-294.

385

Bibliography Meischke 1987a R. Meischke, ‘De stedelijke bouwopgaven tussen 1450 en 1530’, in: Janse, Meischke, Mosselveld & Van Tyghem 1987, 87-104. Meischke 1987b R. Meischke, ‘Het Markiezenhof te Bergen op Zoom’, in: Bergen om Zoom gebouwd en beschouwd, Bergen op Zoom 1987, 1-69. Meischke 1989 R. Meischke, ‘Een nieuwe gevel voor het Leidse stadhuis (1593-1598)’, Leids Jaarboekje 81 (1989), 55-83. Meischke 1990 R. Meischke, ‘Het Huis Honselaardijk opnieuw getekend’, in: Th. Morren, Het huis Honselaarsdijk, Alphen aan den Rijn 1990 (reprint of the 1905 edition), 137-183. Meischke 1994 R. Meischke, ‘Het Amsterdamse fabrieksambt van 1595-1625’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 93 (1994), 100-122. Meischke 1995 R. Meischke, ‘Een plan voor een citadel te Amsterdam uit ca. 1545’, Castellogica 1 (1995),139-147. Meischke & Ottenheym 1992 R. Meischke & K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Honselaarsdijk: Tuin en park; speelhuis (1636) en Nederhof (16401644),’ Jaarboek Monumentenzorg (1992), 118-137. Meischke, Zantkuijl & Rosenberg 1997 R. Meischke, H.J. Zantkuijl & P.T.E.E. Rosenberg, Huizen in Nederland III. Zeeland en Zuid-Holland, Zwolle/Amsterdam 1997.

Mensger 2002 A. Mensger, Jan Gossaert. Die niederländische Kunst zu Beginn der Neuzeit, Berlin 2002. Meseure 1987 S.J. Meseure, Die Architektur der Antwerper Börse und der europäische Börsenbau im 19. Jahrhundert, (Beiträge zur Kunstwissenschaft, 11), Munich 1987. Meskens 1994 A. Meskens, Wiskunde tussen Renaissance en Barok: aspecten van wiskunde-beoefening te Antwerpen 15501620, (Publikaties van de Stadsbibliotheek, 41-43), Antwerp 1994. Meulleners 1886 J.L. Meulleners, ‘De scheepvaart in het tegenwoordig hertogdom Limburg tijdens de beroerten in de XVIe en XVIIe eeuw, benevens bijzonder­heden uit dat tijdvak over maasschip­pers, handel, zeden en rechts­ wezen in dit ge­bied’, Publi­cations de la société historique et archéologique dans le Limbourg 23 (1886), 89-160. Meurisse 1924 P.C. Meurisse, ‘Les château et palais de Binche’, Annales de la société d’archéologie de Binche 3 (1924), 50-65. de Meyere 2000 J. de Meyere, ‘Een Utrechts beeld van Karel V’, OudUtrecht 73 (2000) 6, 149-156. Meyfroots 2001 G. Meyfroots, ‘Het Comité d’études du Vieux Bru­ xelles (1903-1939): vier decennia in de marge van de monumentenzorg’, Monumenten & Landschappen 20 (2001) 2, 8-33.

Meischke, Zantkuijl & Rosenberg 2000 R. Meischke, H.J. Zantkuijl & P.T.E.E. Rosenberg, Huizen in Nederland IV. Utrecht, Noord-Brabant en de oostelijke provincies, Zwolle/Amsterdam 2000.

Mezzatesta 1985 M. Mezzatesta, ‘The Façade of Leone Leoni’s House in Milan, the Casa degli Omenoni: The Artists and the Public’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 44 (1985), 233-249.

Meischke & Van Tyghem 1987 R. Meischke & F. Van Tyghem, ‘Huizen en hoven gebouwd onder leiding van Anthonis I en Rombout II’, in: Janse, Meischke, Mosselveld & Van Tyghem 1987, 131-154.

Michailova 1969 M. Michailova, ‘Mausolei romani nei disegni di un architetto italiano del Rinascimento all’Ermitage di Leningrado’, Palladio, new ser. 19 (1969) 1-4, 3-13.

Melion 1991 W.S. Melion, Shaping the Netherlandish Canon. Karel van Mander’s Schilder-Boeck, Chicago/London 1991.

Michailova 1970 M. Michailova, ‘Bridges of Ancient Rome: Drawings in the Hermitage Ascribed to Fra Giocondo’, Art Bul­ letin 52 (1970), 250-264.

Mens & Rosen 2003 P. Mens & F. Rosen, Rijper Glazen, (Stichting tot verbreiding van het Rijper cultuurgoed), De Rijp 2003.

Miedema 1980 H. Miedema, ‘Over de waardering van architekt en beeldende kunstenaar in de zestiende eeuw’, Oud Hol­ land, 94 (1980), 71-84.

386

Bibliography Miedema 1994-1999 H. Miedema, Karel van Mander. The Lives of the Illus­ trious Netherlandish and German Painters, from the first edition of the Schilder-boeck (1603-1604), 6 vols., Doornspijk 1994-1999. Mielke 1967 H. Mielke, Hans Vredeman de Vries: Verzeichnis der Stichwerken und Beschreibung seines Stils sowie Beiträge zum Werk Gerard Groennings, Ph.D. dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin 1967. van Mierlo 1991 T. van Mierlo, ‘Alexander Pasqualini (1493-1559), architect en vestingbouwkundige’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 90 (1991), 157-174. Millet 1992 O. Millet, ‘Les Églises réformées’, in: J.-M. Mayeur, C. Pietri, A. Vauchez & M. Venard (eds.), Histoire du Chris­ tianisme. Des Origines à nos Jours, Tome VIII, Le Temps des Confessions (1530-1620/1630), s.l. 1992, 55-118. Miller 1977 N. Miller, French Renaissance Fountains, (Garland Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine Arts), New York 1977. Minnen 1993 B. Minnen, Het hertogdom Aarschot onder Karel van Croÿ (1595-1612). Kadasters en gezichten, (Albums de Croÿ), Brussels 1993. Mitchell 1979 B. Mitchell, Italian Civic Pageantry in the High Renais­ sance. A descriptive bibliography of Triumphal Entries and selected other festivals for state occasions, (Biblioteca di bibliografia italiana, LXXXIX), Florence 1979. Mörsch 1965 G. Mörsch, Der Zentralbaugedanke im Belgischen Kirchenbau des 17. Jahrhunderts, Ph.D. dissertation, Bonn 1965. Molanus 1570 Ioannus Molanus, De picturis et imaginibus sacris, liber unus, Leuven 1570. Montanus 1614 Petrus Montanus, Historische beschrijvinghe der seer wijt beroemde coop-stadt Amsterdam : waer inne benevens de eerste beginselen ende opcomsten der stadt, verscheyden privilegien, ordonnantien ende andere ghedenckweerdighe gheschiedenissen ... , Amsterdam 1614. de Montgaillard 1622 Bernard de Montgaillard, Le Soleil éclipsé, ou Discours sur la vie et mort du sérénissime archiduc Albert, prince sou­

verain des Pays-Bas et de Bourgogne, à la sérénissime prin­ cesse Madame Isabelle-Claire-Eugénie, infante d’Espagne, par Dom Bernard de Montgaillard, Brussels 1622. Morán Turina 1994 M. Morán Turina, ‘Las estatuas del Alcázar. Notas sobre las colecciones escultóricas de los Austrias’, in: Madrid 1994a, 248-263. Moreira 1983 R. Moreira, ‘O torreão do Paço da Ribeira’, Mundo da arte (1983) 14, 43-48. Moreira 1991 R. Moreira, ‘De “Hoofdingenieurs” en de versprei­ ding van architectuurvormen binnen het Portu­ gese Imperium’, in: Brussels 1991, 102-113. – ‘Les “grands-ingénieurs du Royaume” et la circulation des formes dans l’Empire portugais’, in: Brussels 1991, 102-113. Morren 1905 Th. Morren, Het Huis Honselaarsdijk, Leiden 1905 (reprint Alphen aan den Rijn 1990). Mosmans 1931 J. Mosmans, De Sint-Janskerk te ’s-Hertogenbosch, ’sHertogenbosch 1931. Mulder 1949 A.W.J. Mulder, Het kasteel Amerongen en zijn bewoners, Maastricht 1949. Muller Fz. 1881-1882 S. Muller Fz., ‘Getuigenverhoor te Antwerpen over het maken van ontwerpen van gebouwen in de 16e eeuw door schilders, goudsmeden, timmerlieden en metselaars’, in: F.D.O. Obreen (ed.), Archief voor Ne­ derlandsche Kunstgeschiedenis IV, Rotterdam 18811882, 227-245. Muller Fz. 1911 S. Muller Fz., ‘Het Koninghuis te Rhenen’, Bulletin van den Nederlandschen Oudheidkundigen Bond (1911), 66-73. Muller 1959 J. Muller, ‘Les ingénieurs militaires dans les Pays-Bas espagnols (1500-1715)’, Revue internationale d’histoire militaire 20 (1959), 467-478. Muller & Zandvliet 1984 E. Muller, K. Zandvliet, Admissies als landmeter in Ne­ derland voor 1811, Alphen aan den Rijn 1984. Murray 1985 J.F. Murray, Vlaanderen en Engeland. De invloed van de Lage Landen op Engeland ten tijde van de Tudors en de Stuarts, Antwerp 1985.

387

Bibliography von Naredi-Rainer 1994 P. von Naredi-Rainer, Salomos Tempel und das Abend­ land: monumentale Folgen Historischer Irrtümer, Cologne 1994. Nativel 1998 C. Nativel, ‘Justus Lipsius, Belga Romæ hospes’, in: Antwerpen 1997-1998, 39-62. Necipoğlu 1989 G. Necipoğlu, ‘Süleyman the Magnificent and the Representation of Power in the Context of Ottoman-Habsburg-Papal Rivalry’, Art Bulletin 71 (1989), 401-429. Necipoğlu 2000 G. Necipoğlu, ‘Solimán el Magnífico y la representación del poder: la rivalidad entre los Otomanos, los Habsburgos y el papado’, in: Granada 2000a, 43-72. Neumann 1986 H. Neumann, Zitadelle Jülich. Grosser Kunst- und Bauführer, Jülich 1986. Neurdenburg [1930] E. Neurdenburg, Hendrick de Keyser. Beeldhouwer en bouwmeester van Amsterdam, Amsterdam [1930]. Neurdenburg 1938 E. Neurdenburg, ‘Het oxaal van de St. Janskerk te ‘s-Hertogenbosch en Nicholas Stone’, Oudheid­kundig Jaarboek (1938), 38-44. Nieto, Morales & Checa 1993 V. Nieto, A. J. Morales & F. Checa, Arquitectura del Renacimiento en España 1488-1599, Madrid 1993. Nijhoff & Kronenberg 1923 W. Nijhoff & M.E. Kronenberg, Nederlandsche biblio­ graphie van 1500 tot 1540, The Hague 1923. van Nispen 1983 C.A.I.L. van Nispen, De Vesting Willemstad, (Publi­ caties van het Archivari­aat ‘Nassau-Brabant’, 62), Willem­stad 1983. Noach 1939 A. Noach, De oude kerk te Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1939. Noldus 2004 B. 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. Nordberg 1970 T.O. Nordberg, De la Vallée. En arkitektfamilj i Frankrike, Holland och Sverige, Stockholm 1970.

388

Nuβbaum, Euskirchen & Hoppe 2003 N. Nuβbaum, C. Euskirchen & S. Hoppe (eds.), Wege zur Renaissance, Beobachtungen zu den Anfängen neuzeitlicher Kunstauffassung im Rheinland und den Nach­ bargebieten um 1500, Cologne 2003. Nuttall 2004 P. Nuttall, From Flanders to Florence. The Impact of Neth­ erlandish Painting 1400-1500, New Haven/London 2004. O’Brien 2001 P. O’Brien (ed.), Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe: Golden Age in Antwerp, Amsterdam, and London, Cambridge 2001. van Oerle 1975 H. van Oerle, Leiden binnen en buiten de stadvesten: de geschiede­nis van de stede­bouwkundige ontwikkeling binnen het Leidse rechtsge­bied tot aan het einde van de gouden eeuw, Leiden 1975. Oeuvres complètes 1888 Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens, vol. I, Cor­ respondance 1638-1656, (Société hollandaise des ­sciences), The Hague 1888. Offenberg 1976 A. K. Offenberg, ‘Jacob Jehuda Leon (1602-1675) en zijn tempelmodel’, in: De tempel van Salomo. Een terugblik in het nabije en verre verleden ter gelegenheid van de feestelijke opening van de Synagoge bij de Princessegracht in Den Haag, The Hague 1976, 54-75. Offerhaus 1988 J. Offerhaus, ‘Pieter Coecke et l’introduction des traités d’architecture aux Pays-Bas’, in: Chastel & Guillaume 1988, 443-452. Olde Meierink 1995 B. Olde Meierink et al., Kastelen en ridderhofsteden in Utrecht, Utrecht 1995. Olivato 1971 L. Olivato, ‘Per il Serlio a Venezia: documenti nuovi e documenti rivisitati’, Arte Veneta 25 (1971), 284-291. Olivato 1988 L. Olivato, ‘Con il Serlio tra i “dilettanti di architettura” veneziani della prima metà del ‘500. Il ruolo di Marcantonio Michiel’, in: Chastel & Guillaume 1988, 247-254. Olivato Puppi 1974-1975 L. Olivato Puppi, ‘Per la storia di un lascito: da Vincenzo Scamozzi a Bartolomeo Malacarne’, Atti ­dell’istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti 133 (19741975), 347-369.

Bibliography Onians 1988 J. Onians, ‘The System of the Orders in Renaissance Architectural Thought’, in: Chastel & Guillaume 1988, 169-178.

Ottenheym 2002a K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Peter Paul Rubens’ Palazzi di Genova and its Influence on Architecture in the ­Netherlands’, in: Lombaerde 2002b, 81-98.

Oremus 1993 J.M.S. Oremus, De bouw van het Sittardse stadhuis van Pasqualini (1560-1570) en magistratenfamilies in de 16e en 17e eeuw, (Monografieën uit het land van Sittard), Sittard 1993.

Ottenheym 2002b K.A. Ottenheym, ‘De herbouw van kasteel Middachten, 1695-1698,’ in: T. Hoekstra (ed.), Mid­ dachten. Huis en heerlijkheid, Utrecht 2002, 21-47.

Ortiz 1940 F. Ortiz, Contrapunteo Cubano del tabaco y el Azúcar. Advertendencia de sus contrastes agrarios, económicos, his­ toricos y sociales, Havana 1940. Ottenheym 1989 K.A. Ottenheym, Philips Vingboons (1607-1678). Architect, Zutphen 1989. Ottenheym 1995 K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Architectuur’, in: Huisken, Ottenheym & Schwartz 1995, 155-199. Ottenheym 1996 K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Tot roem en sier van de stad. Hollandse stedelijke en regionale overheden als opdrachtgevers van architectuur in de zeventiende eeuw’, in: H. Hendrix & J. Stumpel (eds.), Kunstenaars en opdrachtgevers, (Utrecht Renaissance Studies, 2), Amsterdam 1996, 119-140. Ottenheym 1997a K.A. Ottenheym, ‘De correspondentie tussen Rubens en Huygens over architectuur (1635-’40)’, Bulletin van Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 96 (1997), 1-11. Ottenheym 1997b K.A. Ottenheym, ‘ “Possessed by such a passion for building”. Frederik Hendrik and architecture’, in: M. Keblusek & J. Zijlmans (eds.), Princely Display. The court of Frederik Hendrik of Orange and Amalia van Solms in The Hague, The Hague/Zwolle 1997, 105-125. Ottenheym 1998 K.A. Ottenheym, ‘The Vitruvius Edition, 1649, of Johannes De Laet (1581-1649)’, Lias 25 (1998), 217229. Ottenheym 1999 K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Huygens en de klassicistische architectuurtheorie’, in: Blom, Bruin & Ottenheym 1999, 87- 109. Ottenheym 1999-2000 Koen Ottenheym, ‘The painters cum architects of Dutch classicism’, in: Rotterdam/Frankfurt 19992000, 34-53.

Ottenheym 2003a K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Renaissancearchitektur und Architekturpraxis im städtischen Bereich: Utrecht 15001550’, in: Nuβbaum, Euskirchen & Hoppe 2003, 210-231. Ottenheym 2003b K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Introduction’, in: K. A. Ottenheym, H. Scheepmaker, P. Garvin & W. Vroom, Vincenzo Scamozzi. The Idea of a Universal Architecture III, Villas and Country Estates, Amsterdam 2003, 8-33. Ottenheym 2003c K. A. 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 2005a K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Unity and discontinuity in the architecture of the Low Countries, 1530-1700’, in: Th. DaCosta Kaufmann & E. Pilliod (eds.), Time and place. The geohistory of art, (Histories of Vision), Aldershot/Burlington 2005, 59-85. Ottenheym 2005b K.A. Ottenheym, ‘Amsterdam 1700: Urban Space and Public Buldings’, in: H.A. Millon (ed.), Circa 1700: Architecture in Europe and the Americas, Washington, D.C/New Haven/London 2005, 119-137. Ottenheym & Schmidt 1994 K.A. Ottenheym & F.H. Schmidt, ‘ “un dessin qui plait à la vue”. De controverse tussen Anthonie Coulon en Daniel Marot bij de verbouwing van Huis Ten Bosch in 1734’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 93 (1994), 62-75. Ouverleaux & Petit 1896 E. Ouverleaux & J. Petit (eds.), Le Passetemps de Jean Lhermite II, Antwerp/Ghent/The Hague 1896. Ozinga 1929 M. D. Ozinga, De protestantsche kerkenbouw in Nederland van Hervorming tot Franschen tijd, Amsterdam 1929. Ozinga 1931 M.D. Ozinga, ‘Paulus Moreelse als architect’, Oud­ heidkundig Jaarboek (1931), 18-25.

389

Bibliography Ozinga 1938a M.D. Ozinga, Daniel Marot. De schepper van den Hol­ landschen Lodewijk XIV-stijl, Amsterdam 1938. Ozinga 1938b M.D. Ozinga, ‘Het stadhuis te ’s-Hertogenbosch en zijn bouwmeester’, Oudheidkundig Jaarboek (1938), 19-25. Ozinga 1962 M.D. Ozinga, ‘De strenge Renaissance-stijl in de Nederlanden naar de stand van onze tegenwoordige kennis’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oud­ heidkundige Bond (1962), 10-34. Palladio 1570 Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, Venice 1570. Pane 1977 R. Pane, Il Rinascimento nell’Italia meridionale, 2 vols., Milan 1977. Papy 2004 J. Papy, ‘An Antiquarian Scholar between Text and Image? Justus Lipsius, Humanist Education, and the Visualization of Ancient Rome’, Sixteenth Century Journal 35 (2004), 97-131.

Parma Armani 1987 E. Parma Armani, ‘Il secolo d’oro dei genovesi: il Cinquecento. Una svolta internazionale’, in: La scul­ tura a Genova e in Liguria dalle origini al Cinquecento, Genoa 1987, vol. I, 267-345. Parmentier 1948 R.A. Parmentier, Documenten betreffende Brugsche steen­ houwers uit de 16e eeuw, (Geschiedkundige Publicatiën der Stad Brugge, III), Bruges 1948. Patrimoine monumental 1975 Le patrimoine monumental de la Belgique. Wallonie. Vo­ lume 4, Province de Hainaut, Arrondissement de Mons, Liège 1975. Pauwels 1992 J. Pauwels, ‘Philibert de L’Orme et l’ordre ionique’, in: J. Guillaume (ed.), L’emploi des ordres dans l’architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 9 au 14 juin 1986, (De Architectura, 5), Paris 1992, 227-236. Pauwels 1996 Y. Pauwels, ‘Les Français à la recherche d’un langage. Les ordres hétérodoxes de Philibert de L’Orme et Pierre Lescot’, Revue de l’art 112 (1996), 9-15.

Papy & Van Houdt 1998 J. Papy & T. Van Houdt, ‘The Image of Archduke Albert in Seventeenth-Century Funeral Literature’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 319-334.

Pauwels 1999 Y. Pauwels, ‘L’architecture de la ‘Belle chapelle’ de Solesmes: une origine espagnole ?’, Gazette des BeauxArts 141 (1999), september, 85-92.

Paquet 1996 P. Paquet, ‘Le portail de l’église Saint-Jacques à Liège’, in: Mélanges Pierre Colman, (Art & Fact. Revue des his­ toriens de l’art, des archéologues, des musicologues et des orientalistes de l’Université de Liège [1996] 15), 98-101.

Payne 1999 A. Payne, The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renais­ sance. Architectural invention, ornament, and literary cul­ ture, Cambridge 1999.

Paradin 1615 C. Paradin, Princeliicke deviisen, Leiden 1615. Paravicini 1980 W. Paravicini, ‘Expansion et intégration. La noblesse des Pays-Bas à la cour de Philippe le Bon’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 95 (1980), 298-314. Paravicini 1991 W. Paravicini,’Die Residenzen der Herzöge von ­Burgund, 1363-1477’, in: W. Paravicini & H. Pätze (eds.), ­Fürstliche Residenzen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa, (Vorträge und Forschungen. Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte, XXXVI), Sigmaringen 1991, 207-263. Parent 1926 P. Parent, L’architecture des Pays-Bas méridionaux (Bel­ gique et Nord de la France) aux XVIe, XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris/Brussels 1926.

390

Peeters 1987 C.J.A.C. Peeters, ‘Het nieuwe werk als het bijna mogelij­ke’, in: Bergen op Zoom, gebouwd en be­schouwd, Bergen op Zoom 1987, 157-169. van Pelt 1979 R.J. van Pelt, ‘Aspecten van de bouwgeschiedenis van het Oud Hof’, Jaarverslag Vereniging Oranje-Nas­ sau Museum (1979), 11-70. Pérez Pastor 1895 C. Pérez Pastor, La Imprenda en Medina del Campo, Madrid 1895. Pérouse de Montclos 1982 J.-M. Pérouse de Montclos, L’architecture à la française, Paris 1982. Pérouse de Montclos 2000 J.-M. Pérouse de Montclos, Philibert De l’Orme, archi­ tecte du roi (1514-1570), Paris 2000.

Bibliography Pesenti 1987 F.R. Pesenti, ‘Portali del manierismo a Genova’, in: La scultura a Genova e in Liguria dalle origini al Cinquecen­ to, Genoa 1987, I, 346-365. Peters 1998 E. Peters, ‘1549 Knight’s Game at Binche. Constructing Philip II’s Ideal Identity in a Ritual of Honor’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 49 (1998), 11-35. Petit 1873-1884 J. Petit (ed.), 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 & de Flandre, (Société des Bibliophiles de Belgique, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16), 5 vols., Brussels 18731884, reprint Brussels 2000 (Algemeen Rijksarchief en Rijksarchief in de provinciën, reprints, 161). Petti Balbi 1996 G. Petti Balbi, Mercanti e nationes nelle Fiandre: I genovesi in età bassomedievale, (Piccola Biblioteca Gisem, 7), Pisa 1996. Petzet 2000 M. Petzet, Claude Perrault und die Architektur des Son­ nenkönigs, München 2000. Philipp 1989 K.J. Philipp, ‘ “Eyn huys in manieren van eynre kirchen”. Werkmeister, Parliere, Steinlieferanten, Zimmermeister und die Bauorganisation in den Niederlanden vom 14. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert’, WalrafRichartz Jahrbuch 50 (1989), 69-113.

Pinchart 1860-1881 A. Pinchart, Archives des arts, sciences et lettres, documents inédits, publiés et annotés, 3 vols., Ghent 1860-1881, reprint Brussels 1994 (Algemeen Rijksarchief en Rijks­ archief in de provinciën, Studia, 51). Plantenga 1926 J.H. Plantenga, L’architecture religieuse dans l’ancien duché de Brabant depuis le règne des archiducs jusqu’au gouvernement autrichien (1598-1713), The Hague 1926. Plard 1990 H. Plard, ‘Anvers dans le “Journal de voyage aux Pays-Bas” de Dürer (1520-1521)’, in: P. Jodogne (ed.), Lodovico Guicciardini (1521-1589), (Travaux de l’Institut Interuniversitaire pour l’étude de la Renaissance et de l’Humanisme, X), Leuven 1990, 237248. Poelhekke 1978 J.J. Poelhekke, Frederik Hendrik, Prins van Oranje. Een biografisch drieluik, Zutphen 1978. Poiret 1994 M.-F. Poiret, Le monastère de Brou. Le chef-d’œuvre d’une fille d’empereur, Paris 1994. Popp & Suckale 2002 D. Popp & R. Suckale, Die Jagiellonen. Kunst und Kultur einer europäischen Dynastie an der Wende zur Neuzeit, (Wissenschaftliche Beibände zum Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, 21), Nuremberg 2002.

Philippart 1978-1982 S. Philippart, Péruwelz au fil du temps, 3 vols., Péruwelz 1978-1982.

de Prado & Villalpando 1596-1604 Jeronimo de Prado & Juan Bautista Villalpando, In Ezechielem explanationes et apparatus urbis, ac templi Hierosolymitani, Commentariis et Imaginibus illustratus, 3 vols., Rome 1596-1604.

Piérard 1972 Ch. Piérard, ‘La Grand-Place de Mons. Etude architecturale’, Bulletin de la commission royale des monuments et des sites, new series 2 (1972), 157-229.

Prak 1985 M. Prak, Gezeten burgers: de elite in een Hollandse stad. Leiden 1700-1780, (Holland­se Historische Reeks, 6), The Hague 1985.

Piérard 1974 Ch. Piérard, L’architecture civile à Mons (XIVe-XXe siècles), Gembloux 1974.

Pressouyre 1969 S. Pressouyre, ‘Les fontes de Primatice à Fontaine­ bleau’, Bulletin Monumental 127 (1969), 223-239.

Piérard 1991 Ch. Piérard, ‘La reconstruction et la restauration des édifices atteints par le “bombardement” français’, in: Mons 1991, 104-110.

Prevenier 1995 W. Prevenier, ‘Chronologie’, in: J. Art (ed.), Hoe schrijf ik de geschiedenis van mijn gemeente. 3a. Hulp­ wetenschappen, Ghent 1995, 91-128.

Pierron 1935-1938 S. Pierron, Histoire illustrée de la forêt de Soignes, 3 vols., Brussels 1935-1938.

Prieto 2000 A. Prieto, ‘El mundo caballeresco imperial’, in: Granada 2000a, 167-182.

391

Bibliography Prims 1930 F. Prims, Het stadhuis te Antwerpen. Geschiedenis en be­ schrijving, Antwerp 1930. Prims 1938 F. Prims, ‘Het eigen werk van Cornelis Grapheus (1482-1558). I. II.’, in: Id., Antwerpiensia. Losse bij­ dragen tot de Antwerpsche geschiedenis, Antwerp 1938, 172-190. Prins-Schimmel 1981 M. Prins-Schimmel, Het stadhuis van Franeker. Bouw­ historisch overzicht vanaf 1591 tot 1981, Franeker 1981. Prinz 1977 W. Prinz, Galleria. Storia e tipologia di uno spazio architet­ tonico, Ferrara 1977. Prinz & Kecks 1985 W. Prinz & R.G. Kecks, with additions by U. ­Albrecht & J. Guillaume, Das Französische Schloß der Renaissance. Form und Bedeutung der Architektur, ihre geschichtlichen und gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen, (Frankfurter Forsch­un­ gen zur Kunst, 12), Berlin 1985. Puters 1963 A. Puters, ‘Lambert Lombard et l’architecture de son temps à Liège’, Bulletin de la commission royale des monu­ ments et sites 14 (1963), 7-49. van Raaij & Spies 1988 S. van Raaij & P. Spies, In het gevolg van Willem III & Mary. Huizen en tuinen uit hun tijd, Amsterdam 1988. de Rabutin 1555 François de Rabutin, Commentaires sur le faict des der­ nieres guerres en la Gaule Belgique, entre Henry second, très chrestien roy de France, et Charles cinquième empereur: dediez au duc de Nivernois, pair de France…, 2nd ed., Paris 1555. Radi 1618 B. Radi, Varie inventioni per depositi, Rome 1618. Radi 1619 B. Radi, Disegni varii di depositi o’sepulcri, Rome 1619. Rawles 1981 S.Ph.J. Rawles, ‘The earliest editions of Nicolas de Herberay’s translations of Amadis de Gaule’, The Library 6th ser. 3 (1981) 2, 91-108. Reglen van Metselrijen 1549 Pieter Coecke van Aelst (ed.), Reglen van Metselrijen op de vijve manieren van Edificien te wetene Thuscana Dorica Ionica Corinthia ende Composita, ende daer by gesedt die

392

exemplen vanden Antijcquen die in demeeste deel met de leeringe van Vitruvio overcommen, Antwerp 1549. van Regteren Altena 1970 I.Q. van Regteren Altena, ‘De grotten in de tuinen van de Oranjes’, Oud Holland 68 (1953), 68-83. van Regteren Altena 1983 I.Q. van Regteren Altena, Jacques de Gheyn. Three Generations, 2 vols., Den Haag/Boston/London, 1983. Reigles generales 1542 Pieter Coecke van Aelst (ed.), Reigles generales de l’architecture, sur les cincq manieres d’edifices, ascavoir, thuscane, doricq[ue], ionicq[ue], corinthe & co[m]posite, avec les exemples dantiquitez, selon la doctrine de Vitruve, Antwerp 1542. Renting & Renting-Kuipers 1993 A.D. Renting & J.T.C. Renting-Kuipers (eds.), The Seventeenth-Century Orange-Nassau Library, Rotterdam 1993. Riggs 1977 T.A. Riggs, Hieronymus Cock (1510-1570): Printmaker and Publisher in Antwerp at the Sign of the Four Winds, (Garland Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine Arts), New York/London 1977. Rivera Blanco 2000 J. Rivera Blanco, ‘El Palacio de El Pardo entre Carlos V y Felipe II’, Reales sitios 37 (2000) 145, 2-15. Roding 1988 J. Roding, ‘Utrecht op sijn schoonst en sterrikst’, in: K. Jacobs & L. Smit (eds.), De ideale stad. Ideaalplannen voor de stad Utrecht 1664-1988, Utrecht 1988, 8-26. Roding 1991 J. Roding, Christi­aan IV van Dene­marken (1588-1648): architectuur en stedebouw van een Luthers vorst, Alkmaar 1991. Roding 1993a J. Roding, ‘De waag te Haarlem; een werck geduriger als ijser en stael’, in: W.F. Denslagen et al. (eds.), Bouw­ kunst. Studies in vriendschap voor Kees Peeters, Amsterdam 1993, 441-454. Roding 1993b J. Roding, ‘Vande oirdeningh der Steden’, in: Ta­verne & Visser 1993, 51-56. Rodríguez Ruiz 2000 D. 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.

Bibliography Rodríguez Villa 1913 A. Rodríguez Villa, Etiquetas de la Casa de Austria, Madrid 1913.

den Prince Philips… in de Stadt Antwerpen… Anno 1549’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België 9 (1960), 37-74.

von Roeder-Baumbach 1943 I. von Roeder-Baumbach, Versieringen bij Blijde In­ komsten gebruikt in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden gedurende de 16e en 17e eeuw, Antwerp 1943.

Roosens 1980 B. Roosens, ‘De stadsomwalling van Breda. De eerste toepassing van het gebastioneerd vestingstelsel in de Nederlanden (1531-1547)’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 63 (1980), 87-120.

Roegiers & Van der Herten 1994 J. Roegiers & B. Van der Herten (eds.), Eenheid op papier. De Nederlanden in kaart van Keizer Karel tot Wil­ lem I, Leuven 1994. de Roever 1886 N. de Roever, ‘De Kroniek van Staets. Een blad­zijde uit de geschiedenis van het fabriek-ambt der stad Amsterdam 1594-1628’, Jaarverslag Koninklijk Oud­ heidkundig Genootschap 28 (1886). de Roever 1944 J.G. de Roever, Jan Adriaenszoon Leeghwater. Het leven en werk van een zeventiende-eeuwse waterbouwkundige, Amsterdam 1944. Roggen 1953 D. Roggen, ‘Jehan Mone, artiste de l’empereur’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 14 (1953), 207-245. Roggen & Casteels 1938 D. Roggen & M. Casteels, ‘De beeldhouwer Guyot de Beaugrant’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 5 (1938), 31-50.

Roosens 1983 B. Roosens, ‘Het lastencohier voor de bouw van een nieuw kasteel te Diest voor graaf Hendrik III van Nassau, ca. 1530’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 66 (1983), 155-168. Roosens 1999 B. Roosens, ‘Die Modernisierung älterer Festungen im niederländischen Grenzgebiet zu Frankreich und die italienischen Ingenieure (1534-1560)’, in: Bers & Doose 1999, 155-165. Roosens 2000 B. Roosens, ‘Guerres, fortifications et ingénieurs dans les anciens Pays-Bas à l’époque de Charles V’, in: Châ­ teau Gaillard, Etudes de castellologie médiévale, vol. XIX, Caen 2000, 257-268. Roosens 2005 B. Roosens, Habsburgse defensiepolitiek en vestingbouw in de Nederlanden (1520-1560), 2 vols., Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden 2005.

Roggen & Dhanens 1943 D. Roggen & E. Dhanens, ‘De ontwerpers van de praalgraven van Brou’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstge­ schiedenis 9 (1943), 127-132.

Rosenfeld 1989 M.N. Rosenfeld, ‘Sebastiano Serlio’s contributions to the creation of the modern illustrated architectural manual’, in: C. Thoenes (ed.), Sebastiano Serlio, Milan 1989, 102-110.

Roggen & Dhanens 1951 D. Roggen & E. Dhanens, ‘De humanist Busleyden en de oorsprong van het Italianisme in de Nederlandse kunst’, Gentse bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 13 (1951), 127-151.

Rosenthal 1971 E. 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.

Roggen & Withof 1942 D. Roggen & J. Withof, ‘Cornelis Floris’, Gentse bij­ dragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 8 (1942), 79-171.

Rosenthal 1973 E. 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.

Rolf 1978 R. Rolf, Pieter Coecke van Aelst en zijn architectuuruit­ gaves van 1539, Amsterdam 1978. Ronner 1996 B. Ronner, Een tempel in turfgraversland, Scheemda 1996. Roobaert 1960 E. J. Roobaert, ‘De Seer Wonderlycke Schoone Triumphelycke Incompst van den Hooghmogen-

Rosenthal 1978 E. Rosenthal, ‘The Diffusion of the Italian Renaissance Style in Western European Art’, The Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978), 33-45. Rosenthal 1985 E. Rosenthal, The Palace of Charles V in Granada, Princeton 1985.

393

Bibliography Rosenthal 1988 E. Rosenthal, El palacio de Carlos V en Granada, Madrid 1988. Rott 2002 H. W. Rott, Palazzi di Genova. Architectural Drawings and engravings, (Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, XXII.1), London/Turnhout 2002. Rouzet 1975 A. Rouzet, Dictionnaire des imprimeurs, libraires et édi­ teurs des XVe et XVIe siècles dans les limites géographiques de la Belgique actuelle, Nieuwkoop 1975. Rowland 2002 I. Rowland, ‘Vitruvius and Technology’, in: C. Conforti & A. Hopkins (eds.), Architettura e tecnologia. Acque, tecniche e cantieri nell’architettura rinascimentale e barocca, Rome 2002, 244-257. Rubens 1622-1626 Pietro Paulo Rubens, Palazzi di Genova, 2 vols., Antwerp 1622-1626. Ruelens 1878 C. Ruelens, Le siège et les fêtes de Binche, 1543 et 1549. Deux documents publiés avec traduction, liminaires et notes, (Publication de la Société des bibliophiles belges, séant à Mons, 25), Mons 1878. Ruelens 1890 C. Ruelens (ed.), Le Passetemps de Jean Lhermite I, (Maatschappij der Antwerpsche Bibliophilen, 17), Antwerp/Ghent/The Hague 1890. Ruszkowska-Macur et al. 2006 M. Ruszkowska-Macur et al. (eds.), Netherlandish Artists in Gdańsk in the Time of Hans Vredeman de Vries, Material from the Conference Organized by the Museum of the History of the City of Gdańsk and the Weserrrenaissance-Museum Schloß Brake Lemgo, Main City Town Hall, Gdańsk 20-21 November 2003, Gdańsk/Lemgo 2006. van Ruyven-Zeman 2000 Z. van Ruyven-Zeman, The stained-glass windows in the St.-Janskerk at Gouda. 1556-1604, (Corpus Vitrearum, The Netherlands, III), Amsterdam 2000. Ryckaert 1984 M. Ryckaert, ‘Brandbestrijding en overheidsmaatregelen tegen brandgevaar tijdens het Ancien Régime’, in: Het openbaar initiatief van de gemeenten in België. Historische grondslagen (Ancien Régime), (Pro Civitate, Historische Uitgaven van het Gemeentekrediet, ser. in-8°, 65), Brussels 1984, 247-256. Ryckaert 1993 M. Ryckaert, ‘ “Tot publique vercieringhe, rust ende sekerheyt der selver stad” ’, in: Taverne & Visser 1993, 57-62.

394

Rylant & Casteels 1940 J. Rylant & M. Casteels, ‘De metsers van Antwerpen tegen Paludanus, Floris, de Nole’s en andere beeldhouwers’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 31 (1940), 185203. Saintenoy 1932-1935 P. Saintenoy, Les arts et les artistes à la Cour de Bruxelles. I. Leur rôle dans la construction du Château Ducal de Bra­ bant 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 Bour­ gogne 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, (Mémoires de l’Académie royale de Belgique, Classe des Beaux-Arts, collection in-4°, II, 3; V, 1; VI, 2), 3 vols., Brussels 1932, 1934, 1935. Salamagne 1986 A. Salamagne, ‘Les années 1400: la genèse de l’architecture militaire bourguignonne ou la definition d’un nouvel espace urbain’, Revue belge d’histoire militaire 26 (1986), 325-344. Salamagne 1992a A. Salamagne, ‘Aux origines de la fortification bastionnée. Le boulevard d’Antoing et la famille mo­ numentale des boulevards de plan polygonal’, Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain 25 (1992), 31-62. Salamagne 1992b A. Salamagne, ‘Philippe II de Croy, seigneur d’Arschot, l’organisation défensive des Pays-Bas méridionaux au début du XVIe siècle et la genèse de la fortification bastionnée (1521-1528)’, Mémoires de la Société archéologique & historique de l’Arrondissement d’Avesnes (Nord) 32 (1992), 9-59. Salamagne 1997 A. Salamagne, ‘d’Aire, Jehan’, in: Nouvelle Biographie Nationale, vol. IV, Brussels 1997, 83-84. Salamagne 2000 A. Salamagne, ‘Inter se disputando ? Maître Jehan Lartésien, le Frère de Modène et l’invention du bastion’, Revue du Nord, special issue, Création artistique et conflits historiques dans l’Europe du Nord, (2000), 24-41. Salet 1962 F. Salet, ‘Le palais Rihour à Lille’, in: Congrès archéologique de France.CXXe session. Flandre, Paris 1962, 175-185. Sancho 1994 J.L. Sancho, ‘La escultura de los Leoni en los jardines de los Austrias’, in: Madrid 1994b, 63-76.

Bibliography Sanderus 1641-1644 Antonius Sanderus, Flandria Illustrata, 2 vols., Cologne 1641-1644. Sanderus 1659-1669 Antonius Sanderus, Presbyteri Chorographia sacra Bra­ bantiæ sive celebrium aliquot in ea provincia ecclesiarum et cœnobiorum descriptio, 1st ed., Brussels 1659-1669. Sanderus 1726-1727 Antonius Sanderus, Chorographia sacra Brabantiæ…., 2nd ed., 3 vols., The Hague 1726-1727. Sartre 1981 J. Sartre, Châteaux “brique et pierre” en France, Paris 1981. Saunders 1997 A. Saunders, ‘The Building of the Exchange’, in: Id. (ed.), The Royal Exchange, London 1997, 36-49. Scaglia 1970 G. Scaglia, ‘Fantasy Architecture of Roma antica’, Arte Lombarda 15 (1970) 2, 9-24. Scamozzi 1615 Vincenzo Scamozzi, L’Idea della architettura universale, Venice 1615. Schayes 1843 A.M.G.B. Schayes, ‘Voyages de Jean Ernest, duc de Saxe, en France, en Angleterre et en Belgique en 1613’, Trésor National, 2nd ser. 3 (1843), 168-254. Schayes 1853 A.M.G.B. Schayes, Histoire de l’architecture en Belgique, depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’à l’époque actuelle, 2 vols., 2nd revised edition, Brussels 1853 (1st ed. c. 1840). Schéle 1962 S. Schéle, ‘Pieter Coecke and Cornelis Bos’, Oud Hol­ land 77 (1962), 235-240. Schéle 1965 S. Schéle, Cornelis Bos. A Study of the Origins of the Netherland Grotesque, Stockholm 1965. Schellekens 1992 J. Schellekens, ‘Scrolled Gables of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries in the Low Countries’, Jour­ nal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51 (1992), 430-435.

Schönfeld 1999 S. Schönfeld, ‘Zum niederländischen Einfluß auf den Kirchenbau in Brandenburg im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert’, in: H. Lademacher (ed.), Onder den Oranje boom. Niederländische Kunst und Kultur im 17. und 18. Jahr­ hundert an deutschen Fürstenhöfen (Textband: Dynastie in der Republik. Das Haus Oranien-Nassau als Vermittler niderländischer Kultur in deutschen Territorien im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert), Munich 1999, 309-320. Schofield 1992 R. Schofield, ‘Avoiding Rome: an Introduction to Lombard Sculptors and the Antique’, Arte Lombarda (1992), 29-44. Schofield 1993 R. Schofield, ‘Amadeo’s System’, in: J. Shell & L. Castelfranchi (eds.), Giovanni Antonio Amadeo. Scultura e architettura del suo tempo, Milan 1993, 125-156. Scholer 1991 O. Scholer, ‘Deux rescapés du grand naufrage. Les termes rustiques du château de Mansfeld’, Hémecht. Revue d’histoire luxembourgeoise 43 (1991), 95-112. Scholer 1996 O. Scholer, ‘ “Du vor des Wassers fließendem Gesicht, marmorne Maske…”. Die Steckbriefe der MansfeldBrunnen’, Hémecht. Zeitschrift für Luxemburger Geschich­ te 48 (1996) 3, 391-440; 48 (1996) 4, 479-537. Scholten 1993 F. Scholten, ‘De Nederlandse handel in Italiaans marmer in de 17de eeuw’, Neder­lands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 44 (1993), 197-214. Scholten 2003a F. Scholten, Sumptuous Memories. Studies in seventeenthcentury Dutch tomb sculpture, Zwolle 2003. Scholten 2003b F. Scholten, ‘ “Veel treffelijke begraaf-plaatsen”, de grafmonumenten en epitafen’, in: J. Koldeweij & G. van Wezel (eds.), De Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk en de grafkapel voor Oranje-Nassau te Breda, (De Nederlandse monumenten van geschiedenis en kunst), Zeist/ Zwolle 2003, 172-190.

Schillemans 1999 R. Schillemans, ‘Zeventiende-en vroegachttiendeeeuwse wisselaltaarstukken in de Amsterdamse Begijnhofkerk’, De zeventiende eeuw 15 (1999) 2, 204-221.

Schouteet 1959 A. Schouteet, ‘Catalogus van oude plannen en te­ keningen van Brugse huizen en gebouwen op het Stadsarchief van Brugge’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Monumenten en Landschappen 10 (1959), 349-390.

Schmidt 1999 F.H. Schmidt, Pieter de Swart. Architect van de Achttiende Eeuw, Zwolle/Zeist 1999.

Schoy 1879 A. Schoy, Histoire de l’influence italienne sur l’architecture dans les Pays-Bas, (Mémoires couronnés et mémoires

395

Bibliography des savants étrangers publiés par l’Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, XXXIX, 2), Brussels 1879.

Smeyers 1979 M. Smeyers, De abdij van Park, 850 jaar Premonstraten­ zerleven, Heverlee 1979.

Schrader 1998 S. Schrader, ‘ “Greater than Ever He Was”. Ritual and Power in Charles V’s 1558 Funeral Procession’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 49 (1998), 69-93.

Smolar-Meynart 1997 A. Smolar-Meynart (ed.), ‘Rond het bombardement van Brussel van 1695. Verwoesting en wederopstan­ ding’, Tijdschrift van het Gemeentekrediet 51 (1997) 199.

Schütte 1994 U. Schütte, Das Schloss als Wehranlage. Befestigte Schlossbauten der frühen Neuzeit im alten Reich, Darmstadt 1994.

Smolar-Meynart 1998 A. Smolar-Meynart, ‘Un palais dominant le centre urbain, le Coudenberg (XIIe-XVIIe siècles)’, in: A. Smolar-Meynart & A. Vanrie (eds.), Le quartier royal, Brussels 1998, 15-41.

Sénéchal 1990 P. Sénéchal, ‘Justus Sadeler. Print Publisher and Art Dealer in Early Seicento Venice’, Print Quarterly 7 (1990), 22-35. Serbat 1902 L. Serbat, ‘L’architecture gothique des jésuites au XVIIe siècle’, Bulletin Monumental 66 (1902), 315370. Serbat 1903 L. Serbat, ‘L’architecture gothique des jésuites au XVIIe siècle’, Bulletin Monumental 67 (1903), 84-134. Serlio 1551 Sebastiano Serlio, Livre Extraordinaire de Architecture… Extraordinario Libro di architettura..., Lyons 1551. Shaw-Taylor 1993 D. Shaw-Taylor, ‘Walls have ears: some aspects of Roman baroque architectural decoration’, Architectural History 36 (1993), 19-45. Sicking & Fagel 1999 L. Sicking & R. Fagel, ‘In het kielzog van Columbus. De heer van Veere en de Nieuwe Wereld, 15171527’, Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiede­ nis der Nederlanden 114 (1999), 313-327. Skovgaard 1973 J.A. Skovgaard, A King’s Architecture. Christian IV and His Buildings, London 1973. Slinger, Janse & Berends 1980 A. Slinger, H. Janse & G. Berends, Natuursteen in Monu­menten, Zeist 1980. Slothouwer 1945 D.F. Slothouwer, De paleizen van Frederik Hendrik, Leiden 1945. Smetius 1999 Johannes Smetius, Nijmegen, stad der Bataven, eds. A.A.R. Bastiaensen, S. Langereis & L.G.J.M. Nelissen, Nijmegen 1999.

396

Smolar-Meynart & Vanrie 1991 A. Smolar-Meynart & A. Vanrie (eds.), Het paleis te Brussel. Vijf eeuwen kunst en geschiedenis, Brussels 1991. Smolderen 1996a L. Smolderen, Jacques Jonghelinck, sculpteur, médailleur et graveur de sceaux (1530-1606), (Publications d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain, XC – Numismatica Lovaniensia 15), Louvainla-Neuve 1996. Smolderen 1996b L. Smolderen, ‘Jean de Montfort, médailleur et maître général des monnaies (vers 1567-1648)’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Numismatiek en Zegelkunde/Revue belge de numismatique et sigillographie 142 (1996),125-238. Snaet 1999a J. Snaet, ‘De eerste protestantse tempels in de Ne­ derlanden. Een onderzoek naar vorm en perceptie’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 98 (1999), 45-58. Snaet 1999b J. Snaet, ‘De norbertijnenabdijkerk van Grimbergen, een architectuur-historisch onderzoek’, Analecta Præ­ monstratensia, 85 (1999) 3-4, 165-185. Snaet 2002 J. Snaet, ‘Rubens’s “Palazzi di Genova” and the Jesuit churches of Antwerp and Brussels’, in: Lombaerde 2002b, 161-182. Snaet (forthcoming) J. Snaet, Reformatie versus contrareformatie, de religieuze architectuur in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden gedurende de 16de en 17de eeuw, Ph.D. dissertation Leuven (forthcoming). Snaet & Baisier 2004 J. Snaet & C. Baisier, ‘Contrareformatie en barok. Traditie en Vernieuwing in de 17de-eeuwse kerkar-

Bibliography chitectuur in de Nederlanden’, Gentse Bijdragen tot de Interieurgeschiedenis 33 (2004), 9-38. Sneyers 1972 E. Sneyers, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van Retie, Retie 1972. Snoep 1969 D.F. Snoep, ‘Honselaersdijk: restauraties op papier’, Oud Holland 84 (1969), 270-294. Soenen 2001 M. Soenen, ‘Pompes funèbres à Bruxelles à la fin du XVI e siècle. Deux dessins inconnus dans des archives privées’, in: Bruxelles et la vie urbai­ ne. ­Archives, art, histoire. Recueil d’études dédiées à la ­mémoire d’Arlette Smolar-Meynart, Brussels 2001, vol. I, 257-276. Soetaert 1986 P. Soetaert, De Bergen van Barmhartigheid in de Spaanse, de Oostenrijkse en de Franse Nederlanden, (Historische uitgaven van het Gemeentekrediet, in-8°, 67), Brussels 1986. Soil de Moriamé 1904 (1977) E.J. Soil de Moriamé, L’habitation tournaisienne du XIe au XVIIIe siècle. Ière partie. Architecture des façades, Tournai 1904, revised edition Brussels 1977. Soly 1976 H. Soly, ‘De bouw van de Antwerpse citadel, 15671571. Sociaal-economische aspecten’, Revue belge d’histoire militaire 21 (1976), 549-578. Soly 1977 H. Soly, Urbanisme en kapitalisme te Antwerpen in de 16de eeuw. De stedebouwkundige en industriële ondernemingen van Gilbert van Schoonbeke, (Pro Civitate, Historische Uitgaven van het Gemeentekrediet, ser. in-8°, 47), Brussels 1977. Soly 1978 H. Soly, ‘De megapolis Antwerpen’, in: L. Voet et al. (eds.), De stad Antwerpen van de Romeinse tijd tot de 17de eeuw. Topografische studie rond het plan van Virgilius Bononiensis 1565, Brussels 1978, 95-119. Soly 1984 H. Soly, ‘Plechtige intochten in de steden van de Zuidelijke Nederlanden tijdens de overgang van Middeleeuwen naar Nieuwe Tijd: communicatie, propaganda, spektakel’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 97 (1984), 341-361. Soly 1993 H. Soly, ‘Sociale relaties in Antwerpen tijdens de 16de en 17de eeuw’, in: Antwerp 1993, 37-47.

Sonkes 1970 M. Sonkes, ‘Jacques Dubrœucq et le jubé de SainteWaudru à Mons’, Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain 3 (1970), 121-130. Spectaculorum… 1550 Cornelis Scribonius [Grapheus] & Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Spectaculorum in susceptione Philippi, Hisp. Princ., divi Caroli V, Caes., f., an. 1549, Antverpiae, aditorum, mirificus apparatus…, Antwerp 1550. Spies 1995 M. Spies, ‘De “maetzang” van Van Campen. De stem van de literatuur’, in: Huisken, Ottenheym & Schwarz 1995, 227-242. Spruyt 1993 B.J. Spruyt, ‘Verdacht van Lutherse sympathieën. Maria van Hongarije en de religieuze controversen van haar tijd’, in: Utrecht/’s-Hertogenbosch 1993, 87-103. Staring 1964 A. Staring, ‘Joost Jansz. Bilhamer als beeldhouwer’, in: H.W.M. van der Wijck, C. Boschma & H.M. van den Berg (eds.), Opus Musivum. Een bundel studies aangeboden aan Professor Doctor M.D. Ozinga, Assen 1964, 201-213. Status Aulicus 1660 Antonius Sanderus, Status Aulicus, Brussels 1660, addendum to Id., De (…) Catholici Reges in Belgio Conciliis dissertatuncula, Brussels 1659. Steenmeijer 2005 G.H.P. Steenmeijer, “Tot cieraet ende aensien deser stede”. Arent van ’s-Gravesande, architect en ingenieur (ca.1610-1662), Leiden 2005. Stenvert 1990 R. Stenvert, ‘Manierismus in den Niederlanden. Oder: Die Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Nord­ deutschland und dem Osten der Niederlande’, in: G.U. Groβmann (ed.), Schriften des WeserrenaissanceMuseums Schloß Brake 4, 92-111. Stenvert 1996 R. Stenvert, ‘Conveyed by land, returned by ship; mannerism and sandstone’, in: J. Roding & L. Heerma van Voss (eds.), The North Sea and Culture (15501800), Hilver­sum 1996, 420-434. Steppe 1952 J.-K. Steppe, Het koordoksaal in de Nederlanden, (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten, 7), Brussels 1952.

397

Bibliography Stevin 1649 Simon Stevin, Materiæ Politicæ, ed. Hendrick Stevin, Leiden 1649. Struik 1966 D.J. Struik, Het land van Stevin en Huygens, Amsterdam 1966. Summerson 1966 J. Summerson, The Classical Language of Architecture, Cambridge 1966. Summerson 1977 J. Summerson, Architecture in Britain 1530-1830, 7th ed., Harmondsworth 1977 (1st ed. 1953). van Swigchem, Brouwer & van Os 1984 C.A. van Swigchem, T. Brouwer & W. van Os, Een huis voor het Woord. Het protestantse kerkinterieur in Ne­derland tot 1900, ‘s-Gravenhage 1984. Swillens 1960 P.T.A. Swillens, Jacob van Campen. Schilder en bouw­ meester 1595-1657, Assen 1960. Tafuri 1985 M. Tafuri, Venezia e il Rinascimento, religione, scienza, architettura, (Saggi, 686), Turin 1985. Tafuri 1988 M. Tafuri, ‘Il palazzo di Carlo V a Granada: architettura “a lo romano” e iconografia imperiale’, in: El siglo de oro. Architettura spagnola del ‘500, Ricerche di Storia dell’arte 32 (1988), 4-26. Tafuri 1992 M. Tafuri, Ricerca del Rinascimento. Principi, città, architetti, (Saggi, 760), Turin 1992. Tahon 1912 V. Tahon, La rue Isabelle et les jardins des arbalétriers, Brussels 1912. Tanner 1993 M. Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas. The Haps­ burgs and the Mythic Image of the Emperor, Yale 1993. Taverne 1971 E. Taverne, ‘Salomon de Bray’s Architectura Moderna: biography and manifesto’, introduction to the fac.sim. edition of the Architectura Moderna (1631), Soest 1971. Taverne 1978 E. Taverne, In ‘t land van belofte: in de nieue stadt. Ideaal en werkelijkheid van de stadsuitleg in de Republiek 15801680, Maarssen 1978. Taverne 1985 E. Taverne, ‘Architecturæ domesticæ Stevini sy­ nopsis’, in: Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 3. Bouwen in Nederland, Delft 1985, 441-455.

398

Taverne & Visser 1993 E. Taverne & I. Visser (eds.), Stedebouw. De geschie­ denis van de stad in de Nederlanden van 1500 tot heden, Nijmegen/Heerlen 1993. Tejero Villareal 1998 B. Tejero Villareal, ‘Las fuentes genovesas en los jardines de Felipe II’, in: C. Añón (ed.), Felipe II, el rey íntimo. Jardín y Naturaleza en el siglo XVI, Madrid 1998, 399-420. Temmerman 1986 C. Temmerman, ‘Le château des Tour et Tassis à Machelen’, Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain 19 (1986), 238-265. Temminck Groll & van Alphen 2002 C.L. Temminck Groll & W. van Alphen, The Dutch Overseas. Architectural Survey. Mutual heritage of four Cen­ turies in three Continents, The Hague/Zwolle 2002. Terlinden 1978 B. Terlinden, ‘Quelques ensembles de peinture murale au XVIème siècle dans les édifices privés de Belgique’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kun­ stgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 47 (1978), 57-76. Terwen 1964 J.J. Terwen, ‘De ontwerpgeschiedenis van de Marekerk te Leiden’, in: H. W. M. Van der Wijck, C. Boschma & H. M. Van den Berg (eds.), Opus Musivum, een bun­ del studies aangeboden aan Professor doctor M.D. Ozinga, Assen 1964, 231-256. Terwen 1967 J.J. Terwen, ‘Het stadhuis van Hendrick de Keyser’, in: R. Meischke et al. (eds.), Delftse Studiën, Assen 1967, 143-170. Terwen 1969 J.J. Terwen, ‘De herkomst van de Amsterdamse stadhuisplattegronden’, in: Miscellanea I.Q. van Regteren Altena 16/V/1969, Amsterdam 1969, 123-126. Terwen 1979 J.J. Terwen, ‘The Buildings of Johan Maurits’, in: E. van den Boogaart et al. (eds.), Johan Maurits van Nas­ sau-Siegen 1604-1679. A humanist Prince in Europe and Brazil, Den Haag 1979, 54-141. Terwen 1980 J. J.Terwen, ‘Il palladianesimo in Olanda’, in: Vicenza 1980, 73-95. Terwen 1988 J.J. Terwen, ‘De uitbreidingsplannen van Pieter Post voor het Huis Honselaarsdijk’, in: H.M. van den Berg

Bibliography et al. (eds.), De stenen droom. Opstellen over bouwkunst en monumentenzorg, Zutphen 1988, 298-306. Terwen & Ottenheym 1993 J.J. Terwen & K.A. Ottenheym, Pieter Post (16081669). Architect, Zutphen 1993. The New Hollstein XLVII P. Fuhring, The New Hollstein. Dutch & Flemish Etch­ ings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450-1700. Vol. XLVII. Vredeman de Vries, Part I, 1555-1571, Rotterdam 1997. The New Hollstein XLVIII P. Fuhring, The New Hollstein. Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450-1700. Vol. XLVIII. Vredeman de Vries, Part II, 1572-1630, Rotterdam 1997. The New Hollstein/Van Doetecum I H. Nalis, The New Hollstein. Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450-1700. The Van Doete­ cum Family, Part I. The Antwerp Years, 1554-1575, Rotterdam 1998. The New Hollstein/Van Doetecum II H. Nalis, The New Hollstein. Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450-1700. The Van Doete­ cum Family, Part II. The Antwerp Years, 1554-1575, Rotterdam 1998. The New Hollstein/Van Doetecum III H. Nalis, The New Hollstein. Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450-1700. The Van Doetecum Family, Part III. The Antwerp Years, 1554-1575, The Years of Refuge 1576 – c. 1573, Rotterdam 1998. The New Hollstein/Van Doetecum IV H. Nalis, The New Hollstein. Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450-1700. The Van Doete­ cum Family, Part IV. The Northern Netherlandisch years 1583-1606, Rotterdam 1998.

Thoenes 1985 C. Thoenes, ‘Gli ordini architettonici: rinascita o invenzione ? Parte prima’, in: M. Fagiolo (ed.), Roma e l’antico nell’arte e nella cultura del Cinquecento, Rome 1985, 261-271. Thøfner 1998a M. Thøfner, ‘Domina & Princeps proprietaria. The Ideal of Sovereignty in the Joyous Entries of the Archduke Albert and the Infanta Isabella’, in: Thomas & Duerloo 1998, 55-66. Thøfner 1998b M. Thøfner, ‘The Court in the City, the City in the Court. Denis van Alsloot’s Depictions of the 1615 Brussels “Ommegang” ’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 49 (1998), 185-207. Thomas & Duerloo 1998 W. Thomas & L. Duerloo (eds.), Albert & Isabella 1598-1621. Essays, Turnhout 1998. Thomson 1988 D. Thomson, Les plus excellents bastiments de France par J.-A. Du Cerceau, Paris 1988. Thomson 1993 D. Thomson, Renaissance architecture. Critics, Patrons, Luxury, Manchester/New York 1993. Thomson 1995 D. Thomson, ‘Protestant Temples in France, c.15661623’, in : J. Guillaume (ed.), L’église dans l’architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 28 au 31 mai 1990, (De Architectura, 7), Paris 1995, 245-256. Tijs 1983 R.J. Tijs, P.P. Rubens en J. Jordaens. Barok in eigen huis, Antwerp [1983].

Theunisz. 1927 J. Theunisz., Het stadhuis te Enkhuizen, Assen 1927.

Tijs 1993a R. Tijs, ‘Antwerpen als invoerhaven en draaischijf van renaissance-ideeën’, in: Taverne & Visser 1993, 93-102.

Thibaut de Maisières 1934 M.M. Thibaut de Maisières, ‘L’ancienne église de Laeken’, Bulletin de la société d’archéologie de Bruxelles 5 (1934), 128-144.

Tijs 1993b R. Tijs, Crowning the City. Vernacular Architecture in Antwerp from the Middle Ages to the Present Day, Antwerp 1993.

Thieme & Becker 1907-1950 U. Thieme & F. Becker (eds.), Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, 37 vols., Leipzig 1907-1950.

Tijs 1997 R. Tijs, Renaissance- en barokarchitectuur in België, Tielt 1997.

Thijs 1990 A.K.L. Thijs, Van Geuzenstad tot katholiek bolwerk. Antwerpen en de Contrareformatie, Turnhout 1990.

Tijs et al. s.d. R. Tijs et al., Architectuurtekeningen uit de historische steden van België/Dessins architecturaux des villes histo­ riques de Belgique, Brussels s.d.

399

Bibliography Tolley 1996 T. Tolley, ‘States of Independence: Women Regents as Patrons of the Visual Arts in Renaissance France’, Renaissance Studies 10 (1996), 237-258. Torfs & Casterman 1871 L. Torfs & A. Casterman, ‘Les agrandissements et les fortifications d’Anvers depuis l’origine de cette ville’, Annales de l’académie d’archéologie de Belgique, (2nd series, VII), 27 (1871), 5-107. Tournoy & Oosterbosch 2002 G. Tournoy & M. Oosterbosch, ‘The library of Pieter Gillis’, in: R. 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/Paris/Sterling 2002, 143-158. Triumphelijcke Incompst 1550 Cornelis Grapheus & Pieter Coecke van Aelst, De seer wonderlijcke/ schoone/ Triumphelijcke Incompst, van den hooghmogenden Prince Philips, Prince van Spaignien, Caroli de vijfden, keyserssone. In de stadt van Antwerpen, Anno, M.LLLLL,XLJX, Antwerp 1550. Triumphante entrée 1550 Cornelis Grapheus & Pieter Coecke van Aelst, La très admirable, tresmagnifique, & triumphante entrée, du treshault & trespuissant Prince Philipes, Prince d’Espaignes, filz de Lempereur Charles. Ve., ensemble la vraye descrip­ tion des Spectacles, theatres, archz triumphaulx. &c. les quelz ont este faictz & bastis a sa tres desiree reception en la tres renommee florissante ville d’Anvers. Anno 1549, Antwerp 1550. Turcat 1994 A. Turcat, Etienne Jamet alias Esteban Jamete. Sculpteur français de la Renaissance en Espagne, condamné par l’Inquisition, Paris 1994. van Tussenbroek 1999a G. van Tussenbroek, ‘Bouwen in Bommel; een blik in de Zaltbommelse bouwwereld van de zestiende eeuw’, Bijdragen en Mededelin­gen Gelre 90 (1999), 40-66. van Tussenbroek 1999b G. van Tussenbroek, ‘Een Italiaan in ’s-Hertogenbosch; Alessandro Pasqualini en het bolwerk voor de Orthenpoort (1542)’, Bossche Bladen 1 (1999) 3, 83-88. van Tussenbroek 2001a G. van Tussenbroek, Bouwen voor stad en land: over­ zicht van het handelsnetwerk van de aannemersfamilie Van Neurenberg in de Noordelijke en Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1480-1640), Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht 2001.

400

van Tussenbroek 2001b G. van Tussenbroek, ‘Brood uit stenen. De veran­ derende sociaal-economische positie van steenhouwers in de vroeg­moder­ne tijd: werken voor de kerk en werken voor de stad. Het voorbeeld van Jan Dar­ kennes (1487-1572)’, De Brabantse stad. Bijdra­gen tot de geschiede­nis 84 (2001) 4, 467-496. van Tussenbroek 2001c G. van Tussenbroek, ‘Belgisch marmer in de Zuide­ lijke en Noorde­lijke Neder­landen (1500-1700)’, B­u­l­l­e­ tin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 100 (­2­0­0­1), 49-71. van Tussenbroek 2006 G. van Tussenbroek, The Architectural Network of the Van Neurenberg Family in the Low Countries (14801640), (Architectura Moderna, 4), Turnhout 2006. Unger 1932 W.S. Unger, ‘De bouwgeschiedenis van het Stadhuis van Middelburg’, Oudheid­kundig Jaarboek (1932), 141. Upmark 1900 G. Upmark, ‘Ein Besuch in Holland 1687, aus den Reiseschilderungen des Schwedischen Architekten Nicodemus Tessin d.J.’, Oud Holland 18 (1900), 117128, 144-152, 199-210. Uppenkamp 2002 B. Uppenkamp, ‘De invloed van Hans Vredeman de Vries op architectuur en kunstnijverheid’, in: Antwerp 2002, 91-104. Valkema Blouw 1988 P. Valkema Blouw, ‘Gillis Coppens van Diest als ondergronds drukker, 1566-67’, in: Het oude en het nieuwe boek. De oude en de nieuwe bibliotheek. Liber ami­ corum H.D.L. Vervliet, Kapellen 1988, 143-163. Vallery-Radot 1960 J. Vallery-Radot, Recueil des plans d’édifices de la Com­ pagnie de Jésus conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris, (Bibliotheca Instituti Historici S.I., vol. XV), Rome 1960. Valvekens 1980 P. Valvekens, Bijdrage tot de studie van het Celestijnen­ klooster te Heverlee. Het mecenaat van de families van Croÿ-van Arenberg. Reconstructie van het kerkinterieur en nader onderzoek van het werk van Jan Mone in deze kerk, unpublished Master’s Thesis, Leuven 1980. Valvekens 1983 P. Valvekens, ‘Nieuwe gegevens over het Celestijnenklooster te Heverlee, gevolgd door een nader onderzoek van de sculptuur van Jan Mone voor de Celes­

Bibliography tijnenkerk’, Jaarboek van de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige Kring voor Leuven en omgeving 23 (1983), 3-69. Valvekens 1985 P. Valvekens, ‘Iconografische bronnen voor de studie van het Celestijnenklooster te Heverlee’, De vrienden van Heverleebos en Meerdaalwoud. Jaarbulletin (1985), 31-60. Valvekens 1987 P. Valvekens, ‘De Celestijnenpriorij’, in: Leuven 1987, 18-23. Van Aerschot 1993 S. Van Aerschot et al., Architectuurgids Antwerpen, Antwerp 1993. Van Aerschot & Heirman 2001 S. Van Aerschot & M. Heirman, Vlaamse Begijnhoven, Werelderfgoed, Leuven 2001. Van Belle 1990 J.-L. Van Belle, Les maîtres de carrière d’Arquennes sous l’Ancien Régime. Un métier. Des hommes, (Crédit Communal de Belgique, Collection Histoire, série in-8°, 80), Brussels 1990. Van Belle 1994 J.-L. Van Belle, Nouveau dictionnaire des signes lapi­daires – Belgique et Nord de la France, Louvain-la-Neuve 1994. Van Cleempoel 2005 K. Van Cleempoel, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries and scientific apparatus’, ”, in: Lombaerde 2005b, 187195. Van Damme 1994 J. Van Damme, De Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekathedraal van Antwerpen, Antwerp 1994. Van Damme 1996 J. Van Damme, ‘Biografie’, in: A. Huysmans, J. Van Damme, C. Van de Velde & C. Van Mulders 1996, 9-16. Van Damme & Aerts 1993 J. Van Damme & W. Aerts, De Onze-Lieve-Vrouweka­ thedraal in Antwerpen, Tielt 1993. Van de Gheyn 1905 J. Van de Gheyn, ‘Peiresc et Coebergher’, Annales de l’Académie Royale d’Archéologie de Belgique, 5th ser. 7 (1905), 5-13. Van de Kerckhof 2000 V. Van de Kerckhof, ‘Beeldvorming van Brussel op gegraveerde kaarten en profielen, 16de-18de eeuw’, in: Brussels 2000, 150-161.

Van den Bemden 1985 Y. Van den Bemden, ‘Les vitraux anciens de la collégiale Sainte-Waudru à Mons’, in: Mons 1985, 221238. Vanden Berghe 2004 G. Vanden Berghe et al., Simon Stevin (1548-1620). De geboorte van de nieuwe wetenschap, (Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België), Turnhout 2004. Van de Perre 1985a D. Van De Perre, ‘De relatie tussen parochie en abdij te Ninove, ingezonderdheid in de periode 15851638’, Het land van Aalst 37 (1985), 121-200. Van de Perre 1985b D. Van De Perre, ‘De bouw van de huidige kerk, 1623-1723, van gotiek tot barok, een moeizame evolutie’, in: Ninove 1985, 24-36. Van der Essen 1933-1937 L. Van der Essen, Alexandre Farnèse: prince de Parme, 5 vols., Brussels 1933-1937. Van der Stock 1998-1999 J.Van der Stock, ‘Fluiten in het donker’, De Gulden Passer 76-77 (1998-1999), 361-369. Van der Wee 1987 H. Van der Wee, ‘Opkomst van een wereldstad: handel en nijverheid te Antwerpen van de veertiende tot de achttiende eeuw’, Academia Analecta. Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Let­ teren en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der Letteren 2 (1987) 2, 1-18. Van der Wee & Materné 1993 H. Van der Wee & J. Materné, ‘De Antwerpse wereldmarkt tijdens de 16de en 17de eeuw’, in: Antwerp 1993, 19-31. Van de Velde 1975 C. Van de Velde, Frans Floris (1519/20 – 1570). Leven en werken, (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten, 37, no. 30), 2 vols., Brussels 1975. Vandevivere & Périer-d’Ieteren 1973 I. Vandevivere, C. Périer-d’Ieteren, Belgique renais­ sante, Ghent 1973. Van de Vijver 2000 D. Van de Vijver, Le Choix des Monumens, édifices et maisons les plus remarquables du royaume des Pays-Bas de Pierre-Jacques Goetghebuer. Une histoire de l’architecture nationale du royaume des Pays-Bas, Brussels 2000.

401

Bibliography Van de Vyver 1980 O. Van de Vyver, ‘L’école de mathématiques des Jésuites de la province Flandro-Belge au XVIIe siècle’, Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu 49 (1980), 265278. Van Driessche 1978 R. Van Driessche, ‘De barok Sint-Pieterskerk te Gent’, Maatschappij voor geschiedenis en oudheidkunde te Gent 32 (1978), 1-77. Van Dormael 1988 H. Van Dormael, Kasteel van Gaasbeek, (Musea Nostra), Brussels 1988. Van Durme 1949 M. Van Durme, ‘Antoon Perrenot van Granvelle en Leone Leoni’, Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis/Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 27 (1949), 653-678. van Eenooge, Delcommune & Celis 2000 D. van Eenooge, T. Delcommune & M. Celis , ‘Onder het Koningsplein te Brussel: de hofkapel van Karel V’, Monumenten en Landschappen 19 (2000)1, 4-38. Van Even 1874 E. Van Even, Renseignements inédits sur la construction du refuge de l’abbaye de Herkenrode, à Hasselt (15421545), s.l. 1874. Van Goethem 1999 H. Van Goethem, Fotografie en realisme in de 19de eeuw. Antwerpen: de oudste foto’s (1847-1880), Antwerp 1999. Van Langendonck 2002 L. Van Langendonck, ‘Het Karbonkelhuis van kannunik Willem Heda. Een renaissance primavera op de Groenplaats in Antwerpen (1520-1522)’, in: Grieten 2002, 93-112. Van Miegroet 2001 H. Van Miegroet, ‘Modern, Antique, and Novelty Antique in 1517’, in: J. Vander Auwera (ed.), Liber Amicorum Raphaël De Smedt. 2. Artium Historia, (Miscellanea Neerlandica XXIV), Leuven 2001, 153-172. Van Mulders 1996 C. Van Mulders, ‘De prentenreeksen’, in: A. Huysmans, J. Van Damme, C. Van de Velde & C. Van Mulders 1996, 37-69. Van Riet 1996 S. Van Riet, ‘Lucas Faydherbe als beeldhouwer en altaarbouwer. Nieuwe gegevens en documenten’, Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Ant­ werpen (1996), 141-225.

402

Van Riet & Van Wonterghem 1994 S. Van Riet & K. Van Wonterghem, ‘Twee werken van Lucas Faydherbe nader onderzocht’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 28 (1994), Mechliniensia in honorem Prof. em. Dr. Constantini Van de Wiel septuagenarii, 155-218. Van Spilbeeck 1888 W. Van Spilbeeck, De abdij van Tongerloo: gechiedkun­ dige navorschingen, Lier 1888. Van Tyghem 1978 F. Van Tyghem, Het Stadhuis van Gent. Voorgeschiede­ nis – Bouwgeschiedenis. Veranderingswerken – Restaura­ ties. Beschrijving – Stijlanalyse, (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 40, no. 31), 2 vols., Brussels 1978. Van Tyghem 1987 F. Van Tyghem, ‘Bestuursgebouwen in Brabant en Vlaanderen’, in: Janse, Meischke, Mosselveld & Van Tyghem 1987, 105-130. Van Uytven 1974 R. Van Uytven, ‘Leuvense glazeniers in het Celestij­ nenklooster te Heverlee tijdens de zestiende eeuw’, Arca Lovaniensis artes atque historiæ reserans documenta. Jaarboek (1974), 169-212. Van Uytven 1976 R. Van Uytven, ‘Vorst, adel en steden: een driehoeksverhouding in Brabant van de twaalfde tot de zestiende eeuw’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis 59 (1976), 93-122. Van Uytven 1992 R. Van Uytven, ‘Brabantse en Antwerpse centrale plaatsen (14de-19de eeuw)’, in: Het stedelijk netwerk in België in historisch perspectief (1350-1850). Een statis­tische en dynamische benadering, (Pro Civitate, ­Historische Uitgaven van het Gemeentekrediet, ser. in-8°, 86), Brussels 1992, 29-79. Van Uytven 1985 R. Van Uytven, ‘De Brabantse adel als politiek en sociale groep tijdens de late middeleeuwen’, in: J. Verbesselt et al. (eds.), De adel in het hertogdom Brabant, Brussels 1985, 75-88. Van IJsendijck 1880-1889 J. J. Van IJsendijck, Documents Classés de l’Art dans les Pays-Bas du Xe au XVIIIe siècle, (several volumes), Brussels 1880-1889. Vasari-Milanesi 1886 G. Vasari, Le opere di Giorgio Vasari con nuove anno­ tazioni e commenti, ed. G. Milanesi, 1st ed., Florence 1886.

Bibliography Vasari-Milanesi 1906 G. Vasari, Le opere di Giorgio Vasari con nuove anno­ tazioni e commenti, ed. G. Milanesi, 2nd ed., Florence 1906.

Vlaardingerbroek 2004 P.F. Vlaardingerbroek, Het stadhuis van Amsterdam. De bouw van het stadhuis, de verbouwing tot koninklijk paleis en de restauratie, Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht 2004.

Venard 1992 M. Venard, ‘L’Eglise catholique’, in : J.-M. Mayeur, C. Pietri, A. Vauchez & M. Venard (eds.), Histoire du Christianisme. Des Origines à nos Jours, Tome VIII, Le Temps des Confessions (1530-1620/1630), s.l. 1992, 223-280.

Vier eeuwen Herengracht 1976 H. de la Fontaine Verwey et al., Vier eeuwen Heren­ gracht. Geveltekeningen van alle huizen aan de gracht, twee historische overzichten en de beschrijving van elk pand met zijn eigenaars en bewoners, Amsterdam 1976.

Verbouwe 1936 A. Verbouwe, ‘Iconographie van de abdij Dielegem (Jette)’, Eigen Schoon en de Brabander 19 (1936), 247251. Vergriete 1962 T. Vergriete, ‘Le Mont-de-Piété de Bergues’, in: Con­ grès archéologique de France. CXXe session. Flandre, Paris 1962, 251-253. Verleysen 2003 F. Verleysen, ‘De bouw van een laatgotisch stadhuis: Zoutleeuw (1530-1539). Financiële, sociaal-economische en materiële aspecten’, in: De Brabantse stad. Dertiende colloquium, Leuven 18-19 oktober 2002, (Bij­ dragen tot de geschiedenis 86 [2003] 3-4), 321-345. Vermeersch 1976 V. Vermeersch, Grafmonumenten te Brugge voor 1578, 3 vols., Bruges 1976. Vermeulen 1938 F.A.J. Vermeulen, ‘Bouwgeschiedenis en beschrijving van het voormalig Huis ter Nieuburch te Rijswijk’, Nederlandsche historiebladen 1 (1938), 115-133. Vermeulen 1923-1941 F. A.J. Vermeulen, Handboek tot de Geschiedenis der Ne­ derlandse Bouwkunst, 3 vols., The Hague 1923-1941. Verplaetse 1973-1975 A. Verplaetse, ‘Bouwvergunning en bouwvoorschrif­ ten in Vlaanderen – 11de tot 13de eeuw’, Gentse bijdra­ gen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 23 (1973-1975), 9-22. Verpoest 2002 L. Verpoest, ‘Hans Vredeman de Vries en de Belgische architectuur in de negentiende eeuw: architectuurgeschiedschrijving en nationale identiteit’, in: Antwerp 2002, 375-381. Vlaardingerbroek 1996 P.F. Vlaardingerbroek, ‘Adriaen Dortsman en Jan Six. Architectuur en interieurs aan de hand van Heren­ gracht 619’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 95 (1996), 149-169.

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. Vlieghe 1998a H. Vlieghe, Flemish Art and Architecture 1585-1700, (Pelican history of Art), New Haven/London 1998. Vlieghe 1998b H. Vlieghe, ‘Flemish art, does it really exist?’, Simiolus 26 (1998), 187-200. Vogelsang 1981 B. Vogelsang, “Archaische Utopien”, Materialen zu Ger­ hard Schotts Hamburger “Bühnenmodell” des templum Salomonis, Inaugural-Dissertation, Cologne 1981. Vogler 1992 B. Vogler, ‘Les Églises Luthériennes’, in: J.-M. Mayeur, C. Pietri, A. Vauchez & M. Venard (eds.), Histoire du Christianisme. Des Origines à nos Jours, Tome VIII, Le Temps des Confessions (1530-1620/1630), s.l. 1992, 15-54. Voort 2000 H. Voort, ‘Abbau, Absatz und Verwendung von Bent­ heimer Sandstein in acht Jahrhunderten’, Schriftenreihe des Sandsteinmu­seums Bad Bentheim 1 (2000), 3-18. Vos & Leeman 1986 R. Vos & F. Leeman, Het nieuwe ornament. Gids voor de renaissance-architectuur en -decoratie in de 16de eeuw in Nederland, The Hague 1986. Voskuil 1990 J.J. Voskuil, ‘Motorische Kräfte hinter der Versteine­ rung in den Niederlanden’, Hausbau in den Nieder­ landen/Bouwstenen voor oude woonhuizen in Nederland (Jahrbuch für Hausforschung 1990), 65-79.

403

Bibliography Vosters 1961 S.A. Vosters, ‘De geestelijke achtergronden van Mencia de Mendoza, vrouwe van Breda’, Jaarboek van de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige Kring van Stad en Land van Breda “De Oranjeboom” 14 (1961), 57-103. Vosters 1987 S.A. Vosters, Mencía de Mendoza, vrouwe van Breda en onderkoningin van Valencia, Delft 1987. de Vries et al. 1985 D.J. de Vries, F.C. Berkenvelder, W.J. Bloemink & J. Hollestelle, ‘Over pannen en daktegels: traditie en innova­tie in de late middeleeuwen’, Overijsselse His­ torische Bijdragen 100 (1985), 83-142. de Vries 1992 D.J. de Vries, ‘ “Soe dattet een Ewych Werck mach bliven”; de bouw van de Onze Lieve Vrouwetoren of Peperbus te Zwolle’, Jaarboek Monumentenzorg (1992), 71-96. de Vries 1994 D.J. de Vries, Bouwen in de late middeleeuwen. Stedelij­ke architectuur in het voormalige Over- en Nedersticht, ­Utrecht 1994. de Vries 2001 D.J. de Vries, ‘Jelis Knijff en Jelis Jelissen, kistenmaker in Zwolle en beeldsnijder te Kampen’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 100 (2001), 72-82. de Vries & van der Woude 1995 J. de Vries & A. van der Woude, Nederland 15001800: de eerste ronde van moder­ne econo­mische groei, Amsterdam 1995. van de Waal 1953 A.M. van de Waal, ‘Zuiderkerk te Amsterdam’, Ons Amsterdam 5 (1953), 19-20. Wackernagel 1915 M. Wackernagel, Die Baukunst des 17. und 18. Jahr­ hunderts. II. Baukunst des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts in den germanischen Ländern, (Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft), Berlin 1915. Wauters 1855 A. Wauters, Histoire des environs de Bruxelles, ou descrip­ tion historique des localités qui formaient autrefois l’ammanie de cette ville, 3 vols., Brussels 1855. Wauters 1855 (1971-1974) A. Wauters, Histoire des environs de Bruxelles, ou descrip­ tion historique des localités qui formaient autrefois l’ammanie de cette ville, Brussels 1855, revised edition by F. Marien, 16 vols., Brussels 1971-1974.

404

Wauwermans 1896 A. Wauwermans, ‘La fortification d’Anvers au XVIe siècle’, Annales de l’Académie royale d’archéologie de Bel­ gique, 4th ser. 8 (1896), 1-195. Weissman 1920 A.W. Weissman, ‘De schoonzoon van Hendrik de Keyser’, Oud Holland 38 (1920), 155-164. Wellens 1949 R. Wellens, ‘Un compte relatif aux fêtes de Binche et de Mariemont en 1549’, Bulletin de la commission royale d’histoire 124 (1949), 275-297. Wellens 1958-1961 R. Wellens, ‘Le domaine de Mariemont au XVIe siècle (1546-1598)’, Annales du cercle archéologique de Mons 64 (1958-1961), 79-184. Wells-Cole 1997 A. Wells-Cole, Art and Decoration in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. The Influence of Continental Prints, 1558-1625, New Haven/London 1997. Westermann 1994 M. Westermann, ‘A monument for Roma Belgica. Functions of the oxaal at ‘s-Hertogenbosch’, Neder­ lands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 45 (1994), 382-446. Westra 1992 F. Westra, Nederlandse ingenieurs en de fortificatiewerken in het eerste tijdperk van de Tachtigjarige Oorlog, 15731604, Alphen aan den Rijn 1992. Wetter 2004 E. Wetter (ed.), Die Länder der Böhmishen Krone und ihre Nachbarn zur Zeit der Jagiellonen Könige (14711526). Kunst – Kultur – Geschichte, (Studi Jagellonica Lipsiensi, 2), Ostfildern 2004. Weve 1889 J.J. Weve, ‘Nijmeegse architectuur van voor het jaar 1600; hoofdzakelijk met het oog op de geschiedenis van de vroegrenaissance’, Bouwkundig Tijdschrift (1889), 1-16. van Wezel 1999 G. W.C. van Wezel, Het paleis van Hendrik III graaf van Nassau te Breda, (De Nederlandse Monumenten van Geschiedenis en Kunst), Zeist/Zwolle 1999. van Wezel 2003 G.W.C. van Wezel, ‘Het nieuwe Herenkoor als grafkapel voor Oranje-Nassau (‘de Prinsenkapel’)’, in: J. Koldeweij & G. van Wezel (eds.), De Onze-LieveVrouwekerk en de grafkapel voor Oranje-Nassau te Breda, (De Nederlandse monumenten van Geschiedenis en Kunst), Zeist/Zwolle 2003, 204-219.

Bibliography Whinney 1964 M. Whinney, Sculpture in Britain 1530-1830, (Pelican History of Art), Harmondsworth 1964. Wichmans 1632 Augustinus Wichmans, Brabantia mariana tripartita, Antwerp 1632. Willems 1880 A.Willems, Les Elzeviers, Brussels/Paris/The Hague 1880. van Winter 1988 P.J. van Winter, Hoger beroepsonderwijs avant-la-lettre. Bemoeiingen met de vorming van landmeters en ingenieurs bij de Nederlandse universiteiten van de 17e en 18e eeuw, New York 1998. Wisłocki 2003 M. Wisłocki, ‘ “Im Übrigen erinnere ich mich/das Vitruvius solche Art zu bauen nennet Formam Jonicam” – The Dukes’ Chapel of the Castle in Szczecin’, in: K. Kodres, P. Lindpere & E. Näripea (eds.), The Problem of Classical Ideal in the Art and Architecture of the Countries around the Baltic Sea/Das Problem des klas­ sischen Ideals in der Kunst und Architektur der Länder des Ostseeraums, (Estonian Academy of Arts, Proceedings, 13), Talinn 2003, 85-99. Wittevrongel 1973 K. Wittevrongel, ‘De bouwgeschiedenis van de burgerlijke griffie te Brugge’, Handelingen van het genootschap voor geschiedenis te Brugge 110 (1973) 3-4, 186-197. Wittkower 1972 R. Wittkower, ‘Problems of the Theme’, in: R. Wittkower & I. Jaffé (eds.), Baroque Art: The Jesuit Contribu­ tion, New York 1972, 1-14. Worp Briefwisseling J.A. Worp, De briefwisseling van Constantijn Huygens, (Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatien, 15, 19, 21, 24, 28, 32), 6 vols., The Hague 1911-1917. Worp Gedichten J.A. Worp, De gedichten van Constantijn Huygens naar zijn handschrift uitgegeven, 9 vols., Groningen 18921899. van der Woud 1997 A.van der Woud, Waarheid en karakter. Het debat over de bouwkunst 1840-1900, Rotterdam 1997. van Wylick-Westermann 1987 C.G.M. van Wylick-Westermann, ‘Het bouwmeesters­ geslacht Kelder­mans’, in: Janse, Meischke, Mosselveld & Van Tyghem 1987, 9-27.

Wyllemans 1983 L. Wyllemans, ‘Een toekomst voor de Sint-Bernardsabdij te Hemiksem? Deel 1: Bouwgeschiedenis van de Sint-Bernardsabdij te Hemiksem’, Monumenten en landschappen 2 (1983) 6, 46-62. Yernaux 1939 J. Yernaux, La Métallurgie Liégoise et son expansion au XVIIe siècle, Liège 1939. Zantkuijl 1986 H.J. Zantkuijl, ‘De eeuw van de verbeelding. De renaissance in de Amsterdamse architectuur’, in: Amsterdam 1986a, 93-110. Zerner 1975 H. Zerner, ‘Le système décoratif de la Galerie François Ier à Fontainebleau’, in: A. Chastel (ed.), Actes du colloque international sur l’art de Fontainebleau, Paris 1975, 31-35. Zerner 1996 H. Zerner, L’art de la Renaissance en France. L’invention du classicisme, Paris 1996. Ziggelaar 1983 A. Ziggelaar, François de Aguilon S.J. (1567-1617). Scientist and Architect, Rome 1983. Zimmermann 1986 R. Zimmermann, Hortus Palatinus. Die Entwürfe zum Heidelberger Schlossgarten von Salomon de Caus 1620, 2 vols., Worms 1986. Zimmermann 2002a P.S. Zimmermann, ‘Der Vitruvianismus und die Architectura von Hans Vredeman de Vries’, in: Lemgo 2002, 70-79. Zimmermann 2002b P.S. Zimmermann, Die Architectura von Hans Vredeman de Vries. Entwicklung der Renaissance-architektur in Mit­ teleuropa, Munich/Berlin 2002. van Zuijlen 1863-1876 R.A. van Zuijlen, Inventaris der archieven van de stad ’s-Hertogenbosch, chronolo­gisch opge­maakt en de voornaam­ ste gebeurtenis­sen bevattende, 3 vols., ’s-Hertogenbosch 1863-1876. Exhibition catalogues Amsterdam 1986a R. Kistemaker & M. Jonker (eds.), De smaak van de elite. Amsterdam in de eeuw van de beeldenstorm, Amsterdam, Amsterdams Historisch Museum, 1986.

405

Bibliography Amsterdam 1986b W. Th. Kloek, W. Halsema-Kubes & R.J. Baarsen, Kunst voor de beeldenstorm. Noordnederlandse kunst 1525-1580, (De eeuw van de Beeldenstorm), 2 vols., Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 1986. Amsterdam 1993 Dawn of the Golden Age. Northern Netherlandish Art 1580-1620, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 1993. Amsterdam 1998 Adriaen de Vries 1556-1626. Imperial Sculptor, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 1998. Amsterdam 2000 K. Zandvliet (ed.), Maurits, prins van Oranje, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 2000. Amsterdam 2003 Willem van Tetrode, Sculptor. Guglielmo Fiammingo Scul­ tore, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 2003. Amsterdam/Ghent 1982-1983 J.F. Heijbroek, D. Roorda, M. Schapelhouman & E. de Wielde, Met Huygens op reis: tekeningen en dag­ boeknotities van Constantijn Huygens jr. (1628-1697), secretaris van stadhouder-koning Willem III, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet/Ghent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 1982-1983. Amsterdam/Stockholm/Los Angeles 1999-2000 F. Scholten (ed.), Adriaen de Vries 1556-1626, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum/Stockholm, Nationalmuseum/Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum, 1999-2000. Antwerp 1993 J. Van der Stock (ed.), Antwerpen, verhaal van een metro­ pool 16de-17de eeuw, Antwerp, Hessenhuis, 1993. Antwerp 1997-1998 F. De Nave (ed.), Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) en het Plantijnse huis, Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus, 1997-1998. Antwerp 1998 A. Meskens, Familia universalis: Coignet. Een familie tus­ sen wetenschap en kunst, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 1998. Antwerp 2002 H. Borggrefe, T. Fusenig & B. Uppenkamp (eds.), Tussen stadspaleizen en luchtkastelen. Hans Vredeman de Vries en de Renaissance, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, 2002. Augsburg 2000 Adriaen de Vries 1556-1626. Augsburgs Glanz, Europas Ruhm, Stadt Augsburg 2000.

406

Augsburg 2003 P. Wolf, M. Henker et al. (eds.), Der Winterkönig, Frie­d­ rich von der Pfalz. Bayern und Europa im Zeitalter des Dreis­ sigjährigen Krieges, Stadt Augsburg, Darmstadt 2003. Bonn 1998-1999 Hochrenaissance im Vatikan. Kunst und Kultur im Rom der Päpste 1503-1534, Bonn, Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Bonn, 1998-1999. Bruges 1993 J.P. Tytgat (ed.), Oude en loflijcke maniere van leven in de seraphike religie der paters capucinen van de Vlaem­ sche provincie 1585-1993, Bruges, MinderbroedersKapucijnen, 1993. Bruges 1998 M.P.J. Martens (ed.), Brugge en de Renaissance. Van Memling tot Pourbus, Bruges, Memlingmuseum – OudSint-Janshospitaal, 1998. Brussels 1975a J. de Borchgrave d’Altena et al. (eds.), Sint­Michielskathedraal. Kunst en Geschiedenis, Brussels, Sint­Michielskathedraal, 1975. Brussels 1975b A. Rouzet (ed.), Zestiende-eeuwse drukkers in onze ­provincies, Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, 1975. Brussels 1976a R. Schonaerts (ed.), Les géomètres-arpenteurs du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle dans nos provinces, Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, 1976. Brussels 1976b G. Delmarcel (ed.), Tapisseries bruxelloises de la pré-Renais­ sance, Brussels, Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire, 1976. Brussels 1977a Albrecht Dürer in de Nederlanden. Zijn reis (1520-1521) en invloed, (Europalia 1977 Bundesrepublik Deutschland), Brussels, Paleis voor Schone Kunsten, 1977. Brussels 1977b M. Comblen-Sonkes & Ch. Van den Bergen-Pantens (eds.), Les Mémoriaux d’Antoine de Succca, (Publication du Centre national de recherches Primitifs Flamands, Bruxelles, III. Contributions à l’étude des Primitifs Flamands, 7), 2 vols., Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, 1977. Brussels 1987 M. Debae (ed.), De librije van Margareta van Oosten­ rijk, (Europalia 87 Österreich), Brussels, Koninklijke Bi­bliotheek van België, 1987.

Bibliography Brussels 1991 H. Bussers (ed.), Portugal et Flandre. Visions de l’Europe (1550-1680), (Europália 91 Portugal), Brussels, Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 1991. – K. De Jonge (ed.), Portugal en Vlaanderen. Europa in het verschiet (1550-1680), (Europália 91 Portugal), Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België, 1991. Brussels 1998-1999 L. Duerloo & W. Thomas (eds.), Albrecht & Isabella 1598-1621, Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis, 1998-1999. Brussels 2000 V. Van de Kerckhof et al. (eds.), Met passer en penseel. Brussel en het oude hertogdom Brabant in beeld, Brussels, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten van België, 2000. – Id., Le peintre et l’arpenteur. Images de Bruxelles et de l’ancien duché de Brabant, Brussels, Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 2000. Brussels/Antwerp/Sint-Niklaas 1994 Gerard Mercator. Cartograaf 1512-1594, Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek Albert I/Antwerpen, Museum Plantin-Moretus/Sint-Niklaas, Mercatormuseum, 1994. Brussels/Rome 1995 N. Dacos & B. W. Meijer (eds.), Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608. Kunstenaars uit de Nederlanden en het prins­ bisdom Luik te Rome tijdens de Renaissance, Brussels, Paleis voor Schone Kunsten/Rome, Palazzo delle Espozioni, 1995. Firenze 1967 A. Forlani Tempesti (ed.), Disegni italiani della col­ lezione Santarelli. Sec. XV-XVIII, Firenze, Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, 1967. Ghent 1975 Gent, duizend jaar kunst en cultuur, (Stadsbestuur Gent), 3 vols., Ghent, Centrum voor Kunst en cultuur, 1975. Ghent 1984 A. Van den Kerkhove & J. Baldewijns (eds.), Werken en kerken: 750 jaar begijnhofleven te Gent, 1234-1984, Ghent, Bijlokemuseum, 1984. Ghent 1999-2000 H. Soly & J. Van de Wiele (eds.), Carolus. Keizer Karel V 1500-1558, Ghent, Sint-Pietersabdij, 1999-2000. Gouda 2002 Z. van Ruyven-Zeman, X. van Eck & H. van Dolderde Wit, Het geheim van Gouda. De cartons van de Goudse Glazen, Gouda, Museum het Catharina Gasthuis, 2002.

Granada 2000a F. Marías & F. Pereda (eds.), Carlos V. Las armas y las letras, (Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V), Granada, Hospital Real, 2000. Granada 2000b P. Galera Andreu (ed.), Carlos Y y la Alhambra, (Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V), Granada, Palacio Carlos V, Alhambra, 2000. Hamm/Mainz 2000-2001 U. Härting (ed.), Gärten und Höfe der Rubenszeit im Spiegel der Malerfamilie Brueghel und der Künstler um Peter Paul Rubens, Hamm, Gustav-Lübcke-Museum/ Mainz, Landesmuseum, 2000-2001. Jülich 1996-1997 E. Alshut, G. v. Büren & M. Perse, Ein Schloß ent­ steht... Von Jülich im Rheinland bis Horst in Westfalen, (Jülicher Forschungen, 5), Jülich, Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Jülich, 1996-1997. Krefeld/Oranienburg/Apeldoorn 1999 Onder den Oranje boom, 2 vols., Krefeld, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Museum/Oranienburg, Schloß Oranienburg/ Apeldoorn, Stichting Paleis Het Loo, Nationaal Museum, 1999. Legnica 2001 M. Kaputska et al., ‘Op nederlandse manier’. Inspiracje ni­ derlandzkie w sztuce śląskiej xv-xviii w., Legnica 2001. Lemgo 2002 H. Borggrefe, T. Fusenig & B. Uppenkamp (eds.), Hans Vredeman de Vries und die Renaissance im Norden, Lemgo, Weserrenaissance-Museum Schloß Brake, 2002. Leuven 1987 Leuven & Croÿ. Een stad en een geslacht, Leuven, Stedelijk Museum Vander Kelen-Mertens, 1987. Leuven 2000 T. Padmos & G. Vanpaemel (eds.), De Geleerde Wereld van Keizer Karel, (Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum Lovaniensis, series B, 19), Leuven, Stedelijk Museum Vander Kelen-Mertens, 2000. Lille 2004 H. Devisscher & H.Vlieghe, Rubens, Lille, Palais des Beaux-Arts, 2004. Madrid 1994a F. Checa Cremades (ed.), El Real Alcázar de Madrid. Dos siglos de arquitectura y coleccionismo en la corte de los Reyes de España, Madrid, Palacio Real/Museo del Prado/Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fer-

407

Bibliography nando/Calcografía Nacional/Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 1994. Madrid 1994b Los Leoni (1509-1608). Escultores del Renacimiento ita­ liano al servicio de la corte de España, Madrid, Museo del Prado, 1994. Madrid 1997-1998 J. Van Damme & K. Van Cleempoel (eds.), Scientific Instruments in the Sixteenth Century. The Spanish Court and the Louvain School, Madrid, Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 1997-1998. Madrid 1998-1999 F. Checa Cremades (ed.), Felipe II un monarca y su época. Un príncipe del Renacimiento, (Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V), Madrid, Museo del Prado, 1998-1999. Mechelen 1997 H. De Nijn, H. Vlieghe & H. Devisscher (eds.), Lucas Faydherbe, 1617-1697, Mechels beeldhouwer & architect, Mechelen, Stedelijk Museum Hof van Busleyden, 1997. Mons 1985 Jacques Du Brœucq, sculpteur et architecte de la Renaissance, (Europalia 85 España), Mons, Collégiale Sainte-Waudru, 1985. Mons 1991 1691. Le siège de Mons par Louis XIV, (Cercle archéologique de Mons/Crédit communal de Belgique), Mons, Salle Saint-Georges, 1991. Morlanwelz 1987 Y. Quairiaux et al. (eds.), Charles de Lorraine à Mariemont. Le domaine royal de Mariemont au temps des gouverneurs autrichiens, (Europalia 87 Österreich), Morlanwelz, Musée de Mariemont, 1987. Münster/Osnabrück 1998-1999 K. Buβmann & H. Schilling (eds.), 1648. Krieg und Frieden in Europa, 3 vols., Münster, Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte/ Osnabrück, Kulturgeschichtliches Museum, Kunsthalle Dominikanerkirche, 1998-1999. Namur 1992 F. & Ph. Jacquet-Ladrier (eds.), Assiégeants et assiégés au coeur de l’Europe. Namur 1688-1697, (Crédit communal de Belgique), Namur, Maison de la Culture, 1992. New York 2002 T.P. Campbell (ed.), Tapestry in the Renaissance. Art and Magnificence, New York, The Metropolitan Mu­seum of Art, 2002.

408

New York 2004 W. Thompson (ed.), Poets, Lovers, and Heroes in Ital­ ian Mythological Prints, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004. Nice 1982 P. Provoyeur & C. Provoyeur (eds.), Le Temple, Représentations de l’architecture sacrée, Nice, Musée National Message Biblique Marc Chagall, 1982. Ninove 1985 R. Steyaert & G. Vande Winkel (eds.), De premon­ stratenzerabdij van Ninove (1137-1796). Catalogus van de tentoonstelling over Kerk en Patroonheiligen, (Werkgroep abdij Ninove), Ninove, 1985. Oostende 2004 W. Thomas (ed.), De val van het nieuwe Troye. Het beleg van Oostende 1601-1604, Oostende, Venetiaanse gaanderijen, 2004, Leuven 2004. Paris 1987 P. Jean-Richard (ed.), Ornemanistes du XVe au XVIIe siè­ cle. Gravures et dessins, (XIVe exposition de la Collection Edmond de Rothschild), Paris, Musée du Louvre, 1987. Paris/Cambridge/New York 1994-1995 E. Brugerolles (ed.), Le Dessin en France au XVIe siècle. Dessins et miniatures des collections de l’Ecole des BeauxArts, Paris, Ecole nationale supérieure des BeauxArts/Cambridge (USA), Fogg Art Museum/New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1994-1995. Rome 1990 T. M. Lucas (ed.), Saint, Site and Sacred Strategy, Igna­ tius, Rome and Jesuit Urbanism, Catalogue of the Exhi­ bition Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome, Vatican City, 1990. Rotterdam/Brugge 1965 Jan Gossaert genaamd Mabuse, Rotterdam, Museum Boymans-van Beuningen/Brugge, Groeninge­ museum, 1965. Rotterdam/Frankfurt 1999-2000 A. Blankert et al., Hollands Classicisme, in de zeven­ tiende-eeuwse schilderkunst, Rotterdam, Museum Boij­ mans Van Beuningen/Frankfurt, Städelsches Kunstinstitut, 1999-2000. Sevilla 2000 A.J. Morales (ed.), La fiesta en la Europa de Carlos V, (Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V), Sevilla, Real Alcázar, 2000. Stanford 2006 S. Stratton-Pruitt (ed.), The Virgin, Saints and Angels: South American Paintings 1600-1825 from the Thoma Collection, Stanford, The Cantor Arts Center, 2006.

Bibliography Toledo 2000-2001 F. Checa (ed.), Carolus, (Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V), Toledo, Museo de Santa Cruz, 2000-2001.

Valenciennes 1995 Ph. Beaussart & A. Salamagne (eds.), Châteaux Che­ valiers en Hainaut au Moyen Age, Valenciennes, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Valenciennes, 1995.

Urbania 1999 J.T. Spike (ed.), Il corteo trionfale di Carlo V. Un capitolo del Rinascimento in un’acquaforte delle collezioni roveresche, Urbania, Palazzo Ducale, 1999.

Vicenza 1980 Palladio e la sua eredità nel mondo, (Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura “Andrea Palladio”), Vicenza, Basilica Palladiana, 1980.

Utrecht 1983 R.W. Tieskens, D.P. Snoep & G.W.C. van Wezel (eds.), Het kleine bouwen. Vier eeuwen maquettes in Ne­ derland, Utrecht, Centraal Museum, 1983.

Vicenza 1999 G. Beltramini & H. Burns (eds.), Palladio and North­ ern Europe. Books, Travellers, Architects, (Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura “Andrea Palladio”), Vicenza, Palazzo Barbaran da Porto, 1999.

Utrecht 1986 Ketters en papen onder Filips II, Het godsdienstig leven in de tweede helft van de 16de eeuw, (De eeuw van de beeldenstorm), Utrecht, Het Catharijneconvent, 1986. Utrecht 1989 P. Dirkse (ed.), Kunst uit Oud-Katholieke Kerken, ­Utrecht, Het Catharijneconvent, 1989. Utrecht 2000 L.M. Helmus (ed.), Pieter Saenredam, Het Utrechtse werk, Schilderijen en tekeningen van de 17de eeuwse groot­ meester van het perspectief, Utrecht, Centraal Museum, 2000. Utrecht/’s-Hertogenbosch 1993 B. van den Boogert & J. Kerkhoff (eds.), Maria van Hongarije. Koningin tussen keizers en kunstenaars 15051558, Utrecht, Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent/ ’s-Hertogenbosch, Noordbrabants Museum, 1993.

Vicenza 2003 F. Barbieri & G. Beltramini (eds.), Vicenzo Scamozzi 1548-1616, (Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura “Andrea Palladio”), Vicenza, Palazzo Barbaran da Porto, 2003. Williamstown 2001 S.H. Goddard & J. A. Ganz (eds.), Goltzius and the Third Dimension, Williamstown, Mass., Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, 2001. Wolfenbüttel 1994 M. Daly Davis (ed.), Archäologie der Antike. Aus den Beständen der Herzog August Bibliothek 1500-1700, Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, 1994.

409

Index of Buildings

All references are to page numbers; those in italics refer to figures. BELGIUM Aalst -  St. Martin – 280, 281 Alden Biezen -  Castle – 11 Antwerp Ecclesiastical buildings -  Augustine church – 123, 125, 131, 271, 287, 287 -  Capuchin church – 262 -  Discalced Carmelite church – 265, 265, 287 -  Dominican church (St. Paul) – 280 -  Franciscan church – 286 -  Jesuit Church (S. Ignatius/S. Carolus Borromeus) – 5, 128, 129, 130, 131, 147, 148, 148, 151, 152, 155, 158, 267, 268, 268, 269, 269, 271, 272, 273, 279, 295 -  Our Lady’s Church (Cathedral) – 23, 49, 91, 210, 211, 232, 280, 281, 283, 289, 318 -  Praemonstratensian church (St. Michael) – 291 -  Protestant churches (Temples) – 253, 254 -  St. Anna Chapel – 280 -  St. Jacob – 133, 135, 280 Fortifications -  Fortifications – 26, 53, 82, 83, 85, 86, 91, 220, 223 -  Governor’s house – 118 -  Isabella Fort – 107 -  Keizerspoort (Imperial Gate) – 68 n. 241, 84, 84, 90, 223 -  Kipdorp Gate – 223 -  Scheldepoort – 5 -  Sint-Jorispoort (St. George’s Gate), see Keizerspoort -  Spanish Citadel – 211 -  Waterpoort – 223 Private buildings -  Ducci house (‘Palazzo Ducci’) – 75 n. 275 -  Fullers’ guildhouse – 35 -  De Fraula house – 333 -  Frans Floris’ house – 53 n. 171 -  Guild houses – 5, 118, 336 -  Hansa house – 91, 210, 211, 213, 233 -  Hessenhuis – 212 -  Hof van Liere – 59 n. 203

-  Jordaens’ studio – 127 -  Karbonkelhuis (House of Willem Heda) – 22, 29, 29 -  de Moelnere’s house – 102 n. 63 -  Pauwel Eloutstraat Warehouses – 212 -  ‘Roodenborch’ – 12, 12, 127 -  Rubenshuis – 5, 125, 131, 131, 148, 150 -  ‘Spanje’ (Spaengien) – 118, 119 Public buildings -  Dulhuys – 213 n. 180 -  Exchange – 91, 210, 211, 232, 231, 232 -  Knechtjeshuis – 213 n. 180 -  Maagdenhuis – 213 n. 180 -  Meat Hall – 236, 237, 237 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Oude Beurs (Old Exchange) – 232, 232, 280 -  Oude Vierschaar (Court House) – 35 n. 82 -  Tapissierspand (Cloth Hall) – 91, 210, 211, 211, 234 -  Town Hall – 2, 47, 49, 53, 79, 89, 91, 94, 96 n. 33, 100, 117, 118, 210, 211, 219, 221, 226, 227, 227, 228, 249, 303, 303, 312, 347, 349 -  Weigh house – 210, 211, 211, 234, 240, 241 Various -  Nieuwstad – 210, 211, 212, 212, 242 -  Triumphal Arch of Peace – 72 n. 264, 74, 74, 75, 78, 89, 93 -  Triumphal arches entry Ferdinand of Austria – 127, 157, 160, 161 -  Triumphal arches entry Archduke Albert of Austria – 130 Ath -  Town Hall – 217, 229, 229 Averbode -  Praemonstratensian (Norbertine) church – 11, 291, 292, 293, 293, 297, 308 Binche -  Recollet Convent – 68 -  Palace – 49, 52, 53, 60, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 85, 97, 221 Boechout -  Church – 281 Boitsfort -  Castle – 170 Boussu -  Castle – 32, 58, 60, 61, 63, 66, 66, 67, 67, 68, 68, 69, 72, 74, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 97, 175, 334

411

Index -  Hennin burial chapel – 69 Broechem -  Church – 281 Bruges -  Capuchin church – 262 -  City gate – 312 -  Deanery of St. Donaas – 3 -  Ephemeral structures – 24, 25 n. 26 -  House of Biscayens – 23 n. 18 -  Jesuit church – 272, 273, 289 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Nieuwe Griffie (Court of Justice) – 9, 31 n. 61, 34, 35, 35, 89, 249 -  Tomb of Jean Carondelet – 25 Brussels Court residences -  Coudenberg Palace – 18, 18, 19 n. 6, 21, 22, 24, 30, 33, 33, 46, 46 n. 135, 56, 60, 62, 70 n. 253, 84, 84, 97, 107, 165, 166, 166, 167, 167, 168, 169, 169, 170, 170, 172, 177, 178, 182, 183, 188, 248, 334, 337 -  Nassau residence – 59 n. 203, 60, 62 n. 216 Ecclesiastical buildings -  Augustine church – 124, 287 -  Begijnhofkerk (Beguine church St. John) – 290, 290 -  Capuchin church – 260, 264 -  Chapel of Our Lady of Loreto – 173 -  Discalced Carmelites church – 172, 173, 173, 265, 287 -  Jesuit church – 124, 147, 151, 158, 269, 270, 270, 273, 279, 288 -  Kapellekerk (Sint Joost-ten-Node) – 131 -  Our Lady of the Assistance – 152, 296 -  Our Lady of the ‘Riches Claires’ – 287, 296, 297 -  St. Anne’s hospital – 179 -  St. Gudule and St. Michael (Cathedral) – 18, 33, 172, 173, 173, 174, 282 Public buildings -  Broodhuis (King’s House) – 24, 247 -  Cloth Hall – 234 -  Domus Isabellæ – 174 -  Meat Hall – 222, 234, 239, 239 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Town Hall – 247 Private buildings -  Granvelle Palace – 3, 84, 85 -  Guild houses – 5, 13, 14, 157, 222, 247, 247, 333 - Baker’s guild house (Koning van Spanje) – 248, 248 -B  rewer’s guild house (Gouden Boom) – 248 - House of the Boatman (De Gulden Boot) – 247, 248, 248

412

- House of the Wolf (Wolvin) – 247 - ‘Den Zak’ at Grote Markt – 179 -  Palace Maximilian Transsylvanus – 34, 34 Urban planning -  Bavaria Street and Square (Dinantstraat) – 249 -  Grand’Place (Grote Markt) – 222, 239, 247, 247, 248, 249, 337 -  Isabella street – 174 Buggenhout -  Chapel of Our Lady – 293 Damme -  Town Hall – 307 n. 31 Dendermonde -  Capuchin church – 262 -  Church of Our Lady – 135 Dieleghem -  Praemonstratensian church – 291 Diest -  Castle – 58, 60, 63, 221 n. 215 Duffel -  Chapel of Our Lady – 294 Edingen (Enghien) -  Capuchin church – 262, 264 -  Tomb William of Croÿ, see Heverlee, Tomb William of Croÿ Ekkergem -  St. Martin – 282 -  St. Nicolas – 282 Elsene -  Holy Trinity church – 287, 288 Feluy -  Chapel of Our Lady – 293 Floreffe -  Praemonstratensian church – 291 Gaasbeek -  Castle – 58, 60, 75, 76 Ghent Ecclesiastical buildings -  Begijnhofkerk (Beguine church Our Lady ter Hoye) – 290 -  Capuchin church – 262, 264, 264 -  Jesuit church – 153, 260, 279 -  Protestant church (Temple) – 252, 252, 253, 254, 276 -  St. Bavo – 18, 131, 280, 289 -  St. John, rood loft – 318 n. 85 -  St. Michael – 282, 282, 283, 298 -  St. Peter (Benedictine church) – 288, 288, 289 Public buildings -  Belfry – 307 n. 31 -  Citadel – 26, 26, 49, 85, 86, 96 n. 33, 335 -  Cloth Hall – 234 -  Mount of Piety – 179, 218

Index -  Town Hall – 23, 99 n. 48, 119, 214, 218, 220, 221 n. 215, 226, 227, 228, 228, 233, 249, 336 -  Triumphal arches – 29 n. 49, 218 Grimbergen -  Praemonstratensian church – 287, 291, 292, 292, 296 Halle -  Town Hall – 226, 228 Hasselt -  Abby of Herkenrode – 56 n. 185 Havré -  Chapel of Our Lady – 293 Heffen -  Chapel of Our Lady – 293 Hemiksem -  Cistercian church – 286, 287, 296 Herkenrode -  Abbey – 308 Hesdin -  Castle and Park – 70 n. 253 Heverlee -  Arenberg Castle – 37, 57, 59, 59 n. 203, 60, 68, 175, 175, 334 -  Celestine Priory – 31, 59 n. 204, 62 -  Chapel of Our Lady – 293 -  Praemonstratensian church – 291 -  Tomb William of Croÿ – 31, 32, 32 Hoeven -  Church – 281 Hondschoote Moeren – 108, 180 Hoogstraten -  Begijnhofkerk (Beguine church) – 290 -  Collegiate church (tomb Antoine de Lalaing) – 31 -  Town Hall – 35, 305 -  Castle – 21, 31, 62 Ieper/Ypres -  Cloth Hall – 234 -  Town Hall – 226 Kontich -  Church – 281 Kortrijk/Courtrai -  Capuchin church – 262 -  Jesuit church – 260, 260, 261 -  Mount of Piety – 218 Laken -  Church of Our Lady – 174 -  Pantens manor – 175 -  St. Anne – 174, 175 Lembeek -  Castle – 177 Leuven -  Begijnhofkerk (Beguine church) – 290 -  Collegium Trilingue – 30

-  Jesuit church – 153, 272, 273, 292, 296 Liège -  St. Jacob – 262 Lier -  Begijnhofkerk (Beguine church) – 290 -  Sint-Gummarus – 23 -  Abbey of Saint-Jacques – 23 n. 18 Loupoigne -  Chapel of Our Lady – 294, 294 Machelen -  Beaulieu – 131, 177, 177 Mariembourg – 26, 79, 82 Mariemont -  Palace – 60, 69, 69, 70, 70, 74, 78, 79, 80, 81, 97, 170, 171, 171, 177, 178, 180, 182, 221, 337 Mechelen Court residences -  Palace – 23, 32, 38, 39, 59, 60 Ecclesiastical buildings -  Begijnhofkerk (Beguine church) – 124, 279, 289, 290, 290 -  Capuchin church – 262, 263, 264 -  Our Lady across the Dijle – 280, 281, 281 -  Our Lady of Hanswijk – 295, 295 -  St. Catherine – 153, 153 -  St. Rombouts (Cathedral) – 155, 155 Public buildings -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Palace of the Great Council – 37, 37, 233 Private buildings -  De Lepelaar house – 35 -  Fish merchants guildhouse (‘Salmon’) – 35, 36 -  Hieronymus Busleyden’s house – 30 -  Keulen house (Het Paviljoen) – 35 Menen -  Capuchin church – 262 -  Town Hall – 226 Minderhout -  Chapel of Our Lady – 294, 295 Mons -  Belfort Tower – 222, 226 -  Jesuit church – 260 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Sainte-Waudru (St. Waltrudis) – 38, 38, 39, 69, 80, 280 Namur -  Fortress – 311 -  Jesuit Church – 128, 273, 289 -  Meat hall – 311 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Town Hall – 311 Ninove -  Praemonstratensian church – 287, 291

413

Index Noorderwijk -  Chapel of Our Lady – 293 Nijvel -  St. Gertrudis – 280 -  Town Hall – 307 n. 31 Ooidonk -  Castle – 176 n. 58 Orval -  Chapel of Our Lady – 294 Ostend -  Capuchin church – 262, 265 -  Town – 243 Oudenaarde -  Kasselrijhuis – 221 n. 215 -  Protestant church (Temple) – 253 -  Town Hall – 35, 37, 37, 39 Perk -  Castle – 176 n. 58 Péruwelz -  Chapel of Our Lady – 294 Philippeville -  Town – 79, 79, 82 Ranst -  Church – 281 Ravenswaay -  Church – 285 Retie -  Chapel of Our Lady – 295 Ronse/Renaix -  Castle – 11, 176, 176, 177, 334 Schaarbeek -  Villa Scharbecana (Monplaisir) – 177 Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu) -  Church of Our Lady – 10, 11, 107, 123, 157, 172, 180, 181, 266, 266, 267, 287, 294, 337 -  Town – 172, 180, 181, 243, 337 Seneffe -  Chapel of Our Lady – 293 Sint-Pieters Leeuw -  Groot Bijgaarden (Coloma Castle) – 177, 177 Sint-Truiden -  Begijnhofkerk (Beguine church) – 290 -  Town Hall – 226 Sint-Winoksbergen -  Mount of Piety – 160, 160, 218 Soignies -  St. Vincent – 280 Stabroek -  Church – 281 Tervuren -  Capuchin convent – 170 -  Castle – 170, 182

414

Thuin -  Town Hall – 226 Tongerloo -  Abbey church – 291 Tournai -  Dominican church – 286 -  Jesuit church – 260, 261, 261 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Town Hall – 228 Veurne -  Landhuis – 218 -  Town Hall – 226, 228, 228 Villers-la-Ville -  Chapel of Our Lady – 294 Vilvoorde -  Carmelite church – 295, 296, 296 Zaventem -  Tumulus – 30, 31 Zoutleeuw -  Town Hall – 220, 305 THE NETHERLANDS Amerongen -  Castle – 203, 205, 205, 206 Amsterdam Ecclesiastical buildings -  Begijnhofkerk (Beguine church) – 279, 279 -  German synagogue – 278 -  Jesuit church (Krijtberg) – 279 -  Lutheran Church – 217 -  Nieuwe Kerk – 109, 110, 283, 298 -  Noorderkerk – 10, 11, 215, 217, 256, 257, 257, 261, 292 -  Oosterkerk – 278 -  Oude Kerk – 131, 283, 284, 310, 311, 315, 316, 327 -  Our Lord in the Attic – 279 -  Portuguese synagogue – 278, 278 -  Remonstrant church (De Rode Hoed) – 277, 277 -  St. Olof chapel – 284, 285 -  Walloon church, Hoogstraat gate – 121, 121 -  Westerkerk – 110, 121, 122, 125, 215, 256, 256, 257, 261, 284 -  Zuiderkerk – 110, 125, 126, 215, 256, 256, 257, 261, 276, 284 Public buildings -  Arsenal – 215, 215 -  Burgerweeshuis (Municipal Orphanage) – 130, 130, 140, 140, 216, 218, 322 -  Citadel on Lastage – 86, 335 -  Deaconry Orphanage – 218

Index -  Gate municipal stonemason’s yard (now at Kloveniersburgwal) – 113 -  Haarlemmerpoort – 127, 128 -  Heiligewegspoort – 225 -  Jan Roodenpoortstoren – 110 -  Leidse Poort – 225 -  Naval Arsenal – 218 -  Prinsenhof – 135 -  Tax office – 210, 215, 216 -  Theatre – 218 -  Town Hall – 6, 8, 141, 159, 203, 210, 218, 219, 230, 230, 231, 231, 249 -  Exchange – 210, 215, 217, 233, 233, 234 -  Weigh house – 210, 240, 240 Private buildings -  Coymans house – 140, 150 -  Dommer’s house (Amstel 216) – 246 -  East Indian Trade Company offices – 210, 213, 215, 235, 235 -  House of Hans van Wely – 134, 135 -  Six’ house (Herengracht 619) – 246 -  Poppen’s house (Kloveniersburgwal 95) – 12, 12 -  St. Luciensteeg 25 – 316 Various -  Triumphal arches entry Maria de’ Medici – 160, 161 -  Amstel – Herengracht – 245, 246, 246 -  Town extensions – 244, 245, 246, 246 Apeldoorn -  Het Loo palace – 203, 204, 205, 337 Arnhem -  Fortress – 312 Beemster -  Huis Vredenburg – 305 -  Polder – 108 Bergen op Zoom -  Palace – 57, 58, 60 Bolsward -  Town Hall – 4, 229, 229, 240 Bourtange -  Fortifications – 186 Breda -  Grote Kerk – 27, 27, 39, 59 n. 203, 71 -  Castle – 27, 32, 33, 34, 34, 49, 58, 58, 60, 62, 63, 63, 64, 64, 68, 69, 71, 78, 86 n. 345, 89, 176, 183, 184, 187, 189, 322, 323, 334 -  Fortifications – 65, 86 n. 345 -  Hunting Lodge – 188, 188 Brittenburg (Arx Britannica) – 30, 31, 90 Buren -  Castle – 49, 64, 65, 65, 69, 78, 183 Coevorden -  Fortifications – 186

Delft -  Oude Kerk – 23 -  Tomb of William of Orange – 132, 133, 135, 322 -  Town Hall – 135, 217, 229, 230, 230 De Lier -  Church – 285 De Rijp -  Church – 285 -  Town Hall – 109, 110, 285 Deventer -  Bergpoort – 224, 224 -  Noorderbergtoren – 301 -  Town Hall – 13, 219, 333 -  Weigh house/Trade Hall – 235, 235 Dieren -  William III’s Country House – 203 Dordrecht -  Grote Kerk – 35, 36, 39 Eefde -  Huis De Voorst – 203, 337 Eijsden -  Castle – 176 n. 58 Enkhuizen -  Town Hall – 219 Etten -  Church – 312 Franeker -  Town Hall – 119, 120, 229 Fossa Eugeniana – 108, 180 Gorcum/Gorinchem -  Protestant church (Temple) – 253 -  Schuttersdoelen (archers’ butts) – 307 Gouda -  Jesuit church – 279 -  St. John – 19 -  Weigh house – 218, 241 Graft -  Town Hall – 110, 229 Grave -  Castle – 21 ‘s-Gravenland -  Church – 277 Groningen -  Goudwaag (excise office) – 11 -  Noorderkerk – 217 -  Prinsentuin – 188 Haarlem -  Meat Hall (Vleeshuis) – 4, 120, 137, 215, 237, 238 -  New Church (Nieuwe Kerk) – 219, 273, 275 -  Protestant church (Temple) – 253 -  St. Bavo consistory – 284 -  St. Jorisdoelen – 121

415

Index -  Town Hall – 215, 215, 217 -  Weigh house – 215, 240, 240, 312 Haarlemmermeer -  Polder – 108 Hague, The Court residences -  Huis ten Bosch (Oranjezaal) – 8, 189, 193, 200, 200, 201, 201, 202 -  Noordeinde Palace (Oude Hof) – 8, 159, 189, 192, 193, 196, 198, 199, 199, 200 -  Prince’s Garden, Buitenhof – 184, 186, 186, 187, 188 -  Stadhouderlijk Kwartier, Binnenhof – 183, 184, 185, 185, 186, 186, 187, 189, 333 Ecclesiastical buildings -  Nieuwe Kerk – 217 Private buildings -  Huygenshuis – 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 154, 159, 191, 199, 203, 216 -  Huguetan house – 333 -  Mauritshuis – 141, 141, 159, 191, 199, 203, 206, 216 Public buildings -  Assembly room States of Holland – 203 -  Binnenhof (Court of Holland) – 165, 183, 184, 185, 185, 186, 186, 203, 333 -  Sebastiaansdoelen – 216, 216, 249 -  Town Hall – 2, 4, 229 Various -  Korte Vijverberg – 245 -  Het Plein – 189 Harkstede -  Church – 285, 286, 286 ‘s-Hertogenbosch -  Bulwark (Orthen Gate) – 310 -  Mills – 108 -  Registry – 308 -  Rood loft – 317 , 318, 318, 319, 319, 320 -  St. John’s Cathedral – 123 n. 122, 302, 308, 317, 318 -  Town Hall – 219, 222, 231, 232 Hooge Zwaluwe -  Church – 273, 278 Honselaarsdijk -  Palace – 11, 141, 17, 183, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 193, 194, 194, 195, 195 , 196, 198, 202, 203, 208, 216, 274, 323, 324, 327, 334 Hoorn -  Oosterpoort (East Gate) – 113, 224, 224 -  Noorderkerk – 285 -  St. Janshospitaal (Saint John’s hospital) – 113, 113 -  Weigh house – 217, 240, 308, 320, 320, 321, 327

416

Kampen -  Church tower – 110 -  Town Hall – 25, 25 -  Meat Hall – 237, 238 Lage Vuursche -  Church – 285, 285 Leerdam -  Town Hall – 322 Leiden Ecclesiastical buildings -  Hooglandsche Kerk – 280 -  Marekerk – 3, 216, 217, 222, 273, 274, 276, 275 -  Protestant church (Temple) – 253 Public buildings -  Bibliotheca Thysiana – 216 -  Blauwe Poort (Blue Gate) – 221, 316, 316, 317, 317 -  Court of Justice – 216 -  Gate to Burcht (Keep) – 219, 220, 220, 225 -  Lakenhal (Cloth Hall) – 213, 216, 236, 236, 249 -  Morschpoort – 216 -  Rijnlandshuis – 308 -  Town Hall – 119, 120, 228 -  Weigh house/Butter Hall – 218, 219, 241, 241 -  Zijlpoort – 216, 224 Private buildings -  Rapenburg 4-10 – 246, 246 -  Rapenburg 34 (Daniel van Ceulen’s house) – 153 n. 221 Maarssen -  Huis ten Bosch – 140, 140, 305 Maassluis -  Church – 217 Maastricht -  Capuchin church – 262 -  St. Servaas – 306 -  Town Hall – 218, 219 , 232, 240 Middachten -  Castle – 206, 206, 207, 208, 208 Middelburg -  Abby – 37 -  Assembly Hall States of Zeeland – 132 -  Oostkerk – 217, 285 -  Town Hall – 305, 321 -  Vlissinger Gate – 312 Moerkapelle -  Church – 278 Moordrecht -  Church – 285 Nijmegen -  Cloth Hall – 304, 308, 308, 309, 309, 313, 314 -  Fortress – 308 -  Harbour – 308

Index -  Hezel Gate – 308 -  Meat Hall – 237, 238 -  St. Steven (Tomb Catharina de Bourbon) – 309, 309 -  Weigh house/Meat hall – 315, 316 Noord-Schermer -  Church – 285 Oudshoorn -  Church – 278 Purmer -  polder – 108 -  Villa Westwyck – 150 Rammekens -  Fortress – 84, 223, 223 Renswoude -  Church – 273, 273, 274, 278 Rhenen -  Palace – 194 Roermond -  Moerkenspoort – 310 Rotterdam -  Schielandhuis – 128, 129, 132, 132 -  St. Laurens and Mary Magdalen – 279, 285 Rijswijk -  Huis ter Nieuburg – 183, 189, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 197, 198, 198, 202, 203, 205, 216, 323, 327 Sappemeer -  Church – 217 Schermerpolder – 108 Schoonhoven -  Castle – 65 n. 230 Sittard -  Cloth Hall – 310 Sluis -  Castle – 100 Soestdijk -  Palace – 3 Sommelsdijk -  Church – 322 Utrecht -  Adrian Boeyens residence (Paushuize) – 57 -  Assembly Hall States of Utrecht – 132, 132 -  Cathedral – 22, 283, 284, 307 n. 31 -  Catharijnepoort – 224, 321, 322, 327 -  Fortifications – 65 n. 230, 85 -  Korte Nieuwstraat 2 – 304 -  Meat Hall – 237, 238, 239 -  St. Gertrude – 279 -  Town extension design Moreelse – 244, 244 -  Town Hall – 48, 84 -  Wittevrouwenpoort – 225, 225 Vlissingen -  Prinsentuin – 188

-  Town Hall – 2, 228, 321 n. 105 Warmont -  Castle – 140 Willemstad -  Church – 10, 187, 188, 217, 254, 254, 255, 312, 313 -  Prinsenhuis – 183, 187, 187 -  Town – 186, 313 -  Town Hall – 313 Woubrugge -  Church – 278, 278, 285 IJsselstein -  Church Tower – 2, 28, 28 -  Castle – 60, 183 IJzendijk -  Church – 255, 255 Zaltbommel -  Maarten van Rossumhuis – 304, 304, 310 Zierikzee -  Sint-Lieven – 23 Zundert (Groot Sundert) -  Church – 221 n. 215 Zutpen -  St. Walburgis – 310 Zwolle -  Tower of Our Lady – 59 n. 203 OTHER COUNTRIES Brazil -  Rio de Janeiro, Jesuit church – 260 Czech Republic Prague Castle, Vladislav hall – 342, 343 Prague – Vlášská Kaple – 345 France Arras -  Capuchin church – 262 -  Jesuit church – 260 -  Mount of Piety – 218 Blérancourt -  Castle – 196 Blois -  Castle – 194 Bordeaux -  Canals – 108 Brou (Bourg-en-Bresse) -  Mausoleum Church – 18, 21, 22, 23, 23, 30, 99 n. 48 Caen -  Protestant church (Temple) – 254

417

Index Cambrai -  Capuchin church – 264 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  rood loft – 318 n. 85 -  Town Hall – 226 Charenton -  Protestant church (Temple) – 277 Dieppe -  Protestant church (Temple) – 254 Douai -  Capuchin church – 262 -  Jesuit church – 258, 259, 259, 260 -  Mount of Piety – 218 Dijon -  Church – 260 Dunkirk -  Town Hall – 226 Fontainebleau -  Palace – 72, 74, 89, 117, 190 Gaillon -  Castle – 76 La Rochelle -  Protestant church (Temple) – 254 Lille (Rijsel) -  Capuchin church – 262, 264 -  Exchange – 5, 13, 157, 222, 234, 234 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Rihour Palace – 54, 55, 56, 58, 60 -  St. Maurice – 280 -  Town Hall – 5, 226 Lyon -  Protestant church ‘Le Paradis’ – 254 Maisons -  Castle – 196 Montauban -  Protestant church (Temple) – 254 Paris -  Château de Madrid – 72 -  Hôtel de la Vrillière – 200 -  Louvre – 7, 7, 8, 190, 198 -  Place Dauphine – 190 -  Place Louis XIV (Place Vendôme) – 247 -  Place Royale (Place des Vosges) – 190 -  Palais de Luxembourg – 190, 192, 197, 198 -  Pont-Neuf – 190 -  Tuileries – 190 Renty -  Castle – 86 Rouen -  Protestant church (Temple) – 254 Saint-Amand-des Eaux -  St. Amand – 289, 289

418

Valenciennes -  Jesuit church – 260 -  Mount of Piety – 218 -  Town Hall – 226, 228 Germany -  Aachen, Palatine chapel – 267 -  Bückeburg, Stadtkirche – 8, 8 -  Cologne, Cathedral – 251 Town Hall – 310 -  Hanau, Protestant church (Temple) – 254 -  Heidelberg, Castle – 186, 188, 188 n. 100 -  Jülich, Castle – 68 n. 241, 86, 86 -  Landshut, Stadtresidenz – 344, 344 -  Lübeck, Marienkirche (epitaph Johann Füchting) – 315, 316 -  Wolfenbüttel, City Gate – 97 Great Britain -  Greenwich, Queen’s House – 8, 8 -  Hampton Court – 343 -  London, Gresham Exchange – 217, 233, 233, 234 St. Paul’s Cathedral – 256 -  Nonesuch Palace – 343 -  Richmond Palace – 184, 188, 188 n. 100, 343 -  Tombs of Catharine of Aragon and Henry VII – 343 Greece -  Athens, Tower of the Winds – 28 Hungary -  Buda castle – 342 -  Esztergom cathedral – 342 Italy Capua -  Theatre – 91 Caprarola – 123 Cuma -  Antique buildings – 91 Florence -  Bibliotheca Laurenziana – 122 n. 120, 128 -  Medici chapel – 122 n. 120 -  San Lorenzo – 128 -  Uffizi, Porta della Suppliche – 132, 133 Genoa -  Garden Martino Centurione – 76 -  Palazzo Salvago – 75 -  Palazzo Selvaggi – 75 n. 278 -  Villa Doria – 76 Lonigo -  Rocca Pisani – 201

Index Maser -  Villa Barbaro – 201 Milan -  Cathedral – 90 Mondovì -  Church of Our Lady – 266 Naples -  Caracciolo di Vico Chapel – 33 -  Jesuit church – 269 -  Oratorian church (Gerolamini) – 271 Peraga -  Villa Badoer – 201 Pisa -  San Stefano dei Cavalieri – 128, 129 Rome Antique monuments -  Basilica Aemilia – 64 -  Baths of Diocletian – 51, 51 -  Colosseum – 52 n. 169 -  Domus Aurea – 117 -  Temple of Vesta – 267 -  Trajan’s market halls – 128 -  Via Appia (mausoleum Quintus Verranius) – 127, 127, 128 -  Pantheon (Sancta Maria Rotunda) – 267 -  Porta Maggiore – 52, 53 Ecclesiastical buildings -  Chiesa Nuova – 272 -  Il Gesù – 259, 269 -  San Giovanni dei Fiorentini – 267 -  San Filippo Neri – 293 -  San Saba – 271 -  San Vitale – 271 -  Sant’Agnese fuori le Mura – 271 -  Sant’Appollinare – 271 -  Santa Susanna – 265 -  Santo Stefano Rotondo – 271 -  St. Alexis – 124 -  St. John of Lateran Baptistery – 253 -  St. Nereus and Achilleus – 271, 272 -  St. Peter – 251, 271, 276, 288 Other buildings -  Palazzo dei Conservatori – 123, 128, 231 -  Palazzo della Cancelleria – 128, 129

-  Palazzo del Senatore – 231 -  Porta Pia – 123, 125, 126, 128, 287 -  Villa Madama – 116 -  Villa Aldobrandini – 131 Venice -  Palazzo Cornaro – 200 n. 142 Verona -  Porta dei Borsari – 51 Luxemburg -  Clausen, Manor house ‘La Fontaine’ – 71, 72 -  Luxemburg, Jesuit Church – 260, 261 Peru -  Quito, Franciscan church – 344 Poland -  Cracow, cathedral, Sigismund Chapel – 342, 343 -  Zamos´c´ – 344 Portugal -  Lisbon, Palace – 169 Spain -  Alcalá de Henares (tomb Cardinal Cisneros) – 32 -  Barcelona, Old Cathedral – 32, 33, 33 -  Coca (tombs Fonseca) – 32 -  Eagle’s Fountain – 76 -  Escorial – 7, 60, 167, 274 -  Granada, cathedral (tombs Philip the Handsome and Joanna of Castile) – 32, 343 Imperial Palace – 71, 77, 228, 343 Palace Don Álvaro de Bazán – 76, 77 -  La Calahorra Castle – 77, 77, 78, 343, 343 -  Madrid, Alcázar – 60, 61, 77, 167, 169 -  Murcia, cathedral – 343, 343 -  Pardo, hunting lodge – 60 -  Seville, house De Ribera – 77 tombs De Ribera – 77 -  Valsaín, palace – 60, 61 Sweden -  Kalmar, palace – 344 -  Stockholm, Riddarhus – 198

419

Index of Persons

Ackerman, Pauwels – 21, 21 n. 8 Aguilon, François – 9, 104, 128, 148, 267, 268, 269, 269 n. 379, 273 Albert of Austria – 9, 10, 33 n. 72, 62, 81, 128, 166, 166 n. 5, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 180, 181, 266, 267, 337 Alberti, Leon Battista – 26, 27, 47, 48, 49, 64, 101, 137, 137 n. 160, 143, 147, 158, 188 Archdukes (see also Albert of Austria and Isabella, Infanta of Spain) – 10, 11, 33 n. 72, 70 n. 250, 123, 130, 152, 157, 166, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 173 n. 43, 180, 181, 182, 183, 214 n. 184, 243, 265, 266, 267, 287 Baden, Cimburga van – 27, 71 Baurscheit (the Elder), Jan Pieter – 18, 156 Baurscheit (the Younger), Jan Pieter van – 333, 334 Bavaria, Maximilian Ernest of – 239, 247, 248, 249 Bilderbeeck, Hendrick Cornelisz. – 317 Bilderbeeck, Pieter van – 183 Bilhamer, Joost Jansz. – 113, 130, 224, 283, 307, 308, 311, 314, 332 Blocq, Jean du, see Du Blocq, Jean Blondeel, Lancelot – 9, 25 n. 29, 31 n. 61, 35, 35 n. 79 Blum, Hans – 90, 95, 98, 100 Boghem, Lodewijk van – 23, 60 n. 206, 99 n. 48 Bollin, Mathieu – 167, 168, 180, 182 Bollin, Sylvain – 169, 172, 180, 218 Boni Pellizuoli, Donato de’ – 26, 49 n. 158, 68 n. 241, 82, 84, 85, 85 n. 338, 90, 223, 223 n. 230 Borch, Jacob van den – 48 Borcht, Willem van – 25 Bos, Cornelis – 42, 44, 44 n. 121, 45, 72 n. 264, 89 n. 2, 113 Bouman, Elias – 278 Bray, Salomon de – 111, 112, 138, 140, 142, 156, 219, 275, 284, 341, 349 Brosse, Salomon de – 190, 192, 196, 277 Brosterhuisen, Johan – 143, 144 Bruyn, Willem de – 156, 239, 247 Buontalenti, Bernardo – 132, 133 Burgundy, Philip of – 22, 28 Busleyden, Gillis – 30 Busleyden, Hieronymus – 30 Calvin, John – 252, 276

Campen, Jacob van – 5, 8, 91, 91 n. 13, 110, 112, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 156, 159, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 199, 200, 202, 203, 215, 216, 218, 219, 222, 225, 230, 231, 273, 274, 275, 280, 284, 305, 322, 323, 332 Caus, Salomon de – 107, 170, 171, 180, 184, 186 Cesariano, Cesare – 27, 28, 41, 42, 45, 47, 63, 64, 90 Charles V – 2, 17, 18, 24, 31, 32, 36, 37 n. 86, 39, 43, 46 n. 140, 48, 49, 55, 57, 60, 62, 63, 70, 71, 77, 78, 81, 82 n. 322, 84, 89, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 175, 212, 221, 222 n. 225, 227, 228, 282, 332, 335, 336, 343 Cicero, Marcus Tullius – 158, 159 Cobergher, Wensel – 5, 9, 10, 70 n. 250, 90, 91, 107, 109, 123, 125, 130, 131, 148, 152, 156, 160, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 217, 218, 229, 265, 266, 271, 287, 332, 337, 348 Cock, Hieronymus – 51, 52, 89, 94 Coecke van Aelst, Pieter – 16, 17, 21, 26, 27, 40, 41, 42, 42 n. 108 and n. 109, 43, 43 n. 116, 44, 44 n. 122, 45, 45 n. 127, 46, 46 n. 140, 47, 50 51, 51 n. 164, 52, 53, 55, 64, 69, 72 n. 264, 74, 75, 80, 82, 86, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 106, 115, 116, 117, 137 n. 157, 183, 332, 344 Coignet, Michiel – 105, 107, 108 Coppens van Diest, Gillis – 41, 42 n. 109, 46 n. 140, 48, 48 n. 155, 50 n. 163 Corte, Niccoló da – 75, 76, 77 Croÿ, Adrien of – 85 Croÿ, Charles II of – 56 n. 186, 175 Croÿ, William of, Lord High Chamberlain – 38, 57, 59, 62, 63, 67 Croÿ, William of, Archbishop of Toledo – 32 Cruyl, Lieven – 282, 283 Daems, Jan – 219 Danckertsz., Cornelis Cornelisz. – 111, 112, 113, 114, 142, 256, 257 Danckertsz. van Sevenhove, Cornelis – 112 Danckertsz., Danckert – 139 Danckertsz., Hendrick – 157 n. 234 Darkennes, Jan – 307 De Backer, Cornelis – 80, 81, 181, 181 n. 79, 182 De Beste, Charles – 39, 39 n. 87, 44 n. 124, 50, 82, 90, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100

421

Index De Key, Lieven, see Key, Lieven de De la Vallée, Marin, see Vallée, Marin de la De la Vallée, Simon, see Vallée, Simon de la Delft, Dirck Adriaensz. van – 153, 153 n. 221 Delft, Pieter Adriaensz. van – 315, 316, 316 n. 71, 322 De L’Orme, Philibert, see L’Orme, Philibert de De’ Marchi, Francesco – 71 De Schrijver, Cornelis, see Grapheus, Cornelis Destrez, Julien – 234 Dortsman, Adriaan – 156, 245, 246, 278 Druivestein, Gerrit – 183 Du Blocq, Jean – 260, 261 Du Broeucq, Jacques – 19, 25, 38, 39 n. 95, 49, 52, 53, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 76 n. 279, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 95, 96, 96 n. 32, 97, 171, 182, 183, 336 Du Cerceau, Jacques Androuet I – 29, 39, 39 n. 97 and n. 99, 76, 95, 96, 100 n. 52, 190, 190 n. 188, 194, 198, 200 Dupuys, Remy – 24 Dürer, Albrecht – 33, 43, 43 n. 113, 57, 59 n. 203, 82, 85, 98, 99 n. 46, 100 Duquesnoy, Hieronymus the Elder – 56 n. 135 Duquesnoy, Hieronymus the Younger – 174, 282 Egmond, Floris van, Count of Buren – 21, 28, 60, 64, 65 Ernest of Austria – 173, 173 n. 43, 174 n. 46 Eynde, Jan van (bronze founder) – 23 Fabri de Peiresc, Claude-Nicolas – 90 Farnese, Alexander (Alessandro) – 71, 94, 209, 312, 336 Faydherbe, Lucas – 131, 153, 155, 156, 177, 292, 295, 333, 337 Ferdinand I – 43, 43 n. 113 Floris, Claudius – 25 Floris, Cornelis II – 48, 49, 53 n. 171, 89, 95 n. 30, 113, 219, 227, 303, 332, 336 Francart, Jacques – 5, 9, 10, 13 n. 40, 81, 92, 123, 124, 124 n. 125, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 147, 148, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 168, 172, 174, 175, 178, 179, 181, 181 n. 79, 182, 218, 270, 281, 282, 287, 289, 290, 332, 337, 346 Francis I, King of France – 55, 72, 85 n. 336 Frans, Peter – 48, 49, 85, 85 n. 338, 242 n. 278, 312 Gauricus, Pomponius – 26, 27, 41, 48 Gheere, Jan van den, see Mijnsheeren, Jan Gheyn II, Jacques de – 184, 186, 188 Goldmann, Nicolaus – 154, 156 Gossaert, Jan (Mabuse) – 22, 23, 23 n. 20, 28, 37

422

Granvelle, Antoine Perrenot de – 3, 18, 51, 52, 60, 84, 84 n. 333, 85, 94 Grapheus (Scribonius or De Schrijver), Cornelis – 26, 27, 46 n. 140, 48, 48 n. 153, 49, 74 Gravesande, Arent van ’s, see ’s-Gravesande, Arent van Guicciardini, Lodovico – 10, 31, 53, 69, 79, 90 n. 6, 210, 211, 212, 213 n. 180, 232, 233, 235 Guichardin, Loys, see Guicciardini, Lodovico Guilgot, Jean, see Wilho, Jean Hadrian VI (Adrian Boeyens) – 28, 29, 29 n. 50, 57 Hamal, Mary of – 31, 38, 59 n. 204, 62 Harbach, Melchor van – 183, 184, 323 Hardouin (Hardouino), Hieronymo – 62, 167, 168, 180, 182 Heda, Willem – 22, 28, 29, 30, 48 Heere, Jean (Jan) de, see Mijnsheeren, Jan Helm, Willem van der – 216, 218, 219, 220, 224, 225, 246 Hennin-Liétard, Jean de – 58, 62, 66, 66 n. 232, 68, 69, 72, 75, 76, 79 Henry II, King of France – 170 Henry IV, King of France – 189 Henry, Prince of Wales – 184, 188 n. 100 Heil, Leo van – 152, 174 Hesius (van Hees), Willem – 9, 153, 155, 156, 272, 273 Hoeymaker, Hendrik – 99, 99 n. 47, 153, 260, 261, 269, 270 Hogenberg, Nicolas – 39 Hogenberg, Frans – 24, 30 Huygens, Constantijn – 5, 12, 13, 91 n. 13, 92, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 150 n. 212, 151, 153, 154, 154 n. 224, 155, 156, 159, 184, 189, 190, 191, 192, 200, 201, 202, 203, 214, 273, 275, 276 n. 408, 322, 323, 332 Huygens, Constantijn (the Younger) – 72 Huyssens, Pieter – 128, 147, 148, 156, 267, 269, 270, 272, 273, 287, 288, 289, 290, 337 Isabella, Infanta of Spain – 9, 33 n. 72, 34, 70 n. 250, 81, 90, 107, 165, 165 n. 2, 166 n. 5, 168, 169, 170, 171 n. 27, 172, 173, 174, 180, 181, 266, 273, 282, 337 Jones, Inigo – 8, 137, 137 n. 159, 142, 156, 184, 191 Jonghelinck, Jacob – 97, 107, 170 Keldermans, Andries I – 57, 58 n. 197 Keldermans, Laureys – 58 n. 199, 60 n. 206, 291, 305

Index Keldermans, Marcelis – 306 Keldermans, Matthijs III – 38, 58, n. 199, 59 n. 204 Keldermans, Rombout II – 19 n. 6, 21, 31, 32, 37, 38, 49, 59, 59 n. 204, 60, 62, 64, 65, 99 n. 48, 220, 228, 233, 291 Key, Lieven de – 119, 120, 187, 214, 215, 217, 237, 238, 273, 307, 308, 314, 322, 336 Key, Lieven de (the Elder) – 221 Keyser, Hendrick de – 10, 92, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 133, 134, 187, 198, 214, 215, 217, 224, 229, 230, 233, 235, 238, 245, 249, 256, 285, 290, 307, 308, 314, 316, 319, 320, 321, 321 n. 100 and n. 101, 322, 349 Keyser, Pieter de – 215, 216, 322 Keyser, Willem de – 284 Kierurt, Fredericq – 172 Laet, Johannes de – 144 Lalaing, Antoine de – 21, 31, 37, 62 Lammekens, Philip – 48, 49, 49 n. 158 Lange (Lancia di San Germano), Luc (Luca) – 72, 74 Langren, Henricus Florentius van – 165, 165 n. 2 Langren, Michael-Floris van – 107, 165 n. 2 Leeghwater, Jan Adriaenszoon – 107, 108, 109, 110, 283, 285 Lemaire de Belges, Jean – 30, 31 Leon, Jacob Jehuda – 275, 276 n. 408 Leoni, Leone – 72 Le Poivre, Pierre – 79, 79 n. 302, 81, 98, 99, 175 n. 57, 180, 182 Le Prince, Eustache (Staessen) – 31, 31 n. 60, 37, 62, 80 Le Prince, Guillaume – 31, 31 n. 60, 32, 62, 67, 68, 80 Le Prince, Pieter – 31, 31 n. 60, 32, 59, 62, 80 Lipsius, Justus – 10, 52, 52 n. 168 and n. 169, 88, 90 L’Orme, Philibert de – 44 n. 122, 93, 130, 188, 190 Mander, Carel van – 17, 28, 47, 53, 95, 114, 137, 138 Mansart, François – 194, 196, 200 Mansfeld, Pierre Ernest of – 72, 79 Margaret of Austria, see Margaret of Savoy Margaret of Parma – 71, 251, 253 Margaret of Savoy – 21, 23, 24, 30, 38, 58, 62 Marlier, Pieter – 37 Marolois, Samuel – 105, 106 Mary of Hungary – 2, 17, 21, 22, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 60, 63, 66, 69, 69 n. 246, 70, 72, 74, 79, 80, 81, 85, 101, 167, 170, 175, 336 Medici, Giovanni de’ – 128, 129

Medici, Maria de’ – 160, 161, 190, 199 Meerte, Hendrick (Henri) – 107, 107 n. 80, 168, 169, 170, 172, 180, 182 Mendoza, Mencía de – 22, 27, 63, 76, 78 Mendoza, Rodrigo de Vivar y – 76 Mercx, Pierre Paul – 178, 179 Michelangelo (Buonarroti) – 10, 122, 122 n. 120, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 135, 137, 137 n. 157, 172, 177, 178, 178 n. 65, 218, 231, 287, 332, 345, 346 Mijnsheeren (Mynheere), Jan – 19 n. 6, 86, 95, 219 Mollet, André – 192, 194 Mone, Jean – 21, 25, 25 n. 29, 31, 31 n. 61, 32, 33, 33 n. 74, 34, 35, 35 n. 79, 37, 39, 53, 62, 64, 80, 100, 112 n. 93, 117, 183, 227 Moreelse, Hendrick – 244, 244 n. 292 Moreelse, Paulus – 224, 244 n. 292, 321 Nassau, Engelbert II of – 27, 62 n. 216, 63, 71 Nassau, Frederik Hendrik of – 11, 108, 142, 165, 176, 183, 184, 185 n. 90, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 202 n. 151, 203, 273, 322, 323, 327, 337 Nassau, Filips Willem van – 11, 187 Nassau, Henry III van – 22, 27, 28, 57, 62, 62 n. 216, 63, 67, 71, 76, 77, 78 Nassau, Maurits van – 10, 11, 100, 101, 103, 108, 133, 165, 183, 184, 185, 185 n. 90, 186, 187, 188, 188 n. 100, 189, 190, 192, 255, 313, 323, 334, 337 Nassau, Willem I van, see William of Orange Nassau, Willem II van – 184, 196, 199, 200, 202 Nassau, Willem III van (Stadholder-King), see William III of England Nassau-Dietz, Ernst Casimir van – 188, 189 Nassau-Siegen, John (Jan) VIII van – 11, 176 Nassau-Siegen, Johan Maurits van – 11, 141, 142, 159, 191, 205, 322 Neurenberg, Coenraad I van – 306, 308 Neurenberg, Coenraad II van – 310, 311, 312, 313 Neurenberg, Coenraad III van – 312, 313, 315, 322, 326 Neurenberg, Coenraad IV van – 313, 316, 317, 318, 319, 321, 324 Neurenberg, Johan I van – 324 Neurenberg, Pieter – 313, 320, 321, 322, 324 Neurenberg, Willem I van – 302, 306, 308, 309, 313 Neurenberg, Willem II van – 313, 314, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324 Nole, Andries Colijn de – 133 Nole, Colijn de – 9, 25, 112 n. 93, 332 Nole, Robert (Robrecht) de – 171, 318 n. 86, 171 n. 29, 173 n. 43 Nonnon, Andrieu – 31, 32, 35, 38, 62

423

Index Nonnon, Hubert – 31, 38, 62 Noort, Lambert van – 19, 47, 227, 227 n. 239 Noort, Willem van – 48 Noyen, Sebastiaan van (Sebastiano d’Oya) – 51, 79, 82, 84 n. 333 Olah, Nicolaus (Miklós Oláh) – 27, 48 Ordóñez, Bartholomé – 32, 33 Orleáns, Gaston d’ – 190, 194 Orley, Bernard van – 20, 23, 170 n. 23 Oudendijck, Adriaen Fredericksz. van – 183, 184, 186 Paciotto, Francesco – 60, 60 n. 208, 84, 84 n. 333, 91 Paesschen, alias Passe, Hendrick van – 219, 233 Paludanus, Raphaël – 49, 318 n. 86 Paludanus (Van den Broecke), Guilelmus (Willem) – 49, 89, 94, 95, 95 n. 30, 117, 219, 227 Pasqualini, Alessandro – 21, 28, 28 n. 48, 49, 49 n. 158, 64, 64 n. 223, 65 n. 226, 68 n. 241, 86, 310, 336 Pasqualini, Maximilian – 310 Pede, Hendrik van – 23 n. 18, 24, 58 n. 199, 60 n. 206 Persoons, Claes Jeremiasz. – 222, 222 n. 223 Philander (Philandrier), Guillaume – 47, 143, 344 Philip II – 9, 17, 55, 60, 68, 70, 76, 77, 81, 82 n. 322, 99, 165, 166, 166 n. 7, 167, 169, 174 Philip III – 169 Pighius, Stephanus – 52 Post, Pieter – 138, 141, 144, 145, 146, 184, 191, 193, 195, 196, 199, 200, 201, 203, 214 n. 182, 217, 218, 219, 220, 225, 232, 241, 246, 278, 285, 322, 337 Posthumus (Postma), Hermannus (Herman) – 29, 30, 47, 50, 51, 100 Radi, Bernardo – 125, 132 Rechlinger, Jakob – 43, 45 Reede, Godard Adriaan van – 205 Reede-Ginkel, Godard van, Earl of Athlone – 206 Reede, Johan van – 273 Rivius, Gualterius, see Ryff, Walther Roelofs, Coenraet – 217 Roman, Jacob – 14, 203, 206, 219 Rooman, Joos – 221, 228 Roome, Jan van – 21, 22, 23, 29, 30 Rubens, Peter Paul – 3, 5, 5 n. 26, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 91, 92, 125, 127, 130, 131, 137, 140, 146, 147, 148 n. 203, 149, 149 n. 211, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 170, 223, 264, 267, 268, 272, 279, 280, 282, 291, 341

424

Ryff, Walter (Gualterius Rivius) – 27, 27 n. 41, 344, 41 n. 104, 72 n. 264 Saelen, Willem Arentsz. van – 183 Sagredo, Diego de – 28, 29, 29 n. 49, 40, 41, 42, 47, 64, 344 Savoy, Carlo Emanuele, Duke of – 266 Scamozzi, Vincenzo – 8, 12, 13 n. 40, 91, 112, 113 n. 100, 138, 139, 139 n. 169, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150 n. 212, 151, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 191, 200, 201, 231, 236, 332 Schelden, Pauwels van der – 37 Scherier, Michiel – 25 Schille, Hans (von) – 82 Schoonbeke, Gilbert van – 211 , 212, 213 n. 180, 234, 240, 242, 335 Schut, Hendrick Geurtsz. – 205 Scorel, Jan van – 27, 28, 28 n. 45, 29, 30, 332 Scribanius, Carolus – 91, 211, 269 n. 379, 280 Seisenegger, Jacob – 43 Serlio, Sebastiano – 16, 17, 19, 27, 41, 42, 42 n. 108, 43, 43 n. 117, 44, 44 n. 122, 45, 45 n. 127, 46 n. 134, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 53 n. 171, 55, 69, 82, 86, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95, 95 n. 30, 96, 98, 100, 115, 116, 117, 120, 122, 130, 135, 139, 143, 147, 150 n. 212, 152, 188, 200, 211, 224, 344 Seron (Serroen), Andries – 34, 63, 65, 78 Servi, Constantino de’ – 184, 186 ’s-Gravesande, Arent van – 141, 192, 198, 216, 218, 222, 236, 273, 276, 332 Solms, Amalia von – 165, 189, 191, 200, 202 Speckle (Specklin), Daniel – 85, 85 n. 338, 242, 243 n. 281 Staets, Hendrik Jacobsz. – 111, 114, 256 Stalpaert, Daniel – 218, 225, 277, 278 Stevin, Hendrick – 101 Stevin, Simon – 90, 92, 93, 100, 100 n. 55 and n. 56, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 137, 145, 187, 190, 243 Stone, Nicolas – 114 n. 105, 320 Stuart, Mary – 196 n. 133, 199 Terwen Aertszoon, Jan (Jeannin) – 35 Vallée, Marin de la – 192 Vallée, Simon de la – 184, 192, 194, 195, 198, 206, 337 Van den Eynde, Jan (sculptor-architect) – 132, 292, 293, 337 Van Heil, Leo – 152, 174 Van Waesberge, Gillis – 291 Vasari, Giorgio – 17, 23, 53, 76, 122, 280, 331, 341 Vega, Gaspar de – 61

Index Vennecool, Steven – 206, 219, 333 Verhulst, Mayken – 100 Verhulst, Rombout – 241 Vignola, Jacopo Barozzi da – 91, 122, 123, 123 n. 121, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 143, 150 n. 212, 188 Villalpando, Juan Bautista – 154, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 297, 335 Vincidor, Tommaso – 27, 49, 49 n. 158, 62, 63, 65 n. 226, 336 Vingboons, Philips – 5, 8, 12, 109, 141, 142, 150, 156, 219, 231, 279, 305, 322, 332 Vingboons, Pieter – 109 Visscher, Claes Jansz. – 164, 165, 185, 233 Vitruvius – 9, 12, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46 n. 134, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 63, 64, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 95 n. 30, 96, 98, 100, 101, 105, 106, 115, 137, 137 n. 156, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145 n. 194, 146, 147, 148, 149, 149 n. 211, 150, 151, 152, 188, 191, 231, 275, 277, 297, 323, 344 Vredeman de Vries, Hans – 2, 5, 10, 11, 18 n. 4, 19,

34, 43, 50, 81, 82, 83, 89, 89 n. 3, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 96 n. 33, 97, 100, 102, 105, 106, 107, 13, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 130, 135, 188, 188 n. 96, 219, 224, 227, 228, 238, 249, 261, 262, 290, 331, 332, 339 n. 4, 341, 344, 348, 349 Vredeman de Vries, Paul – 95 Waghemakere, Domien de – 49, 99 n. 48, 220, 228, 232, 236, 301 Waghemakere, Herman II de – 236 Wallot, Jan – 34, 35 Wellemans, Gregorius – 22 Werchtere, Willem van – 35, 36 Wichmans, Augustus – 267, 294, 295 Wilho (Guilgot, Gilgho), Jean – 34, 34 n. 76, 46, 95, 95 n. 30, 96 n. 33 William of Orange – 97, 118, 132, 135, 230, 255, 312, 322 William III of England – 285 Wyenhove, Pieter van – 19 n. 6, 84

425

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. Collections Amsterdam, Amsterdams Historisch Museum 298 Amsterdam, Gemeente Archief, hist. top. collectie 102; 253 (photo Vier eeuwen Herengracht, p. 619); 291; 324 Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet 66 (inv. no. 1888 A 1770)

(Prentenkabinet, inv. no. 12575); 170 (Prentenkabinet, inv. no. S III 24742); 171 (ms. II 2123, pl. 103); 176 (VB 5321 C 2 LP) Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis 179; 217 Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België 36 (inv. no. 172); 166 (inv. no. 197) Brussels, Stadsarchief 86 (RM Lemaire Collection/after SAB, FI M1012); 155; 168 (gr. plan no. 3); 248 (FI C3528, photo Comité d’Etudes du Vieux Bruxelles) Dordrecht, Museum Mr. Simon van Gijn 317

Antwerp, Archives of the Belgian Capuchins 274

Ecouen, Musée de la Renaissance (Château d’Ecouen) 28 (From: Brussels 1976b, p. 35 ill. 4, © Réunion des musées nationaux)

Antwerp, Stadsarchief 85 (inv. no. K 12629 [C2-523b], IV, 2, 39); 221

Gent, Stadsarchief 297

Brussels, Algemeen Rijksarchief 40 (Kaarten en plannen in handschrift 2857. photo KU Leuven); 81 (Kaarten en plannen in handschrift 2705); 84 (Kaarten en plannen in handschrift 1728. From: Utrecht/ ’s Hertogenbosch 1993, p. 303 ill. 207b); 165 (Kaarten en plannen, inventaris in handschrift 1367. photo Konink­ lijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis, Brussels)

Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord Holland 99

Brussels, KIK-IRPA 16 (Brussels, Stedelijk Museum Broodhuis, inv. no. 2-1872-2); 34; 41; 43 (Archives de l’Etat à Mons, Cartes et plans 412); 229; 231 Brussels, Museum Broodhuis 178 (formerly Arenberg Collection. photo KU Leuven) Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België 15 (VB 5277 C 4 LP); 47 (LP 2991); 48 (VB 5277 C/4 LP, fol. Ki.r); 50 (II 64.428 C LP, fol. lxxiiij. r); 55 (VH 27.257 C LP, vol. III, pp. 24-25); 75 (Prentenkabinet, inv. no. F 12930, plano C); 77 (VB 10.186 C LP, fol. lij.r); 82 (ms. II 7617, fol. 498r); 83 (VB 5321 C 3 LP, pl. 2); 93 (ms. II 7617, fol. 351r); 94 (ms. II 7617, fol. 68r); 121 and 124 (VB 5321 C 2 LP); 159 (Kaarten en Plannen, inv. no. IV 561-XIII A Pays-Bas Gén. – 1609 – Visscher); 169

426

’s Hertogenbosch, Noord-Brabants Museum 35 (inv. no. B12.212); 58 (inv. no. 1187) Heverlee, Archief Vlaamse Jezuïeten 177 (photo KU Leuven); 281; 282 Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen 29 (Fol. A 45, fol. 14r); 51 (Fol. A 45, fol. 24r) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 20 (pp. 36-37); 72 (Simon Meersmans); 161 (Formerly Arenberg Collection. photo KU Leuven); 162, (Maurits Sabbebibliotheek) inv. no. P Plano 86); 164 (Maurits Sabbebibliotheek, inv. no. P Plano 49-50/ BLAEU); 167 (Maurits Sabbebibliotheek, inv. no. P949.385/Fo SAND Chor 1726-27); 174 (Formerly Arenberg Collection. photo KU Leuven); 181 (Maurits Sabbebibliotheek, inv. no. P949.385/Fo SAND Chor 1726-27); 288 (Maurits Sabbebibliotheek); 312 (Formerly Arenberg Collection. photo KULeuven) Leiden, Gemeente Archief 219 (top. coll. 18552); 220 (top. coll. 18551); 329; 330

Photo Bibliography Credits Lille, Musée des Beaux-Arts 303 London, British Library 238 (From: De Clercq et al. 1992, p. 77) London, National Map Library, coll. Beudeker 234 Lübeck, Denkmalamt Hansestadt Lübeck 328 Luxembourg, Musée national d’histoire et d’art 74 (inv. no. 1984-194) Madrid, Patrimonio Nacional de España 19 (Photo G. Delmarcel); 62 Mechelen, Stadsarchief 272; 273 Munich, Alte Pinakothek 73 (inv. no. 1893. © Artothek) New York, Metropolitan Museum 49 (Rogers Fund, 1922, inv. no. 22.67.80. From: New York 2004, p. 48); 90 (Drawings and Prints, inv. no. 43.66.2a) Paris, Bibliothèque Doucet (INHA) 44 (Petites pièces au trait, Fol. Rés. 65, no. 5, formerly Foulc collection) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 280 Paris, Fondation Custodia (Coll. F. Lugt) 17 (inv. no. 4625); 160 (inv. no. 6743) Purmerend, Archief Waterschap ‘de Beemster’ 100 Turin, Archivio di Stato 23 (AM vol. IV, fol. 83) Universiteit Gent, Universiteitsbibliotheek 258 (ms. 2469) Universiteit Leiden 52 (Prentenkabinet, inv. no. 63, pl. 13); 98 (Universiteitsbibliotheek) Universiteit Utrecht, Universiteitsbiliotheek 26 (ms. 774, fol. 1r); 30 (Guicciardini 1581, pp. 344345); 95; 96; 97; 103; 106; 107; 109; 120; 122; 123;

126; 137; 140; 150; 151; 157; 158; 172 (Goetghebuer 1827, pl. 35); 191; 194; 203 (fac. sim.); 237; 263; 264; 266 Utrecht, Centraal Museum 226 Utrecht, Het Utrechts Archief 252 (coll. Beeldmateriaal T.A. Aj 1.1.2); 334 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 21 (ms. 2591, fol. 52r); 31 (ms. 3324, fol. 8v. From: Fontaine & Brown 2001, pl. I); 67 (Cod. min. 50, vol. V, fol. 61v) Vilvoorde, Archive of the convent of Discalced Carmelites 311 Vincennes, Service Historique de l’Armée de Terre 68 (Archives du Génie, art. 14) Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek 46 (40.5.1. Geom., fol. cv.v); 54 (44 QuN (2), p. 8) Zeist, Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurland­ schap en Monumentenzorg 141; 186; 222; 327; 331; 333

Photographers Cécile Ansiaeu 70 Inge Bertels 11 Krista De Jonge 14; 22; 24; 25; 27; 32; 33; 38; 42; 53; 56; 57; 59; 60; 61; 63; 64; 69; 71; 76; 79; 80; 87; 88; 153; 155; 163; 173; 175; 180; 228; 236; 255, 256; 257; 314; 315; 340; 341 Stephan Hoppe 8; 39; 104; 113; 118; 138; 142; 143; 197; 223; 230; 243; 251; 286 Merlijn Hurx 129 Evert Jan Nusselder 337

427

Photo Bibliography Credits Konrad Ottenheym 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 9; 10; 12; 13; 37; 101; 105; 108; 112; 114; 115; 119; 128; 130; 131; 133; 134; 135; 136; 139; 149; 152; 184; 196; 213; 214; 215; 216; 218; 224; 227; 233; 235; 240; 241; 242; 244, 245; 246; 247; 249; 250; 254; 267; 278; 336; 339; 342 Niek Smit 116; 117 Joris Snaet 78; 132; 154; 258; 259; 261; 262; 265; 269; 270; 271; 275; 276; 277; 279; 283; 284; 285; 287; 288; 289; 292; 293; 294; 295; 296; 299; 300; 301; 302; 304; 305; 306; 307; 308; 309 Jörg Soentgenrath 323 Paul Stuyven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) 310 Gabri van Tussenbroek 313; 316; 318; 319; 320; 321; 322; 325; 332; 335 Frans Verdonk (Universiteit Utrecht) 206; 207

428