“Architecture according to proportions and rules of the Antique.”

In 1648 the Amsterdam architect Philips Vingboons (1607–1678) published his first book with engravings of his own designs from the past decade. In the introduction he wrote a brief history of architecture, from its biblical and antique origins up to his own time, including finally his own work. He informs us that in Holland “only recently had the love for true architecture according to the principles and rules of the Antique revived” (naest weynige jaren herwaerts [heeft] de liefde tot de Bou..

De correspondentie tussen Rubens en Huygens over architectuur

Constantijn Huygens, the secretary of the Prince of Orange, kept up a correspondence with P.P. Rubens in the years 1635-'40. One of their main themes was architecture, in connection with the building of Huygens' own house in The Hague in the years 1634-'37 (ill. 3-6). So far, three of Huygens' letters to Rubens are known. Rubens's replies seem to have been lost. This article focuses on Huygens' draft for a fourth letter to Rubens, dating from 1640, in which he tried to refute a number of critical remarks apparently made by Rubens in a previous letter, concerning the design of Huygens House (Appendix IV). Eventually, because of Rubens' death in 1640, this letter was never written. It is obvious that Rubens thought Huygens House too simple, compared to the monumental architecture developed in Antwerp two decades before. He suggested instead of the simple Doric gate to the street to build a large arch with heavy key stones on top, possibly having the arch of the courtyard of his own house in Antwerp in mind (see ill. 2). Moreover, Rubens had a strong preference for a clustering of pilasters and wrings in the entablature of the facade, as he knew these, for instance, from the Antwerp Jesuit Church (see ill. 1). Instead of too much simplicity (la troppo simplicità) Rubens was of the opinion that such a town palace required greater dignity. According to him in the architecture of the facade this could be achieved by applying more relief and plasticity (maggior dignità e rilievo à tutta la facciata). Huygens, on the contrary, emphasized that he deliberately avoided too large a gesture (un effetto di troppo violenza) and that to him simplicity was beautiful enough in itself, provided that here too, the rules of the art would be followed (servitu delle regole antiche). So far, both parties answer the familiar image which historiography has rendered of them, Rubens as the baroque, exuberant mind and Huygens as the puritan guardian of the classical heritage. However, in this correspondence both of them also express different views, seemingly in contradiction with the positions defined above. It is Rubens who keeps harping on the need to follow the rules and proportions of Vitruvius very precisely. Remarkably enough, it is Huygens who in his counter-argument puts forward that the rules need not be observed so precisely and that they might as well be adapted to the circumstances (un poco ubedire l'arte al sito), as long as this is not experienced as disturbing (senza incommodita dell'occhio). Thus the theory of Vitruvius appears to have been used as the Standard of architecture in Antwerp in 1640, too. In the light of the tradition of the Vitruvian study, which at that time had already been practiced for one century in this city, this is not really surprising. After Coecke van Aelst, Cornelis Floris and Vredeman de Vries, to mention the major propagandists from the 16th century, this tradition of classicism continued to exist in the 17th century, too, among architects such as Cobergher and Francart and among commissioners such as Aguilon. All this provides sufficient reason to look for the common reception of the Italian Renaissance and the Vitruvian tradition in the study of 17th century-architecture in both the Netherlands, without being diverted by the striking difference in external appearance of the architecture in both provinces in that period

Inleiding bij het themanummer

[No abstract available

De Vitruvius-uitgave van Johannes De Laet (1649)

Johannes De Laet was a Leiden merchant and one of the directors of the Dutch West India Company. He also moved in the learned circles of Leiden University and was a good friend and assistant of professor Claude Saumaise. Apart from his business activities De Laet was also successful as a compiler of geographical descriptions and some works on the ancient classics. In 1649 the first complete edition of Vitruvius was published in Holland by the Amsterdam publisher Louis Elzevier, arranged by Johannes De Laet, M. Vitruvii Pollionis De Architectura Libri Decem. In this publication the treatise was accompanied by innumerable footnotes and all sorts of handwritings from Antiquity, from the Italian Renaissance and from contemporary Holland, in explanation of various aspects in the work of Vitruvius. The whole publication was in Latin, even the supplementary syllabus, and thus De Laet's edition became the pre-eminent Vitrivius edition for later use. De Laet's strength lay in collecting all the available, frequently scattered material on his subject. He presents it in a clear structure, but he does not formulate any theory or views of his own. In stead, he quotes amply from other works. The famous Vitruvius commentary of Guillaume Philander (1544) has been included almost in full in the footnotes, next to remarks by Daniele Barbaro from the latter's Vitruvius commentary (1556) and by contemporaries such as Vossius and Claude Saumaise. In line with Philander, De Laet did not so much look for direct applicabilities of the rules of Vitruvius, but rather for an understanding of Antiquity itself, from a scientific interest in the mathematical-philosophical foundations of classical architecture and art. Consequently, as a supplement to Vitruvius, De Laet provides writings which pursue this subject in particular, starting with the measurements and weights in Antiquity itself (Agricola 1551) and followed by the musical harmony principles (Meibomius 1649) and the mathematical rules in painting and sculpture (among others, Alberti's De Pictura.) In that sense Henry Wotton's The Elements of Architecture (1624) was an excellent choice as an introduction to this entire compilation of classical and more contemporary treatises. De Laet's work shows many resemblances with earlier attempts by Constantijn Huygens in 1642 to have Vitruvius translated into Dutch. Wotton's Elements had been intended as an introduction to Vitruvius himself in this project, which the architect Jacob van Campen would also participate in. Other aspects of De Laet's edition, too, coincide with Huygens's plan, such as the stress on the coherence between musical harmony and the architectural proportion theory. Possibly Huygens gave advice from a distance through Saumaise, who was a friend of his, after his own Vitruvius edition had been called off. However, there is no concrete evidence for Huygens's direct involvement in the edition of 1649

Inleiding bij het themanummer

[No abstract available

De KNOB, Cuypers en kasteel De Haar. Inleiding op het themanummer

[No abstract available

Inleiding bij het themanummer

[No abstract available

De correspondentie tussen Rubens en Huygens over architectuur

Constantijn Huygens, the secretary of the Prince of Orange, kept up a correspondence with P.P. Rubens in the years 1635-'40. One of their main themes was architecture, in connection with the building of Huygens' own house in The Hague in the years 1634-'37 (ill. 3-6). So far, three of Huygens' letters to Rubens are known. Rubens's replies seem to have been lost. This article focuses on Huygens' draft for a fourth letter to Rubens, dating from 1640, in which he tried to refute a number of critical remarks apparently made by Rubens in a previous letter, concerning the design of Huygens House (Appendix IV). Eventually, because of Rubens' death in 1640, this letter was never written. It is obvious that Rubens thought Huygens House too simple, compared to the monumental architecture developed in Antwerp two decades before. He suggested instead of the simple Doric gate to the street to build a large arch with heavy key stones on top, possibly having the arch of the courtyard of his own house in Antwerp in mind (see ill. 2). Moreover, Rubens had a strong preference for a clustering of pilasters and wrings in the entablature of the facade, as he knew these, for instance, from the Antwerp Jesuit Church (see ill. 1). Instead of too much simplicity (la troppo simplicità) Rubens was of the opinion that such a town palace required greater dignity. According to him in the architecture of the facade this could be achieved by applying more relief and plasticity (maggior dignità e rilievo à tutta la facciata). Huygens, on the contrary, emphasized that he deliberately avoided too large a gesture (un effetto di troppo violenza) and that to him simplicity was beautiful enough in itself, provided that here too, the rules of the art would be followed (servitu delle regole antiche). So far, both parties answer the familiar image which historiography has rendered of them, Rubens as the baroque, exuberant mind and Huygens as the puritan guardian of the classical heritage. However, in this correspondence both of them also express different views, seemingly in contradiction with the positions defined above. It is Rubens who keeps harping on the need to follow the rules and proportions of Vitruvius very precisely. Remarkably enough, it is Huygens who in his counter-argument puts forward that the rules need not be observed so precisely and that they might as well be adapted to the circumstances (un poco ubedire l'arte al sito), as long as this is not experienced as disturbing (senza incommodita dell'occhio). Thus the theory of Vitruvius appears to have been used as the Standard of architecture in Antwerp in 1640, too. In the light of the tradition of the Vitruvian study, which at that time had already been practiced for one century in this city, this is not really surprising. After Coecke van Aelst, Cornelis Floris and Vredeman de Vries, to mention the major propagandists from the 16th century, this tradition of classicism continued to exist in the 17th century, too, among architects such as Cobergher and Francart and among commissioners such as Aguilon. All this provides sufficient reason to look for the common reception of the Italian Renaissance and the Vitruvian tradition in the study of 17th century-architecture in both the Netherlands, without being diverted by the striking difference in external appearance of the architecture in both provinces in that period

'Un dessein qui plait a la vue'. De controverse tussen Anthonie Coulon en Daniel Marot bij de verbouwing van Huis Ten Bosch

In 1733-'36 the Prince of Orange had the 'Huis Ten Bosch' (House Ten Bosch) near The Hague modernized and extended with two wings. The design for this was made by Daniel Marot and the architectural management of its execution was performed by Anthonie Coulon. Some documents which had been unknown so far, have revealed a controversy taking place during construction in 1734 between the designer Marot, the works foreman Coulon and the representative of the Prince, councillor Duncan. The chiefly oral contact between the commissioner and his architect seems to have been an important cause of the problems. A contact, which in the presence of the Prince worked excellently for the designing architect, who continued to be involved in the project, as well as for the executing architect. However, in the commissioner's absence this immediately led to great problems. This also makes clear how in a large building project all those involved had to be present regularly, since only the broad lines had been laid down according to specifications and a lot of elements still had to be designed, discussed and executed during construction. Thus the elaborate complaint made by Coulon to the Prince of Orange on the way in which the latter's representative Duncan had treated him, provides an unusually detailed insight into the architects' and building practice during the first half of the I5th century. In that period, distinguished architecture was dominated by those who had the knack of ornamentation, such as Marot, the plasterer Van Logteren and the sculptor Van Baurscheit jr: decorators who had not come directly from the building profession, but from the world of the ornament. The master carpenter who had worked his way up in the building profession was only allotted the role of works foreman at most in the upper circles of the Dutch world of building. Coulon's document indicates the controversy that could arise when such an architect from the building profession was no longer satisfied with his tacit role, but wished to put his experience into active practice in order to correct all kinds of technical and practical imperfections in a fine design made by illustrious hands

De herbouw van het huis Amerongen (1673-1685)

The proceedings during the reconstruction of Amerongen castle in the years 1673-1685 were exceptionally well-documented thanks to the extensive correspondence of the client Godert Adriaan van Reede with his wife Margaretha Turnor, his son, his secretary and his friend Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen, and thanks to some well-preserved reports and drawings of the building contractor Hendrick Schut. From the start the client had probably formed a idea of his new castle; its design, however, was supervised by Schut, who was also the building contractor and master carpenter of the work, assisted by the master mason Cornelis van Rietvelt and the stone mason Jan Prang. In February 1673 the castle was set fire to by French troops and completely destroyed. From September 1673 Van Reede himself was in the Netherlands for a few years and could therefore prepare the reconstruction in person and supervise the start of the work. First it was mostly a matter of clearing rubble and chiselling off all the still usable bricks. In spite of permanent financial problems he succeeded in keeping up the pace. In the autumn of 1676, two years after the commencement of the work, the shell of the building was completed. While the interior was worked at in stages during the subsequent years, from 1679 the stable building and the two staff residences were also erected on the outer bailey. With the placing of the marble chimneys in the large hall in 1685 the work was largely completed. Although the old foundations were used for the reconstruction, a completely new building, with a new plan was created, to some extent based on the example of The Hague Mauritshuis. Instead of a complex of four wings around an inner courtyard, a closed three-nave building block was constructed. This switch to a completely different type of house fits in with a wider tradition in the development of castle architecture in the Province of Utrecht in the seventeenth century. The history of Amerongen castle shows that such a monumental building was the result of an intensive cooperation between craftsmen and clients, while both parties also consulted their own advisers: Schut and Van Rietvelt appear to have held consultations with Adriaan Dortsman in Amsterdam from time to time, while Van Reede and his wife were advised by their son and by Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen, who in his turn may have conferred with Maurits Post. In the preparatory phase various versions of the design circulated, in which different ideas for the spatial composition were demonstrated. Once the construction had started, there were constant consultations about all parts of the work, again by showing various versions on which everyone could give his or her opinion