Architecten en gildedwang; vernieuwingen in de ontwerppraktijk in de vijftiende en zestiende eeuw?

This article challenges the assumed breach between the medieval master builder and the Renaissance architect, as it is still presented in the literature. For the Netherlands the differences and similarities in the design practice between the fifteenth and sixteenth century have been insufficiently researched. The assumption that in practice, under the influence of architectural theory and the arrival of Italian artists, drastic changes in the position of the architect occurred in the sixteenth century, is largely based on two arguments. A new status was supposed to be evident from the introduction of the word ‘architect’ in the Dutch language, as well as from the greater freedom achieved in relation to the guilds in the towns; for the first time the architect was said to have broken away from the social environment of the craftsman. In this article a critical study of both arguments is made. It will become apparent that greater continuity existed within the design practice. Although architectural theory presented new rhetorical arguments, a supraregional circuit of specialised craftsmen already existed before the sixteenth century. Just as in the sixteenth century, their freedom usually depended on the authority of the commissioner. In addition, even in the fifteenth century exceptional expertise was appealed to in some cases in order to be exempted from the obligations set by the guilds, when local workers lacked the required know-how and skills. The existence of a supra-urban circuit as well as a local market explains an old antithesis in historiography; it demonstrates how the obligations set by the guilds as well as the great mobility of architects and workers could be combined in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.This article challenges the assumed breach between the medieval master builder and the Renaissance architect, as it is still presented in the literature. For the Netherlands the differences and similarities in the design practice between the fifteenth and sixteenth century have been insufficiently researched. The assumption that in practice, under the influence of architectural theory and the arrival of Italian artists, drastic changes in the position of the architect occurred in the sixteenth century, is largely based on two arguments. A new status was supposed to be evident from the introduction of the word ‘architect’ in the Dutch language, as well as from the greater freedom achieved in relation to the guilds in the towns; for the first time the architect was said to have broken away from the social environment of the craftsman. In this article a critical study of both arguments is made. It will become apparent that greater continuity existed within the design practice. Although architectural theory presented new rhetorical arguments, a supraregional circuit of specialised craftsmen already existed before the sixteenth century. Just as in the sixteenth century, their freedom usually depended on the authority of the commissioner. In addition, even in the fifteenth century exceptional expertise was appealed to in some cases in order to be exempted from the obligations set by the guilds, when local workers lacked the required know-how and skills. The existence of a supra-urban circuit as well as a local market explains an old antithesis in historiography; it demonstrates how the obligations set by the guilds as well as the great mobility of architects and workers could be combined in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries