ENGLISH VERSION Fray Lorenzo de San Nicolas. Arte y Uso de Architectura. Edición anotada. A cura di Félix Díaz Moreno

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Fray Lorenzo de San Nicolas
Arte y Uso de Architectura 
Edición anotada
Edited by Félix Díaz Moreno

Instituto de Estudios Madrileños. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2008
Isbn 978-84-935195-5-1

Two pages of the treatise  (Library of  Complutense University in Madrid)

[1] We have consulted several editions of treatises which have been classified by the editors as "noted". However, here this simple adjective would look like as really understated. In front of us are 2199 notes, through which the curator demonstrates a complete preparation and a mastery of the subject which is completely out of the ordinary. We would like to insist on the notes, because normally any annotated edition of a treatise presents a rich and long introductory essay, in which the curator reviews the main reasons of the work; in those cases the apparatus of footnotes is mostly limited to textual explanations. Here, it is quite the opposite. Yes, there are indeed fifty introductory pages in which Díaz Moreno is above all preoccupied to provide new information on certain aspects of the biography of this Augustinian friar (he was born in 1593 - the date is now fixed incontrovertibly – and he passed away in 1679), and to pencil certain critical aspects of the edition of his work and of his figure. There are indeed also four final pages enucleating, by way of conclusion, the most important aspects of the Treaty. However, the entire richness of the comment is in the notes, and if we did not have any awareness of it, we would run the risk of being disappointed by an editorial operation that seems to me instead really out of the ordinary to us.

[2] Arte y Uso de Architectura (Art and Use of Architecture) was published by Friar Lorenzo de San Nicolás (born as Lorenzo Martínez) in two volumes, separated by decades among each another. Even the date of publication of the two books has been the subject of often conflicting information. The curator demonstrates convincingly that the first volume was published in 1639, while the second in 1665 (see pages XLVII ff.). It was often believed that these dates would be antecedent (respectively 1633 and 1664), referring to the years that appear in the various licenses and authorisations to printing, prefaced to the Treaty itself. However, Díaz Moreno wonders when actually the two volumes were offered for sale. At the time, before a work could be disseminated to the public, two unavoidable conditions were required: the presence of the errata corrige (corrigendum), made by the "corrector general of the kingdom" and the "indication of tasación" (fee) of the book. When we speak of "tasación", it is natural to think of a system that requires the presence of a fixed price: an expert examines the substance of the book as an object and, assessing its physical features, sets its selling price. In the case of the first volume, errata corrige and "tasación" bear an indication of the year 1639, which means that the work must have been almost completed in 1633, but never saw the light until 1639; in the case of the latter, the year of publication is 1665 (and not 1664 as most believed). The princeps of the first volume is extremely rare. Just to be clear: it is not at the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid. The exemplary on which this annotated edition is conducted, is preserved at the Biblioteca Histórica Marqués de Valdecilla de la Universidad Complutense in Madrid with FLL.26.623 mark. From the same library is taken the copy of the first edition of the second volume (with mark FOA 2464). The illustrations are drawn precisely from the engravings published in these two exemplars. In both cases, then, it does not appear any indication of the printer, place and year of printing (hence the confusion of which it was said before). Of 1667, then, is a "reedición" (new edition) or, better, a "segunda impresión" (reprint) of the first volume, published in Madrid. There, significant changes appear, with corrections made by the author and the inclusion in the text of the Spanish translation of the first book of Euclid (which therefore did not appear in the princeps and, in any case, does not seem to be authored by the monk - architect). The work of Friar Lorenzo had really good success for reasons which will be examined further. This is witnessed by two subsequent editions. The second edition (encompassing the first and second parts together) is dated 1736. This second edition is actually the most easily found in Spanish libraries, so much that very often judgments and criticisms were expressed on the basis of this version (and, when in 1989 Luis Cervera Vera produced the reprint of the work, he used just a sample of 1736). It is worth remembering, at this stage, that the second edition of 1736 does not reproduce - as far as the first volume - the princeps in 1639, but the "segunda impresión" of 1667. Only in this way it can be explained, for example, why the text reproduced in facsimile in 1989 contains references to works of architecture that had not yet been realised in the course of 1639; and naturally it also explains the presence of the first book of Euclid, originally absent. The third edition of the work of Friar Lorenzo, finally, is of 1796.

[3] The critical fortune of the work (pp. LIX-LXV) is shown by the frequent words of appreciation in quotations during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (and in fact two editions from the eighteenth century are the most tangible proof). What happens then is quite similarly to what had happened to the assessment about the major treatises on painting of the Golden Century (see Francisco Calvo Serraller, Teoría de la Pintura del Siglo de Oro Theory of Painting during the Golden Century); namely that as from the nineteenth century a more hostile criticism of the writings of the baroque era took over. Often applying evaluation categories which do not take account of the reality in which the writers had moved in those years, critics blamed them to have compiled works deprived of any originality, or even to have committed real plagiarism. They accused them to have made blatant mistakes (and in the case of Friar Lorenzo the cause of the scandal is very conspicuous, when the author talks about Vitruvius as a Greek architect). To tell the truth, however, in the case of the Arte y Uso de Architectura those pages continue to have some value in which the Augustinian monk dwells (or even prolongs himself, spending excessive time, according to detractors) in the description of the construction practices applied in his own works. The Treatise of San Nicolas is therefore increasingly cited with reference to the more technical aspects, while all the theoretical aspects end up being systematically underestimated.

Two pages from the treatise (copyright http://www.margaritadedios.es)

[4] We do not know much about the biography of Friar Lorenzo. He practiced as an architect for several decades, due to his longevity. He was undoubtedly initiated to the profession by his father, Juan Martínez, who also induced him to the religious life (not without an initial reluctance on Lorenzo’s side). In fact, the father decided, after a series of family tragedies (the loss of his wife and all other children) to take vows as an Augustinian (with the name of Fray Juan de Nuestra Señora de la O) along with his son, then just a teenager. The professional career of Lorenzo seems to have been rewarding, but was always conducted in the service of his religious order, declining offers of more responsibility for the establishment of the Spanish monarchy. No wonder then that most of the achievements known to us are made up of religious buildings (chapels, churches and monasteries), but we must not neglect other aspects of its business, such as civil architecture, the drafting of memoranda and opinions aimed at resolving technical disputes and, above all, his activity as "tasador", also conducted intensively for decades. We have already spoken of "tasaciones" with reference to the first editions of the Treaty of Lorenzo; here we are in another context (the one concerning architecture and engineering of buildings), but with a very similar mechanics: "When a construction was completed, or was in the intermediate phase, two master experts were appointed to measure and assess those materials or work performed in lifting structures. After this study, a comparison was made with the prevailing conditions and prices appearing in contracts and the amount to be paid was raised or reduced"(p. xxxix). It is clear that in order to exercise the profession of "tasador" it was necessary (in addition to enjoying reputation as a man impartial) to have a perfect knowledge of construction techniques and materials used in construction sites (this aspect will have a direct reflection in the Treaty of Friar Lorenzo).

Two pages from the treatise (copyright http://www.margaritadedios.es)

[5] It has been said that the first volume of Arte y Uso de Architectura, completed in 1633, was released in 1639. The purpose of Lorenzo de San Nicolás is evident from the acronym, which results from the initials of the title of the work (AYUDA [n.d.t.: HELP]): to write up a fundamentally didactic text, to contribute to the professional development of young architects at a time - he said – of a deep crisis of the profession. That said, to define the Treaty of Friar Lorenzo exclusively as a professional manual is very simplistic; we are faced with one of the few Spanish treaties on architecture of the seventeenth century that will offer a moment of reflection also on theoretical matters, in which the reader is offered a "excellent synthesis, characterized by a high degree of theoretical reflection" (p. 1019). Of course, we do not want to deny some limits of the work (first of all, at least a questionable organization of the two volumes); but it is worth, for example, to appreciate Lorenzo’s ability to draw from different sources and to bring to the attention of readers the contributions of treatises authored by authors of previous centuries or years. It is clear that the main source of Friar Lorenzo consists of Vitruvius (on the already reported quote of Vitruvius as a Greek architect see note 1241 at p. 534, which of course does not deny the evidence, but tries to explain how Fray Lorenzo could have made such a mistake, although he knew about the translation of Vitruvius in Spanish by Miguel de Urrea (1582) and the Italian translation of Vitruvius by Daniele Barbaro). It is however obvious that Friar Lorenzo had for example read Leon Battista Alberti (often without mentioning him) and his De re aedificatoria. The second volume, then, explicitly proposes a series of chapters repeating again - for the perusal of the reader – the measures of the orders proposed by a number of treatises. Although in many cases there are no surprises (the treatise discusses Sebastiano Serlio - but see in particular footnote 371 - , Palladio, Vignola, Scamozzi, and in Spain Diego de Sagredo and Juan Arfe y Villafañe), in other cases names appear which are not completely expected, like Peter Cataneo, Giuseppe Viola Zanini and Giovanni Antonio Rusconi.

Two pages from the treatise (copyright http://www.margaritadedios.es)

[6] There is no doubt that the interpretation of the work by the commentator is particularly devoted to the identification of sources and an overall reappraisal of the theoretical scope of the treatise. A large part of the criticism so far has however preferred - as mentioned above - to emphasise different aspects (which are also present in the analysis of Díaz Moreno): the practical organization of the yards , the knowledge and the proper use of materials, the solutions to reduce the cost of the work for the same aesthetic result ( all situations that are a direct result of decades of experience by Friar Lorenzo); and the fixing of fees in the decoration of facades and interiors of the churches in the light of the Counter-Reformation. You can read about this the pages by Barbara Borngässer Klein in  Teoria dell’architettura. 117 trattati dal Rinascimento ad oggi (Theory of architecture. 117 treatises from the Renaissance to the present), Taschen Publishers.