Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Hurx, M. 2019.
The Most Expert in Europe
: Patents and Innovation in the
Building Trades in the Early Dutch Republic (1580−1650).
Architectural
Histories,
7(1): 14, pp. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ah.337
$UFKLWHFWXUDO
+LVWRULHV
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Most Expert in Europe
: Patents and Innovation
in the Building Trades in the Early Dutch Republic
(1580−1650)
Merlijn Hurx
Famous early modern engineering feats in architecture, such as Brunelleschi’s dome in Florence, have
traditionally been presented in historiography as the accomplishments of individual ‘authorial’ gures.
Yet, for many other innovative building technologies of the early modern period, the authorship remains
unknown. Often such inventions were the result of incremental advances for which many people were
responsible. The socio-economic circumstances that allowed for technological developments remain an
understudied eld in architectural history. This paper presents the building site as an important space
of knowledge production. Diculties that arose during construction had a stimulating eect on the
exchange of ideas among various professional groups, including architects, master craftsmen, and engi-
neers. A special case is found in the development of specialised building techniques in the 17th-century
Dutch Republic. By the end of the Golden Age, the ‘Hollanders’, considered ‘the most expert in Europe’ in
the construction of large structures in marshy conditions, were valued for their ‘incomparable inventions’
in hydraulic engineering and their skill in laying foundations. The work involved in this process — driv-
ing piles and excavating pits in marshy conditions — was by denition an interdisciplinary endeavour, and
required the expertise of architects, masons, carpenters, and others. Building in these conditions not only
posed serious technical diculties, but also involved high costs, challenging master craftsmen to invent
new cost-saving methods and techniques. In this paper, this innovative and interdisciplinary climate will be
explored through the analysis of 17th-century patents, or inventor privileges, in the Early Dutch Republic
(1580−1650). Patents are an understudied source in architectural history, yet architects and artisans
from the building trades were highly active in obtaining such privileges. In addition, the patenting process
was an important incentive to invest time and capital in technological innovation among various social
groups within and outside the building trades, thus stimulating exchanges between people with theoreti-
cal and practical backgrounds.
Introduction
When in 1669 the English physician and art connoisseur
William Aglionby wrote in his Present State of the United
Provinces that Amsterdam’s town hall surpassed the Seven
Wonders of the World, he was not considering its clas-
sicist style or its richly decorated interior. Instead, what
impressed him most was the expense and ingenuity of its
foundation (Figure 1).1 Much like present-day tourists, he
was fascinated by the fact that the entire city is supported
by an underground forest of piles (Aglionby 1671: 275–
76).2 Such admiration may seem naïve, but many other
foreigners visiting the Dutch Republic of the Netherlands
shared Aglionby’s fascination with Dutch technological
ingenuity. In 1641 the English writer John Evelyn wrote
that ‘the Hollanders are the most expert in Europe’ at
draining waters and constructing large structures in
marshy conditions. Their ‘incomparable inventions’ in
hydraulic engineering and their skill in laying foundations
were highly valued (Evelyn 1906: vol 1, 45).3 By the end of
the 17th century, the Dutch Republic was regarded as the
best place to acquire such specialised building know-how.
Dutch engineers were in high demand abroad (Danner
et al. 2005; Ciriacono 2006; Martens and Ottenheym
2013; Ash 2017), and several European powers, including
Cosimo III de’ Medici, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, and Tsar Peter
the Great, sent their own engineers to the Dutch Republic
to learn the ‘Hollandish manner of construction’ (manir
gollanskoj arhitektury) (Martelli 2005; Mahoney 2010; Van
de Vijver 2013).4 A fine example of foreign interest in such
matters is the set of careful records Cosimo’s agent Pietro
Guerrini made in the 1680s during his travels through the
Low Countries, of dredging vessels, drainage windmills,
pile foundations, and roof constructions (Martelli 2005).
The contemporary admiration for these technologi-
cal achievements stands in sharp contrast to the general
image of the Dutch building industry in the historiography.
While the Dutch Republic is acknowledged as a technolog-
ical leader in Europe, the building sector is often viewed
Department of History and Art History, Utrecht University, NL
m.hurx@uu.nl
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 2 of 15
as one of the more traditional industries, having remained
essentially unchanged up to the Industrial Revolution (Van
Leeuwen 1993; Davids 2008). Technological innovation in
construction in the early modern period has traditionally
received comparatively little interest in architectural his-
tory, as it is thought to belong to the world of engineering
more than of architecture. Likewise, the epistemological
and social-economic conditions in which innovation in
construction took place have only recently caught schol-
arly attention, as the topic of technical progress in archi-
tecture has long fallen outside the disciplinary boundaries
of architectural history, construction history, and his-
tory of technology (Schlimme 2006; Renn, Osthues and
Schlimme 2014). What is more, within the scope of archi-
tectural history, technological creativity is commonly con-
sidered something very distinct from artistic innovation.
This approach has contributed to a dualistic view of design
practise, in which the heroic, ‘avant-garde’ artist is juxta-
posed with the simple master craftsman or builder.
This paper re-examines this dichotomy, investigating
the technological creativity of masters from the building
trades, while also considering the exchange between dif-
ferent professional groups as a key factor for the progress
of building technology. Studies on the circumstances that
allowed for technological advances in the early modern
period mostly pay attention to role of the guilds (Epstein
and Prak 2008), while recently in architectural history
there is a growing interest in the spread of codified build-
ing knowledge through treatises (Cardamone and Martens
2018). In this paper the innovative and interdisciplinary
climate of the Dutch Republic will be examined through
the study of patents, or inventor privileges, a rich but
understudied source for the history of architecture.
By the end of the 16th century the process of conferring
legal patents for inventions was ubiquitous in Europe. But
with the exception of the similarly water-bound Republic
of Venice, it seems that patenting was nowhere as prolific
as in the Dutch Republic (Flechsig 2013: 101–2). Following
its introduction in the 1580s, the Dutch patent system
soon gained momentum, and until its heyday in the 1620s
and 1630s, an average of seven patents was granted annu-
ally (from 1590 to 1640) (Davids 2000). Like in other parts
of Europe, inventions were concentrated mainly in four
fields: military technology (canons and guns), hydrau-
lic equipment (pumps, drainage mills, dredging vessels),
heating equipment (furnaces, stoves and chimneys), and
industrial windmill technology (sawmill, oil mill, fulling
mill etc.) (Davids 2000: 265–66; Buning 2014b: 417).
Inventors came from virtually all levels of society, but
artisans from the building trades — the people who could
Figure 1: J.M.A. Rieke, view of the city model room of Amsterdam between 1870 and 1888. On the table in the centre
of the room is the model of the town hall and below it is a model of pile foundations (detail). The original model from
1648 still survives, but the foundations are lost (Stadsarchief Amsterdam).
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 3 of 15
actually make hydraulic devices, furnaces, industrial mills
and the like — formed a particularly active group.
Although scholars debate the significance and effective-
ness of patenting as a means to spur innovation in the
early modern period (Epstein 2004; MacLeod 1991), the
patenting process was an important factor in the develop-
ment of porous environments in which different bodies of
knowledge were exchanged. Such openness of knowledge
is generally seen as a key factor to innovation (Mokyr 1990;
Mokyr 2002), and exchanges between artisans, professional
groups, and scholars in the early modern period occurred
with the greatest frequency in what Pamela Long has called
‘trading zones’ (Long 2015). The patenting process can be
considered such a zone, as it offered various social groups
an incentive to invest time and capital in technological
innovation (Molà 2014), while also providing a common
virtual ‘meeting place’ for the collaboration between inven-
tors and investors. In addition, the interdisciplinary exami-
nation boards of privilege-granting institutions brought
together experts of disparate backgrounds (Buning 2014a).
In the history of science and technology, as well as the
history of law, the study of inventor privileges has gained
new interest in recent decades. They have been less dis-
cussed, however, within the scope of art and architectural
history. Yet various early modern architects are known
to have been involved in the patent business, including,
among others, Filippo Brunelleschi, Bernardo Buontalenti,
Francesco Zamberlano (chief assistant to Andrea Palladio)
and Juan de Herrera (Molà 2014: 10; Molà 2004: 241–42;
Biagioli 2006: 143). In the context of the Dutch Republic,
it is well known that the sculptor and architect Hendrick
de Keyser was involved in the patent industry, as was Arent
van ’s-Gravensande, a pupil of Jacob van Campen. While
the nature and significance of such inventions for con-
struction have never been properly examined, the patent
system was more than simply an ancillary activity of little
consequence for architects. Instead, this paper argues that
the Dutch patent system was a centrally important aspect
of architectural production.
The first and second sections of the article consider the
Dutch patent system and several specific inventions pat-
ented in the construction industry. In the last two sections,
the patentees from the building trades, and the factors that
contributed to their prominent role in the patent business,
are analysed. The focus here is not the practical significance
of patented inventions, nor whether patenting became an
effective tool for the spread of knowledge. Rather, this arti-
cle calls attention to the role of patents in the formation of
an innovative and interdisciplinary climate.
The Dutch patent system
In the 16th century inventor privileges became a new
way by which governments tried to encourage economic
development. Patents for technical inventions were privi-
leges that permitted the inventor to establish a time-lim-
ited monopoly. This allowed the inventor to benefit from
the labour and resources he had invested in the invention,
through either its exploitation or by selling to others a
licence for the invention’s use (Molà 2014; Molà 2004;
Davids 2000; MacLeod 1988). The origins of the patent go
back to the Middle Ages when the sovereign could issue
letters patent to publicly confer a wide range of privileges.
The oldest examples of inventor privileges stem from Italy,
where already in the 14th and 15th centuries technical
achievements were rewarded and safeguarded by allowing
monopolies to operate for a given timeframe. However,
the first systematic application of inventor privileges was
developed in Venice in the last quarter of the 15th century
(Belfanti 2006; Mandich 1960). In the first half of the 16th
century, its practice spread across Europe (Buning 2014b:
416; Flechsig 2013: 24–96; Belfanti 2006; Popplow 1998).
The earliest patents for inventions in the Low Countries
also date from this period, but they became more common
from the 1560s onwards (Doorman 1940: 16). Initially,
these privileges were granted by the sovereign, but with
the independence of the northern provinces in 1581, the
patent system was continued in the Northern Netherlands
by three different authorities that took over the sover-
eign’s role: the central government of the Republic, known
as the States General; the governments of the individual
estates of the seven provinces; and town authorities. From
the 1580s to the middle of the 17th century, the States
General granted the largest number of patents, but after
that applications decreased rapidly in favour of the States
of Holland, the most powerful province of the Dutch
Republic. This might be because to put an invention into
practice in each of the provinces it became compulsory to
obtain official acknowledgement of the patent from the
corresponding estates (Davids 2000: 264). Because of its
economic significance, Holland outdid all other provinces
in the Dutch Republic, whose estates conceded only a lim-
ited number of patents in the 17th century.
Inventor privileges, or octrooien, as they were called,
granted the patentee the exclusive right to put an innova-
tion into practice for a fixed period, usually 5 to 12 years.
Some patents allowed the inventor to distribute licenses
for the use of his invention. Unlike current patents, inven-
tor privileges in the early modern period were granted
not only for newly conceived inventions, but also for the
introduction of existing inventions into the territory of
the authorities granting the patent. Obtaining inventor
privileges was therefore not necessarily a matter of origi-
nal authorship. Importers of locally new devices or tech-
niques also successfully applied for an octrooi (Buning
2014b; Belfanti 2006; Biagioli 2006; Long 2001: 93; Long
1991: 875).
Applicants for inventor privileges had two chief motiva-
tions in filing a request: they hoped to profit from the exploi-
tation of their invention, and they viewed the patent as a
means to build a reputation as an inventor (Buning 2014b:
417). To obtain a patent, an application explaining the util-
ity of the invention had to be submitted to the authorities,
after which a committee of government officials would
normally examine the applicant’s request. Depending
on the occasion, such boards frequently invited special-
ists of diverse professional backgrounds, including scien-
tific experts, artisans and military specialists, to meet to
examine new patent applications. These gatherings pro-
vided an important ‘meeting place’ where disparate social
groups could exchange ideas and methods, and thus
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 4 of 15
enabled the development of new modes of shared knowl-
edge (Buning 2014a). From around 1590 it became com-
mon to supplement a written description of an invention
with drawings or a model (Davids 2000: 267). Committees
used this documentation to assess whether older patents
were infringed upon, and to determine if an invention
could work (Biagioli 2006: 152–54).5 Sometimes, proto-
types were tested. Such a test was carried out in 1590 on a
drainage mill invented by the celebrated engineer Simon
Stevin, in which the mill’s efficiency was measured and
compared to an existing mill located in a polder near the
city of Gouda (Buning 2014a: 63). One of the earliest doc-
umented examples in the Low Countries where such an
experimental testing method was applied concerned the
patent application of the famous painter Jan van Scorel
for a new type of hydraulic cement, which he believed
would allow for the construction of more durable dykes
(Van Gelder 1918: 181).6 In 1550, van Scorel was granted
a monopoly for the cement on the condition that one of
his proposed dykes would withstand a season of winter
storms along the seashore at the Zijpe in North Holland.
The eventual damage would be carefully inspected by
experts to assess the cement’s durability.
The description of van Scorel’s invention, recorded in
a patent now conserved in the registers of the Chamber
of Accounts of Holland, is rather oblique. This may well
have been the intention of the inventor, who was not
willing to disclose his ideas in detail (see also Biagioli
2006: 152–57). But unfortunately, almost all original
applications for patents have been lost, because after the
patent was granted, the application files were attached to
it and returned to the applicant. The official document
that entered the authority’s records contained only a brief
description of the invention (Doorman 1940: 21). It is
therefore difficult to know the level of detail with which
new inventions were described in the application.
With a few exceptions all original drawings and models
have also been lost. A rare example of a complete, illus-
trated patent application is the recently discovered one
filed by the city mason of Delft, Christiaan (Corstiaan)
Anthonisz, which dates to 1571 (Figure 2). The applica-
tion, addressed to King Philip II of Spain, concerned a new
type of brewing furnace. By the end of the 16th century,
developing fuel-efficient furnaces became an important
pursuit for inventors. They were attracted by the prospect
of increasing potential gains due to rising price of fire-
wood caused by deforestation. Between 1582 and 1638
the States General granted a dozen patents for fuel-saving
furnaces (see Unger 2001: 102–3), of which several were
filed by masons (Doorman 1940: 124 (G 124); 156 (G 225)).
The involvement of masons was most likely due to their
first-hand knowledge of the construction of brick furnaces.
According to the letter accompanying Anthonisz’s
application, his furnace offered three major advantages
compared to existing technology: it would significantly
save on fuel, reduce the wear of the kettles, and improve
safety. To explain his invention, Anthonisz added a brief
description and a drawing of a ground plan together
with an elevation of the front of the furnace. These
images show that his invention involved a framework
of bricks with a lower central section onto which ket-
tles would be set. In addition, Anthonisz’s furnace had
adjustable bottom vents to improve and control airflow,
both of which the inventor claimed had never been
applied before. He also declared that the venting sys-
tem modified the shape and lowered the height of the
flames through downdraft (dalende tochten), which he
illustrated in his drawing by
depicting the flames and
fumes escaping through the horizontal vent pipes. His
invention must have been a moderate success at the
least, because in 1582 he obtained a nine-year extension
of his patent term from the States of Holland, and in
1596 he received a patent for a furnace from the States
General (Doorman 1940, 273 (H 1); 94–95 (G 27)). This
last patent was probably an improved version of his first
invention, because the description mentions that it had
circumferential vent pipes akin to his 1571 furnace. To
clarify the invention further, the application refers to
a drawing by Anthonisz, unfortunately now lost, which
was kept at the office of the States General.
Figure 2: Christiaan Anthonisz, plan and elevation accom-
panying the original patent application for a new type
of furnace, 1571 (Archives départementales du Nord in
Lille). Photo by Merlijn Hurx.
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 5 of 15
Apart from Anthonisz’s drawing, there remains a cor-
pus of around 25 patent drawings from the period 1589
to 1602 in the resolution registers kept by the States of
Holland (minuten van de resoluties van Holland).7 These
concern a wide range of devices, such as the drawing of a
drainage windmill invented by the city carpenter of Delft,
Cornelis Dircksz Muys in 1589 (Figure 3), and an industrial
mill from 1595 by Maerten Pietersz van der Mey, who was
a former city carpenter of Alkmaar (Figure 4).8 After 1602,
patent drawings were no longer recorded in the resolutions
of the States of Holland. It is unclear why this practice was
discontinued, but over the next decades thorough docu-
mentation became increasingly less common. It has been
proposed that such documentation was no longer neces-
sary as it became the rule that the patent had to be worked
within one year, leaving it to market forces to determine
whether an invention was useful or not (Davids 2000: 267).
Patents in the construction industry
In the early modern period masters from the building
trades filed a considerable portion of the total number of
patents. The majority of the innovations were in the field
of civil engineering; the number of patents that exclu-
sively concerned building techniques was more limited.
Some patented inventions were for unconventional pio-
neering examples, such as the construction of underwater
foundations and a new type of pitch for sealing flat roofs
(Doorman 1940: 131 (G 144); 139 (G 169); Van den Heuvel
1994: 10; Van den Heuvel 2005: 69–78). However, applica-
tions seem to have concentrated on specific innovations,
some of which will be discussed below. It is important to
keep in mind that many improvements, such as new types
of roof trusses and hydraulic cement (trass) were never
patented during this period (Van Tussenbroek 2009; on
trass see Davids 2008: 122–23). Van Scorel’s invention
of hydraulic cement in 1550 would remain an exception
until the second half of the 17th century.9
Patented inventions in construction occasionally
concerned innovations in quality, but more often they
entailed advances in cost-effectiveness and increased
productivity. A notable example of a product innovation
that reduced building costs, and which received consider-
able attention in the 17th century, is the manufacturing
of artificial marble and other imitation stone. Such ersatz
products were usually made from stucco or terracotta, for
which raw materials could be found near building sites,
allowing builders to save on high import costs, as there
were no quarries in the Dutch Republic. The earliest exam-
ple of such a patent was obtained by the aforementioned
Christiaan Anthonisz ‘van Tichelsteyn’, who in 1594
invented a cement imitation of blue and white limestone
that could be used for architectural ornamentation. He
promoted his products, called tichelsteyn (hence his nick-
name), to be as strong as roof tiles and as durable as blue
limestone (Doorman 1940: 277–78 (H 11). Not only was
his product cheaper than stone, but it also weighed less,
Figure 3: Drainage windmill invented by the city car-
penter of Delft, Cornelis Dircksz Muys. Patent draw-
ing in the resolutions of the States of Holland, 1589
(NA, The Hague). Photo by Merlijn Hurx.
Figure 4: Industrial mill invented by Maerten Pietersz van
der Mey. Patent drawing in the resolutions of the States
of Holland, 1595 (NA, The Hague). Photo by Merlijn
Hurx.
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 6 of 15
which was an important advantage. In 1611, two inven-
tors from England introduced similar terracotta products
for architectural ornamentation (Doorman 1940, 121
(G 113)), and in the same years, Hendrick de Keyser pat-
ented an invention of artificial marble. In his request of
1612 he claimed that it was impossible to see the differ-
ence between his product and real marble, and he stated
that his invention would save money, ‘because marble
and other precious stones had to be imported from Italy
and other countries at high costs’ (Kossman 1929: 287;
Scholten 1993: 200–1).10 De Keyser’s technique was soon
followed by that of other inventors; in the same decade
two other patents for the production of artificial marble
(Doorman 1940, 290, 321 (Z 4)) were filed at the estates of
Holland (1614) and Zeeland (1618).
While how these imitation materials were produced is
unknown, the artist and preeminent botanist Johannes
van Brosterhuyzen wrote a recipe in a letter to his friend,
the famous scholar Constantijn Huygens, for a plaster that
combined lime, buttermilk rennet, and pigments. After
the plaster was applied, it was polished with hard pum-
ice and treated with isinglass to obtain the characteristic
lustre of real marble (Scholten 1993: 210, n21; Koldeweij,
Uyttendaele 2010: 295). The goal of these inventors was
not only to produce an inexpensive alternative, but to
compete with nature by creating effects that were impos-
sible with natural stone — a point Cornelis van de Graeff
from Delft underscored in his patent application of 1628.
Van de Graeff produced painted tiles that were heated
in an oven, which ‘were not only equal to Italian mar-
bles, but surpassed them due to their greater variety in
colours’ (Doorman 1940: 175 (G 291); Kossmann 1929:
286).11 The high number of patents for artificial stone was
likely encouraged by the favourable market conditions,
and indeed the painter Salomon van Ruysdael is said to
have become rich from his imitation marble, ‘which was
polished like real marble’ (Koldeweij and Uyttendaele
2010: 295).
More varied were the patents for mechanical innova-
tions. In particular, master carpenters filed patents for
new types of cranes, hoisting devices, and dredging vessels
(Doorman 1940: 159 (G 236); 290 (H 40)). These inven-
tions were not restricted to the construction industry, but
usually had a wider application. An exception perhaps
is the pile-driving machine, an important labour-saving
invention patented multiple times. Laying foundations in
marshy conditions was expensive, often equalling the cost
of the remainder of the building, according to contem-
porary sources (Aglionby 1671: 275–76). Although this
probably was an exaggeration, expenses for wooden piles
and the labour of pile-driving must have been consider-
able. The earliest patent for a pile-driving machine dates
from 1595, when the Amsterdam carpenter Lambrecht
Gerritsz claimed that 6 to 7 labourers could operate his
new device for the same work that required 20 to 28
workers without his machine, thus promising an incred-
ible reduction of the workforce by 73 per cent (Doorman
1940: 93 (G 21)). Other inventors would claim even higher
savings on labour. In 1636 Jacob Jansz Gavory promoted
his new machine by summarising the numerous project
types for which it could be used — foundations of fortifi-
cations, sluices, church towers, bridges — and stated that
only 4 to 6 people were required to operate the device, as
opposed to the usual 20 to 40 labourers (Doorman 1940:
201 (G 378); see also 159 (G 236)). Other inventors went
so far as to promise reductions of up to 90 per cent of the
labour force, while Jan Claesz Pety, who in 1678 became
master mason to the city of Leiden, invented a pile-driving
machine in 1662 that was powered not by men at all, but
rather by two horses (Doorman 1940: 186 (G 329); 237–
38 (G 493)). According to Pety, 25 people were necessary
to do the same job (Doorman 1940: 230–31 (G 472)). It
seems unlikely that such inventions could meet their lofty
promises, and the fact that all patents up to the 18th cen-
tury continued to state that pile-driving was done by large
teams affirms the questionable efficacy of such labour-
saving machines (Boyer 1985).
The most important patented application of its time
to drastically boost production was the wind-pow-
ered sawmill (Figure 5), an invention, dating to 1593,
of the carpenter and millwright Cornelis Cornelisz
van Uitgeest.12 This invention employed a crankshaft to
Figure 5: Illustration of the patent application for a wind-powered sawmill by Cornelis Cornelisz van Uitgeest. Patent
drawing in the resolutions of the States of Holland, 1593 (NA, The Hague). Photo by Merlijn Hurx.
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 7 of 15
convert a windmill’s circular motion into a reciprocat-
ing motion. The mechanisation of sawing is believed to
have contributed significantly to the economic rise of the
Dutch Republic, because it had a major impact on ship-
building. In addition to vastly increasing physical produc-
tivity, the device also improved quality, as sawing could
be done with greater accuracy and uniformity than pre-
viously (Doorman 1940: 44–46; Davids 2008: 184–85).
This was, for instance, explicitly stated in a patent appli-
cation for a wind-powered sawmill filed by two master
carpenters from Schagen in 1617, some 20 kilometres
north of Alkmaar. This particular windmill was specifi-
cally designed to produce wainscoting, and the inventors
claimed that their wainscoting’s tongue and groove joints
were far more regular than those sawn by hand (Doorman
1949: 137 (G 164)).13
Mills could also be used for sawing marble and
limestone. In 1618 the stonemason and lens grinder
Davidt Hermansz Nieman, who worked with Hendrick
de Keyser on the tomb of William the Silent in Delft
(Figure 6), applied for a patent for a sawmill that would
both polish and cut marble and touchstone (Doorman
1940: 139–40 (G 172); Scholten 2003: 69). Patents for
similar sawmills were filed in 1662 and 1663, and in
1683 the city architect of Rotterdam, Claes Jeremiasz
Persoons, also patented a new type of mill to saw
marble (Doorman 1940: 294 (H 93); 302 (H 155)).
Unfortunately, there is little data that allows us to assess
the impact of such devices on actual practice, but the
recurrent applications demonstrate a clear desire to
save on labour.
Inventors from the building trades
The inventors who presented their application to the
Dutch authorities came from virtually all social strata,
with different professional backgrounds, but one group
clearly dominated the patent business. Marius Buning’s
calculations show that between 1584 and 1625, of all
the patents granted by the States General, 42.2 per cent
were awarded to inventors who came from the building
trades or had close ties with the construction industry.
Of this percentage 15.9 per cent of the applicants were
architects, engineers, or land surveyors, 24.4 per cent were
carpenters (including millwrights and shipwrights), and
1.9 per cent were masons (Buning 2014a: 61). Buning’s
figures are comparable to those of Karel Davids, whose
calculations for the long 17th century are based on the
patents issued by the States General and the States of
Holland. Between 1580 and 1719, almost one third of the
applications (31.5 per cent) were made by professionals in
the construction industry, with 5.9 per cent of the patents
filed by engineers, architects, and surveyors, 23 per cent
by woodworkers, carpenters, millwrights, and shipwrights,
and 2.6 per cent by masons.14
Within these last two categories, city carpenters
(stadstimmerman) and city masons (stadsmetselaar) form
an interesting group of applicants. These titles did not
necessarily designate a proper office and originally could
simply refer to the preferred contractor of a town, but
from the end of the 16th century onwards, at least in
the largest cities, they referred to the head of municipal
building companies, which took care of the city’s public
works (Van Essen and Hurx 2009; Van Essen 2011). For
instance, in Amsterdam, which had the largest company
in the Dutch Republic, the public works were supervised
by a master carpenter, Hendrick Jacobsz Staets, a master
mason, Cornelis II Dankertsz, and the celebrated archi-
tect Hendrick de Keyser, who was the official architect
and sculptor of the city. Together they were responsible
for the design and construction of many of Amsterdam’s
public buildings, and also for its third major urban expan-
sion with its famous ring of canals, built between 1613
and 1625. The technical difficulties they encountered as
supervisors of these public building services must have
stimulated their problem-solving abilities. Just one year
after their appointment, both Staets and de Keyser filed
a patent with the States General in 1596 and 1957 for a
new type of moveable bridge that allowed water vessels
to pass more easily (Doorman 1940: 95 (G 29), 96 (G 32);
Kossmann 1929). In 1632, at the very end of his career,
Dankertsz also invented a new type of stone bridge that
could be constructed over the river Amstel without tem-
porarily redirecting the course of the river or building
a retaining dam. Dankertsz did not file a patent, and it
is not clear what the invention consisted of, but it was
obviously of great value to the city of Amsterdam, as the
authorities awarded him the a generous amount of 600
guilders for his new invention (‘nieuwe inventie van de
Figure 6: Hendrick de Keyser, tomb of William of Orange,
Nieuwe Kerk, Delft, 1614–23. Photo by Merlijn Hurx.
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 8 of 15
nieuwe geleijde steenen brugge over den Amstel’) (Van
Essen 2011: 198–99).
Staets and de Keyser were not the only city master
craftsmen who tried to obtain patents for their inventions.
Between 1580 and 1650, at least nine other city masters,
the majority from cities in Holland, filed applications. At
least one patent was granted to Cornelis Dircksz Muys,
city carpenter of Delft; Christiaan Anthonisz, city mason
of Delft; Adriaen Jansz, Rotterdam city carpenter; Maerten
Pietersz van der Mey, (former) Alkmaar city carpenter;
Hendrik Cornelisz van Bilderbeek, Leiden city mason;
and Arent van ’s-Gravesande, Leiden city architect.15 Only
three city masters came from outside Holland: the painter
and sculptor Cornelis Bloemaert, who became engineer
of the city of Amsterdam in 1591, Hendrick Struys, city
mason of Utrecht, and Jacob van Aken, the city carpenter
of Kampen.16
City master craftsmen were among the first to embrace
the advantages of the patent system; in the first two dec-
ades (i.e., between 1582 and 1600) they filed 14 requests
(Table 1), which account for 19.7 per cent of the total
number of patent applications.17 The degree to which
city master craftsmen applied for patents diminished
over time, but nevertheless, the number of patents they
received remained considerable. Between 1580 and 1650,
2.1 per cent of the patents granted by the States General,
and 14.9 per cent by the States of Holland, were obtained
by city masters. The substantial difference between
the two administrative bodies is not easily explained,
and neither is it clear what considerations played a role
when turning to either the States General or the States
of Holland. However, it seems likely that because many
inventions were of machines and devices for a city’s pub-
lic works, they were mainly used by the booming cities of
Holland.
More than half of the patent applications filed by
city masters up to 1650 came from only three inven-
tors. The two patents of Hendrick de Keyser for artificial
marble and a moveable bridge (1612 and 1597), which
he filed with the States General, have already been dis-
cussed. But two masters from Delft were also remark-
ably active patent applicants: Cornelis Dircksz Muys and
Christiaan Anthonisz, who received, respectively, five pat-
ents between 1583 and 1589, and four patents between
1582 and 1596. Like most inventors, Muys and Anthonisz
restricted themselves to the trade in which they had an
Table 1: Patent applications by city masters, listed chronologically, from 1582 to 1650. Compiled by Merlijn Hurx.
Name Function Patented invention Patent institution Year
Christiaan Anthonisz City mason of Delft Furnace, extension
patent term (1574) States of Holland 1582
Cornelis Dircksz Muys City carpenter of Delft Drainage device States of Holland 1583
Christiaan Anthonisz, Simon Fransz
van Merwen, Cornelis Ewoutz Proot
City mason of Delft, land surveyor,
craftsman Wind-powered pump States of Holland 1584
Cornelis Dircksz Muys City carpenter of Delft Dredging vessel States of Holland 1589
Cornelis Dircksz Muys City carpenter of Delft Dredging vessel States General 1589
Cornelis Dircksz Muys City carpenter of Delft Drainage windmill States of Holland 1589
Cornelis Dircksz Muys City carpenter of Delft Mill States of Holland 1589
Cornelis Bloemaert City engineer of Amsterdam Dredging vessel States General 1590
Christiaan Anthonisz City mason of Delft Artificial stone States of Holland 1594
Adriaen Jansz City carpenter of Rotterdam Lock doors States of Holland 1594
Maerten Pietersz van der Mey Former city carpenter of Alkmaar Industrial windmill States of Holland 1595
Hendrick Jacobsz Staets City carpenter of Amsterdam Bridge States General 1596
Christiaan Anthonisz City mason of Delft Furnace States General 1596
Hendrick de Keyser City architect of Amsterdam Bridge States General 1597
Jacob van Aken City carpenter of Kampen Industrial mill States General 1601
Hendrick de Keyser City architect of Amsterdam Artificial marble States General 1612
Hendrik Cornelisz van Bilderbeek,
Jan Egbertsz
City mason of Leiden, master
carpenter Mill States General 1623
Hendrick Struys City mason of Utrecht Mill States General 1639
Arent van s-’Gravesande City architect of Leiden Waterwheel States of Holland 1643
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 9 of 15
expertise. Muys patented two types of mills (Figure 3), a
drainage device (Figure 7), and the so-called Amsterdam
mud mill, a dredging vessel that was driven by men
operating a treadmill. Anthonisz’s inventions covered a
slightly wider field, and comprised a brewing furnace, the
production of artificial stone, and a wind-powered pump
to supply water for fountains. The number of patents
they received was highly unusual; up to the 18th century
only a small percentage of the patentees obtained more
than three patents.18
Several factors may explain the prominent role of city
masters in the patent application process. During this
period the cities of Holland experienced an exponential
growth, and several cities as Amsterdam and Leiden under-
took major urban expansions (Figure 8). In addition, the
Eighty Years’ War (1568−1648) prompted many cities to
develop fortifications. Both the planning of urban expan-
sions and the construction of fortifications required the
knowledge of (military) engineers and master craftsmen.
Practical problems that arose at the building site must
have fuelled the resourcefulness of these men, and sev-
eral inventions were readily adopted for public works. A
fine example is the city architect Arent van s-’Gravesande,
who for the city of Leiden experimented with a new type
of waterwheel to renew the water of the city’s canals.
For his invention, he obtained a patent in 1643, which
was purchased by the city of Leiden, even though the
magistrate had already paid for the development costs
(Steenmeijer 2005: 120).19
In addition to responding to concrete engineering prob-
lems, professional rivalry among colleagues also played a
role in technological innovation. It seems no coincidence
that Staets and de Keyser filed their patents for a bridge
in the same year (Meischke 1994: 102), and also Muys and
Anthonisz may have found encouragement in each other’s
patent applications.20 Patents served as a sign of the inge-
nuity of the inventor, and therefore could be an impor-
tant asset for masters who wanted a career in the service
of the city. For instance, Cornelis Bloemaert’s application
for a dredging device in 1590 at the States General may
somehow have attracted the attention of Amsterdam’s
magistrate, who appointed Bloemaert as city engineer
the following year (Van Essen 2011: 146). However, most
masters sought to patent their inventions when they were
already in office. Patent applications could have been a
strategy to strengthen the reputations of the city masters.
Some masters are known to have actually profited finan-
cially from their inventions. A remarkable success story is
that of Jacob van Aken, who resigned in 1605 from his
position as city carpenter of Kampen, four years after he
had patented a new type of mill to process copper, so he
could concentrate fully on the exploitation of his inven-
tion (Kolman 1993: 247–49).
Patenting may also have been encouraged by the com-
petition among the masters of different cities, as is sug-
gested by a remark on the invention of improved locks
by Simon Stevin. In his Castrametatio, dat is legermeting
en Nieuwe Maniere van Stercktebou door Spilsluysen (‘New
manner of fortification by means of pivoted sluice locks’)
of 1617, Stevin recalls discussions he had with the city car-
penters of Rotterdam and Delft around 1590 on scouring
locks, and the agreement they made to share information:
And because at that time (as also at present), Mas-
ter Carpenters often spoke about scouring locks,
which would allow ships with upright masts to
Figure 8: Joan Blaeu, map of Amsterdam after several
successive urban expansions, 1657–59 (Stadsarchief
Amsterdam).
Figure 7: New type of drainage device by Cornelis Dircksz
Muys. Patent drawing in the resolutions of the States of
Holland, 1589 (NA, The Hague). Photo by Merlijn Hurx.
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 10 of 15
pass through, as I discussed this matter with the
late Adriaen Jansz, Town Carpenter of Rotterdam
and with the late Cornelis Dircxsz Muys, Town
Carpenter of Delft, each of us three said he had
invented something which he thought useful,
and we agreed that each of us should explain his
invention on condition that if profit or loss should
result, we were to share it equally and cooperate
with each other. (Crone et al. 1966, vol. 5: 107)21
Stevin and Muys both designed a different type of swivel-
gate lock (Figure 9), but only Jansz applied for a patent
in 1594 (Davids 2008: 440). The minutes and the drawing
in the resolutions of the States of Holland show that the
patent was for a single swing-gate held in place by a catch
(Crone et al. 1996, vol. 5: 73–74). The three men, although
in competition with one another, also agreed to cooperate
and share profits or financial loss.
Exchange of knowledge
The comments made by Stevin on the sharing of informa-
tion affirm the degree to which craftsmen and scholars
interacted with one another. An important institution
that facilitated the exchange between these groups was
the Duytsche Mathematique, an applied mathematics pro-
gramme at the engineering academy in Leiden, the cur-
riculum of which was largely based on Stevin’s ideas. Soon
after Stadtholder Maurice established the programme in
1600, the academy was attended by numerous carpen-
ters and masons, all of whom sought to learn elementary
mathematics and land surveying (Van den Heuvel 2005:
24). Mathematical ‘science’ was vital to their practice, not
only to measure building plots and to estimate quantities
of building materials, but also to create new designs, such
as oblique, perspectival masonry, and to calculate askew
cuts, for which mastery of stereotomy was indispensable
(De Vries 2009).
While the craftsmen were interested in applied mathe-
matics, ‘scientists’ like Simon Stevin, Constantijn Huygens,
Johannes van Brosterhuyzen, and Isaac Beeckman took
note of the craftsmen’s specialised techniques and
machines. Stevin approached craftsmen with very prac-
tical and detailed questions on building methods. For
instance, in a transcript by Beeckman of Stevin’s unfin-
ished treatise on architecture, Stevin says he should ask
bricklayers if the use of smaller quantities of mortar
would be a good solution to reduce the settlement of a
vault after the centring was removed (Van den Heuvel
2005: 69). In the same empirical spirit, Beeckman, a natu-
ral philosopher, investigated new building techniques
with the help of craftsmen. In 1626, he established the
short-lived ‘Collegium mechanicum’ in Rotterdam, which
was an informal group of like-minded friends who gath-
ered weekly to discuss a wide range of subjects, includ-
ing construction and civil engineering (Van Berkel 2013:
37–41; Van den Heuvel 2005: 25–26). Besides Beeckman,
the group included a land surveyor, Jan Jansz Stampioen
the Elder, as well as merchants and craftsmen. One of the
matters that attracted their attention was a new type of
windmill with horizontal sails, an invention patented in
1622 by a master carpenter of Leiden, Gijsbrecht Pietersz.
To test the invention’s performance, the members of the
Collegium used scale models, which were possibly made
by Pietersz himself (Van Berkel 2013: 38–39). Although
the Collegium was hardly a success, it illustrates the grow-
ing interest among disparate social groups in construction
and civil engineering.
The dialogue between scholars, administrators, artists,
and craftsmen in the 17th-century Dutch Republic likely
had a direct technological impact, but this has yet to
be examined in depth. A concrete example of the these
worlds coming together is Antonisz’s patent for a wind-
powered pump. In 1584 Antonisz, together with Cornelis
Ewoutz Proot, a craftsman from Delft, and Simon Fransz
van Merwen, a land surveyor and cartographer of Leiden,
filed this new invention (Doorman 1940: 274 (H 4);
Pelinck 1967: 60–61). Van Merwen was a versatile figure,
an alderman and a burgomaster of Leiden, and supervisor,
as thesaurier-extraordinaris (treasurer), of the municipal
building company (Pelinck 1967). The practical problems
he encountered while supervisor of the municipal build-
ing company may have encouraged him to invent new
devices. In 1584 van Merwen obtained a patent from the
States General for a watermill, and in 1589 he received a
patent from the States of Holland for a new type of scoop
wheel (Figure 10) (Doorman 1940, 82 (G 2), 276 (H 8);
Davids 2008: 441). He seems to have acquired expert
knowledge of building materials, since he was asked by
the States General to inspect artificial stone from a pro-
ducer in Calais, which was said to be as hard as rock and
therefore suitable for the construction of quays and piers
(Doorman 1940: 109).
Van Merwen also acted as designer. He made plans for
the urban expansion and the new fortifications of Leiden;
one of his designs from 1594 is still in the city’s archives
(Figure 11).22 In 1600, at the end of his career, he became
one of the two first lectors at the Duytsche Mathematique,
at the instigation of Stadtholder Maurice. He was probably
selected for his practical skills as a land surveyor, but he
was also an able mathematician. For the city of Leiden, he
was part of a committee that made a table to facilitate the
Figure 9: A single swing-gate for a sluice patented by
the city master carpenter of Rotterdam, Adriaen Jansz.
Patent drawing in the resolutions of the States of
Holland, 1594 (NA, The Hague). Photo by Merlijn Hurx.
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 11 of 15
calculation of taxes, and his interest in theoretical math-
ematical knowledge appears in his treatise on decimal
fractions called De vijff spetie inde tiende getalen, which
leaned strongly upon Stevin’s work (Krüger 2014: 58–59;
Westra 1992: 87). Van Merwen may have been exceptional
in his versatility, but his case is a good illustration of the
connections that existed between craftsmen and learned
men at the turn of the 17th century.
Conclusion
The difficult ground conditions on which construction was
carried out in the Dutch Republic called for the knowledge
of experts with disparate backgrounds. While the building
site can be considered an important zone where artisans,
professional groups, and scholars traded ideas on the spot,
patenting offered an additional, virtual meeting place.
Learned and artisanal worlds became increasingly con-
nected; a considerable number of masons and carpenters
were eager to obtain elementary theoretical knowledge,
while specialised techniques and machines were care-
fully studied by such ‘scientists’ as Simon Stevin and Isaac
Beeckman. These men were not only interested in machine
design on an abstract level, but they also discussed con-
struction methods and building materials with experi-
enced craftsmen to solve specific topical problems. Such
exchanges were essential to the development of the inno-
vative and interdisciplinary climate of the Dutch Republic.
Patenting had a stimulating effect on this development
because it provided a common incentive to pursue innova-
tion, but it also offered an institutional framework for the
development of new modes of shared knowledge.
Figure 10: Simon Fransz van Merwen’s patent for a new
type of scoop wheel. Patent drawing in the resolutions
of the States of Holland, 1589 (NA, The Hague). Photo
by Merlijn Hurx.
Figure 11: Simon Fransz van Merwen, design for the urban expansion with its new fortifications for the city of Leiden,
1594 (Erfgoed Leiden en Omstreken).
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 12 of 15
The rise of patenting in the Dutch Republic coincided
with a phase of exponential growth of the cities in Holland
and the establishment of municipal building companies.
When constructing the infrastructure, hydraulic systems,
and public buildings of the city, the masters in charge of
these companies were challenged to find new solutions
to the numerous difficulties they encountered. It is there-
fore not surprising that city masters were among the first
to embrace the patent system. In the first two decades of
the Dutch Republic, between 1582 and 1600, they filed
almost one fifth of all patent applications made to the
States General and States of Holland. The enthusiasm of
city masters for new devices and construction methods
reveals their desire to look beyond established craft tra-
ditions. Although many patents obviously did not result
in the significant advances they promised, they clearly
demonstrate a drive for innovation. Few of these master
craftsmen, however, were in the vanguard when it came
to stylistic innovation. This was due not to their conven-
tional guild background, but rather to their interest in
more technical matters. Simply put: not questions of form,
but economy and structural stability were their primary
concern.
The correlation between the building industry and
technological innovation was not unique to the Dutch
case. In Italy and Spain as well, master carpenters, master
masons, and architects also sought patent privileges to
further building efficiency and strength, reduce labour,
and cut costs. In studying the technological creativity of
the patent applicants, we are able to identify the experts
who were essential for the making of the early modern
city. This, in turn, provides a more comprehensive under-
standing of design practices, in which the exchange of
knowledge between master craftsmen and prominent
architects was indispensable.
Notes
1 For the foundations, 13,659 piles with an average
length of 12.5 meters were used (see Bie Leuveling
Tjeenk 1939).
2 On Amsterdam Aglionby wrote, ‘All this great Town
is built upon pilotis, which are great Trees driven by
main force into the ground, which is all moorish, to
be as a foundation to build upon; and ordinarily it
costs as much as laying, as all the rest of the Fabrick
does building up’. And on the town hall he wrote, ‘The
Town-house which is now a building, the foundations
of which have cost many thousands of Pounds, is to be
a Master-piece, and a miracle beyond the seven that
Antiquity bragg’d so much of’. Aglionby based his pub-
lication on Les Délices de la Hollande by Jean-Nicolas
de Parival, who in 1651 similarly considered the pile
foundations of Amsterdam, and admired the great cost
of the town hall’s foundations: ‘L’Hostel de Ville qui
se bastit aujourd’huy, & duquel les fondemens, & les
maisons que l’on a abbattues, ont cousté je ne sçay
combien de tonnes d’or, doit estre un chef d’oeuvre,
& un autre miracle par dessus les sept merveilles du
monde; l’art & l’argent conduisant cette haute entre-
prise, ne, peuvent rien produire que de miraculeux’
(Parival 1655: 79 and 81). My thanks to Sander Karst
for bringing this source to my attention.
3 When Evelyn visited the construction site of the cita-
del in ’s-Hertogenbosch in 1641, he noted in his diary,
‘I went toward Bois-le-Duc where we arrived on the
16th, at the time when the new citadel was advancing,
with innumerable hands, and incomparable inven-
tions for draining off the waters out of the fens and
morasses about it, being by buckets, mills, cochleas,
pumps and the like; in which the Hollanders are the
most expert in Europe’.
4 In 1724, Peter the Great instructed his agent in Hol-
land, Johannes van der Burgh, to make sure that the
Russian architectural students that had been sent to
the Low Countries, learned ‘the Hollandish manner of
construction [manir gollanskoj arhitektury] and espe-
cially how to make foundations, because we have the
same situation because of the water level and reduced
thickness of the walls’ (Van de Vijver 2013: 419).
5 Application procedures were remarkably uniform
throughout Europe (see Popplow 1998: 105–6).
6 ‘nieuwe wercken van dycagien die incoremptible zijn sul-
len ende eeuwelijck dueren van steene ende anders met
sulcken bytume oft cemente an elx anderen gebonden
ende vereenicht, dat zij niet verganckelyck zijn’.
7 Some of these drawings have been published, but they
have never been analysed in any depth (see Pieters
2009).
8 Nationaal Archief Den Haag (NA), Staten van Holland
na 1572, 3.01.04.01, inv.no. 346, 355, 358.
9 In the 17th century the only other patent on cement
was filed in 1688 at the estates of Friesland (Doorman
1940: 326 (F 12)).
10 ‘Ende alsoo dese voorsz. inventie seer profitabel
soude zyn voor het gemeine beste, gemerct dat men
daer door ten deele soude kunnen spaeren de marm-
ersteenen ende andere cieraetsteenen die vuyt Italien
ende andere vremde landen met groot gelt ende
oncosten gehaelt worden’.
11 ‘den Italiaensen Marmorsteenen nyet alleen in
Couleuren gelyck syn, maer oock in verscheydenheyt
der selver, en in eenen aengenaemen luyster overtref-
fen, ende te boven gaen’ (translation by author).
12 Nationaal Archief Den Haag (NA), Staten van Holland
na 1572, 3.01.04.01, inv.no. 353A.
13 ‘werden de voorseyde spreyssels ende veren mette
selve molen oogelyck veel netter ende beter gemaeckt
als degeene die mette Hant gewrocht ofte gesaecht
werden’ (translation by author).
14 The actual figures may have been somewhat higher, as
in many cases the occupation of the applicant is not
mentioned. For instance, in a patent granted in 1683
by the States of Holland to Claes Jeremiasz Persoons
of Rotterdam for a sawmill, no mention is made of his
office as city architect of Rotterdam (Doorman 1940:
302 (H 155)). For Persoons, see Bos (1999).
15 For Anthonisz, see Doorman (1940: 94–95 (G 27),
273 (H 1), 274 (H 4), 277–78 (H 11)). For Muys, see
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 13 of 15
Doorman (1940: 86 (G 6), 274 (H 2), 275 (H 5), 275–76
(H 7), 276–77 (H 9)). For Jansz, Pietersz van der Mey,
and Bilderbeek, see Doorman (1940: 278–79 (H 12),
281 (H 18), 160–61 (G 239)). For van ’s-Gravesande, see
Steenmeijer (2005: 120).
16 For Bloemaert, see Doorman (1940: 89, see also
Ottenheym, Rosenberg and Smit (2008: 12–13). For
Struys, see Doorman (1940: 206 (G 391); see also
Meischke 2000: 128–29). For van Aken, see Doorman
(1940: 106 (G 60); see also Kolman 1993: 247–49).
17 This number includes applications for the extension of
the patent term. The total number of patents granted
by the States of Holland and the States General is
based on Davids (2000: 265, Table 1).
18 Other notable examples are Cornelis Dircxz van Sonn-
evelt (carpenter and millwright from Warmont), and
especially the scientist and engineer Simon Stevin,
who obtained eleven patents between 1584 and 1589
(Davids 2000: 272–73).
19 Also, the towns of Delft and Leiden adopted several of
Simon Stevin’s inventions shortly after he received a
patent for them (Van den Heuvel 2005: 73).
20 They must have known each other well, not only
because they supervised the municipal works in Delft,
but they are also recorded to have presented together
a design for a lock to the waterboard (Hoogheemraad-
schap) of Delfland in 1599. (Postma 1989, 264).
21 ‘En wanter tot die tijt (ghelijc ooc noch teghe-
nwoordelic) onder Meester Timmerlieden veel
ghezeyt wiert van schuerende Sluysen, om Schepen
met staende masten deur te varen, zoo ist ghebeurt
dat ic van die stof ter spraec komende met Adriaen
Iansz overleden Stadtmeester van Rotterdam, en
Cornelis Dircxsz Muys overleden Stadtmeester van
Delf, elc van ons drien zeyde wat verdocht te hebben,
dat hy meende goet te weren, en overquamen met
malkander dat eIc zyn vondt verklaren zoude, met
voorwaerde, dat zooder profijt of schade af quaem,
dat wy’t ghelijckelic deelen zouden, en malkander
behulpich zijn’. (translated by Crone et al. 1966, vol.
5: 107).
22 Erfgoed Leiden en Omstreken, PV1001.1. (Published
in: Westra 1992: 86).
Author Note
The author thanks Sander Karst, Libby Merrill, Nele De
Raedt and anonymous referees for their comments and
suggestions.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.
References
Unpublished sources
Archives départementales du Nord in Lille, Cum.
13037/198.
Erfgoed Leiden en Omstreken, PV1001.1.
Nationaal Archief Den Haag (NA), Staten van Holland na
1572, 3.01.04.01, inv.no. 346, 353A, 355, 358.
Published sources
Aglionby, W. 1671. Present State of the United Provinces.
2nd ed. London: Starkey.
Ash, E. 2017. The Draining of the Fens: Projectors, Popular
Politics, and State Building in Early Modern England.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Belfanti, CM. 2006. Between Mercantilism and Mar-
ket: Privileges for Invention in Early Modern Europe.
Journal of Institutional Economics, 2(3): 319–38. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137406000439
Biagioli, M. 2006. From Print to Patents: Living
on Instruments in Early Modern Europe. His-
tory of Science, 44: 139–86. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/007327530604400202
Bos, R. 1999. Claes Jeremiasz. Persoons, stadsarchitect
van Rotterdam van 1660 tot 1690: een onderzoek naar
Persoons’ positie in de Rotterdamse stadsfabriek en zijn
belangrijkste werken. Unpublished thesis (MA), Utrecht
University.
Boyer, M. 1985. Resistance to Technological Innovation:
The History of the Pile Driver through the 18th Century.
Technology and Culture, 26(1): 56–68. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.2307/3104529
Buning, M. 2014a. Inventing Scientific Method: The
Privilege System as a Model for Scientific Knowl-
edge-Production. Intellectual History Review, 24(1):
59–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.20
13.841381
Buning, M. 2014b. Between Imitation and Invention.
Inventor Privileges and Technological Progress in the
Early Dutch Republic (c. 1585–1625). Intellectual His-
tory Review, 24(3): 415–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.10
80/17496977.2014.891175
Cardamone, C and Martens, P. 2018. Introduction to
Dossier: Building Techniques in Architectural Trea-
tises: Construction Practices versus Technical Writings.
Ædicare, Revue internationale d’histoire de la construc-
tion, 2(2): 27–35.
Ciriacono, S. 2006. Building on Water. Venice, Holland
and the Construction of the European Landscape in
Early Modern Times. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.
Crone, E, et al. (eds.) 1966. The Principal Works of Simon
Stevin, vol. 5. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger.
Danner, HS, et al. (eds.) 2005. Polder Pioneers. The Influ-
ence of Dutch Engineers on Water Management in
Europe, 1600–2000. Netherlands Geographical Studies,
338. Utrecht: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig
Genootschap.
Davids, K. 2000. Patents and Patentees in the Dutch
Republic Between c. 1580 and 1720. History and Tech-
nology, an International Journal, 16(3): 263–83. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/07341510008581969
Davids, K. 2008. The Rise and Decline of Dutch Techno-
logical Leadership: Technology, Economy and Culture in
the Netherlands, 1350–1800. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004168657.i-634
De Bie Leuveling Tjeenk, J. 1939. De paalfundeering van
het Koninklijk Paleis te Amsterdam. Bouwkundig Week-
blad Architectura, 60: 108–10.
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 14 of 15
De Parival, J-N. 1655. Les délices de la Hollande. 2nd ed.
Leiden: Parival.
De Vries, D. 2009. Ambachtelijk metselwerk. Bulletin
KNOB, 105(1/2): 2–14.
Doorman, G. 1940. Octrooien voor uitvindingen in de
Nederlanden uit de 16e−18e eeuw. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff.
Epstein, S. 2004. Property Rights to Technical Knowl-
edge in Premodern Europe, 1300–1800. The American
Economic Review, 94(2): 382–87. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1257/0002828041301777
Epstein, S and Prak, M. (eds.) 2008. Guilds, Innovation
and the European Economy, 1400–1800. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9780511496738
Evelyn, J. 1906. The Diary of John Evelyn. Edited by
Austin Dobson. 3 vols. London and New York:
MacMillan and Co.
Flechsig, AJ. 2013. Frühneuzeitlicher Erndungsschutz.
Eine Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
der Reichsstadt Augsburg. Augsburger Schriften zur
Rechtsgeschichte, 23. Berlin: Lit Verlag.
Koldeweij, E and Uyttendaele, K. 2010. Stucmarmer,
scagliola en stucco lustro. In: Koldeweij, E et al.
(eds.), Stuc. Kunst en Techniek. Zwolle: Waanders.
pp. 294–309.
Kolman, C. 1993. Naer de eisch van ’t werck. De organisatie
van het bouwen te Kampen 1450–1650. Utrecht: Matrijs.
Kossmann, EF. 1929. Hendrik de Keyser als uitvinder.
Oud Holland, 46: 284–88. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1163/187501729X00389
Krüger, J. 2014. Actoren en factoren achter het wiskunde-
onderwijs sinds 1600. Unpublished thesis (PhD),
Utrecht University.
Long, PO. 1991. Invention, Authorship, ‘Intellectual Prop-
erty,’ and the Origin of Patents: Notes Toward a Con-
ceptual History. Technology and Culture, 32(4): 846–
84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3106154
Long, PO. 2001. Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical
Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from Antiquity to
the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Long, PO. 2015. Trading Zones in Early Modern Europe. Isis,
106(4): 840–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/684652
Macleod, C. 1988. Inventing the Industrial Revolution:
The English Patent System, 1660–1800. New York:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9780511522673
Macleod, C. 1991. The Paradoxes of Patenting: Inven-
tion and Its Diffusion in 18th- and 19th-Century
Britain, France, and North America. Technology
and Culture 32(4): 885–910. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.2307/3106155
Mahoney, M. 2010. Organizing Expertise: Engineering
and Public Works under Jean-Baptiste Colbert,
1662–83. Osiris, 25(1): 149–70. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1086/657267
Mandich, G. 1960. Venetian Origins of Inventors’ Rights.
Journal of the Patent Ofce Society, 42(6): 378–82.
Martelli, F. (ed.) 2005. Il viaggio in Europa di Pietro Guer-
rini (1682–1686). Edizione della corrispondenza e dei
disegni di un inviato di Cosimo III dei Medici. 2 vols.
Florence: Leo S. Olschki.
Martens, P and Ottenheym, KA. 2013. Fortifications
and Waterworks: Engineers on the Road. In: De
Jonge, K, and Ottenheym, KA (eds.), The Low Coun-
tries at the Crossroads. Netherlandish Architecture as
an Export Product in Early Modern Europe (1480–
1680). Architectura Moderna, 8. Turnhout: Brepols.
pp. 361–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1484/M.
ARCHMOD-EB.4.00154
Meischke, R. 1994. Het Amsterdams fabrieksambt van
1595–1623. Bulletin KNOB, 93(3): 100–22.
Meischke, R. 2000. Opkomst en verbreiding van het Klas-
sicisme (± 1630–1700). In: Meischke, R, Zantkuijl, H,
and Rosenberg, P
(eds.)
, Huizen in Nederland. Utrecht,
Noord-Brabant en de oostelijke provincies. Architectu-
urhistorische verkenningen aan de hand van het bezit
van de Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser. Zwolle and
Amsterdam: Waanders. pp. 126–38.
Mokyr, J. 1990. The Lever of Riches. Technological Crea-
tivity and Economic Progress. New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mokyr, J. 2002. The Gifts of Athena. Historical Origins of
the Knowledge Economy. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Molà, L. 2004. Il mercato delle innovazioni nell’Italia del
Rinascimento. In: Arnoux, M, and Monnet, P (eds.), Le
technicien dans la cité en Europe occidentale 1250–
1650. Rome: École française de Rome. pp. 215–50.
Molà, L. 2014. Inventors, Patents and the Market for Inno-
vations in Renaissance Italy. History of Technology, 32:
7–34.
Ottenheym, KA, Rosenberg, P and Smit, N. 2008.
Hendrick de Keyser, ‘Architectura Moderna
’
. Moderne
bouwkunst in Amsterdam 1600–1625. Amsterdam:
SUN.
Pelinck, E. 1967. De functionarissen belast met de zorg
voor de stadsbouwwerken te Leiden (1575–1818).
Leids Jaarboekje, 59: 59–76.
Pieters, H. 2009. Uitvinders in Nederland. Vier eeuwen
octrooien. Quest historie. Diemen: G+J Uitgevers.
Popplow, M. 1998. Protection and Promotion: Privi-
leges for Inventions and Books of Machines in the
Early Modern Period. History of Technology, 20:
103–24.
Postma, C. 1989. Het hoogheemraadschap van Delf-
land in de middeleeuwen, 1289–1589. Hilversum:
Verloren.
Renn, J, Osthues, EW and Schlimme, H. (eds.) 2014.
Wissensgeschichte der Architektur. Band III: Vom
Mittelater bis zur Frühen Neuzeit. Berlin: Max Planck
Institute for the History of Science.
Schlimme, H. (ed.) 2006. Practice and Science in Early
Modern Italian Building. Towards an Epistemic History
of Architecture. Milan: Electa.
Scholten, F. 1993. De Nederlandse handel in Italiaanse
marmer in de 17de eeuw. In: De Jong, J, et al. (eds.),
Hurx:
The Most Expert in Europe
Art. 14, page 15 of 15
How to cite this article: Hurx, M. 2019.
The Most Expert in Europe
: Patents and Innovation in the Building Trades in the Early
Dutch Republic (1580−1650).
Architectural Histories,
7(1): 14, pp. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ah.337
Published: 28 June 2019
Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
OPEN ACCESS
Architectural Histories
is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press.
Nederland-Italië. Relaties beeldende kunst van de Ned-
erlanden en Italië. Netherlands Yearbook for History of
Art. Zwolle: Waanders. pp. 197–214. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1163/22145966-90000643
Scholten, F. 2003. Sumptuous Memories: Studies in Sev-
enteenth-Century Dutch Tomb Sculpture. Studies in
Netherlandish Art and Cultural History, 5. Zwolle:
Waanders.
Steenmeijer, G. 2005. Tot cieraet ende aensien deser stede:
Arent van ’s-Gravesande (ca. 1610–1662), architect en
ingenieur. Leiden: Primavera Pers.
Unger, R. 2001. A History of Brewing in Holland, 900–
1900. Economy, Technology, and the State. Leiden: Brill.
Van Berkel, K. 2013. Isaac Beeckman on Matter and
Motion: Mechanical Philosophy in the Making.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Van den Heuvel, C. 1994. Stevins ‘Huysbou’ en het onvol-
tooide Nederlandse architectuurtraktaat. De praktijk
van het bouwen als wetenschap, Bulletin KNOB, 93(1):
1–18.
Van den Heuvel, C. 2005. ‘De Huysbou’. A Reconstruc-
tion of an Unnished Treatise on Architecture, Town
Planning and Civil Engineering by Simon Stevin. His-
tory of Science and Scholarship in the Netherlands, 7.
Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschappen.
Van de Vijver, D. 2013. Epilogue. Paradigm Change in
the Early Eighteenth Century. In: De Jonge, K, and
Ottenheym, KA (eds.), The Low Countries at the Cross-
roads. Netherlandish Architecture as an Export Product
in Early Modern Europe (1480–1680). Architectura
Moderna, 8. Turnhout: Brepols. pp. 409–30. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.ARCHMOD-EB.4.00157
Van Essen, G. 2011. Het stadsfabriekambt. De organisatie
van de publieke werken in de Noordelijke Nederlanden
in de zeventiende eeuw. 2 vols. Unpublished thesis
(PhD), Utrecht University.
Van Essen, G and Hurx, M. 2009. Design and Construc-
tion in the Cities of Holland, Part I. Supraregional and
Municipal Systems: the Construction of Large City
Churches and the Earliest Public Works (14th–16th
Centuries). OverHolland, 8: 3–30.
Van Gelder, HE. 1918. Nieuws over Jan van Scorel.
Oud Holland, 36: 177–82. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1163/187501718X00138
Van Leeuwen, W. 1993. Een complexe sector. In: Lintsen,
HW (ed.), Geschiedenis van de techniek in Nederland.
De wording van een moderne samenleving 1800–1890.
Deel III. Textiel. Gas, licht en elektriciteit. Bouw. Zutphen:
Walburg Pers. pp. 191–231.
Van Tussenbroek, G. 2009. Dachwerke des 17. und 18.
Jahrhunderts in Amsterdam. Tradition und Erneu-
erung. In: Zalewski, P (ed.), Dachkonstruktionen der
Barockzeit in Norddeutschland und im benachbarten
Ausland. Petersberg: Imhof. pp. 105–23.
Westra, F. 1992. Nederlandse ingenieurs en de fortica-
tiewerken in het eerste tijdperk van de Tachtigjarige
Oorlog, 1573–1604. Alphen aan den Rijn: Canaletto.
