Renaissance engineers

JUANELO TURRIANO LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF ENGINEERING

Renaissance Engineers Alicia Cámara Muñoz and Bernardo Revuelta Pol (eds.)

JUANELO TURRIANO LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF ENGINEERING

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

Lectures given during the course: «Renaissance Engineers», held in Segovia from 15th to 17th November 2013 and organised jointly by UNED and Fundación Juanelo Turriano.

A course coordinated by Alicia Cámara Muñoz and Bernardo Revuelta Pol

English edition 2016

www.juaneloturriano.com

Original title: Ingenieros del Renacimiento © Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 2014

Translation: Interlinco Servicios Lingüísticos y de Comunicación, S.L.

Design, modelling and production: Ediciones del Umbral

© of the edition, Fundación Juanelo Turriano © of the texts, their authors © of photographs and drawings, their authors

The Fundación Juanelo Turriano has made every effort possible to find out who the owners of the copyrights are for all the images that appear here and to find out what reproduction permits are required.

If there have been any unintentional omissions, the owners of the rights or their representatives may write to Fundación Juanelo Turriano.

FUNDACIÓN JUANELO TURRIANO

TRUSTEES PRESIDENT

Victoriano Muñoz Cava VICE PRESIDENT

Pedro Navascués Palacio SECRETARY

José María Goicolea Ruigómez MEMBERS

José Calavera Ruiz David Fernández-Ordóñez Hernández José Antonio González Carrión Fernando Sáenz Ridruejo José Manuel Sánchez Ron HONORARY PRESIDENT

Francisco Vigueras González

FOREWORD

A Trust that bears the name Juanelo Turriano, one of the almost mythical engineers of the Renaissance, could not miss the opportunity of publishing among its first Juanelo Turriano Lectures on the History of Engineering, a book devoted to the engineers of that period.

The Renaissance engineers erected fortresses, designed channelling systems for the rivers, invented devices and machines, and travelled describing territories and cities by using images and words. Controlling and defending frontiers was their responsibility, so they were professionals who were absolutely essential not only for exerting power, but also for communication or public architecture: a bridge, a road, the planning of a town, a customs house, a harbour … and of course, fortresses were all works of such engineers.

Different individual characteristics are studied here. Many are not included, but the ones that have been selected are a sufficient cross section to show the complexity of the profession. In the 16th Century, it was still only a few who managed to reach a military rank, which did not become widespread until the 17th Century. However, the fact that engineers with the title of «King’s Engineer» in the Spanish Monarchy were paid by the Army means that it is possible to talk of Military Engineers, as long as it is understood that this did not mean their activities were limited to the Science of War, because they were also Engineers for Peace.

While the course was taking place at Centro Asociado de la UNED in Segovia, there was an opportunity to supplement the lectures, for which well-known specialists were responsible, including visits to the El Parral Monastery and the Segovia Mint, one of those «devices» that was the pride of an era in which modern science was born and in whose restoration Fundación Juanelo Turriano has participated, invariably committed to the enhancement and dissemination of the extensive legacy of the history of technology and engineering.

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1 Juanelo Turriano: genius and fame ..................................... 9 DANIEL CRESPO DELGADO

2 Pedro Luis Escrivá and the First Treatise on Modern Fortification. Naples, 1538 ............................................... 25 FERNANDO COBOS-GUERRA

3 From Tartaglia to Lechuga. The Artillery Engineer ........... 53 JUAN LUIS GARCÍA HOURCADE

4 Jerónimo de Ayanz on his Fourth Centenary ..................... 75 NICOLÁS GARCÍA TAPIA and PEDRO CÁRDABA OLMOS

5 The Royal Segovia Mint. Hydraulics and Devices ............. 99 JOSÉ MARÍA IZAGA REINER and JORGE MIGUEL SOLER VALENCIA

6 Juan Bautista Antonelli: Military Engineer and Army Accommodator ...................................................... 117 JOSÉ IGNACIO DE LA TORRE ECHÁVARRI

7 Cristóbal de Rojas. From Masonry to Engineering .......... 139 ALICIA CÁMARA MUÑOZ

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY FUNDACIÓN JUANELO TURRIANO

................... 168

1 Juanelo Turriano: genius and fame DANIEL CRESPO DELGADO Fundación Juanelo Turriano

What fate awaits an engineer none of whose works are conserved? Or a technician whose inventions have not been preserved, and have been devoured by time and malpractice?

That was the case with Juanelo Turriano, who was born in Cremona around 1500 and died in Toledo in 1585. His main works, which amazed his contemporaries, have not been handed down to us. In spite of his considerable production1, virtually all that remains from the wreckage of his production is an armillary sphere kept in Milan – with a revealing inscription: IANELLUS 1549 MEDIOLANI – and his report on the reform of the Gregorian calendar. Words, and not always accurate words, are all that remains of his great works.

Contemporary descriptions of his extremely famous planetary clocks made for Charles V – the great clock and the crystal clock – and of the Toledo device are vague and too general for the most part, sometimes they do not coincide and some descriptions are clearly incorrect. Neither have any sketches, drawing or plans survived to give insight into how these inventions worked, except for a sketchy outline from the early 17th Century on the towers of swinging scoops that enabled the mechanism to raise the water from the River Tagus to the Toledo Alcazar, covering a distance in elevation of 90 m, which was amazing for that time2. The archaeological excavations along the first stretch of the device’s run – promoted between 2010 and 2011 by Fundación Juanelo Turriano – have yielded interesting data about the zone and the reuse of earlier structures carried out by Juanelo. However, it has been established that the complex history of the spot, where until recent times many hydraulic developments were successively installed, destroyed all material traces of the mechanism3. In fact, enshrined between the Alcántara Bridge and the remains of the Roman aqueduct-siphon, this space is one of the magnificent scenarios of the relationship between Toledo and the Tagus, of the city with the water, an inevitable encounter steeped in history that is reflected in the superimposed, intricate

9

FIG. 1

ABIGAIL AGUIRRE ARAÚJO,

Cristalino, 2013. Crystalline gypsum.

and fragmentary nature of the remains that – including those from the device – lie in a today-forgotten place.

From the perspective of an old-fashioned approach to the history of techniques, engineering or science, based upon the description, generally triumphant, of the way the devices operated and upon a list of the supposed breakthroughs made in disciplines, the legacy of Juanelo Turriano would be somewhat uncertain because it is a legacy that has disappeared. Furthermore, his planetary clocks are of a kind inherent to the 16th Century, in decline during the following century and based upon a Ptolemaic system in the process of dying out. Nor did the mechanics of these fascinating and complex machines have much of a future from the standpoint of the engineering involved; rather, they had essentially run their course. At the beginning of the 17th Century, there was a clear awareness, especially among certain sectors of technicians and officials, that there were more efficient devices for raising water, and they even went as far as to test these on the device

10

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

itself after Turriano’s death. In his book Libro de instrumentos nuevos de Geometría (1606), Andrés García de Céspedes said of Juanelo’s device that «the machine is ingenious, but it is very violent and not very useful, so it is necessary to adjust it all the time»4.

Nevertheless, if we study the works and career of Juanelo –sticking strictly to what we actually know about him – this will fill the pages of a chapter that could well shed light upon the contributions, processes and debates around which techniques and science revolved in the 16th Century. Furthermore, in certain aspects our protagonist is one of the key figures of his era and one of the most important examples when it comes to understanding the period. Juanelo’s legacy is thus still alive and suggestive going far beyond mere losses and uncertainties.

LIFE AND WORKS OF ONE WHO, ABOVE ALL, WAS A CLOCKMAKER

We talked about the life and works of Juanelo at the conference. Summarising them here would be rather pointless and all the more so taking into account that others have already done so, and much better than I could, in works that can be accessed on the Internet5.

As if this were not enough, we hope that studies of substance will soon be available on Juanelo from a modern perspective by researchers of the stature of Jesús Sáenz de Miera and Cristiano Zanetti6. Then it will be understood why I am only providing a few notes from the lecture I gave on Juanelo’s career.

Juanelo was born about the year 1500 in Cremona, a city only about 75 km from Milan, therefore at the heart of an Italy that was outstanding, and not just in the world of literature and the arts. In the 15th Century and the first few decades of the 16th Century, Italy was the most highly developed region in Europe where technology was concerned7.In fact, it would be well worth studying in greater depth the relations between its high technological level and the new artistic tendencies that led to what came to be known as the Renaissance. Be that as it may, our lesson commences at the hand of three very well-known figures, namely Brunelleschi (born 1377), Leonardo da Vinci (1452) and Galileo (1564), who despite the differences between their birth dates, embody Italy’s extraordinary technical and scientific culture in which Juanelo grew up. Juanelo drank from that fountain in order to undertake his complex tasks, revealing a complete education (mathematics, astronomy, and mechanics) that his home city and region could provide, and that his family, who owned smallholdings, was able to pay. However, those three great names also enabled us to gain insight into the decisive phenomena redefining technology and science that were inherent to the Renaissance culture. It was possible to do in Italy what was unattainable in other places, yet certain disciplines and their actors were likewise starting to be considered in a different mode.

Another question that was just as important in those days was the fact that Italy was also the chessboard of the major European powers in a changing world. The establishment of absolute monarchies, the most decisive political phenomenon of the Modern Age, lay behind Juanelo’s career move, when he stopped working as a clockmaker in Cremona – where he was trained, records exist of his earliest works and he is referred to by the 30s as magister horologiarius8 – to courtier, in the Court of the monarch who ever since the Battle of Pavia (1525) had become master of the zone, Charles V.

JUANELO TURRIANO: GENIUS AND FAME

11

Although the documentation about Turriano from the 40s also refers to his activity in the engineering field, it was clocks that paved his way into the Court. Midway through the century, Charles V commissioned Juanelo to create two planetary clocks – the one named great clock and later the crystal clock – which placed him in the Emperor’s circle9.

He was in such favour that when the Emperor decided to abdicate in favour of his son Philip II and retire to the Hieronymus Monastery in Yuste in 1556, Juanelo formed part of a Court of about 30 servants who accompanied him [FIG. 2]. As Vicente Cárdenas pointed out in his day, Charles V «did not deprive himself of anything» in Yuste: he did not retire to the monastery in Extremadura as a hermit; in fact he took goods and possessions of all kinds (furniture, jewels, tapestry, paintings, books, clothes, etc.) together with well-chosen and select staff10. Juanelo formed part of this entourage as the clockmaker, the profession that had given him his place in the Imperial Court years before.

By 1552, Charles V had agreed to pay him a salary of 100 ducats per year for having made the great clock, which meant that Juanelo was now on the Court’s regular payroll, his post being defined as matematicus et inter horologiorum architector. It was in fact this last title, maker or constructor of clocks, which appears on his medal and on his bust conserved in the Museo de Santa Cruz in Toledo [FIGS. 7 and 8].

Juanelo’s career over these years preferably revolved around clocks, but these were very special clocks. The first mechanical clocks appeared in Europe shortly before 1300 and were put mainly in public spaces such as churches, council buildings or the gates to the cities11. Certain technical innovations, in which Italy played a crucial role, enabled by 1500 their size to be reduced, so they became more compacts and mobile, after which the hitherto relatively rare domestic clocks abounded. At the Conference we showed examples of clocks that had become court objects, of small size but technological wonders, with finishes that were more typical of sumptuous reliquaries, and were to be found in palaces in many parts of the continent12. In fact, the courtly nature of the most refined mechanisms and devices went back a long way, the Court of Burgundy being a notable example13. Charles V could have had a soft spot for clocks – and that is confirmed by the sources – but it must be remembered that it was a courtly fashion in Europe at that time. The great clock, which in spite of its name was no more than 60 cm high, was one of the palace type clocks that appeared in the first decades of the 16th century, as was the crystal clock, somewhat smaller but rich in materials, part of it being made with rock crystal – hence the name –, which in an expression of mannerist exhibitionism, enabled one to see its internal mechanisms.

Apart from their role as courtly devices, these artefacts had other uses not strictly limited to telling the time. They were planetary clocks, i.e., they showed the movements of the known celestial bodies. In spite of being small, they could tell – as did the great clock – the hours and indicate the days of the month, the solstices, religious festivities, signs of the zodiac and the movements of the planets, the sun and the moon around the Earth. Marco Girolamo Vida referred to the great clock as a second universe, a microcosm that was only lacking in the ability to make thunder, condense clouds, cause rainfall, earthquakes or wind14. Planetary clocks were a marvel of technology, but they also provided their exclusive owners with information of interest. However, it must not be forgotten that the astronomical-astrological data given by these pieces of equipment were usually considered more important than the information about the time. During the talk

12

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 2

MIGUEL JADRAQUE,

Carlos V en Yuste, 1877 (Close-up). Oil on canvas. Museo Nacional del Prado, inventory no.

P4826.

we analysed the widespread belief in astrology at all social and cultural levels during that period; we saw how Cardano or Kepler conducted horoscopes, and we also took a good look at the extraordinary chapter on astrological paintings to show how deep-rooted the belief was that the celestial bodies affected people’s lives. Savonarola was far from being wrong when he claimed that his contemporaries believed more in stars than in God15.

The celestial spheres were consulted before undertaking a great variety of ventures – a horoscope was even devised to establish the best time to lay the first stone for the refurbishment of the San Pedro Basilica in Rome – and this was also common practice when starting or undergoing treatment, medical astrology enjoying great prestige all over Europe.

Juanelo busied himself not only with precious objects that were materially and technically valuable and thus representative, or even with machines that fascinated or entertained Charles V, but with devices associated with his physical and spiritual wellbeing. There was nothing trivial about this, especially in the last few years of the Emperor’s life or when he retired to Yuste. In fact, the documentation reveals that he made astrological enquiries before choosing and moving to the Hieronymus Monastery. What is more, some sources state that as Juanelo was a qualified astronomer, he played a part in the Emperor’s decision.

When Charles V died in Yuste in 1558, Juanelo did not return to Italy, he remained in Spain to serve Philip II. Although much has been said about Turriano not enjoying with Philip II the closeness that he experienced with the latter’s father, the work that he did in this period revealed that he was highly regarded in Philip II’s Court in technical and scientific matters. The topos [cliché] about the misunderstood or isolated genius has its appeal, but it was not true in the case of Juanelo. We dwelt on a fact that clearly showed this to be the case: his participation in a top-priority scientific matter, which revolved around the reform promoted by Pope Gregory XIII to adapt the astronomical time and the calendar date.

In those years, while indulging in clock-making, Juanelo was involved in other tasks, thus revealing his growing interest in a technique that, still subject to the dictates of the Court, was more closely linked to transforming and adapting nature. He was consulted on civil engineering questions, especially hydraulic matters, involving major projects that were fruit of the high level that Spain had reached in this area16. However, his involvement in the construction of the artefact known as the Toledo device is the activity for which he is best known. The first device got under way with the signing of the contract

JUANELO TURRIANO: GENIUS AND FAME

13

FIG. 3

CECILIO PIZARRO,

Artificio de Juanelo Turriano, 1840-1857. Drawing. Museo Nacional del Prado, inventory no.

D6404/103-02.

between the king and the city in 1565, but its complex construction history did not come to an end until 1581, the date on which a second device was completed next to the first one [FIGS. 3 and 4]. Four years later, in June 1585, Turriano died in Toledo17.

Therefore, the device was not only his last major work, but also the one that gave him the greatest fame in his career. Creating a device for raising water from the river to the city, with an elevation difference of 90 m over a distance of approximately 300 m could appear to have little to do with his actual profession, given that he was a clockmaker, but that is not the case. It was Juanelo who defined himself as being first and foremost a clockmaker. Although at the present time it could seem to be insufficient and we might prefer a definition with greater distinction, it must not be forgotten that clock-making was a very demanding profession that enjoyed great prestige in the 16th Century, and it could be regarded as one of the most intricate and complicated technical activities of the period. As his own contemporaries accepted, planetary clocks like the ones made by Juanelo were among the ultimate expressions of technological advancement during that period. What is more, at a time before the different scientific and technological subjects had been segmented and separated into specialities and sub-disciplines in the way they are today, the clock-making tasks performed by Juanelo were not alien to his other activities, quite the opposite. It must not be forgotten that during his early years in Cremona,

14

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 4 EUGÈNE SEVAISTRE, Alcázar de Toledo y restos del Artificio de Juanelo, 1857.

Photograph.

he committed himself to training the followers who entered his workshop in the «arte orologij et similum» (the italics are ours)18.

His work as a clockmaker was undoubtedly closely linked to the automatons that certain sources claim he invented, often falling into the trap of believing the myths and legends that were the order of the day in contemporary Europe19, and so were his engineering works. In fact, this was not the only example of close association between engineering and clock-making. We know, for example, that the great clockmaker from Florence from the early Italian Renaissance Lorenzo della Volpaia, took part in building and architectural projects; in the opposite sense, Brunelleschi, who was the author of the first individualised biography devoted to an architect (also to be understood in the broadest sense of the term), occasionally made some clock «and this served as great inspiration in enabling him to imagine a variety of machines for transporting, hoisting or dragging», in the words of the humanist Antonio Manetti20. In fact, clock-making involved working with a series of gears and mechanisms for transmitting forces based upon pulleys and wheels, the basic principle of Renaissance machinery. From a mechanical perspective, and without entering into details about the way it operated, the device looked like a very impressive clock, perhaps the largest one ever built.

It goes without saying that manufacturing planetary clocks required a great knowledge of mathematics and astronomy. Ambrosio de Morales stated that Juanelo told him that throughout his life he had met people who knew more about astronomy and geometry than he did, but had met nobody who was better than him at arithmetic21. Morales himself admitted that such knowledge had been essential when he created his great clock. It should be added that such skills were also necessary for making the armillary spheres and astrolabes that are also recorded as having been created by him. Clockwork, mathematics, astronomy, machinery and engineering all came together in Juanelo, a combi-

JUANELO TURRIANO: GENIUS AND FAME

15

nation that was far from being unusual at a time when certain disciplines were constantly interfering among each other, that had not yet been separated, and there was also everincreasing contact between mechanics and science, which is recognised as constituting the basis for the Scientific Revolution soon to burst onto the scene in Europe22.

GENIUS AND FAME

There is one aspect in which Juanelo stands out like a shining star, almost dazzling, and in which he is second to none: his fame. During his professional career, his fame was unequalled in Spain and was almost without parallel in the rest of Europe. Many people talked about him and his works; the device became a monument and Juanelo became a personality and an almost legendary figure. As we pointed out, this should not be regarded as incidental because this tells us a lot about the notion of machines, technology, engineering and about those responsible for them in the Early Modern Age. The number of authors – especially Spanish and Italian –, who at that time or in the decades following his death mentioned Juanelo, his device, clocks and automatons, is quite extraordinary23. The list is indeed extraordinary for the amount, the quality (it includes Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Gracián, Góngora or Quevedo) and the diversity, given that we can refer to many different types of sources like choreographies, travel stories, chronicles, poems, novels, plays, whether erudite or technical. That is to say, Juanelo was not mentioned just in one single genre, he aroused interest in a broad cross section of society. Unfortunately, we still lack an exhaustive study of the texts that analyses his not always coincidental motivations – in this sense it is essential to know where Juanelo was working and for whom – the nature of each one of the sources, as well as the differences between them, because discrepancies did exist – and how they borrowed from each other. Such a work would provide an irreplaceable account of how the fame of a technical genius in the Renaissance developed.

In his Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española (1611) Sebastián de Covarrubias refers to Juanelo’s device24 as the most epitomising example of a device, – that is to say, of «ma-

16

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

chines invented out of skill and excellence» –.There was no machine in the Spain of the period that caused more surprise and aroused greater interest, and it soon became yet another attraction in a city that already had its fair share. Whoever happened to be passing through Toledo while the device was standing, either visited it or express a wish to do so.

Morales was explicit in describing it as «one of the most famous things in the world»25.

Chroniclers writing for the city and the kingdom did not think twice about mentioning it, using their prestige to make the person object of their writings grow further in stature.

The importance of the device on the maps of the city of Toledo was also demonstrated in the views performed of the capital of Castile, especially in the engraving by Ambrosio Brambilla dated 1585 and in the panorama that appeared in Volume V of Civitates Orbis Terrarum (1598), which highlights it as a feature of the city’s infrastructure [FIGS. 5 and 6]26.

Above: FIG. 5

Close-up of the view of Toledo, from Vol. V (1598) of the Civitates Orbis Terrarum.

Right: FIG. 6

Close-up of the view of Toledo (1585) by AMBROGIO BRAMBILLA.

JUANELO TURRIANO: GENIUS AND FAME

17

At the beginning of the 17th Century, a general consensus was reached among technical experts to the effect that the device was too complex and costly to maintain, there being more efficient alternatives. In fact, some even cast aspersions upon its usefulness27.

Nevertheless, this did not cause the admiration to wane, even the royal authorities toyed with the idea of keeping it to adorn the city, stating that «it would be a great pity to lose such a great machine and demonstration of genius». Juanelo’s family, who were responsible for conserving the device in the years after his death, even considered the possibility of charging a fee for showing it28.

Juanelo also enjoyed extraordinary fame; he was said to be a second Archimedes, a new Daedalus29. His name, whose echo resounded for some time in the literature, ended up by becoming synonymous with ingenuity and thus the very famous Veinte y un Libros de los Yngenios, y Maquinas de Iuanelo, essential works dealing with Spanish technical and hydraulic texts, were entitled in such a way not because they were invented by Juanelo, but rather to make it clear that they dealt with extremely ingenious machines30.

Turriano finally went down into popular culture and history and became, to use the term aptly coined by Miguel Herrero, a «household name»31. A couple of examples: in Mexico, the Columbus Egg was Juanelo Egg, and in some areas of Spain «Juanelos» is the term used to refer to those who are ingenious, skilful and resolute.

A particularly interesting chapter associated with Juanelo’s fame concerns his representation. Once again we find ourselves faced with an aspect that deserves greater attention32. There are only two portraits that we definitely know to be of Turriano, apart from the many dubious ones that claim to be paintings of Juanelo: one of these, is in the Museo Civico «Ala Ponzone» in Cremona, and was donated to the city in 1587 by one of the city’s national heroes, Senator Danese Filiodoni, which promoted an enthusiastic response from the municipal authorities on its reception because it featured a picture of a «miracolo veramente di questa città et unico honore dell’arte sua». The second portrait was painted in the first third of the 17th Century for a gallery of famous men to be hung in the Monastery of San Lorenzo del Escorial, where it can still be seen. Records exist of other portraits. Professor David García López told us about one, almost certainly painted

by Juan van der Hamen, in another gallery of this kind belonging to the Marques of Leganés33. It would appear to be the case that the Conde de los Arcos, Pedro Laso de la Vega, also owned a portrayal of Juanelo, performed by Felipe de Liaño34. And that’s not all: as a result of the inventory carried out after his death, we know that Juan de Herrera, the most influential architect in Philip II’s Spain, also had one. The sources also mention a portrait of Turriano by the acclaimed painter Bernardino Campi before the former left for Spain. So far, we have not been able to establish the links between these works, but it is enlightening to know that Campi held Juanelo in such esteem that he painted a portrait of him, that the latter is to be found in a variety of inventories of the social, artistic and cultural elite and that, after Turriano died, his portrayal was commissioned both in Cremona and Spain.

A medal of Juanelo minted in his lifetime [FIG. 7] still survives today, with his portrait on the obverse and the fountain of Science on the reverse. After having been linked to the device, it has been suggested not without good reason, that it was probably cast to commemorate the completion of the great clock, almost certainly by his friend and col-

18

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 7 JACOPO DA TREZZO (attrib.), Ianellvs Tvrrian. Cremon. Horolog. Architect. (obverse); Virtus Nvnq: Deficit (reverse). Medal in bronze, c. 1550.

laborator Jacopo da Trezzo, who, incidentally, ended up working in Spain for Philip II35.

This medal would appear to be associated in some way to the portrayal that Morales said he found on the clock bearing the equally eloquent inscription QUI. SIM. SCIES. SI. PAR. OPUS. FACERE. CONABERIS [«You will understand just who I am, should you undertake to create another work like this one»]36. Let’s not forget that these medals had a commemorative and honorific value but no monetary value. This can be seen in a self-portrait by the Italian painter Federico Zuccaro, who is wearing a thick gold chain from which medals are hanging bearing inscriptions citing his main achievements as a sign of recognition. Zuccaro also moved to Spain, was at the orders of Philip II and on a trip he made to Toledo, was surprised by the device, describing it in a letter dated 158637.

As these objects were mainly cast in a courtly environment, it is the monarchs, the royal family and the State’s high dignitaries who were most frequently featured on these medals. However, erudite persons, men of culture and artists who enjoyed fame and the backing of influential individuals gradually began to be depicted on them, it usually being the latter who commissioned these pieces to be cast. For example there are medals bearing the portraits of Cardano, Campi, Trezzo, Zuccaro or Herrera, to just mention a few of the persons referred to in these lines. Medals like Juanelo’s were by no means unique but they were rather unusual, limited to a narrow and privileged circle, which is supported by the fact that only one still exists today – Herrera’s – of a 16th Century Spanish artist or architect. The reason for this one to survive does not appear to be incidental: Herrera, of whom there exists an allegorical illustration designed by Otto Venius and cast by Pedro Perret, left proof of his professional pride that was rather uncommon among Spanish artists, especially before Philip II’s reign38.

However, the truly exceptional portrayal of Juanelo is his freestanding bust in marble, a bit larger than natural size, kept at the Museo de Santa Cruz in Toledo [FIG. 8]. It is a unique and fascinating sculpture. It has been suggested that it is the work of Berruguete, Monegro, Trezzo or Pompeyo Leoni amongst others, which is an indication of the quality of the carving. We do not know who it was commissioned by, when or why, yet there is

JUANELO TURRIANO: GENIUS AND FAME

19

Busto de Juanelo.

Photograph by

FIG. 8

JEAN LAURENT,

1860-1886.

evidence to suggest that it might have been ordered by Juanelo himself and that it was placed somewhere on the device. Morales, in his Antigüedades de las ciudades España (1575), observed that Juanelo intended to put a «statue» of himself on the device bearing the inscription VIRTUS NUNQUAM QUIESCIT, which Morales himself translated as «La fuerza de un grande ingenio nunca puede sosegar» [The force of a great genius can never cease to be]39. In our series of conferences we admired the laudatory inscription of Pedro Luis Escrivá at the entrance to his magnum San Telmo’s Castel in Naples. However, the inclusion of a freestanding portrayal of considerable size of the author at the site of a construction with the character and nature of the device could be regarded as an artistic homage to genius which has very few similar examples in Renaissance Europe.

The fact that it was a freestanding bust, which was a type of sculpture born of an imperial inspiration, created in honour of a member of a professional circle like Juanelo’s, was unprecedented. We do have portraits of 16th Century clockmakers-astronomers that are of great interest, such as the painting of Hans Holbein the Younger by Nicolaus Kratzer40, but even if we broaden our scope to include groups whose social consideration was on the rise at this time and who were often painted, such as artists, it is difficult to think of other examples of noteworthy freestanding sculptures. We can mention, although it is not exactly a bust, the tondo of Brunelleschi by Andrea Cavalcanti and, of course,

20

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

the one of an individual of immense prestige who was a symbol for many other artists and who orchestrated well-aimed publicity about his well-deserved glory: we are referring to the bust of Michelangelo sculpted between 1564-1566 by Daniele da Volterra41. The parallels are indicative of the importance of Turriano’s sculpture It is thought-provoking to include Juanelo among the group of artists originally from Italy such as Trezzo, Leoni, Zuccaro, Herrera or even El Greco, who showed self-esteem for their profession and aptitudes hitherto unknown in Spain. The Court, El Escorial, but also Toledo were called to be the magnificent scenarios of the manifestations of these new trends. Juanelo not only made sure that he would have his portrait painted, but sources suggested that he did his utmost to ensure that his genius was recognised. Ambrosio de Morales’ testimony is of great interest not only because of the news it provided – including the revealing inscriptions that we have mentioned – but also owing to the admiration that this erudite man expressed for Juanelo’s ability to create amazing machines. In the lines that he devotes to him in his Antigüedades, he clearly reveals the fascination that he had for Juanelo’s creative genius, and how proud the latter felt for the enthusiasm the well-known chronicler showed for him. Another important figure from the cultural world in Philip II’s Spain, Esteban de Garibay, attended Turriano’s funeral regretting the fact that he did not receive the honours that «such a famous man» and «one of great merits» deserved. The chronicler Garibay knew him personally, stating that he had sent him the story in Latin by Guglielmo Zenocaro, which makes reference to his great clock42. We know that when Juan de Herrera died in 1597, he was in possession of a manuscript full of praise for the planetary clocks created by his friend Juanelo43. This compilation could well have been ordered by Juanelo himself or he might have owned a very similar one, as a reminder of the price of his much sought-after fame.

All the references made so far to the works produced by Juanelo and to the individual himself, bear witness to his fascination for machines and man’s abilities at a moment in time of particular historical importance. Although the Early Modern Age has sometimes been described as paleo-technological or pre-industrial, given that this was prior to the appearance of the steam engine and the electrical dynamo, this does not mean that machines were absent from the landscape; quite the opposite, not only were they becoming increasingly common, – as the documentation, literature or drawings and paintings from the period bear witness – but it was also being accepted with increasing conviction and insistence that machines could potentially transform reality44. The devices and works created by man were becoming increasingly complex and yielding results that never ceased to amaze. During the Renaissance, declarations multiplied praising the new inventions and discoveries that were changing the world, such as the printing press, artillery, the telescope, the compass or clocks, not to mention the recently discovered lands and routes45.

Juanelo and his devices were not the only ones to be admired – it was very enlightening to see in our series of conferences the praises heaped upon Jerónimo de Ayanz by his contemporaries or the poems dedicated to navigation on the Tagus – but his list of references as a whole were totally unprecedented in Renaissance Spain. In spite of censure from certain quarters, Juanelo was compared to the most widely acclaimed inventors of Antiquity, and some even claimed that he had surpassed their achievements; it was said

JUANELO TURRIANO: GENIUS AND FAME

21

that his clocks reproduced the microcosm to such an extent that their author was situated at the closest possible place to the Creator; his automatons managed to move like humans and animals; his machines hoisted water into a magical flight. In fact, these machines, or to put it more accurately, machines like these, helped to pave the way for a model of understanding the universe as a mechanism, which formed the basis of the philosophy that provided cover to Scientific Revolution.

Therefore, the 16th Century, Juanelo’s century, was a time in which crucial ideas were shaped that affected the perception of machines and their authors for modernity. An analysis of the way this discourse developed, examining the common features and differences in the different periods, has not yet been undertaken in Spain, in spite of its importance for a technological society like ours. If it were to be tackled, Juanelo would inevitably be a benchmark from many perspectives. With this idea we reach the end of our sojourn that, as readers will have realised has not intended to summarise the life and works of Juanelo. We stated at the beginning that this has already been done and very correctly indeed. The aim of these lines has been merely to show that although most of his output has been lost, the legacy of Juanelo – without it being necessary to rekindle with rigorous precision the way his machines worked – is not only still alive but also has a secure future, providing arguments that serve as a starting point for reflection and for undertaking tasks that are either unfinished or yet to be embarked upon.

22

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

NOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

J. A. GARCÍA-DIEGO: Los relojes y autómatas de Juanelo Turriano. Madrid-Valencia, Albatros, 1982; J. TURRIANO: Breve discurso a Su Majestad el rey católico en torno a la reducción del año y reforma del calendario. Madrid, Castalia-Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 1990. Introduction by J. A. GARCÍA-DIEGO. Analysis by J. M. GONZÁLEZ ABOIN; M. COMES: Historia de la esfera armilar. Su desarrollo en las diferentes culturas. Madrid-Barcelona, Fundación Juanelo Turriano-Universitat de Barcelona, 2012.

M. SEVERIM DE FARIA: Peregrinação de Balthazar de Faria Seuerim, Chantre de Euora, ao Mosteiro de Guadalupe, no anno de 1604.

Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, Fundo Geral, Cód. 7642, ff. 118r-119v. This interesting travel story was made known, transcribed and translated by: Á. MARCO DE DIOS: «Spanish Itinerary of the Chantre de Évora, Manuel Severim de Faria, in 1604», Revista de Estudios Extremeños, Volume XLII, no. 1, January-April 1986, pages 139-187. Comments appear in: J. PORRES MARTÍN-CLETO: «New data about Juanelo’s device», Anales Toledanos, no. XXXV, 1998, pages 113-126.

J. M. ROJAS RODRÍGUEZ-MALO and A. VICENTE NAVARRO: El Artificio de Juanelo a partir del estudio arqueológico (in press). The complete architectural-archaeological reports on the excavation, directed by Juan Manuel Rojas, can be seen at the Fundación Juanelo Turriano. About the blowing up of the last remnants of the device in the 19th Century: D. CRESPO DELGADO: «An episode in the history of the conservation of Spain’s technological heritage. The destruction of Juanelo’s device in 1868»; at the Fundación Juanelo Turriano 1987-2012. 25 años. Madrid, Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 2012, pages 57-67.

A. GARCÍA DE CÉSPEDES: Libro de instrumentos nuevos de Geometria… demás de esto se ponen otros tratados, como es uno de conducir aguas y otro una question de artilleria. Madrid, J. de la Cuesta, 1606, p. 40.

For example: B. REVUELTA POL and D. ROMERO MUÑOZ: «Juanelo Turriano. Relojero e ingeniero cremonés», in Realismo y espiritualidad. Campi, Anguissola, Caravaggio y otros artistas cremoneses y españoles en los siglos XVI-XVIII. Valencia, Ajuntament d’Alaquàs, 2007, pages 73-83. This article can be examined and downloaded from the Fundación Juanelo Turriano website.

Of course, to follow Juanelo’s career the following is still an essential work: L. CERVERA VERA, Documentos biográficos de Juanelo Turriano. Madrid, Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 1996. However, to focus on his Italian Period, it is also necessary to refer to: M. VIGANÒ: «Parente et alievo del già messer Janello. First notes on Bernardo and Leonardo Turriano», in A. CÁMARA (ed.): Leonardo Turriano, ingeniero del rey. Madrid, Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 2010, pages 203-227.

With a long on research career behind him, Sáenz de Miera is one of the main and eminent experts on Philip II and his Court; in 2012, Zanetti defended his thesis Janello Torriani (Cremona 1500 ca.-Toledo 1585): a Social History of Invention between Renaissance and Scientific Revolution in the prestigious European University of Florence, obtaining the highest grades.

Both of them took part in the recent ICOHTEC Symposium held in 2012 in Barcelona, each with a paper on Juanelo, at a round table organised by the Fundación Juanelo Turriano. We are hopeful that the soon-to-be-published works will lead to a revitalised Juanelo, better understood and contextualised, both in his Italian and Spanish periods.

For example: C. SINGER et al.: A History of Technology. Vol. II y III. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1957. It is an essential work for the Italian engineering culture of the Renaissance: P. GALLUZZI, Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento. Da Brunelleschi a Leonardo da Vinci. Florencia, Giunti, 1996.

R. BARBISOTTI: «Janello Torresani, alcuni documenti cremonesi e il baptismum del battistero», Bolletino Storico Cremonese, no.

VII, 2000, pages 255-268.

S. LEYDI: «A Cremonese of the 5th Century, aspecto informis sed ingenio clarus: qualche precisaziones per Giannello Torriani a Milano (con una nota sui suoi ritratti)», Bollettino Storico Cremonese, no. IV, 1997, pages 127-156.

V. DE CADENAS VICENT: Hacienda de Carlos V al fallecer en Yuste. Madrid, Hidalguía, 1985; J. SÁENZ DE MIERA: «Ecce elongavi fugiens, et mansi in solitudine. The Emperor’s retreat from public life», in Carolus, Madrid, Sociedad Estatal for the Commemoration of the Centenaries of Philip II and Charles V, 2000, pages 157-172.

C. CIPOLLA: Las máquinas del tiempo. Barcelona, Crítica, 2010; O. MAYR: Autoridad, libertad y maquinaria automática en la primera modernidad europea. Barcelona, Acantilado, 2012.

Galileo. Immagini dell ‘universo dall’ antichità al telescopio. Florencia, Giunti, 2009.

D. DAMLER: «The modern wonder and its enemies: courtly innovations in the Spanish Renaissance», in Philiosphies of Tecnology.

Francis Bacon and his contemporaries. Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2008, pages 429-455.

M. G. VIDA: Cremonensivm Orationes III. Adversvs Papienses in Controversia Principatvs. Cremona, G. Muzio and B. Locheta, 1550, ff. 53r-57r.

P. ZAMBELLI: Astrology and magic from the Medieval Latin and Islamic World to Renaissance Europe. Farnham, Ashgate, 2012; M. QUINLAN - MCGRATH: Influences. Art, Optics, and Astrology in the Italian Renaissance. Chicago, Chicago University Press, 2013.

N. GARCÍA TAPIA: Ingeniería y arquitectura en el Renacimiento español. Valladolid, Universidad de Valladolid, 1990.

The history and operation of the device has been explained in: L. RETI: «Juanelo’s device in Toledo: its history and its technique», Provincia, no. 60, 1967, pages 3-46; J. PORRES MARTÍN-CLETO: «Juanelo’s device in 1639», Anales Toledanos, vol. XIV, 1982, pages 175-186; I. GONZÁLEZ TASCÓN: Fábricas hidráulicas españolas. Madrid, MOPU, 1987, pages 469-474; N. GARCÍA TAPIA: «New technical data about Juanelo’s devices», Anales Toledanos, vol. XXIV, 1987, pages 141-159; GARCÍA TAPIA: Ingeniería..., op. cit.; M. G. DEL RÍO CIDONCHA, J. MARTÍNEZ PALACIOS, L. GONZÁLEZ CONDE: «Torriani’s mechanical device for supplying water to Toledo», in Ingeniería hidráulica en México, vol. XXIII, no. 2, 2008, pages 33-44; F. X. JUFRE GARCÍA: El artificio de Juanelo Turriano para elevar agua al Alcázar de Toledo (siglo XVI). Modelo con escaleras de Valturio. Lérida, Milenio-Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 2009; Á. MORENO SANTIAGO: «Juanelo Turriano’s Device in Toledo», in Una mirada a nuestro patrimonio industrial.

Madrid, Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros Industriales de Madrid - Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 2010, pages 83-97. The Fundación Juanelo Turriano, under the attentive and efficient supervision of the engineer Ángel Moreno, has just made a 3D film of the way the device worked that can be seen at the website.

BARBISOTTI, op. cit., pages 262-263.

JUANELO TURRIANO: GENIUS AND FAME

23

19.

20.

A. ARACIL:

Juego y artificio. Autómatas y otras ficciones en la cultura del Renacimiento a la Ilustración. Madrid, Cátedra, 1998.

Vita di Filippo Brunelleschi. Milan, Polifilo, 1976, p. 66. Edition of D. DE ROBERTIS; introduction and notes by G.

A. MANETTI: TANTURLI.

21. A. DE MORALES: Las Antigüedades de las Ciudades de España. Alcalá de Henares, Juan Íñiguez de Lequerica, 1575, ff. 90v-94r.

22. P. ROSSI: Los filósofos y las máquinas, 1400-1700. Barcelona, Labor, 1970.

23. The most extensive compilation ever published, albeit focused on the device, is still the work by J. C. SÁNCHEZ MAYENDÍA:

«Juanelo’s Device in Spanish Literature», Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, no. 103, 1958, pages 73-93.

24. S. DE COVARRUBIAS OROZCO: Tesoro de la Lengua Castellana, o Española. Madrid, Luis Sánchez, 1611, p. 504v.

25. MORALES, op. cit., f. 90v.

26. L. MORENO NIETO and Á. MORENO NIETO: Juanelo y su Artificio. Antología. Toledo, db ediciones, 2006.

27. DAMLER, op. cit.

28. GARCÍA TAPIA, Ingeniería..., op. cit., pages 278 and 280.

29. These comparisons were commonplace in Renaissance literature: A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «Ingenious comparisons: the Renaissance

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

outlook», in A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ and B. REVUELTA POL (coord.): Ingeniería Romana. Madrid, Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 2013, pages 117-139.

N. GARCÍA TAPIA and J. CARRILLO CASTILLO: Turriano, Lastanosa, Herrera, Ayanz. Tecnología e Imperio. Ingenios y leyendas del Siglo de Oro. Valencia, Nivola, 2002.

M. HERRERO GARCÍA: Ideas de los españoles del siglo XVII. Madrid, Editorial Voluntad S.A., 1928. Á. DEL CAMPO FRANCÉS: Semblanza iconográfica de Juanelo Turriano. Madrid, Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 1997; LEYDI, op. cit.; Realismo..., op. cit.

W. B. JORDAN: Juan van der Hamen y León y la corte de Madrid. Madrid, Patrimonio Nacional, 2006; J. J. PÉREZ PRECIADO: El marqués de Leganés y las artes. Madrid, dissertation submitted at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2008.

R. L. KAGAN: «The Count of Los Arcos as Collector and Patron of El Greco», in El Greco of Crete. Proceedings of the International Symposium: Iraklion, Crete, 1990, pages 325-39.

J. BABELON: Jacopo da Trezzo et la construction de L’Escurial. Essai sur les arts a la cour de Philipe II, 1519-1589. Burdeos-París, École des Hautes Études Hispaniques, 1922.

The translation is also by Morales: MORALES, op. cit., f. 93v.

He considered the device to be one of the «three outstanding attractions» in Toledo, together with its Cathedral and the Alcazar. J. DOMÍNGUEZ BORDONA: «Federico Zúccaro in Spain», Archivo Español de Arte y Arqueología, no.7, 1927, pages 77-89.

A. RODRÍGUEZ DE CEBALLOS: «Le medaglie spagnole di Leone Leoni e della sua cerchia: forma, clientela e iconografia», in Leone Leoni tra Lombardia e Spagna. Milán, 1995, pages 87-95; F. CHECA CREMADES: Felipe II, mecenas de las artes. Madrid, Nerea, 1993; J. PORTÚS PÉREZ: «Allegory of Juan de Herrera», in Felipe II. Un monarca y su época. Las tierras y los hombres del rey.

Madrid, Sociedad para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Carlos V y Felipe II, 1998, p. 320.

MORALES, op. cit., f. 92r. Therefore this inscription would be very similar to the one on the reverse of his medal, VIRTUS NUNQ. DEFICIT. J. D. NORTH: «Nicolaus Kratzer: the king’s astronomer», in Science and history: studies in honor of Edward Rosen. Warsaw, Polish Academy of Science Press, 1978, pages 205-234.

Two portraits of Michelangelo were also painted by Giuliano Bugiardini and Jacopino del Conte and a medal (1561) was commissioned to Leone Leoni. For these portraits and the complex history of the bust (or busts) by Volterra, see P. RAGIONERI: Michelangelo tra Firenze e Roma. Rome, Mandragora, 2003. For how Michelangelo’s fame was constructed, see D. GARCÍA LÓPEZ: «Michelangelo, between myth and biography», in A. CONDIVI: Vida de Miguel Ángel Buonarroti. Madrid, Akal, 2007, pages 5-32.

E. DE GARIBAY Y ZAMALLOA: «Garibay’s memoirs», in Memorial histórico español: coleccion de documentos, opúsculos y antigüedades, que publica la Real Academia de la Historia. Tomo VII. Madrid, Printed by José Rodríguez, 1854, pages 420-421. Garibay was referring to: W. SNOUCKAERT VAN SCHAUWENBURG: De Repvblica, Vita, Moribvs, gestis, fama, religione, sactitate: Imperatoris, Cæsaris, Augusti, Quinti, Caroli, Maximi, Monarchæ. Gante, Gislenus Manilius, 1559. The reference to Juanelo in the work

by Zenocaro appears on p. 203.

To be specific, a «quaderno de dibersos epigramas en alabanza del relox de Juanelo». L. CERVERA VERA: Inventario de los bienes de Juan de Herrera. Valencia, Albatros Ediciones, 1977. Juanelo’s friendship with Herrera has been demonstrated by the architect’s stay in Toledo in 1575: L. CERVERA VERA: Años del primer matrimonio de Juan de Herrera. Valencia, Albatros Ediciones, 1985.

J. SAWDAY: Engines of the Imagination. Renaissance culture and the rise of the machine. London-New York, Routledge, 2007.

ROSSI, op. cit.

Back to Contents

24

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

2 Pedro Luis Escrivá and the First Treatise on Modern Fortification Naples, 1538 FERNANDO COBOS-GUERRA Architect, ICOMOS/ICOFORT

When we think about the Renaissance engineers of the Spanish monarchy, we automatically tend to assume that the Renaissance engineers were essentially Italian, whether they lived in Italy or Spain. We are almost invariably unaware of the fact that there were important engineers of Spanish origin, not only in Spain but also in the Spanish dominions in Italy. The explanation for this has to be sought in an extremely unbalanced historiography that has its origins in the studies conducted by Carlo Promis1 and other Italian researchers pursuant to Renaissance engineers, which systematically focused on the Italian engineers ignoring the Spanish engineers who worked in Italy, and also on the essays written by Andrea Maggiorotti2 concerning Italian engineers abroad that, for many years, was the main source of information about the activities of engineers in Spain. These Italian researchers’ work was heavily influenced by the strong nationalist feelings of the period in which they were written, and their claim that «genius» and Italian were synonymous led them to ignore the fact that most of the Italian engineers who served the Spanish Crown were Spanish subjects (they gave precedence to the engineers from the north of Italy3) and when they found Spanish engineers working in Italy, they either Italianised them (the «commendatore San Martino» who designed the Pope Borgia Fortifications) or they turned them into disciples of the Italian School. The fact is that neither the Spanish historians nor the foreign historians had concerned themselves with Spanish engineers abroad to the same extent as they had in their studies involving Italian engineers, with the exception of some works by military historians during the 19th Century and early 20th Century XX4, practically discontinued after that period, partly owning to the fact that this discipline was rather undeveloped and thus there was a certain degree of gullibility at most of the Spanish universities5.

We now know that the Spanish monarchy really sent its best engineers wherever they

25

FIG. 1 Left: DIDIER BARRA, View of Naples, 1647. Right from top to bottom, 18th Century’s layout plan of San Telmo Castle (Naples) and diagrams of the star-shaped and quadrangular layout in Apología by PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ.

were most needed (Italy and Flanders, normally) regardless of their place of origin, which explains why the best Spanish engineers were almost invariably abroad6. We are now also aware of the fact that most of the Spaniards who worked as engineers were military professionals, assigned to a permanent army, normally deployed in Italy or Flanders, and that the Crown paid them first and foremost as military men not as engineers (because the military salary was higher), which means that they are often not appearing on the engineers’ payrolls7.

Pedro Luis Escrivá fulfilled all these requirements and if it were not for the fact that there are records of his responsibility on the stone plaques of the castles that he built and if he had not written his treatise in 1538, today we could well be discussing whether or not he was an engineer, given that he was never paid a salary as such.

The Apology justifying the constructions and provisions made on instructions from Commander Escrivá in the Kingdom of Naples, mainly with regard to San Thelmo’s Castle, presented in the form of a dialogue between the masses who criticise it and the Commander who defends it, that Luis Escrivá wrote in 15388 is, together with the one drawn up by Durero, perhaps the most important technical treatise from the first period of modern fortification that we have. Escrivá was also the mastermind behind two of the most remarkable fortresses of the period; L’Aquila Fort and San Telmo Fort in Naples. The importance of these fortresses in their period and the influence that their author had were huge, so much so that even Francisco de Holanda in his dialogues with Michelangelo

26

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

included him together with Sangallo as one of his Renaissance Eagles, albeit mistakenly calling him «Don Antonio»9.

Not only the works but also the Treatise are fruit of military experience going back more than thirty years (PRO SVO BELLICIS IN REBUVS EXPERIMENTO) fighting against the French and the Turks, in the Franco-Spanish Wars and in the confrontations between Venetians and the Order of St. John against the Turks, are the two sceneries in which fortifications were tested during this period. Furthermore, Escrivá was personally familiar, or at least acquainted with the technical details of the fortifications in Lombardy, Cremona, Brescia, Florence, Piacenza, Pesaro and Tunis (he mentions them and even analyses them in some sections of his Treatise), which means that his works and his Treatise are essential documents for understanding the way the principles of bastion fortresses were drawn up10.

Nevertheless, although his ideas were widely known by the best military men of the th 16 Century and G. Busca11, for example, mentions his Treatise together with the one

by Durero as being among the first ones to be published, we do not actually known if it really was published over that period, because until the noted and commented edition that we issued in 200012, for modern researchers there has only been one rare edition in 187813 or the always complicated possibility of accessing the manuscript kept in the Biblioteca Nacional de España.

The second problem involved in approaching the work of Escrivá is that his Treatise does not postulate fortification models that can be used, but rather makes a highly critical approach to the advantages and drawbacks of every solution in each particular place. It is not therefore the typical manual of resources that was used so often in the 16th century, neither does it put forward ideal or invulnerable designs to be used. That is why it is difficult to understand and why at no time did it constitute a work on which one could base a proper «school of fortification», all it does is to present «in a simple way» a set of principles in order to «invent» what was most advisable in each particular place.

Perhaps, for all the above, two incorrect ideas about Escrivá’s works have become firmly established in Italian historiography: that Escrivá belongs to the Italian school owing to his relationship with the Duke of Urbino, to whom he dedicated his Veneris Tribunal14, and that his Treatise defends that the tenail fortress is better than the bastion fortress.

We will deal with the true aim of his Treatise later on. As far as his belonging to the Italian school is concerned, it is true to say that Escrivá was perfectly familiar with all that the Italian school – whether Venetian or not – was developing in that period, and in his work on L’Aquila there are many aspects that would associate him even with Tandino or Sangallo without losing any element of Spanish influence or others much more personal.

However, the Escrivá responsible for the Treatise of 1538 is by no means a follower of the Venetian / Italian school and, on this subject, he wrote about the Pesaro fortification: «Ignorants who do not understand this, think that just because the Duke of Urbino made it and because it is alright there (in Pesaro), it would be equally alright on all headlands [places], and that is what annoys me and I do say: however it being alright on that particular place, on another headland with different qualities it would be out of place»15

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

27

FIG. 2 GONZALO DE AYORA, Plan of the French siege of Salsas, 1503.

HOLANDA, drawing of Salsas fortress, 1538, Biblioteca de El Escorial.

Real Academia de la Historia; and FRANCISCO DE

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ IN THE CONTEXT OF SPANISH ENGINEERS

The studies that we have been publishing over the last few years concerning fortifications developed on the Iberian Peninsula during the reign of Ferdinand the Catholic16 have woven a technical context that cast aspersions on the supposed precedence taken by the ideas of the Treatises of Francesco di Giorgio Martini or the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci17 pursuant to the fortification works actually carried out in Spain and Italy while that sovereign was in power. The fortifications at La Mota, Coca or Niebla, or the works

by Ramiro López in Granada and in Salsas, Colliure and Perpignan, the works of Commander Antonio de San Martín in Rome (Sant’Angelo) or in Rhodes, or the designs of Balduino Matell18 in Sicily, bear witness to technological development in such an early times as to accredit Spanish influence on the engineering of northern Italy rather than the opposite influence19.

The presence and influence of this first group of Spanish engineers, not only in Italy but also in Rhodes, served to help to comprehend the continuity of this influence, all the more so in southern Italy, thanks to the work done by the next generation of engineers of the Crown, such as Pedro Navarro from Navarre, the Castilians Diego de Vera, Pedro Malpaso and Fernando de Alarcón, or the Neapolitan Antonio de Trani20. It is also significant that the main engineers who served the Crown were Knights of the Order of St. John and that they offered their experience and learnt at the same time as severe clashes were taking place against the Turks in the Mediterranean. Ramiro López was a Commander in the Order of St. John, just like Antonio San Martín, who eventually became Prior of Tortosa and the person ultimately responsible for the fortification of Rhodes in the early 16th Century. Tadino di Martinengo and Benedeto de Ravenna, who were both engineers of the Spanish Crown since the beginning of Carlos V’s reign, went to Rhodes and learnt from Rhodes. Pedro Luis Escrivá was also a Commander in the Order of St. John.

28

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

L’Aquila Castle, 2013, Italy.

Photograph by FER-

FIG. 3

NANDO COBOS ESTUDIO ARQUITECTURA.

BASIC BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES

We really know very little about Pedro Luis Escrivá, and the lack of historiographic material that we mentioned at the start is beginning to show. We have a large amount of information between 1534, when the L’Aquila works got under way, and 1538, the year in which he completed the San Telmo works in Naples and wrote his Treatise21. All we know about the earlier years is that, in his own words in the Apology, he had spent over thirty years (since 1508) serving in the Crown’s armies, that he was a Commander in the Order of St, John and that in 1528 he had participated in the defence of Naples against the French. He was there at the same time as Tadino di Martinengo, with Alarcón and, possibly with Pedro Navarro, taken prisoner by the Spanish in that battle22. He has a firsthand knowledge on the fortifications constructed in Italy as from the 1530s, but we do not really know where he was in the previous decades, although we can assume that in view of his acquaintance with the Turks’ offensive power and owing to the fact that he was a Commander in the Order of St, John, he might well have been involved in the Mediterranean wars and even in Rhodes before it was lost in 1522.

The Italian historiography quoted suggests that he did his apprenticeship with the Venetians, yet we have already seen that he was not merely a follower of the Duke of Urbino, and the publication in Venice of his courtly love novel Veneris Tribunal was done very late (on 1537) and the book was published in Spanish. Between 1534, when he was military governor and engineer at the L’Aquila Fortress, and 1538, when he was responsible for all the fortifications throughout the Kingdom of Naples, there are many documents and epigraphs that refer to his work. After the mandatory reference to Emperor

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

29

Charles V and to the Viceroy Pedro de Toledo, more than half the area of the commemorative plaque laid on the main gate leading into San Telmo Castle in Naples, is dedicated to himself in a manner that could only have been possible for those that genuinely had the power to allow this to happen: PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ, VALENCIAN KNIGHT OF THE ORDER OF ST. JOHN COMMANDER OF THE IMPERIAL ARMIES PERFORMED THESE WORKS BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE IN WARFARE (in Latin, dated 1538)

After 1538, however, and with his Treatise still incomplete, Escrivá disappears from documentary sources. The inscription on the L’Aquila Fort (1543) already indicates that Escrivá was responsible for the original design but had not completed the works, and in 1542 he was replaced by other engineers (Acaja as works manager and the Valencian Jerónimo Xarque as the governor) and an inscription on the walls of Naples dating back to 1546 states that the foundations were carried out by Escrivá but the walls were completed by the engineer Acaja23. Over the next few years, the Spanish architects Pedro Prado, later an engineer in Malta, and Juan Bautista de Toledo, later to become architect at El Escorial, were to appear in charge of Naples fortifications, but nothing more was heard of Escrivá for years.

There is person by the name of Luis Escrivá who appears as an engineer of the Crown many years later (1560) and although it has been said it could be the same person24, the time that had elapsed and the lack of references to his previous work make it rather unlikely. Between 1538 and 1542 Escrivá was one of the Crown’s most renowned engineers and even if he had suddenly died, this would not have occurred without any documented trace of the fact25. We have three possible hypotheses about his disappearance, and all three include a possible visit to Malta. Escrivá was Commander in the Order of St. John, the design of San Telmo Fort in Malta is almost a direct development of his Treatise and there is an anonymous drawing in the Simancas Archives found among papers from 1543 and an almost identical drawing drawn by Pedro Prado in 1552 that is difficult to interpet26. Should he happen to be in Malta this design would have been a good reason for it, later however, around 154227, there are three hypotheses: that he died (but there is only an unconfirmed news concerning a claim made by his widow28); that the Turks captured him and released him not long before 1560 (but by then he would have been very old and we would have some news about a ransom being paid) and, finally, that he was captured by the Turks and passed to work for them (the star forts of Algiers that withstood Charles V’s attack in 1541 are highly suspicious and there was news of a renegade Knight of St. John who helped the Turks and Algerians at about that time29).

ESCRIVÁ’S WORK IN THE CONTEXT OF SPANISH FORTIFICATIONS

A distinction can be made between the following initial periods when studying Spanish bastion fortifications30:

30

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 4 Top, Barletta Castle, designed by FERNANDO DE ALARCÓN, around 1530, Kingdom of Naples; bottom, FRANCISCO DE HOLANDA, drawing of Castel Novo, 1538, showing the pentagonal bastion designed by Alarcón.

Biblioteca de El Escorial.

The experimental period (1492-1550), which is a period inaccurately referred to as period of transition, characterised by the marked experimental nature of the proposals, predominantly, in the Spanish case, from artillery and military staff; The optimism of the Italian Star Formation [the Trace Italienne] (1550-1574), which basically coincided with the major Italian treatises, most of which were written and submitted to the Spanish Monarchy, although some were published at a later date; and The Practical scepticism (1574-1640), which commences with the La Goulette disaster, after which the Spanish Monarchy retrieved many of the theories and precautions of the experimental period, defence of strongholds once again became left basically to harquebusiers and not to cannons, the independence of engineers was subordinated to the presence of military men experts in fortification, very often the real designers of the fortresses, whereas the engineers who accompanied them merely drew what the military told them to.

From a chronological perspective, Escrivá belonged to the experimental period, yet his Treatise had a bearing upon the classical definitions from the «Italian star formation» and hence he states the following:

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

31

«And since you understood from what happened the difficulties and risks suffered by the angles, all the more so if the artillery can reach them crosswise, you can consider how much better it would be for the fortress if the turriones [torreones, towers] were round instead of angular, because apart from the fact that the circular form is in itself excellent, it also features two very important things, one is that it is almost impossible to install a battery that can reach it, save for no more than one piece, under a right angle, and the other is that all the stonework, as it is circular, helps and one supports the other...» (To which those in favour of «modern» fortifications would say) «that if the turriones had to be round it would lose the ability that it needs to uncover and attack perpendicularly those who manage to reach the walls and the front of its towers, and it would be this difference the one that would be always difficult to agree, because they not only insist on towers being angular, they also do not want the angles on any of them to be obtuse or even right, they want them to be acute».

However, Escrivá’s Treatise foreshadowed the reaction to those Italian models that was to occur after the La Goulette disaster. The great value of Escrivá’s Treatise lays not in the discovery of the tenail solution but in his critical reflection over the modern bastion system, its origins, its arbitrary nature and its deficiencies, at a time, 1538, when this system was about to become firmly established in its archetypal definition and spread throughout the western world. And this critical reflection is made by an engineer who was fully acquainted with this scientific field, to the extent that he was aware of its defects, and criticised those who endeavoured to apply it without truly understanding it: «I’ve heard it said that this science is so simple and widely-practiced these days that nearly everybody understands it and that there are many who claim to know how to carry it out, but after a lot of experience gained and many examples that I’ve seen done by different people, I’ve come to realise ... that some of the ones that you and I are familiar with, being deemed as very strange in it (in the science of fortification) are however considered to be excellent in your school, when they actually are lacking in quality and are a long way off reaching the peak of their careers ... and every day it can be seen that there are only a few soldiers amongst us who, just because they have had some experience in warfare and have evaluated the defensive measures and other parts of the fortresses they have seen, would dare not become involved in fortress designing» 31.

ESCRIVÁ AND L’AQUILA

Escrivá began to build the L’Aquila Fortress, one of the most amazing fortifications remaining from that period in Italy, in around 153432. L’Aquila Fortress had been studied, strangely enough, by a German33 many years ago, however, although it was impossible for Italian historiography to ignore it, its influence and effects on the history of Italian fortifications needed a new approach34. The commented edition of Escrivá’s Treatise that we published in 2000 and the major restoration works that are being carried out in the aftermath of the 2009 earthquake, gave us an opportunity, through a study commissioned by the Spanish Ministry of Culture in collaboration with technical experts

32

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

L’Aquila Castle: left, from top to bottom, close-up of the city plan by GIACOMO LAURO in 1600, layout plan of the countermine 1753 and a model dated 18th Century; right, aerial view before the 2009 earthquake.

FIG. 5

from the Italian Ministry of Culture, to make considerable progress in finding out more about this fortress. Obviously there is not sufficient room in this article to show all the findings yielded by this study35, but there is certain data that help to give a new perspective on Escrivá as a result of the analysis of his work on the L’Aquila Fortress.

We now know that Escrivá was responsible for the design, at least of the military part, and also that he began the works, providing constructive solutions that would suggest the presence

FERNANDO COBOS ESTUDIO ARQUITECTURA, sketches of L’Aquila Fortress layout and comparison with the quadrangular layout in Escrivá’s Treatise (Ministry of Culture, «Study and historical and construction interpretation of L’Aquila Fortress, Italy», 2013).

FIG. 6

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

33

On the left-hand column: close-up of the front facade with the parapet thickened with embrasures inside the merlons, that can be seen in the model of L’Aquila Castle dating back to the 18th Century, embrasures with steps on convex parapets on Berlanga de Duero Fortress, 1521-1528, and front facade of L’Aquila Castle before the 2009 earthquake; right: diagram of the defensive fire on the entrance floor of L’Aquila Castle (FERNANDO COBOS ESTUDIO ARQUITECTURA, Ministry of Culture, «Study and historical and construction interpretation of L’Aquila Fortress, Italy», 2013).

FIG. 7

of experienced quarrymen of Spanish origin36. However, he did not complete the building, and certain elements such as the porticoed gallery or even the entrance front façade, were added when Escrivá was in Naples concentrating on the San Telmo works or perhaps when Acaja (1542) had already taken over the management of the work. The contradictions and problems involved in making the initial elements, basically the military ones, fit in with the domestic layout, would appear to suggest that modifications were made towards the end of the 1530s. Funnily enough, the model that is preserved, which supposedly dates back to the 18th Century, is a small-scale replica only of the military part, which is consistent with the initial design by Escrivá, with its splayed parapets and firing holes inside the merlons, that disappeared at a later date.

The other problem when it comes to interpreting L’Aquila is based on the belief that the Treatise written in 1538 by Escrivá was in favour of the tenail fort as opposed to using conventional pentagonal bastions. However, as we shall see, the Treatise does not exactly prove to be clearly in favour of one position and against the other, it merely explains the advantages and drawbacks of each solution, and as it is written in dialogue form we find explanations that account for the design of L’Aquila, not only in the arguments put forward by the Commander (who defends San Telmo) but also in the arguments used by laymen. Proof of this lies in the fact that the quadrangular layout that appears in the Treatise and the actual layout of L’Aquila are exactly the same. This perfect match is not based on the similarity between all square layouts with bastions on the cor-

34

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

L’Aquila Castle: to the left, photographs of the fortress embrasures and a close-up of the embrasure at the lower level of the fosse; to the right, drawing of the embrasures by J. EBERHARDT in his book Das kastell von L’Aquila, study of the defensive fire in L’Aquila Fortress fosse (FERNANDO COBOS ESTUDIO ARQUITECTURA, Ministry of Culture, «Study and historical and construction interpretation of L’Aquila Fortress, Italy», 2013).

FIG. 8

ners, but on the fact that the proportions were retained between curtain wall, flank and face, and these proportions vary greatly from one fortification to another. The fact that the proportion is kept the same between the curtain wall and flank can also be seen in the design for the L’Aquila, in the two thicker bastions, which are apparently broader because they would be more exposed to enemy attack, which were thickened by changing the flanked angle without modifying the width of the flank.

According to Escrivá «this is a demonstrative science and there are things that cannot be explained without illustrations», and it is precisely the graphic analysis of Escrivá’s layouts that has made it possible to understand the different principles and technical solutions to be applied, including those that emerged not only later in the Treatise but also in the designs for fortifications built much more recently. Studying the embrasure fire has enabled us to understand the basic differences between the embrasures that are shooting forward, and are thus vulnerable, and the embrasures that defend the fortress with crossfire from the flanks. This is where Escrivá presents a first version of his theory that one orillon is useless against a greater thickness of the flank, and he designed two orillons to cover the entire flank, thickening it in fact and providing the strength from the curved layout.

The application of two other principles that would prove to be crucial in understanding Escriva’s design and his subsequent influence is also verified. The need for the main

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

35

embrasures not to be seen from the exterior, neither because of their layout, nor for their plan view angle or their horizontal angle. Escrivá stated about the flank embrasures that «it is sufficient for them to be exposed along the full length of the wall that they defend without overhanging so the sides are exposed too … the more they are covered and the less they are exposed at the side, the better they are», because as Bernardino de Mendoza said in 1579, «where fortifications are concerned, it can be said that everything that is able to be seen, loses what it defends, because the artillery fires in a straight line as the sight of the artilleryman dictates». The reader must understand that, until the use of explosive bullets became widespread at the beginning of the 19th Century, the parabolic shot of solid iron or lead bullets did not give the attacker any advantage and all fortifications were designed to defend against «flat trajectory» fire, i.e., the initial path of the projectile, which is more or less straight, and where the greatest capacity corresponds to direct firing. We find at L’Aquila that the two flank embrasures hardly open to the side, peculiarity being that the one lying further away from the curtain wall, and thus the embrasure most vulnerable to enemy fire, is the one with the narrower angle, thereby reducing its exposure37.

Another particularly interesting aspect of L’Aquila is its countermine system, which consists of a tunnel at the foot of the scarp with ventilation shafts. Once again, a graphic analysis of the latest studies has not made it clear whether the original design was modified, either by filling in the fosse or not completing its excavation, thus leaving this tunnel without any openings for firing at ground level, in accordance with the typical Spanish engineering solution already applied in its day to Salsas Castle (1497) and which is constantly used in other examples of 16th Century Spanish fortifications. The archaeological excavations planned to clear up this doubt might shed some light on this in the coming months.

FIG. 9 FERNANDO COBOS. Analysis of Escrivá’s

Theory concerning the orientation of the tips of the fortification towards an enemy battery, applied to FERRAMOLINO’s design for La Goulette, ESCRIVÁ’s design for San Telmo in Naples and PEDRO PRADO‘s design for San Telmo Castle on the island of Malta.

36

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 10

Different views of San Telmo Castle in Naples, facade and inscription.

ESCRIVÁ AND SAN TELMO

Before he had completed L’Aquila works, Escrivá was made responsible to design and build the San Telmo fortress in Naples (Italians call it Sant Elmo, but the Spanish sources soon adapted the spelling in order to match Spanish practices). The origins of Escriva’s design date back to a debate that took place at an engineers’ meeting held at San Martín de Nápoles hill in 1535, attended by all the Empire’s fortification experts who had returned from the taking of Tunis. The interesting matter as far as this meeting is concerned was that, unlike other meetings where decisions were taken that were to be applied in future fortifications, Escrivá ended up by designing the exact opposite to what had been agreed upon, as laymen explain in Escriva’s Apología: «You don’t remember that you were there when the Emperor’s Majesty climbed that mountain in 1535 in an attempt to understand the shape of the fortification that his warriors thought would be the best for that particular place, nearly everybody coming to the conclusion that a strong spontoon should be put there ... so that it would withstand any battery that attacked it, since as you not only did not make the fore spontoon but you also withdrew to the rear and built the tenail, how can you still insist on it having been correct».

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

37

FIG. 11 San Telmo Castle in Naples: FRANCISCO DE HOLANDA, 1538, Biblioteca de El Escorial; FERNANDO COBOS, analysis of Escrivá’s theory concerning the difficulty involved in entering its embrasures «this cannot possibly be done by firing at battery (A), and if firing to embouche (B) then battery cannot be done»; and embrasures with incoming angle.

The reason that Escrivá gives for constructing a tenail to combat the enemy fire instead of a bastion spike [FIG. 11], was to give rise to considerable debate that would go well beyond the scope of the Treatise, and that would ultimately account for one of the main deficiencies affecting the bastioned system, mitigated only partly in the 17th Century by adding external works, and that would be reformulated in the definition of the perpendicular fortification thesis put forward by Montalembert in the 18th Century. «...as the spike or angle of this spontoon is necessary... put it straight against the place from which the battery might reach it and as a result the embrasure that has to defend it is required to be directed against the same part that the spike is facing... then the embrasure will shot almost to the front, towards the battery location, and since front fire embrasures are known to be rather useless and do not have much ability to resist, I come to the conclusion that the installation of such spontoons is not well substantiated».

Apart from the tenail solution, Escrivá designed some huge dipped embrasures (with the firing path in descending angle to the fosse) and hooded, i.e. protected from the horizontal fire coming from beyond the fosse, which together with the scale of the works, mainly carved out of living rock, made the San Telmo fortress the subject of both great acclaim and heated criticism. The Portuguese painter and spy Francisco de Holanda, who turned up in Naples in 1538 to draw its immense embrasures38, would use Michelangelo in his Diálogos de la pintura as a vehicle for expressing his admiration for the constructor of San Telmo’s Castle. According to Holanda, Michelangelo considered him to be as important as Sangallo. These crossed and dipped embrasures were designed like that, according to Escrivá, because «there is absolutely no way when firing at a battery to face the embrasure or when firing at the embouchure to perform with a battery».

THE TREATISE OF 1538

There are many keys to the debate contained in Escriva’s Apología and many of his reflections appear later in other treatises, essays, etc.39. This does not mean to say that Es-

38

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

crivá was the brainchild behind all these ideas, but he was the first person to write about them systematically. In fact, it is highly likely that in some cases he merely brought together all the topics for debate and the controversial questions that were of interest to fortress builders. However, this in no way detracts from the Treatise’s value, quite the opposite, it makes it a document of great importance and we have recently pointed out that the close similarity between the subject matter and the references to key fortifications that appear in both Apología and the sketches by Francisco de Holanda40 support that idea of it being a «synthesis of the state of the art» at this crucial period of history.

Furthermore, Escriva’s Apología is written in the form of a dialogue between «Laymen» and the Commander himself and we have no doubt that, where fortifications are concerned, Escrivá compiled many of the ideas of the day and put those words into the mouth of «Laymen» while the Commander refutes or qualifies them. Therefore, our interest lies not in deciding whether the Commander, who puts forward Escriva’s ideas in Apología, was right or wrong in his arguments, given that not all questions have a clearcut answer, but to analyse the terms of the debate itself.

The key points that arise in the debate and that we will develop in the exposition are: — The incompatibility between deflecting enemy fire and an effective defensive flank fire. This is the key to the design of San Telmo and the discussion between the experts called upon by the Emperor in 1535 in Naples enables Escrivá to elaborate upon the orientation of the tips of the bastions depending on where the fortification was located.

— The articulation of the curtain walls and the deficient defence of the bastion faces.

San Telmo, Capua and Ferrara designs all give rise to the debate about the fact that with the canonical system the bastion face is only defended by the opposite flank, and once this is lost, the bastion is lost.

— The incompatibility between constructing offensive or defensive fortresses, even offensive and defensive embrasures, covered embrasures and their defence. His theory about dipped and hooded embrasures and their relationship with the layout of fosses.

— The canonical bastion, the casemates and the lower platforms. A debate arising from an analysis of Pesaro fortification. Orillons and other ways of defending flank embrasures.

— The ideal layout. The debate arises from analysing Ferramolino’s triangular layout for La Goulette in Tunis and leads to research being conducted into the angles for platforms and bastions, the length of curtain walls on the basis of the effective firing range, the position of the knights, etc.

«Spontoon», shear and flat curtain wall Escriva’s Apología brings to life and depicts a real debate that took place about the construction of San Telmo castle in Naples, broading the discussion to include comments about other fortresses of the period such as Capua, Ferrara, Pesaro, Florence or La

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

39

Goulette in Tunis. Furthermore, many other fortresses, like San Telmo in Malta, can be understood by interpreting this Treatise. In fact, the fortresses mentioned in Naples, Tunis and Malta reveal one of the main reflections from the Treatise regarding the orientation of the bastions facing an enemy battery whose location conditions the ridge on a hill (Naples), an isthmus (La Goulette) or a peninsula (Malta). As was the case with Naples, in these fortresses [FIG. 9], making the tip of the bastion face enemy fire means that the enemy can attack your flank embrasures frontally, and once you have lost these, you will lose the stronghold. It could also be said that the conflicting debate pervading the Treatise lies in the fortresses of San Telmo and Ferramolino’s project for La Goulette, which are indirectly compared in Apología41.

The text of Apología reveals just how the debate raged and the inscription overlooking the entrance to the fortress indicates that it was the work of Escrivá «PRO SUO BELLICIS IN REBUS EXPERIMENTO». However, while San Telmo can be regarded as an example of a fortress where the engineer’s design would appear to have taken precedence over the criteria of the Emperor’s military officers, the first fortress at La Goulette is an example of how the design of an engineer who defends the initial idea of the military officers is changed by another military officer. Escrivá’s Apología is certainly involved directly in this debate the following reference to this fortress appearing in the work «the one that has been done again at La Goulette, that its body is triangular and the foundations have been laid by Ferramolino with such thought and almost with the opinions and judgements of the Emperor’s entire entourage that was there after the taking of Tunis». Note that Escrivá puts very similar words into the mouth of the Layman («and it was concluded by nearly all of them») which appears in the chapter devoted to San Telmo and one and the other would seem to come from the idea of the spontoon that was later rejected for San Telmo. In 1538, at the same time as he was writing Apología, a debate was raging between Ferramolino and the Governor Bernardino de Mendoza, who was an expert in fortification and one of the great Spanish military theorists, and although the debate does not focus on the orientation of the bastion, the arguments put forward by Bernardino are almost exactly the same as the criticisms that Escrivá includes in his Apología about triangular layouts. Bernardino was one of those military officers who were also versed in mathematics and drawing and his prestige was such that, although Ferramolino asked to return to La Goulette under the pretext of helping as a labourer on the site, he could not prevent the layout that was finally constructed from being quadrangular and with the curtain wall at right angles to enemy’s battery in accordance with Bernardino’s criterion42.

What Malta has in common with Naples and Tunis is the fact that the fortresses at all of these places could only be battered from a main front and this is the third variation analysed in the Treatise: the flat curtain wall, i.e., the curtain wall lying at right angles to enemy’s battery. San Telmo in Malta, almost definitely constructed using a design, apparently anonymous, from 154343, must have been almost completed in 1552 when the Spanish architect Pedro Prado send his well-known «layout of the fort that they have built in Malta» which has served to attribute to him, at least the finalization of the works.

Prado had first-hand experience from the San Telmo works in Naples, because he had worked there in 1547 as an architect in the construction of the chapel for that fortress; the foundation stone laid there making it clear that he was a Spanish architect44. This

40

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

would easily account for the apparent relationship between the layout given and certain drawings in Apología without it being necessary for Escrivá himself to have gone to Malta, while at the same time bearing in mind the fact that the fortifications on the island of Malta were always under the supervision of the Spanish Crown and that Escrivá was a Commander of the Order, which means it is likely that Escrivá participated in the designing process. However, a long discussion took place involving the Duke of Alba in which arguments are used that were already put forward by Escrivá in his Apología, leading to substantial modifications to the site that would be decisive in the correct decisions and errors made in the eventual design45. The discussion about the Treatise and its application to Tunis and Malta would prove to be crucial when it came to designing «morro» forts [with a nose] and maritime defences in all Spanish fortifications as we shall see later.

The types of curtain wall Once making the bastion tip face enemy fire had been ruled out, the debate in Apología focused on analysing the advantages and disadvantages of the flat curtain wall fronts, shear or shanked outwards as at Ferrara. Escrivá even analysed the alternative (although he did not draw it) of the shear curtain wall with bastions at the corners (that Tartaglia would later propose), «that the curtain walls would certainly stand protected from many cross-fire attacks, although high skill would be required in order to avoid an embouchure to each other in some case»46.

He also elaborated on the fact that the bastion faces were only protected by the shots from the opposite flank, whereas the curtain wall was protected by the crossfire from the two flanks «because of the two traverse fires shot at those who are fighting the curtain wall, only one can be shot at those who are fighting the tower»47. He thus assumes that the most vulnerable point of the assault is the face of the bastion and not the centre of the curtain wall and that, should one of the flanks be put out of action, the fortress would be defenceless: «and this is so for the usefulness from eliminating the traverse fire as well as for the opportunity resulting thereof, since it is not only the most convenient way but a very essential part in order to be able to reach and gain the rest of it»48.

If we analyse the accounts of the Turkish assaults carried out on Malta in 1565 and La Goulette (Tunis) in 1574, we can clearly see how putting the defensive fire out of action on the flanks was really the crucial factor when it came to losing the strongholds, under attack by such powerful artillery as the Turks had49. Two trains of thought merge from the Treatise in this respect, on the one hand, the theory that involved protecting the embrasures, which we will explain later, and on the other hand, certain reflections on positioning the embrasures in the centre of the fortresses or the solution that involved doubling the number of embrasures in the centre of the curtain wall, as in his design for Capua or like in the tenail system that he built at San Telmo, to which reference has already been made.50

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

41

Offensive and Defensive Embrasures Escrivá argues that it is impossible to design embrasures that can both cause damage to the enemy and at the same time be sufficiently well protected to prevent the enemy from reaching them. He makes a distinction between «ruffian» embrasures, that fire from high over the battlefield, and «master» embrasures, which are the ones that guarantee the ultimate and final defence of the fortress as we have already seen at L’Aquila and San Telmo. Escrivá argues that the embrasure that is best defended is the one that is not seen from outside the fosse, which is why at San Telmo he went a bit further and designed a new type of embrasure that was «hooded and dipped», facing from up to down towards the fortification angles at the bottom of the fosse.

«I would like you to go to that place (San Telmo) and take with you the table that I have prepared and with compass in hand … and you will see that they are laid in such a way that it is difficult for the artillery to pass through them or break them … and look at the hood that I have made for them … is such that it cannot be fought from the same level [from a distance, outside the fosse]… that the enemy has to be [in the fosse] should they want to shot at my embrasure and they ought to hide around the corner or angle of the wall that that embrasure defends and on leaving they will be uncovered and present their side to the other flank»51.

These embrasures would appear later in the designs for different Spanish fortifications such as the one at Pizaño for the Trinidad Fort at Rosas (1544), the Vespasiano Gonzaga Fort at Peñíscola (1579) or the one at Fratín for the San Felipe Fort in Setubal (1581).

Analysis of the canonical bastion The reflections on the bastion designed by the Duke of Urbino for Pesaro «that I praise as being an excellent fortress for the place where it is located», led to several design options being studied for the canonical bastion, commencing with a detailed analysis of the solutions adopted for Pesaro, followed by Florence or Capua. However, this debate about the canonical fortress is incomplete, given that Escrivá did not finish the second part of Apología, which dealt with the «canonical» fortification that he had applied to other Neapolitan fortresses52. Even so, Escrivá compared his high casemate design with dipped and hooded embrasures, with two types of casemates on bastions from the 1530s, the ones on the model he himself built for L’Aquila with vaulted casemates and embrasures superimposed at right angles, and those of the type used for Pesaro in Italy (or Fuenterrabía in Spain) with lower platforms at the flanks, «that the bellicose Francisco María, Duke of Urbino, in Pesaro or His Holiness Pope Clemente in Piacenza, and others, did not want the two defences to come together along the same perpendicular line, as can be seen here in perspective, but made two perpendicular lines moving the upper one back behind the lower one, leaving that space exposed»53. It is interesting to note that in the Spanish forts of the period, the term «cubo or torreón» was used to refer to the bastions made of stonework and the term «baluarte» [bastion] was reserved for those built through earthworks.

42

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

The following matters are also discussed in Apología: the need for there to be two or one embrasure per level and flank, which was also a topic for discussion among other engineers at that time and subsequently; whether it was necessary to ventilate the embrasures; whether the lower platforms should be covered, at which point Escrivá warns of the dangers of mortar fire, which was to prove decisive in the Turkish assault on La Goulette in 1574 and he suggested that the front half of the lower platform54 be covered; and, amongst other questions, he discussed the usefulness of orillons, «those covered traverses that they use to frighten children in my country»55, in the defence of the flank embrasures.

Ideal layouts and measurements Escrivá defends the adaptation of the shape to the location even for the triangular layout used by Ferramolino at La Goulette, and advises (possibly in a highly cynical note) «you should not think that I praise it for the triangular form being the right one to use in these matters, because I rather take it to be the worst and least suitable shape of all those that could have been considered for a similar flat site, but nonetheless I deem it as certain as if I saw it with my own eyes that no other form would sit so well in the place where it sits»56. In fact he made the most of his severe criticism of the triangular layout to introduce two ideas that later became widespread in subsequent treatises:

From top to bottom: drawings from Escrivá’s Treatise representing the bastion of uncovered lower casemates and that of vaulting levels, referred to in Spain as «cubo» [cube]; drawings at same scale of the La Magdalena bastion in Fuenterrabía and the Imperial San Sebastián’s Cubo with its galleries at cliff’s foot, built in the 1530’s; drawings by FRANCISCO DE HOLANDA of Fuenterrabía and San Sebastián, of 1538; drawing by FRANCISCO DE HOLANDA of Pesaro’s bastion and an interpretation of the Imperial San Sebastian’s Cubo by SOJO Y LOMBA. FIG. 12

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

43

On the left, from top to bottom: demonstration in the 1538 Treatise showing how with less sides of a polygon the bastion is more acute and with weaker tips; Filipo Fort, 1557 (Spanish Presidi State in Tuscany), where the rounded tips can be seen; ROJAS, rounded tip solution to prevent fragility when, by design, it is impossible to make them less acute, in his 1598 Treatise.

On the right: FERNANDO COBOS ESTUDIO ARQUITECTURA, analysis of Escrivá’s Treatise of 1538, design for a quadrangular fortification and a heptagonal fortification from a square and a circle occupying the same surface area, ensuring that the defence line is no greater than the range of a harquebus.

FIG. 13

ESCRIVÁ,

— Acute angles should be avoided in the bastion tips, and the greater the number of sides that the main polygon has, the less acute the tips of the bastions will be, and «since the angles would become obtuse, the towers would have a slighter and more obtuse tip»57.

— The distance from the flank to the tip on the opposite bastion (the defence line in 17th Century layouts) must not exceed the effective range of an harquebus, «without leaving the order demanded at aiming», which goes against the opinion of subsequent treatisers that use the range of the cannon as the measurement for increasing the size of the curtain walls. This must be so because it enables the enemy to cover itself with very little trench but «this causes repulsion because the right measurement for a true defence is that it must not go any further than the distance that an ordinary musket or harquebus can reach, and the fortification must not be restricted or limited in such a way that only heavy pieces can defend it»58. However, this would be the position that the Spanish military would defend throughout the 16th Century, and in 1598, Rojas was to repeat the same argument in his treatise59, «because with such a great distance they will pass with a very low trench and the musketeers will be ineffective and the harquebusiers even less so, which is a considerable drawback because, as is well known, the main defence of a fort lies with the musketeers».

In the extensive Chapter CXVI of Apología [FIG. 13] a solution with a quadrangular layout is compared with a seven-sides polygonal layout assuming that it is «for a flat and even place» and laid out in such a way that the outer square of the first one covers the same

44

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

surface area as the circle that circumscribes the second one. The heptagonal layout is defined for the range of fire at that time («that the defences were not farther away or closer than in the quadrilateral layout») and Escrivá thus considered that there was no particular layout that could be regarded as ideal or more perfect because it had 4 or 5 or 6 sides, since the number of sides (or bastions) depends exclusively on the size of the stronghold, given that the distance between bastions is fixed.

«If the space you want to protect is large enough as to enable to conveniently defend it with four defences only, without leaving the order demanded at aiming, the layout must be quadrilateral […] But should you want by any chance to make a fort in a field or in a village or somewhere of the kind […] the more sides you could make I think the better, because if the size of the place was such that any of them would be at such a distance from one angle to the other as I said that the defences at the flat of the curtain wall of the quadrangle should have...»

Escrivá indicated for this case, that taking up the same amount of space, heptagonal was better than square because «since the angles would become obtuse, the towers would have a slighter and more obtuse tip and each tower would have its own curtain walls while the companion towers would be more favourable for helping than the towers in the angles of the square»60. The reader can see that the design with seven sides has straight angles at the tips of the bastions. A few chapters earlier, he stated that «the straight angle was stronger than the acute angle» and so, seeking a more perfect design61, the figure with more than four sides was necessary when he argued that for any polygon «regardless of its nature, the tower that is set in it is always more acute than the angle itself is»62.

ESCRIVÁ’S INFLUENCE

We can make a distinction between two types of influence that Escriva’s works had, one of which was almost immediate and resulting from his design for San Telmo and the other, which took longer to be felt, refers to the consequences of applying the theories contained in his Treatise. With respect to the first influence, we could say that the Escrivá that constructed L’Aquila or San Telmo is – together with Sangallo and few more – one of the last «inventors» of personal fortification solutions during the experimental period, his design for San Telmo having from the very beginning as many detractors as it had followers. In the 1540s, the Spanish Crown’s engineers, starting with the Captain General of the artillery Luis Pizaño, developed tenail projects in Rosas and Colliure on the Catalan border, in Bujia, (Algeria), in Malta, in the Spanish prissons in Tuscany, etc.63.

Tenail solutions even appear in the designs for Mazagão or in the partially implemented projects of Olgiatti’s for Milan or Calvi’s for Ibiza, yet «the optimism for the Italian layout» which pervaded the period between 1550 and 1574 and the little importance that the Italian treatisers attached to Escriva’s ideas in those years meant that they fell into disuse until, after the fall of La Goulette in 1574, the tenail modes returned, basically encouraged by Vespasiano Gonzaga and Cristóbal de Rojas. In fact, there are two «models» of forts that show how Escrivá’s influence was extended until the 17th Century: the «morro»

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

45

Aerial views of three forts defending bays from high points: the Porto Ercole Fort (Italy), by JUAN MANRIQUE DE LARA, 1557; the San Felipe Port, Setubal (Portugal), by FRATÍN, 1581; and the Santiago Fort (Cuba), by ANTONELLI, 1637.

FIG. 14

coastal forts and the mountain forts; i.e., the ones where the unevenness of the terrain rendered it impossible to consider regular solutions with bastions, where it is impossible to use a predefined model and where what is necessary is to be familiar with and to apply the principles of fortification and not models64.

Escrivá had stated «I am not setting a law that others have to follow even if they do not feel it suitable for the case …, because no one place is exactly the same as another, so each and every fortress must adapt to its location».

This adaptation to the site, first and foremost and above all other considerations where models or schools were concerned, constitutes the basis of the theory included in the Treatise. Escrivá made it crystal clear how he understood the debate that led to the final design of a fortress from the choice of the location and from the pragmatism of the layout design, which would be «good for containing only a few lines, because it was only needed of few defences and a few people to guard it, because the circumference was smaller and thus less stonework was required, at less cost, and so it could be defended and held with less artillery»65.

In 1574, with the review of Spanish fortresses that ushered in the period of «practical scepticism», Vespasiano Gonzaga proposed a tenail solution adapted to the terrain for the Mazalquivir Fort (Algeria) and criticised the projects developed by another Italian engineer, Juan Bautista Antonelli. His purely technical arguments demonstrated that this heterodox criticism in conflict with the rigid orthodoxy of the Italian model still survived. Two sentences from Gonzaga illustrate what the debate was really about; the first, in a letter to the Duke of Alba, from Oran:

«Juan Bautista thought that if it were not in canonical form and with bastions it would not be possible to build a fortification»

And the second one, better known and more emphatic, in a letter to Philip II: «because while it is fair for art adapting to and serving nature in those places, not knowing how to construct fortresses without bastions and casemates and using a compass is a weakness of engineers»66.

46

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 15 Comparisons between flat and shear curtain walls in ESCRIVÁ’s Treatise, and morro designs used in Spanish fortifications. From left to right by columns: layout of San Telmo on the island of Malta, proposal in ROJAS‘s Treatise from 1598, a model and aerial view of Santa Catalina Fort in Cádiz, also designed by ROJAS; aerial view of San Juan de Puerto Rico’s morro and layout of La Habana’s morro; current views of the Blavet Castle in Port Louis (France) and Natal Castle (Brazil), towards the end of the 16th Century; 1575 drawing of Mazalquivir Fortress in Oran.

It was exactly as from 1574 that the postulates contained in Escrivá’s Treatise started to be taken into account again. If in 1538 Apología could have been regarded as the first treatise to approach modern fortification from its technical aspects and it is, for sure, the first treatise on bastioned fortification, it could just as well be stated that the Escrivá who wrote Apología is the first heterodox exponent of modern fortification. The fact that taking into consideration practically all the topics for debate that were to emerge in the following years, he did not propose models to be followed and only suggested critical reflections on general fortification principles, is at one and the same time, both the main virtue and biggest «defect» that has made him so inaccessible to the understanding of modern historiography and caused him to be less popular in his days. During the period of «optimism for the Italian layout», the bastion with open lower platforms which had already appeared around 1530 in Candia, Pesaro, Roma or Fuenterrabía would later be applied universally regardless of the place, country or situation. The regular shape and the false discussion about the ideal layout did not take into account the principles established by Escrivá for dimensioning the defence line, orientating the bastion tips or protecting the embrasures and casemates, convincing the Monarchy, treatise by treatise, that there were models that were universally valid and impregnable. La Goulette disaster

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

47

was to put an end to this dream, and the Spanish treatises from the end of the 16th Century and the early 17th Century (Rojas and Medina Barba in Madrid, Lechuga and Busca in Milan) did not make the same mistakes again, retrieving many of Escrivá’s ideas (it cannot be coincidental that it was Busca himself who recognised Escrivá as being one of the first treatisers).

In recent years, when we endeavoured to characterise the Spanish fortification that extended from the Mediterranean to America67, we did so on the basis of three characteristics: — eclectic (it includes experiences from all warfare scenarios involving Spanish dominions or Spanish influence); — heterodox (it invariably makes sure that the nature of the place and the strategic limitations take precedence over the reproduction of pre-established models); — sceptical (it denies, out of the cited eclecticism and heterodoxy, the existence of universally perfect and impregnable models or systems).

This is the only way we can define a manner of fortifying whose geographical and chronological dispersion makes it impossible to characterise by reproducing models inherent to specific places or trends. Yet these characteristics, recognisable in Spanish fortification until the end of the 18th Century, invariably as a counterweight to periods when attempts were made to impose the Italian or French canonical forms68, had already been formulated in masterly fashion in Escriva’s Treatise, which openly refused to propose perfect and impregnable forts, relying exclusively on heterodox and diverse solutions based upon the nature of the location concerned: «that as genuine architecture has to be like music that is perfectly in tune, as Vitruvio wished, I cannot find a shape or a solution that is valid for all situations and for me the wisest thing that I can think could be done would be to wake the genius up and before building, take a good look at the place and at the adequacy of its terrain and shape for fortifying ... and share out the defects to make sure they do not all appear in the same place...because without these it is impossible to be»69.

48

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

NOTES

1.

C. PROMIS:

Della vita e delle opere degl’italiani scrittori di artiglieria, architettura e meccanica militare. Turín, 1843. Amongst

others.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

L. A. MAGGIOROTTI:

L’opera del genio italiano all’estero. Gli architetti militari. Roma, La Libreria dello Stato, 1939.

Restudying Francesco di Giorgio could be a perfect way of seeing how influences in the military field travelled first from Naples to Milan rather than from Milan to Naples.

J. ARÁNTEGUI: Apuntes históricos sobre la artillería española en los siglos XIV y XV. Madrid, Tip. de Fontanet, 1887-1891; E. MARIÁTEGUI (Ed.): Apología en excusación y favor de las fábricas del Reino de Nápoles; por el Comendador Scribá. Madrid, Imprenta de Memorial de Ingenieros, 1878; F. DE SOJO Y LOMBA: El capitán Luis Pizaño: estudio histórico-militar referente a la primera mitad del siglo XVI. Madrid, Imprenta de Memorial de Ingenieros, 1928.

F. COBOS: «Spanish fortresses of the early Renaissance: between the archaeology of architecture and paper architecture», in Actas del Congreso Internacional Ciudades Amuralladas. Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 2005.

F. COBOS: Las escuelas de fortificación hispánicas en los siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII. Segovia, Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, 2012.

The list of military men experts in fortification who acted as engineers though they were paid as military officers is long: Ramiro López, Antonio San Martín, Diego de Vera, Tadino di Martinengo, Antonello de Trani, Pedro de Alarcón, Escrivá, Luis Pizaño and nearly all the subsequent artillery captain generals, as well as personalities such as Bernardino de Mendoza, Vespasiano Gonzaga or Tejada. It is unusual to find an engineer serving the Crown who was not a high rank military officer in the early 16th Century (Benedeto de Rávena and Ferramolino were among the first Italians, while Pedro Prado, Juan Bautista de Toledo and the best known of all, albeit later, Cristobal de Rojas, were among the first Spaniards).

The references after Apología and after the biography of Escrivá are taken from our edition annotated and commented upon in F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO and A. SÁNCHEZ-GIJÓN: Luis Escrivá, su Apología y la fortificación imperial. Valencia, Generalitat Valenciana, 2000.

F. COBOS: «Fortification designs in “Designs from Antiquity” by the Portuguese Francisco de Holanda (1538-1540)», in Minutes from the symposium Atlas militaires manuscrits européens. París, Musée des Plants-Reliefs, 2004.

F. COBOS: «Formulation of the Principles of Bastion Fortresses», in M. SILVA: Técnica e ingeniería en España: El Renacimiento, Zaragoza, Institución Fernando el Católico, 2004, p. 431.

G. BUSCA: Dell’architettura militare, Milán, G. Bordone & P. M. Locarni, 1601.

F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO and A. SÁNCHEZ-GIJÓN: op. cit.

E. MARIÁTEGUI: op. cit.

A sentimental novel or a lovers’ tiff, which he published in Venice in 1537.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter LXVI. F. COBOS (coord.): La artillería de los Reyes Católicos. Salamanca, Junta de Castilla y León, 2004; F. COBOS, J. DE CASTRO: «Salsas and the Spanish Transition Forts», Revista Castillos de España, no. 110-111, Madrid, 1998; F. COBOS: «Los orígenes de la escuela española de fortificación del primer renacimiento», in Artillería y fortificaciones en la Corona de Castilla durante el reinado de Isabel la Católica, 1474-1504. Madrid, Ministry of the Defense, 2004, pages. 224-267; J. J. DE CASTRO: «The royal engineers of the Catholic Monarchs. Their new fortification system», in Artillería y Fortificaciones en la Corona de Castilla durante el reinado de Isabel la Católica, 1474-1504. Madrid, Ministry of the Defense, 2004, pages. 320-383.

F. COBOS: «Leonardo engineer and his context: A critical reading guide to the Madrid II Codex», in Los Manuscritos de Leonardo da Vinci de la BNE: Codex Madrid I (Ms. 8937) and Codex Madrid II (Ms. 8936) First reviewed edition and facsimil edition, Madrid, 2009.

A. GAETA: «A tutela et defensa di quisto regno», in Il castello a mare di Palermo, Baldiri Meteli e le fortificazioni regie Sicilia nell’età di Ferdinando il Cattolico (1479-1516): protagonisti, cantieri, maestranze. Palermo, Qanat, 2010.

F. COBOS: «... quien a mi rey no obedeciera de mi se guardara, La arquitectura militar española con Fernando el Católico (1474-1516)», in Actas del Congreso L’architettura militare nell’età di Leonardo. Locarno, Casagrande, 2008; J. J. DE CASTRO, A. CUADRADO: «Las fortificaciones de la Corona Hispánica en el Mediterráneo durante los siglos XVI-XVII (1492-1700)», in Actas del IV Congreso de Castellología. Madrid, Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, 2012, pages. 57-74.

J. J. CASTRO FERNÁNDEZ, A. CUADRADO: op. cit.

F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO and A. SÁNCHEZ-GIJÓN: op. cit.

Navarro, one of the best captains and engineers of Fernando el Católico, he betrayed the king and passed in 1512 to the service of France. The implication of Navarro in Italy while at the service of France has not been sufficiently studied. A prisoner of Spaniards in Naples from 22 to 26, he was again captured in 1528, and would die in prison in Naples.

J. EBERHARDT: Das Kastell von L’Aquila. Il castello di L’Aquila. Amministrazione Provinciale, L’Aquila, 1994, p. 130.

This is the opinion defended by Sánchez-Gijón in the edition of Apología that we produced in 2000.

In January 1543, the engineer Librán who was working in Bujía at the time, following a design by Pizaño of a tenail fort funnily enough, sent some of his designs to the Crown ensuring them that has was just as good an engineer as «Martinengo, Commander Escrivá, Francisco María de Viterbo, Juan María Lombardo (Olgiatti) the Baron of Acaja and Ferramolino». F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO: «The debate in the fortifications of the Empire and the Spanish Monarchy. 1535-1574», in Las fortificaciones de Carlos V. Madrid, State owned company for the commemoration of Philip II and Charles V centennials, 2000.

Since we published it in 2000 (F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO and A. SÁNCHEZ-GIJÓN: op. cit., p. 254) Prado as being responsible for taking up the designs by Escrivá, is a theory that has been gathering credibility (J. J. CASTRO FERNÁNDEZ, A. CUADRADO: op. cit.).

Date on which he is relieved of his duties at L’Aquila (J. EBERHARDT: op. cit.).

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

49

28. According to the Neapolitan document that was seen by Carlos Hernando, of which I have no reference.

29. F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO: «The debate...», op. cit., and J. J. CASTRO FERNÁNDEZ, A. CUADRADO: op. cit.

30. By way of a summary, see F. COBOS: «A comprehensive overview of the Spanish fortification schools and scenarios in the XVI,

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

50

XVII and XVIII Centuries», in Actas del IV Congreso de Castellología. Madrid, Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, 2012.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter CLXIV. Letters from the Viceroy Pedro de Toledo dated March and May 1534 granting Escrivá full powers to go ahead with the works. (J. EBERHARDT: op. cit., pages 199 and the following).

J. EBERHARDT: op. cit.

In general, all fortresses from the Spanish period in Naples, Sicily, Corsica and the Presidi State in Tuscany need to be reinterpreted, in a more compact and less localist light.

FERNANDO COBOS ESTUDIO ARQUITECTURA: Estudio e interpretación histórica y constructiva de la fortaleza de L’Aquila, Italia, Ministerio de Cultura, 2013 (Unpublished).

The «travelling» vaults in the diagonal passageways leading to the casemates, characteristic of Spanish stonework but very uncommon in Italy.

In Apología of 1538, Escrivá proposes that there be only one embrasure per flank, and although it was normal practice in the 16th Century to have two, Calvi’s design in Ibiza, for example, does the same as was done for L’Aquila, closing the angle of the outermost embrasure and providing only one embrasure on the most exposed front (F. COBOS, A. CÁMARA: De la fortificación de Yviça, Ibiza, Editorial Mediterrània Eivissa, 2008).

F. COBOS: «Dessins...», op. cit.

See more extensive references in F. COBOS and J. J. DE CASTRO: «Design and technical development of Spanish transition fortifications» and «The debate on fortifications in the Empire and the Spanish Monarchy», in Las fortificaciones de Carlos V. Madrid, State owned company for the commemoration of Philip II and Charles V centennials, 2000. And especially in F. COBOS: «The formulation..», op. cit.

See F. COBOS: «Dessins...», op. cit.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter XXXIIII and comment on pages 62 and 63 in the commented edition already referred to.

See our comment on Apología in the aforementioned edition p. 121 and A. SÁNCHEZ-GIJÓN: «The prisons...», op. cit., p. 635.

Archivo General de Simancas, MP and D. VIII-63. Another drawing appears to exist (AGS. MP and D. XIX-107) dated 1539 because it is listed in a file dating back to that year, without any documentary reference and that we believe has to be much later, because it is an exact replica of the 1552 drawing and is entitled «traça del fuerte que se hizo en Malta», when it is recorded that the works were constructed considerably later than 1539.

F. COBOS and J. J. DE CASTRO: «The debate…», op. cit., p. 253. «... escoger el sitio de San Telmo (in Malta)… con poca guarda podais encerrar y poseer gran sitio …y tomando toda la montaña no podéis ser combatido sino por la frente y en ella se estrecha el monte más que por ninguna otra parte y por esta causa viene a ser la fabrica menor y tomando la toda no podéis ser ofendidos por los lados ni por las espaldas» … F. COBOS and J. J. DE CASTRO: «The debate…», op. cit., p. 254.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter CXXXXII. P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter XXX. P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter XXX. Although the unpleasant custom that the Turks had of firing their artillery at the same time as they carried out the assaults, caused many casualties on their own side, it prevented those who were being besieged from resorting to any kind of defence other than from the well-protected embrasures. Regarding these assaults, see F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO: «Design and development...», op. cit., pages. 262-64.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter CXVIII. P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter XXXXVI. «... las otras fábricas que has ordenado en este reino (L’Aquila, Capua…) que has hecho en un cabo todo lo contrario que en otro» the Layman reproaches him at the beggining of the incomplete second part of Apología.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter LV. «... cuanto para cumplir con la falta de dicho andén era necesario» justified by Escrivá in Chapter IV of the second part of Apología, in a solution referring to one of the strangest characteristics of the Magdalena bastion constructed in 1530 at Fuenterrabía (See F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO: «Design and development...», op. cit., pages 233-36).

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter LXXXIV. P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter CXVI. P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter CXVI. P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter CIV. C. DE ROJAS: Teoría y Práctica de la fortificación, Madrid, Luis Sánchez, 1598, second part, p. 34.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter CXVI. In his preference for the straight flanked angle, he is one hundred years ahead of Antoine de Ville.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter LXXXXVI, in an argument to which Tartaglia would return a few years later.

F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO, A. SÁNCHEZ GIJÓN: op. cit.

The list of fortresses is very long: the morros of Blavet, Coruña, Cádiz, Mazalquibir, Havana, Santiago, Puerto Rico, Belem, Río; the forts in Setubal, Rosas, Colliure… See F. COBOS: «The maritime frontiers of the Spanish Monarchy and the Antonelli Family: between the Mediterranean and America», in Las fortificaciones de los Antonelli en Cuba, siglos XVI-XVII, Barcelona, Ministry of the Defense, 2013.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter XVII and VI, respectively.

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

66. To refer to these debates, see

F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO: «The debate...», op. cit., p. 266, and F. COBOS: «Pallas and Minerva, Military Officers and Engineers in the Spanish Crown in the 16th Century», in the Minutes of the Conference Fortezze d’Europa, L’ Aquila, Soprintendenza per i Beni Architettonici, 2003.

67. F. COBOS: «A vision...», op. cit.

68. F. COBOS: «Engineers, treatises and fortification projects: a transfer of experiences between Europe and America» in The Fortified Heritage: a Transatlantic Relationship. Alcalá de Henares, Universidad de Alcalá, 2001; F. COBOS: «The formulation of the Principles of Bastioned Fortification», in M. SILVA (co-ord.): Técnica e ingeniería en España: El renacimiento, Zaragoza, 2004, and F. COBOS: «Spanish Fortification in the 17th and 18th Centuries: Vauban without Vauban and against Vauban», in M. SILVA (co-ord.): Técnica e Ingeniería en España. Tomo II. El Siglo de las Luces. Zaragoza, Institución Fernando el Católico, 2005.

69. P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Chapter CIV (See note 86 in the edition annotated and commented in F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO and A. SÁNCHEZ-GIJÓN: op. cit., p. 159).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. ARÁNTEGUI:

Apuntes históricos sobre la artillería española en los siglos XIV y XV. Madrid, Tip. de Fontanet, 1887-

1891.

G. BUSCA:

Dell’architettura militare, Milán, G. Bordone & P. M. Locarni, 1601.

«Los ingenieros reales de los Reyes Católicos. Su nuevo sistema de fortificación», in Artillería y Fortificaciones en la Corona de Castilla durante el reinado de Isabel la Católica, 1474-1504. Madrid, Ministry of the Defense, 2004.

J. J. DE CASTRO, A. CUADRADO: «Las fortificaciones de la Corona Hispánica en el Mediterráneo durante los siglos XVI-XVII (1492-1700)», in Actas del IV Congreso de Castellología. Madrid, Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, 2012.

F. COBOS: «Engineers, teatrises and fortification projects: a transfer of experience between Europe and America», in P. CHIAS and T. ABAD (editors.): The Fortified Heritage: a Transatlantic Relationship. Alcalá de Henares, Universidad de Alcalá, 2001.

— «Pallas y Minerva, Militares e Ingenieros en la Corona Española en el Siglo XVI», in the Minutes of the Congress Fortezze d’Europa. L’ Aquila, Soprintendenza per i Beni Architettonici, 2003.

— «La formulación de los principios de la Fortificación abaluartada», in M. SILVA (coord.): Técnica e ingeniería en España: El renacimiento. Zaragoza, Institución Fernando el Católico, 2004.

— (Coord.): La artillería de los Reyes Católicos. Salamanca, Junta de Castilla y León, 2004.

— «Dessins de fortification dans “Os desenhos das antigualhas” du portugais Francisco de Holanda (1538-1540)», in the Minutes from the working meetings Atlas militaires manuscrits européens. París, Musée des Plants-Reliefs, 2004.

— «La fortificación española del primer Renacimiento: entre la arqueología de la arquitectura y la arquitectura de papel», in Actas del Congreso Internacional Ciudades Amuralladas. Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 2005.

— «La Fortificación Española en los siglos XVII y XVIII: Vauban sin Vauban y contra Vauban», in M. SILVA (coord.): Técnica e ingeniería en España. Tomo II. El Siglo de las Luces. Zaragoza, Institución Fernando el Católico, 2005.

— «... quien a mi rey no obedeciera de mi se guardara. La arquitectura militar española con Fernando el Católico (1474-1516)», in the Minutes of the Congress L’architettura militare nell’età di Leonardo. Locarno, Casagrande, 2008.

— «Leonardo ingeniero y su contexto: Una guía de lectura crítica del Códice Madrid II», in The Manuscritos de Leonardo da Vinci at BNE: Codex Madrid I (Ms. 8937) and Codex Madrid II (Ms. 8936) First reviewed edition and facsimil edition, Madrid, 2009.

— «Una visión integral de las escuelas y los escenarios de la fortificación española de los Siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII», in Actas del IV Congreso de Castellología. Madrid, Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, 2012.

— Las escuelas de fortificación hispánicas en los siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII. Segovia, Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, 2012.

— «Las fronteras marítimas de la Monarquía hispánica y los Antonelli: entre el Mediterráneo y América», in Las fortificaciones de los Antonelli en Cuba, siglos XVI-XVII, Barcelona, Ministry of the Defense, 2013.

— «Los orígenes de la escuela española de fortificación del primer renacimiento», in Artillería y fortificaciones en la Corona de Castilla durante el reinado de Isabel la Católica, 1474-1504. Madrid, Ministry of the Defense, 2004.

F. COBOS, A. CÁMARA: De la fortificación de Yviça. Ibiza, Editorial Mediterrània Eivissa, 2008.

J. J. DE CASTRO:

PEDRO LUIS ESCRIVÁ AND THE FIRST TREATISE ON MODERN FORTIFICATION. NAPLES, 1538

51

F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO:

«Salsas and the Spanish Transition Forts», Revista Castillos de España, no. 110-111, Madrid, 1998.

— «The debate concerning the fortifications of the Empire and the Spanish Monarchy. 1535-1574», in Las fortificaciones de Carlos V. Madrid, State owned company for the commemoration of Philip II and Charles V centennials, 2000.

— «Design and technical development of Spanish Transition Forts» and «The debate concerning the fortifications of the Empire and the Spanish Monarchy», in Las fortificaciones de Carlos V. Madrid, State owned company for the commemoration of Philip II and Charles V centennials, 2000.

— «Engineers, experiences and Spanish military architecture scenarios of the 17th Century», in Los ingenieros militares de la monarquía hispánica en los siglos XVII y XVIII. Madrid, Ministry of the Defense, 2005.

F. COBOS, J. J. DE CASTRO and A. SÁNCHEZ-GIJÓN: Luis Escrivá, su Apología y la fortificación imperial. Valencia, Generalitat Valenciana, 2000.

FERNANDO COBOS. ESTUDIO ARQUITECTURA: Estudio e interpretación histórica y constructiva de la fortaleza de L’Aquila, Italia, Ministry of Culture, 2013 (Unpublished).

J. EBERHARDT: Das Kastell von L’Aquila degli Abruzzi, und sein Architekt Pyrrhus Aloisius Scrivá, Aachen, 1970.

— Das Kastell von L’Aquila. Il castello di L’Aquila. Amministrazione Provinciale, L’Aquila, 1994.

P. L. ESCRIVÁ: Apología, Naples, 1538.

A. GAETA: «A tutela et defensa di quisto regno» in Il castello a mare di Palermo, Baldiri Meteli e le fortificazioni regie Sicilia nell’età di Ferdinando il Cattolico (1479-1516): protagonisti, cantieri, maestranze. Palermo, Qanat, 2010.

L. A. MAGGIOROTTI: L’opera del genio italiano all’estero. Gli architetti militari. Roma, La Libreria dello Stato, 1939.

E. MARIÁTEGUI (ed.): Apología en excusación y favor de las fábricas del Reino de Nápoles; por el Comendador Scribá.

Madrid, Imprenta de Memorial de Ingenieros, 1878.

C. PROMIS: Della vita e delle opere degl’italiani scrittori di artiglieria, architettura e meccanica militare. Turín, 1843.

C. DE ROJAS: Teoría y Práctica de la fortificación. Madrid, Luis Sánchez, 1598.

F. DE SOJO Y LOMBA: El capitán Luis Pizaño: estudio histórico-militar referente a la primera mitad del siglo XVI. Madrid, Imprenta de Memorial de Ingenieros, 1928.

Back to Contents

52

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

3 From Tartaglia to Lechuga.

The Artillery Engineer JUAN LUIS GARCÍA HOURCADE Head of Department of Physics and Chemistry, Secondary Education Member of the San Quirce Royal Academy of History and Art

INTRODUCTION

It has been said of Renaissance Engineers, regardless of their categories, that they are characterised by an elitist and aesthetic theoretical training. By contrast, artillerymen were basically considered to be practical technicians, whose art consisted of overcoming problems that concerned attack and defence, whether on the battlefield or during sieges.

The considerable progress made by the artillery as from the 16th Century would greatly affect the engineers’ activity however, in such a way that there will appear a flow of information between them with respect to the requirements and the breakthroughs made in both directions, that would lead to many of those involved in the progress and development of the «art of war» being regarded as both engineers and artillerymen at the same time.

In spite of this, an engineer with an architectural background is not exactly the same as an artilleryman who, through a question of need, becomes an engineer in order to inspect or to manage fortifications, although the boundaries between engineers and artillerymen, and between both of these categories and master builders, machine drivers and operators, masters of warfare equipment, etc., are very close and pervious, and all of them promote certain relationship between theory and experience that will be very interesting to analyse. Because the relationship between theory and experience is at the root of the new science that was dawning in the Renaissance and would culminate in the 17th century, despite the «experience» and its relationship with the different areas of knowledge acquired by engineers and artillerymen was not the same, as we shall see.

Experience was to be considered increasingly necessary to enable one to prepare a theoretical discourse, yet, at the same time, the approach and mathematical treatment of the practical problems would gradually be considered indispensable in training for both engineering and artillery.

53

This emergence of «experience» in Renaissance thoughts and occupations was part of a new global look that «humanists» cast upon «mechanical trades», something that facilitated the initiation of the new type of knowledge, i.e. the one that does not renounce experience while at the same time states that mathematical knowledge is ideal. If it were to finally take root, it would also be necessary for the Platonic rift between Heaven and Earth, between mathematics and physics, to open sufficiently as to make room for matter, heavy, coarse and close, in the mathematical considerations and processes. The sentence from the Bible «God created everything by number, weight and measure» (Ecclesiastes, Book of Wisdom, 11:20) would appear in treatises or illustrating Renaissance frescos (in the Biblioteca de El Escorial, for example), vindicatory (or demonstrative) in nature of certain relations between theory and experience that bring in matter as a new variable.

This had been happening already since the 14th Century, not only as a result of the unstoppable ascent and proximity of the trades and workshops that began to fill the towns, but also because of the Aristotelian criticisms levelled from the universities.

Thus the Renaissance engineer, a theoretician with aesthetic leanings, who studied Plato, Archimedes, Euclid, Vitruvius, etc., was a multifaceted individual, often a humanist midway part scientist, part artist and part technician, who need his feet to be placed firmly on the ground: Cristóbal Lechuga in his Tratado de la Artillería y de Fortification [Treatise on Artillery and Fortification] included at the end of the work an epigraph that he entitled «To the engineers» in which he wrote: «... because the principle of Engineers is to know everything about manufacturing, not only on military but also political matters, just by lines and demonstrations, without any experience», and justifies the recommendations that he gives them in a radical statement «science, however great it might be, without experience, is of no use to them to make their works, estimations and opinions believable».

By contrast, artillerymen had more than enough experience. Actually, they had experience and hardly anything else. They lacked theoretical training and to make up for this deficiency it would be peremptory for them to study as the engineers did. The practical academies in Burgos and Barcelona, the Cátedra de Cosmografía de la Casa de Contratación in Seville and, above all, the Real Academia de Matemáticas were to become the first institutions that endeavoured to give this training to engineers and artillerymen alike.

However, an asymmetry emerged between engineers and artillerymen that was of the greatest interest: experience in military engineering would be worthwhile and highly recommended in order to improve efficiency in fortification, yet the practical and operational «art» of artillery, based upon field practice, was perhaps the decisive factor in establishing «material experience» in the theoretical discussions on the motion that were developing especially throughout the 15th Century, given that the «shooting issue», which constituted a central part of the process of eroding Aristotelian philosophy, took on a new dimension with improvements to firearms and the breakthroughs made in the world of artillery.

Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the objective in question was not in the warriors’ sights, so progress in natural philosophy and the debate about the crisis and the overcoming of Aristotelianism were not addressed in any artillery treatises.

Nova Scientia, by Nicolo Tartaglia, was the first treatise in which an attempt was made to find a theoretical solution to the practical problems facing artillery, especially

54

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

where shooting was concerned, so this treatise is considered to be the founder of the science of ballistics. What I intend to do here is to present, beginning with the aforementioned one, the most important treatises tackling this subject that were written by Spanish artillerymen-engineers.

All of them deal with what «an artilleryman should know». All of them talk about foundries, powders, fireworks, mines, tactical arrangements, calibres, carriage mounts, transport, etc. and, of course, the problem of shooting, its characteristics and ranges as well as the possibility of improving where hitting the target is concerned.

These are the ballistics questions to which I will limit myself, because these are not only the matters where the greatest divergence exists between treatments and solutions, but also the ones that will make it possible to assess the contribution made by Spanish treatisers to establishing the new science of kinematics and, hence, the Scientific Revolution of the Renaissance.

TREATISERS AND TREATISES

Nicolo Tartaglia and the «Nova Scientia» (1537) Tartaglia’s work, as is stated in the preamble in dedication to the Duke of Urbino, was prompted by the question posed to him in Verona in 1531, by a good friend and expert «bombardiero» about how he should aim a piece of artillery to guarantee maximum range.

Although he stated that he had no practical experience where artillery matters were concerned, after he had «thought carefully over and assimilated» the question, he came up with the answer and demonstrated with natural reasoning and mathematics that this maximum range would be achieved with an elevation of 45º. After a bet concerning ranges and elevations with two «bombardieri» in 1532, Nicolo Tartaglia decided to study the matter in greater detail, which eventually led him to considerations of all kinds which he included in Nova Scientia.

Structured into five books (of which only three would be published), each one contained definitions, assumptions, proposals and corollaries, i.e. a logical scheme that would perhaps endeavour to reproduce the deductive reasoning in Euclid’s Elements, a work that was translated into Italian by Tartaglia.

Tartaglia began by considering only the motion of what he defined as «bodies of the same gravity» (Book I, Def. I), which would be the ones that «owing to the gravity of their matter and as a consequence of their shape, are not susceptible to undergo major resistance from the air when they are in motion». The bodies that he was thinking about were spherical artillery projectiles, whether made of iron, lead or stone.

These bodies can be set in motion in two different ways: by «natural» movement, which thrusts them at an increasingly greater speed downwards in a straight line, and by «violent» movement, which is the motion caused by any artefact that makes them go in any direction other than downward vertical.

Tartaglia was not interested in the philosophical question that had been – and still was in academic circles – the question «a quo moventur proiecta», i.e., what or who keeps

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

55

FIG. 1 Nova Scientia by NICOLO TARTAGLIA, First Book, Proposal IIII.

FIG. 2 Nova Scientia by NICOLO TARTAGLIA. First Book, Proposal V.

in violent motion a body projected «against nature», so his work did not contain dynamic notions about motion used by philosophers, such as impetus, for example. As we have seen in the reasons that prompted him to write his Nova Scientia, Tartaglia was motivated by a practical question put forward by the artillerymen of his times.

Tartaglia established that in natural movement, the further away from the beginning of its movement a body of the same gravity is (or the closer it is to the end of its movement), the faster it goes, and thus its speed varies constantly «so its velocity can never be the same at two different moments along its path».

Where violent movement is concerned, the properties are exactly the opposite, the further it is from the start, from the force that causes the violence that has projected it (or the closer it is to the end) the slower it moves (Proposal III).

Therefore, bodies affected by violent movement are never moving at the same speed at any two different points along their path either (Corollary II deduced from Proposal III), but, whatever their initial speed happens to be, their final velocity will be the same (Proposal IV), although the one that covers the greatest distance will have left its source with a larger velocity.

He establishes from all the above, that two projectiles launched at the same angle but at different speeds, will have similar paths exactly as from the moment when the velocity of the faster of the two has slowed down to the initial speed of the slower one (at points «K» and «C» the velocity would be the same). [FIG. 1] As far as the specific shape of the path is concerned, part of the incompatibility of the two movements simultaneously in one single body (Proposal V), i.e., what was considered to be a «mixed» movement by some authors of the period, and that, he reasons, because this would mean that the possession of the «natural» would make it increase its velocity, whereas the simultaneous possession of the «violent» would make it decrease, which would appear to go against reason.

The path therefore would be divided into three sections (although for the purpose of consistency they should only be two): violent straight, violent curved and natural rectilinear, the curved section being justified in the Second Book, Assumption II, where he indicates that the «heaviness» that is constantly exerted on the body would mean that the rectilinear part of the violent movement was not really straight, but would be gradually bending, and

56

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

he considers that such a deviation affecting the straight line will be such small and imperceptible to senses that it could be ignored, «that which is clearly a curve» being part of the «circumference of a circle». [FIG. 2] And as was announced in Proposal VII of the Second Book, it is deduced that paths with identical angles will be proportional, as will the distances run, which means that the distances reached will be proportional to the initial velocities. [FIG. 3] In Proposals VIII and IX he obtains FIG. 3 Nova Scientia by NICOLO TARTAGLIA. Second Book, the most predictive results. He explains Proposal VII. that the same horizontal distance can be reached with two different inclinations (that, he states, enables one to reach targets defended by a parapet that prevents them from being seen, but whose distance from the artillery piece is known to us), which finally enabled him to deduce that the greatest range is consistent with an elevation of 45º, which is 10 times greater than the horizontal shot, the rectilinear part of the violent movement, being approximately 4 times as long as the horizontal shot (which the «bombardieri» call the «di punta in bianco» shot).

The corollary with which he completes the Second Book establishes that the straight section of the violent part of the movement will thus be longer along the one that gives the greatest range, i.e. the 45º elevation.

The Third Book is devoted to indicating the ways in which distances and heights can be measured for inaccessible places with the aid of a quadrant, and giving the theory concerned, i.e. «the reason and cause underlying this way of operating».

The idea behind the Fourth Book was to take up again the problems of shooting and Tartaglia had announced that he was going to show in it, for any piece of artillery, the range increase and decrease proportions on the basis of the shot inclination, which would enable him to find the variety of shots in each one of the artillery pieces, whether large or small, just by knowing the result for one single shot.

That is to say, it was possible to prepare a series of tables for each piece that would show their ranges for each elevation and load. And this could be done merely by having experimental knowledge about the range for a given angle and load. All of this would lead to substantial breakthroughs in artillery practice and would reveal the power of mathematics applied to practical artillery. Yet he never published this book.

«Quesiti et inventioni diverse» (1546) Some years later, in 1546, Tartaglia once again dealt with the question of ballistics in a new work that, as he stated in the foreword, he had written prompted by certain matters

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

57

FIGS. 4.1 and 4.2 COLO TARTAGLIA,

Quesiti et inventioni diverse by NIFirst Book, First Question.

that «illustrious and wise gentlemen» had started to wonder about after reading Nova Scientia, as well as his own experiences. He entitled it Quesiti et inventioni diverse and it comprises nine books in which he tackles such subjects as powders, the fortification, the way armies should be arranged in battles, etc. He only deals with strictly ballistic matters in the first book. It is therefore rather more similar in content to a traditional artillery treatise.

The entire work is presented in the form of a dialogue between Tartaglia and a series of characters who put forward proposals to him or ask him questions (quesiti), the first one of which comes from the Duke of Urbino, to whom Nova Scientia was dedicated, which accounts for the fact that references are found to that work in the text as «il vostro libro a me intitolato».

The First Question begins by recovering and re-explaining the construction and use of the «material instrument» (da noi ritrovato) that already appeared in Nova Scientia, the quadrant. He splits it into 12 equal parts, which he refers to as points and each one of these, is divided into a further 12 that he calls minutes. So, the 45º would we equivalent to 6 points or 72 minutes. This is used to establish the shooting angle. [FIGS. 4.1 and 4.2] What he explains first of all is that, although it is clear that the range of a bullet increases progressively with every point of elevation, this increase is not proportional (a major modification to what was established in Nova Scientia) because, he adduces, from the 5th to the 6th point there is hardly any difference between the ranges, whether this is «per vigor della polvere, over per altro». The maximum range is achieved by shooting from the 6th point, and from there to the 12th point it decreases. As a result of this discovery, he claims to have found the «specie di proportione» with which he carries on increasing the shots (the ranges) and declares that with one single shot from the piece in question, a table can be drawn up for all the shots fired by that piece, point by point and minute by minute on the quadrant.

This table, which is the basic aim of artillery ballistics, had already been announced in the Preamble to Nova Scientia and it was planned to be included in the Fourth Book, which was never published.

58

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

Neither does he publish it now in the Quesiti.... It is likely that Tartaglia did not actually do it and he was merely announcing the method that he had found. It could well be the case that, as he himself said, at least one known shot per piece has to be known, and it was probably beyond his possibilities to conduct such an experiment. It might also be thought that if he had published it he would be revealing to the general public what might be regarded as a «state secret».

Tartaglia states with respect to the table that anybody who possessed it would be able to shoot with precision and that it would not be necessary for such a person to learn the secret of its construction. Faced with the Duke of Urbino’s scepticism, in view of the fact that in Nova Scientia he had admitted that he had no experience whatsoever with actual artillery fire and that «those who pass judgement on something whose effects they have not seen, i.e. about which they have no experience, are usually mistaken, because it is only the eyes that can genuinely bear witness to the things that have been imagined», Tartaglia responded that «it is true to say that the senses tells us the whole truth, but about specific things, yet not about universal matters, given that these are only accessible to the intellect and not to any of the senses».

In this dialogue, Tartaglia shows himself to be articulate in his arguments leaving the Duke unable to respond. However, Tartaglia’s discourse also reveals the seeds of the essence of what the Scientific Revolution of the Renaissance was to become from a methodological perspective: experience is necessary to construct universals (generalisations, laws), yet access to these is not necessarily or mechanically deduced from one’s own experience, capacity, knowledge and imagination of the scientist being also required.

Once the law (the universal) has been reached, this transcends the senses and teaches us (shows) things not directly accessible to these, although it is still possible to put them to the test experimentally. It is a splendid example of how the reason/experience dialectics, subjecting one to the other and vice-versa, lie at the foundation of modern science since its incipient outset.

In the Second Question, likewise proposed by the Duke of Urbino, what is considered is whether it would be more advisable to shoot against a lofty fortress from another hill at the same altitude, or from the base of that hill. [FIG. 5]

FIG. 5

Quesiti et inventioni diverse by First Book, Second

NICOLO TARTAGLIA,

Question.

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

59

In Nova Scientia (Second Book, Proposal VIII) it was established that the distance a bullet travels in a rectilinear way and that it covers at the highest speed is longer (for the same amount of gunpowder) than the distance covered «with precision» or «punta in bianco» (to use the traditional artillery expressions of the day), i.e., with a horizontal path, and not only that, but for an elevation of 6 points or 45º it would be approximately 4 times longer.

Once these results were established, the following eminently practical question had to be resolved, (with imaginable and immediate consequences for warfare), and it was asked by the Duke in the following way: If we assume that the distance covered along a virtually rectilinear path for a horizontal shot is, for example, 200 paces, the distance covered in a straight line for an elevation of 6 points will be 800 paces. Let’s assume that the cannon lying on the hill at the same altitude as the target is 60 paces from that target. In such a case, the bullet will reach the target at a velocity which would still enable it to cover a further 140 paces.

The distance will be greater for a cannon positioned at the base of the hill, let’s say 100 paces (knowing that the reasoning is based upon the slope of 45º – even if it is only an example – Tartaglia could have proposed a specific height for the hill and, using Pythagoras, and would have been able to establish the oblique distance from the piece to the target).

In this case, the bullet will reach it at a velocity that will still enable it to cover a further 700 paces (800 – 100), i.e., a much greater distance than in the previous case and so the impact will be much greater. However, as Tartaglia himself points out, if the distance from the hill happened to be 130 paces and the distance from the valley 760, then the greatest effect would be felt from the bullet fired from the hill [(200 – 130) > (800 – 760)].

We might be surprised at these almost absurd arguments, but applying mathematics to nature, and more specifically to the science of motion, is very difficult and Tartaglia was the first person to attempt this, mixing correct geometry with dynamics heavily weighed down by Aristotelian philosophy. The correct mathematical treatment of motion could not be achieved until the enquiring minds had managed to rid themselves of this philosophy. However, this was not to happen until nearly one hundred years later, with Galileo.

The Third Question, which also came from the Duke of Urbino, expressed a doubt whose explanation constituted one of the essential differences with what was previously held about motion in Nova Scientia. The Duke says that in the previous discourse Tartaglia has said that «la balla sbocata che sia da un pezzo, mai va parte alcuna del suo motto per línea retta». And that, he adds, is something that he cannot believe, because even admitting that the horizontal path of a culverin with a range of 200 paces was not completely straight, at least 100 of those paces, or 50 of them, would be straight.

Tartaglia’s reply leaves no room for doubt, and is radical and definitive: «non solamente la non tirara li detti passa 50 per línea perfettamente retta ma la non tirara un passo solo».

In answer to the Duke’s comment, «una paccia la vostra», since bullets arrive directly at the sight, which would not happen if they were not in a straight line, Tartaglia replies that our senses are not sufficiently acute and precise to discern the tight curve at the beginning of the path from a straight line, and presents his argument in a consistent and flawless way [FIG. 6]:

60

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 6 Quesiti et inventioni diverse by NICOLO TARTAGLIA, First Book, Third Question.

Let’s assume that the total path is represented by the line ABCD. Should it be possible that it were absolutely straight along some of its parts, we would consider this to be the AB part. If we were to split this into two at Point E, the bullet would cross Part AE faster than Part EB (Book I, Prop. II of N.S.). However, for the reasons given earlier, (the velocity of the bullet is what lightens the weight preventing the path from bending, the declination increasing as the velocity slows down, because an animated body in violent motion becomes less heavy the faster it moves, and thus in a straighter way, it goes through the air, which supports it more easily the lighter the bullet is), faster means straighter, so section AE will be straighter that section EB, as opposed to what was established at the outset considering the entire straight part to be one single straight line.

Therefore, we could carry on dividing successive sections without finding two that are as «straight» as each other.

An answer and an argument that could have put an end to the theory of the three theoretical sections existing along the trajectories of violent movements, should his influence in academic circles (rather than in artillery circles) have been greater, facilitating natural philosophers to make quicker inroads into the process of wearing away Aristotelianism, in which the criticism of the shoot theory was an essential point of attack.

The Questions continued rising practical artillery problems until Question XVIII was presented, in which Signore Iacomo de Achiaia says to the author that he has seen that by «firing on a wall from very close is not as effective as if one were to fire from further away», whereas according to what is stated in Nova Scientia, this should be the other way around. The reason, responds Tartaglia, giving way this time to common experience, is that the bullet fired by the cannon thrusts, together with the gas from the powder, a column of air that could be compared to a beam, but which moves much more slowly than the bullet itself, which thus crosses it very quickly. However, if the piece is positioned very close to the target, the column of air, which will not have had time to expand and dissipate, touches the wall before the bullet, and, on its movement backwards, puts up a resistance to the bullet that slows it down and weakens its effect.

Tartaglia, without yielding to the artilleryman’s naivety and lack of experience, ought to have used reason to fully refute the argument. Yet, as we have already pointed out, it was too early to establish the correct relationships between pure experience and a mathematical theoretical approach to the way motion is treated.

So, those were the foundations laid by Tartaglia midway through the 16th Century insofar as ballistics were concerned. We shall now see what contributions or modifications were made by the artillerymen engineers.

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

61

Luis Collado de Lebrija and the «Platica Manual de Artillería» (1586) Luis Collado de Lebrija, who was appointed engineer of the Royal Army of Lombardy and Piedmont, published in Italian (Milan, 1586) a Platica Manual de Artilleria, which he would later expand in an edition printed in Spanish (Milan, 1592) and in which he stated that «there is nothing written in this book that I have not experimented on personally». Throughout five treatises he provides explanatory accounts of the expertise and know-how that are inherent to artillerymen: casting cannons and other pieces, making gunpowder, transporting and installing pieces, manufacturing mines, etc.

The Third Treatise is devoted to the «the different trades and operations concerning the exercise and practice of the art of Artillery, without which it would be impossible for an Artilleryman to perform his activities as he should carry out in any venture». It contains therefore the proprietary knowhow of artillerymen and, as we shall see, addresses the problem of shooting, i.e. ballistics. The contents of this work by Collado have made many readers consider it to be the first criticism of Tartaglia. However, we shall see how he did this and whether it really carries such a criticism.

In Chapter V, which deals with the artillery shoot elevations, Collado criticises Tartaglia for claiming that he was the inventor of the quadrant as an artilleryman’s instrument and states something that is already known, that «the longest shot that can be made by a piece of artillery is when the mouth is so high that it is facing the liner that according to astrologists and mathematicians is 45º above the plain of our horizon» and «the shortest shot is when the mouth or bore is levelled». He gives a rather bizarre explanation for this («I will give an explanation of the cause to these effects»): ... bullets from a levelled piece find the exit easy and the transit flat, and the piece ejects them very easily, but given that the nature of powder touched by fire (lit) has to show all its force instantly, the powder being under pressure from the bullet and the ball of rag or hay that the artilleryman is ramming down on it, the fire is more forced and tries harder to escape from that pack and find the easiest way out possible, which is through the mouth of the piece.

As a result, the greater the elevation is, the more rebellious and difficult to move the bullet becomes and its own weight applies and compresses the fire still further making it even more tightly packed and uses its force much more and ejects the bullet a much greater distance.

The sophisticated and mathematical Archimedean arguments concerning the lightness of Tartaglia’s bullet are replaced by some strange and untested considerations ( probably not even possible to test), about the driving force of the powder on the basis of its compression.

Chapter VI describes a test that he himself conducted on the subject dealt with in the preceding chapter: firing with a 3-pound falconet, he found the following distances from level up to the 6th point: 368, 594, 794, 954, 1010, 1040 and 1053.

The figure begins to decrease after the 6th point, corroborating his original estimation («I don’t wish to bore the reader with too many numbers, so I won’t give them all»), and stated what he had proved with the falconet, could apply to all other pieces, although some models might achieve greater overall distances than others.

62

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

And he concludes with: «so Gerónimo Rucelio and Nicolo Tartaglia can shut up, and so can all other authors who without argument, or experience, claim that once it is known how many paces a piece shot from the first point has reached, it is known how many paces it will reach from any other point, by examining the shots using the rules of numbers, which will never ring true».

Collado seems to argue that what happens with the falconet (an increase in the range as the elevation increases) is a general result, yet, at the same time, perhaps unable to recognise in the ranges a sequence that is not evident, he affirms the mathematical impossibility of discovering the law concerning the increase in range with the elevation that would make it possible to know after only one single shot, the range for any of them, as Tartaglia had claimed was possible (albeit, without demonstrating it).

In Chapter XXII Collado gives an account of his experiences betting with artillerymen over the range of a variety of shots, in which in fact he reveals that ignorance was widespread among artillerymen and knights, of the rules relating range and elevation.

And in Chapter XXXVI he deals with and defends the theory that from a high point the range will invariably be greater (for the same load and elevation of the piece) than from the foot of that high point, and it will exceed the range from the foot by the height difference from which the firing takes place. That difference in ranges (the same as the height difference) is not justified in any way; the reason that he offers has no mathematical or philosophical basis whatsoever, and neither is it based upon experience.

The fact that this book was reedited in 1606 and, especially in 1641, is an indication – in spite of what seemed to be the case –, of just how slowly progress was being made in the militia with regard to applying mathematics to nature.

Diego de Álava y Viamont and «The Perfect Captain instructed in military discipline and the new science of Artillery» (1590) This is an unusual case because what is, in my opinion, the most serious of all the Spanish Renaissance treatise that deal with ballistics, was written by a professional lawyer, the son of a man who was a Captain General of Artillery, and who openly admitted that he had studied mathematics not out of a liking for the subject but because his father’s wish. The fact of the matter is that he did so in Salamanca with Jerónimo Muñoz (a renowned professor of Astrology on those days and a prestigious Mathematician) and it seemed to have been well worth his while, judging by the results.

His Perfect Captain was published in 1590 and contains six books in which, once again, a wide range of knowledge is displayed that it was generally accepted were necessary for being an artilleryman. The Fifth and Sixth Books are devoted to ballistics and they review the Tartaglia’s theories, which they make use of, but which the author considers to be erroneous in some aspects.

The title of the Fifth Book, «which deals with all the instruments required to use artillery and the way to make tables to shoot with them following the doctrine of Nicolo Tartaglia», is an affirmation of the possibility of drawing up firing tables and an admission of the debt that he owed to Tartaglia.

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

63

And he immediately gets to grips with the subject by asking a well-known question, why, once in flight, does the piece reach further?, to which he gives an answer using the same terms as Tartaglia, referring to Archimedean statics: «the further that any grave body deviates from its point of equilibrium, the lighter it becomes (as will be seen in weighing scales...)». That is to say, when artillery pieces shoot from a sloping position (in which the bullet is far from its equilibrium point), their bullets become lighter when compared to those that do so «punta en blanco», so that with the same thrust, they can travel a greater distance.

He gives this as being the real cause, based upon natural philosophy, an account with which the practical artillerymen disagree, their only explanation being to say that this happens «because it is known to by experience». An experience lacking in «speculation or theory» that he also criticises in another section on considering that the maximum range will occur for the elevation of 45º, which is not taken to be a certain fact in artillery experience. Álava thus presents a type of «experience» that leads to error, he describes it as the «shield of the ignorant» and its origins lie in those thinking in that way «being unaccustomed to everything that is art and speculation».

Chapter II describes the quadrant, accepting that it was invented by Tartaglia (something that Collado refuses to do) and goes on to explain how to construct a table for shooting with any artillery, by varying the elevation. He does this on the basis of two assumptions, that he claims are Tartaglia’s: the greatest range occurs at an elevation of 45º («at the height of the 6th point») and that identical variations in range will be given by identical variations in elevation. Here, Álava moves away from the criticism of Collado with regard to this equality of proportions, which he did on the basis of practical experimentation, and he creates his tables based on Tartaglia’s achievement of establishing the maximum range as being 10 times the range along the horizon and carrying out simple rules of three, in accordance with the direct proportion admitted.

In addition, Álava applies these tables still further, so that they can serve for any other artillery piece, using the same simple proportions and on the basis of the range proportions. He ends the chapter by reminding the reader that «all that has been done so far has been based upon the principles of Tartaglia that were referred to at the beginning, the truth of which is beyond all doubt».

However, quite surprisingly he entitles Chapter III: «Where Nicolo Tartaglia’s first assumption fails». He writes this chapter with the aid of Gerónimo Muñoz, who had considerable experience with long and short pieces, which led him to believe that the proportion between maximum and horizontal range was not universal and that the proportion is greater for short pieces than for long ones (which he justifies by stating that the gunpowder is not used to as great an advantage by short pieces in low shoot situations). And he concludes that two shots must be fired for each artillery piece, and then the proportion can be deduced (by maintaining equal variations for every equivalent elevation variation!) and a table can be constructed for each piece, and it would be a good idea if this table were engraved on the piece when it was cast and tested. Álava shows himself here to be blinkered about the capacity of reaching universals, and resorts to the most traditional empiricism that is not accompanied by theory or speculation, simulating this mistrust by subjecting himself to experience, which as we have

64

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 7 El Perfecto Capitán instruido en la disciplina militar y nueva ciencia de la Artilleria by DIEGO DE ÁLAVA Y VIAMONT. Fifth Book.

been seeing is ambivalent, but he retains something that Tartaglia had abandoned in the Quesiti (so it would seem that Álava had not read it), such is the direct proportionality between elevations and ranges.

He then goes on to deal with paths and tries to prove wrong what was established by Tartaglia. The title of this section could not be more ambitious: «Tartaglia’s opinion about everything he wrote in his Nueva Ciencia is dismissed». He announces that although what has been covered so far is accessible to any artilleryman with certain knowledge of arithmetic, what is from now going to be dealt with is only for the more educated, those who are at least well versed in the six books by Euclid. And that, he states, is in order that he could be dealing with matters that often arise among artillerymen without them making use of the experience of others, given that «the few months spent in understanding this art with the required basics, are more useful for working with artillery, than 20 years as a soldier, because science is much better than experience bereft of the requirements that must necessarily go with it».

This is a statement adapted to the perspective of the new science and to the relationship between reason and experience, that places Álava amongst the most renowned creators of the new scientific perspective. Álava accepts the three-way division of the path, although establishing an error in the Italian: the curved portion in question is not part of a circumference. He does this by resorting to Euclid and by using similar reasoning to Tartaglia’s in the Quesiti, to demonstrate that the path can never be a straight line at any point [FIG. 7]: If point Q is the point where the weight of the ball begins to have a considerable proportion compared to the driving force of the impellent (therefore, where the path starts to slope, and, incidentally, Álava does not dispute the fact that it is perfectly straight until this point), then, given that it moves more lightly from Q to X, than from X to Y, it is necessarily the case that the path QX is less oblique than the path from X to Y, which renders it impossible that Point X and Point Y are points on one and the same arc. And, likewise, since the ball goes lighter from X to Y than it does from Y to Z, one will be less oblique than the other, from which he holds that it cannot be the case that the arc QZ forms part of any circle, «but infinite parts of infinite circles».

This is indeed a theoretical contribution made by Álava based upon geometrical considerations and natural philosophy.

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

65

In Chapter IV he calculates the quantities for the arcs that all bullets make, in the way shown by Tartaglia, i.e., assuming that they form part of a circle, and contrary to what he had just demonstrated in the previous chapter; the difficulty involved in the mathematical treatment of curves that as he himself said were «infinite parts of infinite circles», led him to assume that the higher one aimed the closer the curve would be to the roundness of the circle, and so he approached the problem geometrically as though this were the case, i.e. following Tartaglia’s incorrect assumption From that point onwards, once he stopped criticising Tartaglia, and what is more, «making the same assumption as Tartaglia», Álava calculated the quantities that corresponded to the bullet’s «violent straight section» («there is no doubt about the existence of the straight section – or nearly straight section – along one stretch, and so this will be even truer the greater the slope is, because if one shoots straight at the zenith the entire violent path will be a straight line, so the closer we approach this limit, the straighter the path will be, as long as the ball’s weight has an insensitive proportion to the force of the fire») and he establishes that by knowing the proportion between the ranges of the horizontal shot and the 45º shot, it is possible to calculate the straight part, and he demonstrates this geometrically, with results that are fairly consistent with Tartaglia, i.e. 4 times the straight part of the oblique above the horizontal and 10 times the total of the range of one above the other. Yet it is only to be expected that he would obtain this result (over 50 years later), given that Tartaglia was an experienced mathematician and if the same philosophical and geometrical premises are used the correctness of the results comes as no surprise.

However, he ends by saying that although the demonstrations are conclusive, given that the principles on which they are based (Tartaglia’s) are not, they would only serve to make it easier to use artillery, the way leading to finding out the proportions for shooting.

We then move on to the Sixth Book («In which the doctrine of Nicolo Tartaglia is dismissed and the valid one is taught with the demonstrations on which it was founded and what has to be followed to make tables for use in Artillery»).

In this part, Álava discusses and reproves the theory of uniform proportionality of ranges with elevation and demonstrates the fundamentals of how to make the tables by associating the proportion not to the elevation, but to its straight sine, indicating the way of making tables that could be used for shooting with any artillery piece.

He does state however that for pieces in which it is tested that a shoot at 45º happens to have a range 10 times greater than the horizontal shoot, the first tables can still be used, which indicates to us that he is not absolutely sure about his considerations and the weakness of the experiments upon which they are based.

Nevertheless, these new tables amounted to a clear progress in the mathematical treatment of the range and they came closer to what would finally be the correct proportion, the range depending on the square of the straight sine of the angle of inclination, which would be one of Galileo’s achievements. However, in order to do this, as we have already pointed out, he would have had to give up the assumptions made by natural philosophy about shooting.

66

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

«Discourse dealing with Artillery and all that is required for it, with a Fortification Treatise» (1610) by Cristóbal Lechuga Vicente de los Ríos introduces Lechuga as «an experienced officer in the artillery and a worthy engineer», so once again we are faced the nebulous distinction between the two professions. And I would, have to say that he was the former rather than the latter, owing to his professional career and his written work, in which he demonstrates the soundness of his knowledge, feeling better able to defend and put across in the field of artillery than in the specific engineering world of fortification, to which he devotes only the last of the 24 chapters in this Treatise.

Lechuga is known in the history of artillery basically because he was in favour of reducing the number of artillery classes to six, bringing order and rigour to the chaotic profusion of calibres, establishing the calibres for cannons at 150, 130 and 100 cm and 120, 90 and 75 for the culverin. He also advised on a new way of manufacturing gunpowder, a research activity which was essentially the work of an artilleryman.

However, with regard to perspective that is being presented of the contribution made by artillerymen engineers to the birth of ballistics as a science, it is another of his inventions that is of greatest interest, one which he put into practice with spectacular success at the siege of Cambray (1595); it involved bringing the batteries forward almost to the counterscarp of the city’s fortifications, for the purpose of which he had to protect them well sinking them into the ground, either by using «faggots» or gabion baskets full of earth and branches.

When Lechuga himself justified this daring strategy from a theoretical perspective, he came across as being a person who acted bravely in the face of the acritical experience of practical artillerymen, because Lechuga stated, and he explained this in Chapter XVII of his Treatise, that the closer the artillery fire is to its target the more effective it is (neither Tartaglia, nor Collado, nor Álava had broken away from the opposite undemonstrated belief, and they had even justified it with natural philosophy arguments). And that is the case, said Lechuga, through experience gained ad hoc and through reasoning, in view of the fact that «as the greatest force exerted by all violent movements is at the beginning and the place from which they leave, and after this point they gradually lose this force until they either stop or their movement eventually becomes natural», what he said had to be accepted necessarily if the nature of violent movement was accepted.

Therefore, Lechuga had done something that neither Tartaglia nor Álava (who so often criticised the former) had dared to do. And he did this by making a distinction between common experience, not questioned and accepted by habit and «experience» (which would thus come to be «experimentation») carried out to corroborate or factually establish an explanation. Lechuga dismisses those who have stated the opposite and quotes arguments like the one put forward by Tartaglia (without actually mentioning his name), stating that such arguments are «dreams and illusions unworthy of persons of good judgement». He reiterates this in another section of the same chapter when trying to answer the rhetorical question «how far from the walls should the artillery be laid», to which the categorical answer is: «the closer the better», to which is added, «as there are hazards when that close and the site does not allow it, it is advisable to adapt as best as you can and lay the artillery at the least possible distance».

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

67

In my opinion, this is the most important contribution that Lechuga made not only to science and to the artillery art of «attacking strongholds» but also to ballistics (what was to become kinematics) by rejecting one of the conceptual errors that held up the theoretical breakthroughs of natural philosophy and the incipient experimentation with inertia.

Lechuga, occasionally made statements that he did not bother to test or even defend with arguments, and that constitute surprising considerations about the nature of motion.

For example, in one section where he is dealing with the range that is achieved with larger or smaller bullets, he claims, and states it to be true without further argument, that «if two iron bullets are dropped from the same height, one weighing one pound and the other five pounds, both will reach the ground at the same velocity and at the same time». And he claimed this quite a long time before Galileo, adding, «as experience clearly demonstrates».

He says in another section that the page of ranges that he had shown referred to the minimum ranges for each piece that was indicated, i.e., the ranges for shots «fired horizontally», but should they be fired with the piece elevated (Lechuga had already indicated the need for all artillerymen to know how to use the quadrant, which he succinctly describes) «the shots would be longer, an all the more so the higher the piece was raised; and for every elevation point this could increase by 12%».

He offers no explanation and does not demonstrate this. This means accepting the proportionality originally proposed by Tartaglia and criticised by Collado and Álava. This would certainly be the simplest way of being able to construct «range tables», although he himself then goes on to write that «these distances are not given as being absolutely correct and determined, yet they are very close to the truth, as I have been able to ascertain from the experience that has been acquired».

The same thing happened with his statement about two grave objects of different weights falling in the same way, announced in another section once again without making any comments or carrying out any demonstrations, as «if the piece that shoots were on a hill, once the straight shot of the bullet is lost, (he thus accepts the violent-straight section), it would not find the plumb plane, but would end up somewhere, either hyperbola or parabola, until all the violence ceased».

Where from did Lechuga get this intuition that the curved violent section is a parabola or a hyperbole? This he does not say.

On another occasion we come across the comment arisen in the face of «what some believe», that if you move away from the target, or fire with less gunpowder, the shot will impact at a lower level than when it has sufficient powder and a distance to make it hit the target with a «punta en blanco» shot, and, on the contrary, if more gunpowder is added or one moves closer to the target, the impact is elevated, which to them would prove that «the bullet does not travel through space in a straight line, but it forms an arc», or what amounts to be the same, that when it leaves the cannon mouth it invariably descends and declines.

Lechuga then says that most of those who have supported that opinion have done so by following and relying upon «Tartaglia’s incorrect opinion» (he would appear to have read the Quesiti by then) and that he would have had no problem to refute this by simply

68

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

resorting to experience. However, «he reserves for another moment the opportunity to condemn the reasons given by those who insist that the bullet that has left the cannon, cannot travel, no matters the distance, in a straight line».

One point that serves to illustrate the misappropriation and excessively free use of natural philosophy, used to adapt to the language of this latter appreciations that sound like invention, is the explanation that he offers for the question, now clearly dynamic, i.e. explanatory and not descriptive, with regard to «why the shots become longer and more violent the higher the firing is raised above the horizontal plane». Lechuga says, after giving a very brief outline of some of the causes that are often given to account for the phenomenon of enunciated experience, that «this place asked for a long discourse on natural and violent movements, and on the inclination and rejection that there is from one to the other», but as these considerations do not fall within the scope of the Treatise, «that is all we need to know for the time being ...», and offers a strange combination of experience, intuition and vague natural philosophy that are mixed in throughout Lechuga’s explanation that, it must be admitted, except for the statements about falling, the need to move the shots closer to the target and the shape of the curved part of the path, add nothing to the quantitative practice of shooting (tables) or to the theory of ballistics, at a time when the eventual solution was being prepared.

A mix of notions that blocked out the light at the end of the tunnel where the search of a solution was concerned: a bullet does not go further away because it leaves the artillery piece more quickly the more oblique the direction is (it could be thought of shootings that do not require gunpowder, just like crossbows); the treatisers studied are drawn towards this belief by joining velocity and range under the impression that the latter is the result of the possession of a «moving virtue» (impetus) that gradually becomes exhausted: greater range requires more impetus, which, at the same time, requires greater velocity and, as a result, greater energy in the impelling explosion. That is the chain that has to be explained in the terms in which Lechuga, and the others, do it.

The notion of inertia will be needed, together with the extremely abstract notion of «composition of movements» that is derived from the former, as well as an analysis of the relativity of movement and the lack of a space with places that determine movement, in order to give a sensible explanation of all the ballistic processes and their accidents.

However, that was to be the result of the work done by one of the greatest geniuses of all times, Galileo.

The «Artillery Treatise and how to use artillery» (1613), by Diego Ufano This Treatise, printed in Brussels in 1613 by Captain Diego Ufano, military engineer and artilleryman, is split into three parts. It is the second part the one that is of interest to us, which almost immediately features a variant of a traditional question that Ufano is asked by a general: Which shoot furthest if at the same elevation, artillery pieces at the foot of a tower or on top of the tower?

The captain soon replies stating «with regard to things that have not been tested I would be ill advised to tell His Excellence which of the two fired further», to which the

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

69

general answers that he thinks it would be the one at the foot of the tower, because the cannonball that is higher up is exposed to more wind that «causes resistance, pitching and makes it move from one place to another», whereas «the one that is at the foot makes use of the shelter provided by the ground».

Speculative thoughts are exchanged, during the course of which already known and established facts emerge (the «simultaneous shooting» at 45º) as well as comments invented on the spur of the moment about natural movement and tendency to natural rest … stating that the bullet at the top would overtake the one at the bottom at a distance equivalent to (or slightly greater than) the height of the tower (which is what Luis Collado sustains in his Treatise).

And when the captain is asked about «how many transits the bullet makes when shooting simultaneously», he replies that there are three. [FIG. 8] The first one in a transverse straight line and with the greatest force. In the second section there is a mixed downward sloping movement that occurs when «the bullet on rising is tired as a result of the violent movement» and «it is shorter than the others». The third section follows «a natural line falling from the highest point to the lowest with great force without any other strength and energy than the gravity of its own weight, this movement being referred to as pure». «The mixed mode has both violent and pure movements and is thus the shortest and the longest of the three is the violent one (…) but given that I have no experience with these things and as I have not found any author who has written about them except Nicolo Tartaglia in Nova Scientia makes the distinction on sophisticated and natural basis, I will be unable to make out well the substance of the question through

FIG. 8

70

Tratado de la artillería y uso della by DIEGO UFANO.

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

any other via, and that is where I shall leave it, so that a more inquiring mind can get to the bottom of the matter using experience, which is the mother and master of all arts».

Later on, they discuss whether a piece shoots further from land to sea than from sea to land. The captain puts forward his own experience in the town of Dunkirk in favour of shooting from the sea, but the general begs to differ, because at sea, as the piece draws back and receives less support than on land (causing the ship itself to draw back), it would shoot a shorter distance. The captain says that they are «extremely mysterious phenomena», but «the force with which the vessel fires the bullet landward makes the bullet seek shelter and natural rest, and the force with which the shot is fired from land to sea naturally has to fight against the two elements, namely, water and wind, because the force is such, I tell you, that leaves the land that the damp and the wind force stirs it up and shakes all over the place and it has been demonstrated that at low tide the shot from land will be longer than at high tide and the shot fired from sea to land arrives with greater ease».

The captain eventually states that the shot would be more than 1,000 paces longer from sea to land than vice-versa and claims to have conducted the experiment in Ostend and in the Nioporte works and channel.

The general replies that perhaps artillery pieces with greater calibre or better or finer gunpowder ought to be used on ships, but the captain assures him that it is not a matter of calibre, because the same was used, or a question of powder, because on land an extra spoonful was used. He states that when he talked about this with experienced sailors and well-versed artillerymen, they invariably voted in favour of the argument that he had put forward.

I would like to bring the section on Ufano to an end by quoting his proposal for a «rule» that he offers to deal with the classic problem of knowing what the ranges are on the basis of the elevation of the piece. Ufano lends his support to a rule that he can only defend with flimsy and confused reasoning, that the artilleryman will have to know the paces that his piece can reach, regardless of the piece concerned, by the natural aim of the level of the metals; and divide this by 50 and multiply the quotient by 11, which will give the number of paces for his entire «degression», which divided by 44 degrees will give the exact degression that the shot will lose for each degree.

It is rather sad to see how not only the mathematical approach to the problems that have been rethorically posed but also the natural philosophy used to solve them have suffered a setback. The level of practical knowledge of mathematics and the way this is argued and used are clearly much lower than in the treatises we have seen so far, and the same is the case with the natural philosophy that applies to the situations presented.

It must be remembered that in 1626 and, in an enlarged edition in 1642 (therefore, after Galileo’s final work on ballistics), Platica Manual y Breve Compendio de Artillería», a work by Julio César Firrufino was published, which, as Mariano Esteban Piñeiro quite rightly says, is a «summary of the major Renaissance treatises on artillery». This book still presents ballistics in a similar way to the treatises that we have analysed here, without any extension or theoretical improvement of any kind whatsoever.

Maybe this was an early indication of the decline that Spanish science and techniques underwent in the 17th Century, no serious attempt being made to redress until the Bourbon dynasty arrived.

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

71

A good example of this is that in the 18th Century Ensenada realised that the Spanish military industries had become obsolete when compared to their European competitors, and he established training programmes. Casting techniques, for example, and the way artillery was generally handled, were once again characterised by rudimentary empiricism.

Juan Helguera points out that at the arsenal in Ferrol, regulatory tests were conducted in 1771 to check the resistance of cannons cast in iron for the Spanish Navy, the result of these tests was that 1,155 of the 1,407 pieces burst, which could only be attributed to a lack of skill in the casting process and deficiencies in the handling process. Scientific knowledge was virtually non-existent and artillery, in practice, was in such decline that there appeared to be no relationship established between gunpowder charges and ranges.

Little or no progress had been made since the times and the treatises that we have been analyzing, in spite of the fact that in 1638 Galileo published his Considerations and mathematical demonstrations concerning two new sciences, one of which we now call «kinematics», being the one that finally solves the problem of shooting, ranges and paths, and that in 1687 Newton published his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, the book that was to culminate the Renaissance Scientific Revolution and to usher in a new period for sciences.

When the three enlightened centres of Spanish military training were established (Cadiz, Barcelona and Segovia), discussions still raged about the value of theoretical education in the military training programs. At the Real Colegio de Artillería de Segovia, the inaugural speech given on the 16th May 1764 by the Jesuit mathematician and first master of studies Father Eximeno, was significantly entitled «A prayer on the need for theory for carrying out in the practice of serving His Majesty». In it he said: «when one extols the virtues of practice to bring down theory, one is talking in bad faith» and he argues that «the art of war owes its progress to what mathematicians have demonstrated, what physicists have observed and what philosophers have perceived».

In the light of the above, it will have to be admitted that, as far as ballistics is concerned, the Spanish artillerymen who wrote treatises made little or no contribution either to what was demonstrated, or what was observed or what was perceived. However, it is likewise true to say that had their work, their mere existence, continued, might have helped to make breakthroughs, improvements and perhaps the appearance of other individuals who could have made more noteworthy contributions. However, the fact that throughout the 17th Century Spain was to end up by becoming a stronghold of the Counter Reform, essentially retrograde and anti-scientific, truncated any possibility of this happening.

72

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Treatises D. DE ÁLAVA Y VIAMONT: El Perfecto Capitán instruido en la disciplina militar y nueva ciencia de la Artilleria. Madrid,

1590. [The Ministry of the Defense’s edition was used, Madrid, 1994].

Platica Manual de Artillería. Milan, 1592. [The facsimile edition provided by Patronato del Alcázar de Segovia was used].

J. C. FIRRUFINO: El Perfecto Artillero, Theorica y Pratica. Milan, 1648 [The facsimile edition provided by Patronato del Alcázar de Segovia was used].

C. LECHUGA: Discurso del Capitán Cristoval Lechuga en que trata de la Artillería y todo lo necesario a ella, con un tratado de fortification. Milan, 1611 [The Ministry of the Defense’s edition was used, Madrid, 1990].

N. TARTAGLIA: Nova Scientia. Venetia, 1562. [The first edition dates from 1537. The edition consulted and referred to is the one kept in Academia de Artillería de Segovia].

— Quesiti et inventioni diverse. Venetia, 1546. [The edition consulted is the one kept in the Academia de Artillería de Segovia].

D. UFANO: Tratado de la artillería y uso della platicado por el capitán Diego Ufano en las guerras de Flandes. Brussels, 1613.

L. COLLADO DE LEBRIJA:

Books and Articles A. CAMPILLO:

La fuerza de la razón. Guerra, estado y ciencia en el renacimiento. Murcia, Editum, 2008.

Historia de la ciencia: de San Agustín a Galileo/2. Madrid, Alianza Universidad, 1980.

M. ESTEBAN PIÑEIRO: «El dominico segoviano Domingo de Soto. Medio siglo antes que Galileo», in: Ciencias y técnicas en la Historia de Segovia. Segovia, Real Academia de Historia y Arte de San Quirce, 2004.

M. ESTEBAN PIÑEIRO and M. I. VICENTE MAROTO: Aspectos de la ciencia aplicada en la España del siglo de oro. Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y León, 2006.

G. GALILEI: Consideraciones y demostraciones matemáticas sobre dos nuevas ciencias. Madrid, Ed. Nacional, 1976.

N. GARCÍA TAPIA: Técnica y poder en Castilla durante los siglos XVI y XVII. Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y León, 1989.

— «Las escuelas de artillería y otras instituciones técnicas», in: Historia de la Ciencia y de la Técnica en la Corona de Castilla, T. III, J.M. LÓPEZ PIÑERO (dir). Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y León, 2002.

— «Los Ingenieros y sus modalidades», in J. M. LÓPEZ PIÑERO (dir.): Historia de la Ciencia y de la Técnica en la Corona de Castilla, T. III. Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y León, 2002.

E. GARIN: La revolucion cultural del Renacimiento. Barcelona, Crítica, 1984.

D. GOODMAN: Poder y penuria. Gobierno, tecnología y ciencia en la España de Felipe II. Madrid, Alianza Universidad, 1990.

J. HELGUERA QUIJADA: «Las industrias artilleras en la época de Proust», in: La Casa de la Química. Ciencia, Artillería e Ilustración. Madrid, Ministry of the Defense, 1992.

A. KOYRÉ: Estudios de Historia del Pensamiento Científico. Madrid, 1977.

J. M. LÓPEZ PIÑERO: Ciencia y técnica en la sociedad española de los siglos XVI y XVII. Madrid, Labor Universitaria, 1979.

M. J. MANCHO DUQUE (ed.) and C. BLAS NISTAL (coord.): Pórtico a la ciencia y a la técnica del Renacimiento. Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y León, 2001.

E. MARTÍNEZ RUIZ (dir.): Felipe II, la Ciencia y la Técnica. Madrid, Actas Editorial, 1999.

G. PARKER: La revolución militar: innovación militar y apogeo en occidente, 1500-1800. Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 2002.

J. SALA: España en los siglos XV y XVI. Madrid, Akal, 1992.

M. SILVA SUÁREZ (ed.): Técnica e Ingeniería en España I, El Renacimiento. Zaragoza, Institución Fernando el Católico, 2008.

A. C. CROMBIE:

Back to Contents

FROM TARTAGLIA TO LECHUGA. THE ARTILLERY ENGINEER

73

4 Jerónimo de Ayanz on his Fourth Centenary NICOLÁS GARCÍA TAPIA Professor and Department Head, Polytechnic University School University of Valladolid PEDRO CÁRDABA OLMOS Coordinator of the Ayanz Project

Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont stands out among the men in Spain who devoted their lives to science and technology. In those fields he surpassed all others who had hitherto spent their time on technological invention, including some Italians who had achieved fame, and furthermore, we can substantiate this, he even exceeded Leonardo da Vinci himself where the quality of his inventions was concerned.

In his times, Ayanz was well known for his great physical strength, he could use his hands to bend the soundest objects or make holes in them; this strength, coupled with his «military genius» led him to stand out as a hero on the battlefields. In the words of Lope de Vega, one of his glossators: «This is the strength, sir, of caution.

Bodily strength reaches the body, Like the strength seen par excellence In the great Jerónimo de Ayanz»

Strength and genius, the two talents most appreciated in Spain’s Golden Century, came together in unison in «the great Don Jerónimo de Ayanz», according to Lope de Vega.

The genius that we are highlighting here is technological and inventive genius and his strength, not only bodily, but also strength of spirit and intelligence. The strength of caution, to which Lope alludes, is the force that makes geniuses stand out, which enables them to temper their imagination and to persevere with those things that are possible and can be realised. This is what led Jerónimo de Ayanz to invent machines that really worked, rejecting fantasies, unlike other inventors, undoubtedly prolific yet who endeav-

75

oured to do things that were beyond the bounds of possibility in their age, such as Leonardo da Vinci. Ayanz represented the strength of technology, in contrast to Leonardo’s imagination.

Jerónimo de Ayanz’s training began in his early childhood in the household of a noble family in Guendulaín, with the very best private tutors from Navarre who taught him philosophy, arts and all the skills required by a child of noble birth. Ayanz’s ancestral home was full of mills, lathes, presses and hammers and all the machines needed to process the produce from the fields, and these would have made an impression on the future inventor. This training was completed in the Court in Madrid, as one of Felipe II’s pages, where he was able to attend the special school established for princes, and where mathematics and its applications were among the subjects taught by the best Spanish scientists. It was the best education available at that time, and Ayanz knew how to put it to good use.

While in the militia, Ayanz was in close contact with military engineering, learning attack and defence techniques, fortifications, artillery and navigation. By dint of his strength and his worthiness, he was appointed a knight and later commander, at a relatively early age. In peace time, he held important political posts: Alderman of Murcia, Governor of Martos, and he applied his knowledge while occupying all these positions, showing interest in irrigation techniques, dams and channels, as well as coastal defence towers. At the same time, he also came into contact with an activity that was to become a decisive force in his life, mining.

In this area, King Felipe II appointed Jerónimo de Ayanz Administrator General of Mines in the kingdom that, in modern day terms would have been equivalent to a Ministry of Mines. Ayanz visited over 500 mines, going down the shafts and personally conducting tests on new metallurgical procedures. That is how he managed to gain a command of mining technology, which he modernised with new machinery and extraction procedures, and by applying new mining management systems too that helped to revolutionise the economy.

The inventions that he patented were fruit of this enormous task. The privilege of invention dated 1603, discovered not long ago by Pedro Cárdaba in the Archivo General de Simancas, which we have transcribed and studied recently, is the result of a report drawn up in 1602, a year earlier, to be informed by Dr. Arias and Dr. Ferrufino. This document contains references to numerous inventions applied to mining: assay scales, furnaces, metallurgical procedures, etc., which are described in great detail in the document transcribed on the following pages. There are also agricultural applications, water-raising wheels, water mills and windmills, not to mention dams and other infrastructures. Where diving techniques are concerned, descriptions are given of sophisticated immersion equipment, including an underwater boat that, apart from being used to look for pearls and coral, could prove to be a vital element in destroying a fleet of warships. In the nautical area, references are made to dewatering pumps and a curious system for finding out a ship’s exact position on the high seas, which was subject of research by the best technical experts and scientists of the period, albeit without success. Ayanz suggested that wheels be attached to the ship that revolved as the ship advanced, counting the number of revolutions and turning the result into the distance covered by the vessel. All

76

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

Ayanz’s inventions received enthusiastic approval from the scientists who saw and studied these inventions, and King Felipe III himself, together with his Court, witnessed the first prolonged immersion of a diver in Valladolid.

Ayanz continued to work and perfect his inventions and fruit of this was the privilege of invention for the West Indies which was granted to him in 1605, with more complete items of diving equipment to look for pearls in the Spanish possessions off the coasts of the Americas, especially in Isla Margarita. However, the largest set of inventions and the most highly developed ones were introduced in 1606, whith more than fifty instruments, metallurgical techniques, machines and procedures including, for the very first time in the world steam engines, applied to remove water from mines and ventilate them by means of a precedent to modern air-conditioning systems. I am not going to enter into a detailed description of these inventions, because we have already done this in other publications, all that needs to be said is that Ayanz not only surpassed the inventions of Leonardo da Vinci and other inventors, but was also a century ahead of his time concerning the fundamental machines of the English Industrial Revolution.

To achieve this result, Ayanz perfected in an extraordinary way the inventions he had introduced four years earlier, and devised others. The value of his caution, to which we have already referred, caused him to remove some of the proposals that he had put forward before. One of the ones that suffered this fate was the underwater vessel for sinking fleets, which he himself admitted was too daring, but he retained its application for rescuing sunken treasures and getting pearls. The other invention that failed to appear in his new patent was the system for measuring longitude on the high seas, perhaps because he realised the problems that would arise in adverse meteorological conditions. In this regard, it must be mentioned that Ayanz spent time examining the inventions that others had attempted to make to overcome the problem. Noteworthy is the report he sent pointing out the falseness of Fonseca’s fixed needle system, consisting of a compass that never moved from geographical north. Ayanz demonstrated this to be impossible and he did this by considering the existence of an earth magnetic field. This is one of Ayanz’s incursions into the area of science, anticipating subsequent theories, which is proof that the Navarran had a complete perspective, not only regarding technical matters but also scientific questions.

For the rest of his life, until shortly before his death in 1613, Jerónimo de Ayanz worked on applying his inventions to industry. Unfortunately nobody carried on with his work, which would have enabled Spain to pre-empt the Industrial Revolution. The decline and social circumstances prevented a vast and brilliant work from being completed that not only went unappreciated in its day but has still not received the recognition it deserves.

As a tribute to Jerónimo de Ayanz on the occasion of the recent fourth centenary of his death, which occurred in 1613, we will present below his 1603 patent, that, as we have already indicated, was recently discovered in the Archivo General de Simancas (Chamber Book 172, fol. 17v and following), thanks to the collaboration of Pedro Cárdaba, whose updated spelling transcription has been carried out and completed with the inclusion of notes in the form of a glossary by the author of these lines. The images that illustrate this transcription are not from the Cédula de Privilegio [Patent] dated 1603, but from a later one granted in 1606, hence the differences in the numbering for the figures.

JERÓNIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

77

LETTER OF PATENT GRANTED TO JERÓNIMO DE AYANZ ON 16TH JUNE 1603 FOR THE USE OF CERTAIN DEVICES

[Margin] Licence granted to Don Gerónimo de Ayanz for the use of

certain devices and machines It has been made known to us how you Jerónimo1 de Ayanz, Commander of Crossbowers of the Order of Calatrava, were assigned to serve in the post of Administrator General of Mines in our kingdoms of Spain and that you visited the Guadalcanal Mine and others and that you helped to overcome the problems at Potosí. You found four difficulties in the mines that you inspected and that you have heard about, and you found solutions for all of them and you have also applied them to other intrinsically important matters. With regard to the first difficulty, which involves knowing how to recognise stones, see what they are composed of and what beneficial use they can be put to, you have explained a remedy for copper mines with a high iron content that are no longer exploited because the copper comes out so raw and brittle that it cannot be of any use, making it sweet and soft enough to be used. And the second difficulty, which lies in the fact that there is not enough wood and coal to serve those mines, you have devised a way to find solution to this, making it possible as well to cook food and thread silk and do other things using a lot less wood and coal. And for the third difficulty, which affects those being down the mines at a great depth suffering the stench of metals and the lack of fresh air intolerable and distressing, you have found a way of providing the workers with fresh air in these mines and in the sea, you have discovered a way of enabling one man or more to dive to a great depth to bring up what treasures lie in ships that sank while sailing between ports. Or to dive for pearls, coral and other things. And with respect to the fourth and final difficulty, which concerns the flooding by water in the mines, you have found a way and the procedure to extract the water and to raise the metals much more easily that it was done before. And to strip out ships and to erect water mills on the rivers without any dam and improve those that are used for irrigation purposes, as well as enabling windmills to drive hammers and bellows for foundries without anything else being required to move them, and for irrigation and other machines, and all this is contained in a discourse split into fourteen chapters that you have written, containing eighteen models with layouts and plans, laid out in the following way: Sir [Margin] Ayanz I, Don Jerónimo de Ayanz, Commander of Crossbowers having come to this Court and talked to Your Majesty about business concerning the post that I occupy as Administrator General of Mines in Spain and all the work I have done that Your Majesty asked me to do with regard to the problems found in Cerro de Potosí, I gave a testimony explaining what I had done to try and overcome them, and as Your Majesty ordered this information to be passed on to the Chamber’s Council, I was asked to prepare a report concerning some of the machines and plans that I have been dealing with, and although I have already begun

78

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

to work on these matters, since they will take a long time and in order to ensure that there is as little delay as possible to the work at Potosi, it seems to me that some of the things that I say here, together with those that I have referred to in the report, could not only be of benefit for the Council, but could also be of use to other people so I will let them have a summary about this.

First of all I believe none of the tests in the gold and silver mines are valid, for three reasons: Firstly, because of the differences in the heat, given that when the fire is harder more silver is exhaled. SecFIG. 1 Precision scales. Drawing Num. 1 from ondly, because of the lead that is there for the law the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174. of silver, and as it melts the sliver trickles down and 2 layers of almártaga form above until it becomes refined, and then is melted in a lead ladle, using it to make bullets for testing, the last ones undoubtedly containing more silver than the first ones, so they will not all be identical. Thirdly, because if the weight used in the small shaft is off-centre, the final grammes of the weight [dineral]3 are not revealed. I have found the following ways of rectifying these three problems: As far as the first one is concerned, I refer to the treatise on furnaces where the tests conducted and the equal participation in the fire are addressed. The second one: take lead from the least law available and measure the quantities of it, taking the first layers of lead oxide [almártaga] that appear, and they will give good test results.

For the third one, the weighing is done with two tips like sewing needles, which are facing upwards and the arm loads onto them like the spike of a clock, but the holes on the arm have to penetrate only a short distance into the middle line, the whole assembly is tempered and the arms on which the weight rests are at the foot, because only a small weight will be required for what is being intended; and it has its own pans [cucharetas]4 at the end of the arms as though they were to be used for cleaning ears, and at the end of them, some supports [fieles]5 for sustaining the balances in which the earth extracted from the mine has to be weighed; and to weigh the grains that are obtained, they are removed and weighed in the pans, because not only the last grains of the dineral, but even a fly’s leg makes them fall. It must be arranged as can be seen in Drawing No.1 [FIG. 1], take note that if the paste [cendrada]6 in which the silver is refined is not good, part of it will soak into it.

In the second place: whoever carries out tests in mines must try to know about the metals and mineral resources that the stone is composed of and try to find out what in that composition can harm the metals that are treated and what they are compatible with, because God did not create poison without creating an antidote for it, and thus the copper mines that also contain iron are no longer exploited in many places because no remedy has been found; I saw how negative sulphur is and how it drops away like burned and charred shots, rendering it useless, which is not the case when it is in copper, because you can remove the impurities and make it smoother and softer, and so in the mines that contain iron the copper is hard, but once the sulphur is melted and added, all that is not copper is re-

JERÓNIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

79

burnt and separated and that makes it sweet and soft, and it is also good to heat the stone and add pitch or greasy material because it penetrates and moistens it with less fire. Thirdly, apart from the furnace, this invention can also be used in the tests to remove the mercury from the silver and for mercury [azogue]7 and sulphur and to distil fresh water from the sea and for kilns and cooking stoves and for spinning silk, and another furnace will be used for smelting metals with air, without a stirrer, in an attempt to provide fresh air for those who are working in the mines, and other things that are appropriate.

The oven for testing in the mines has to be designed as in Drawing No. 2 [FIG. 2], with half vara15 diameter at the base and half quarter at the mouth, the top part through which the coal is poured, and with its grid [cratĂ­cula]8 below, through which the ashes fall, the oven has to be well sealed, so that no air flows in save through the breathing holes [espirĂĄculos]9 and with its brick in the centre for placing the burner [mufla] on, and be all be well lined with mud, and if the smelting furnaces are of a size that they able to apply a strong flame to the metal, this will be better than what is currently being used and will save a lot on coal.

The stove for removing the mercury [desazogar]10 from the silver must be shaped in the manner indicated in No. 3 [FIG. 3], and be approximately three quarters in diameter, or a bit more or a bit less as may be considerd, and the diameter at the top has to be one quarter, plus the cover [capelo]11, all fitted with two half-rounded tubes on the sides where the mercury flows down into the cups; and above the cover there has to be a well-perforated pot that once is mud lined fits down to the bottom, securely welded to the cover, which is always to be full of running water for the condensates [espĂ­ritus]12 to be formed with its coolness; the stove has to be made of strong clay and the cover made either of the same material or of copper, all of which has to be sealed with a small gate [portaneta]13 whose width shall be as shown in the drawing, where some copper boxFIG. 2 Furnace for testing minerals. Drawing Num. 2 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174. es are inserted containing the mass of silver [masapella]14 well spread out, and the joints have to be well sealed because, although mercury naturally rises when fire is applied, much of it will leak out if it finds any breathing hole, so it is essential to enclose them and for the cups to be robust, because it can also seep through the pores and when FIG. 3 Furnace for removing mercury. Drawing Num.5 from the Licence the mercury has been removed, of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

80

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

pull the boxes out by the handles that they have to be fitted with and replace them with others; this stove has to rest on six or eight pillars and another oven made of brick and half its height has to be placed around it, with a four fingers wide gap between them so that the fire baths them well; and two small breathing holes must be drilled in the top so the smoke can leave and the fire can breathe and there must be a height of one quarter from the floor to the bottom of the stove if it is a wooden stove, and if it is a coal stove less, with a small gate for the fire and a grate for the ashes to fall through and a small window to let the air in and brisk up the fire. This stove can also be split in two halfs, like a still, the lower one sitting square on the pillars, in such a way that when the mercury has been removed it is replaced with the other; and in this case the cover can serve for both of them; and the cover must be completely sealed and the joint well coated with mud, alternatively the halfstove at the top may be fixed and the other half be raised and lowered with a spindle.

This same concept of stove can serve to cast mercury and sulphur, providing the door through which the metal can be introduced and then being closed and covered well with mud making sure that it is of the right size and proportion.

Further, this device can also be used as an oven for baking bread, or by confectioners, as long as the fire can bath and circulate throughout the full dome type cover [cimborrio]15, and the floor is made of stone of approximately two varas16 in diameter and four fingers thick, for which purpose old and worn out wheels from a flour mill [aceĂąa]17 can be used; and the dome can be made of the ordinary type, of strong and well-baked earthenware [cochura]18 with capacity for half a tinaja and the door [portaneta] where the bread or cakes are put in and taken out, located on the opposite side to where the fire is so the smoke does not reach the bakers; and there shall be a height of about one third [tercia]19 from the floor up to the oven, and another oven shall be placed around it made of brick and clay, FIG. 4 Dome furnace. Drawing Num. 9 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simanthe gap between the two being approximately cas, CCA, CED, 174. six fingers and a breathing hole must be bored in the top to let the smoke out; and the heating process can be helped by giving the oven a blast of heat [calda]20 leaving embers inside, that with the fire circulation will keep the heat up and experience will let you know how much fire is needed to keep it permanently warm; this oven made of metal five cuartas or more in diameter will be of great use to ships, as can be seen in Drawing No.4 [FIG. 4].

And to distil fresh water from the sea, a large cauldron shall be made with a diameter FIG. 5 Water distiller. Drawing Num. 15 from the Liof more than one vara in the way illustrated cence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simanin Drawing No.5 [FIG. 5]; a tube could run cas, CCA, CED, 174.

JERĂ“NIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

81

through it and penetrate the cover and it should be one tercia wide from the floor to where the water is contained, and from that point on the top, it shall narrow to one finger so the smoke can be released through the cover; it can also be designed to be completely sealed with four breathing holes on the sides for the smoke, and be enclosed by an iron sheeting that goes up as far as the water level in the cauldron, and a gap of three fingers must be left between the cauldron and the sheeting so the fire can heat the water from every where, and it shall be narrower at the bottom so it will be more effective with less wood or coal; and the opening has to be closed whenever fire is put in. This distiller and the ovens for cooking food and baking bread are to be used in ships, just like the device for cooking food that goes behind a cart.

Small ovens for cooking have to be for one single pan or pot, in the way illustrated in Drawing No.6 [FIG. 6], the pan fitting on the oven’s side, and on one side there has to be a tube that is more than four fingers high for charging the coal, and it has to be covered with the pot after it has been lit for which purpose the fire can be assisted with small bellows until the pot begins to boil and later, two or three more lumps of coal will be enough to finish off the cooking.

And for two pans or pots, it should be done in the way shown in Drawing No.7 [FIG. 7], and for four or more, as in Drawing No.8 [FIG. 8]; and at the side there has to be a box for roasting; and if the user so wishes another one on the other side, and the tube for feeding the fire can be made through the middle, and enclose them with an iron strap to support

82

FIG. 6 Coking oven. Drawing Num. 10 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

FIG. 7 Cooking oven. Drawing Num. 11 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

FIG. 8 Cooking oven. Drawing Num. 12 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

FIG. 9 Cooking oven. Drawing Num. 14 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

[asgar]21 the oven, with two needles [fieles] in a square box in the form of a navigation compass [aguja de marear]22; or oil lamps, in a way that even if it turns it is always weighed down because of the needles, so it can be carried behind a cart or mounted on a mule [acĂŠmila]23; and the lids have to make the whole assembly fit together by means of a screw, and they must be provided with a tube in the middle, one finger wide and three fingers high.

And when cooking in large amounts, trivets [trĂŠbedes]24 have to be provided in the manner indicated in Drawing No.9 [FIG. 9], where pans or pots shall be placed on the stands and be exposed to all the heat of the fire; and more of them can be placed at the sides for roasting; and if wished the trivets can be lined with earthenware and leave a small gate for roasting, which can be made of iron plating that is a perfect fit, although if it is made of baked clay it will last a long time and will have much lower cost.

And for spinning silk, it is to be made in the way shown in Drawing No.6, which is the one for cooking with one pot, and if a half circle of the same size than the tube where the fire is fed is created next to the cauldron it will fall more centrally, and for two cauldrons this is done as it was for the small oven with two pots and it can also be done in the way indicated for the cauldron used to distil sea water to make fresh water, stoking the fire below and closing the small gate used to feed the fire; and for the spinners not to forget to close it, it can be done in such a way thatthe gate is to be opened to add wood or coal and then it selfcloses tightly like a rat trap [ratonera de agua]25.

Fourth: a smelting furnace can be made to cast metals with only the air current, in the way indicated in Drawing No.10 [FIG. 10], locating it in a high place where it is exposed to the strongest wind; by making a bucket that has a cross at the bottom and another one at the top, with a spindle passing through the middle that is supported on the top cross; place a weather vane on the bucket and opposite this a small window through which the air current necessarily has to pass, since the vane will rotate with the bucket, and a tube is laid that will run into the furnace, which will provide air that blows evenly.

This same bucket, placed at the top of a chimney, if the window is moved to the sail side, will never cause smoke, because the smoke will be blown away with the air current; although, should there not be sail a brick partition in the form of a cross can be erected in the chimneys from one part to the other, connected to the chimeney walls, with a rod running down and a window being left open on both sides of the crosspiece, of one quarta high; if the air flows into one, it leaves through the others, and it is better that the air itself encloses it like a rat trap. It can likewise be used to draw fresh air into a bed cham-

Furnace for metals. Drawing Num. 20 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

FIG. 10

JERĂ“NIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

83

ber, making the bucket the same shape as though it were for casting, and putting it on the highest tower of a house, and laying a pipe so that it runs into the chamber concerned. However, if this pipe were to run down through a vault in the house, which happened to be closed, and the pipe that reached it ended there, another pipe were to be laid from the other side for the air, which having flowed around the vault became damp and cool, being passed through the first pipe into the chamber concerned, it would be much cooler. However, this could be achieved as well with a bellows driven by an animal or person, and, if there is not the convenience of a vault, it can be directed through harquebus pipes under the floor, and that will cool it, the greater the distance the better, as weknow that being the distance short from the stomach to the mouth by stretching it and blowing out cold air comes. And it can also be used to cool a drink by putting it in a thin vessel inside the pipe, and for further curiosity the pipe can be made to run into the bed chamber in the middle of a table that has to be securely fixed, and it could run through one of the table legs because this is more discrete, and underneath, make it run into the centre of the table, where there is a screw, so that it is attached to a vase of natural flowers if it is the right season and artificial ones if it is not, and the small tubes run into the vase, that cools the air for whoever happens to be around the table; and if the vault has a small gate that can be tightly closed, and snow is put in, like princes do at their mansions, there is no doubt that the air that flows in, taking the cold from it, will be much cooler still, and if you can detect that it is not as cool or it stops altogether, install a stopcock in the pipe.

And although it could serve to ventilate mines with fresh air, I am inclined to think that this should be done with bellows, the largest ones that could be moved with one of the machines mentioned in this dissertation. And that the tubes are made to run to the far end [cabo]26 of the mine, because by starting from there, the air gets rid of the smell and steam.

And with regard to a situation where a man has to dive under water for long enough to bring up pearls, or valuables from shipwrecks, or other things, first of all I will tell you the drawbacks of the machines that have been used or written about up to the present time, or that have been tried and tested. The bell or box open at the bottom, compelled by the force of a weight that is greater than air but descends against nature; the air below is at such a high pressure that if the bell or the box overturn, the air will be released and the occupants will drown, which is what occurred on the Island of Pearls to two bell and box devices; and it is difficult to understand that with the air so close in there, and being necessary to have an empty space [vaco]27 where the diver who collects the pearl can stay, he can make the atmosphere even closer by breathing, and when the air has no outlet, in starts to get hotter and asphyxiates the man. If a pipe is used that protrudes from the surface of the water, there is also a problem, since with the one we have from stomach to mouth, that the distance is so short, it seems that we get out of breath if gets very hot or cold, for one that is twenty fathoms [brazas] or more...; and when a great effort is being made there is another drawback: that the amount breathed out by the person is sent out through the tube and and he receives its own heating up the air and suffocating.

What I have discovered is something natural and it worked well for me during the test that I conducted for Your Majesty, as well as on other tests, it consists in two tubes

84

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

tied to each other on every stretch between one vara and five quarters long, with six round copper or brass rings, two fingers in diameter, running from the mouth of one pipe to the other, and held at the sides by an iron chain or a straight string of twine; one from the other on the sides, half a finger from one ring to another, and these rings must be covered with acalf leather cover [vaqueta]28 tied at the ends [cabos] of the tubes, and the rings themselves have to be tied with twine just like a cylindrical bellows [reclamo de codorniz]29, and at the top give four turns with the fleeced skin of a ram and another four turns on the opposite side, which have to be well tied so the water cannot seep in; this can also be done with the skin of eels or other fish; and between one tube and the FIG. 11 Breathing equipment. Drawing Num. 23 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, other, a strong cord is tied with knots on CCA, CED, 174. each tube that pulls from each of them and is taut, that exerts stress on it and not on the knots on the rings, so they do not break; and to make them more secure, the tubes are tied with a rope and it must not be forgotten that the tying must be tighter above the joints so they do not slacken, because that is the point where the greatest damage can be caused; and the tubes must be made of properly welded copper or harquebus barrels; and at the bottom there is a pipe as shown in Drawing No.11 [FIG. 11], which is inserted into the mouth, and it has its box below made of copper or leather to collect what seeps out of the tubes, and it is equipped with its own stopcock that, once there is a certain amount of water opens the valve and squeeze and letflow out all what is in the skin, before closing again, and in the mouth tube that flows into the two tubes, there has to be another vessel to collect the vapour or water that is formed; and these two tubes tied to the rope run up to the top where there is a boat stationed, from which a bellows constantly blow air that continuously passes through, and the one that expels the breath goes with its flow, because the mouth tube through the opposite pipe has to be the one into which the bellows blows; and the counterweight makes the device and the man go down, and enables him to move at will, and he is holding to it in such a way that if he finds himself in any difficulty, when the man is at a considerable depth, he will be able to let loose and go back to the surface. It is also possible, in shallow waters, by means of a tube inserted into the mouth or nose, that is attached to a cork or inflated leather bag, breathe in through it and exhale through the mouth or nostrils, given that as since it is lighter than the water, there will be no resistance to the air expulsion, and the air taken in will every time be fresh.

JERĂ“NIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

85

And it is also possible to make a box in the form of a boat completely enclosed, whose door is at the top or on one side, to let people in before it is closed and sealed; it must be made of strong and well-pitched timber, although it would be better to use whalebone for the part that touches the framework and on top leather or canvas waxed and a good coat of oil paint or pitch; and below the ballast, so the gravity of the ballast ensures that neither the waves or the current will capsize it; and the weight of the ballast is so well balanced that, with the people that have to be inside, just a little more weight will be enough to sink it to the seabed; and to enable this to happen, two boxes are attached to the sides about half the size of a chest that run alongside the boat, with two winches in the hollow part of the boxes, and the handle [cigßeùa]30 from inside the closed box holds [arga]31 a calf or horse sleeve, and the grips [fieles] for the steel winch can also be made so perfectly that they fit into eyebolts and pass through them; and the handle slots into them like a bedkey [llave de cama]; and each one of the winches must have a length of rope wound around it, a little bit longer than the depth that has to be reached, and at the end of the rope a round counterweight has to be attached that is heavy enough to sink the boat with the aid of the ballast and people, in such a way that with two oars that have to be kept inside the boat, and by applying force, the weight rolls along the seabed; when they wish to go back to the surface, they have to unwind the winches, and when they want to go back down, wind them up; and the best thing would be to place at the top some inflated leather sinks tied to a rope, and place more ballast in the boat until it sinks, and wind the winch to bring it up and do the opposite to sink it. This can also be done by equipping the box or the boat with a stationary screw, and when the crew want it to sink to the bottom, they can open it just enough to let the right amount of water in for this purpose, and when they want to rise to the surface, bale out the water using the ship’s bilge pump, and this can be done by providing a tube that runs all the way up through the water. And the two or more oars have to be inserted in the oar holes [fieles] on the boat and the calf or horse sleeves have to be somewhat slack and well tied to the oars one palm from the oar supports, in such a way that water cannot seep in, and if water, even an small amount, does flow in have something ready to spread over and seal the spot that leaks; and along the sides of the box or boat there should be some drawers and calf or horse hair sleeves that, just by putting your hand in you can hold what you are looking for, and you put it in the drawers, and if it is very heavy, it can be grabbed with hooks and wound up, and from the top they can pull upwards with a boat; and for them to get fresh air, two tubes can be placed inside the boat in the same way as for the first device and the bellows blows into one, and the vapour flows out of the other, and the top of the tubes are supported by the inflated leather skins, and, even if there are any strong currents, as the tubes and the rope to which they have to be tied with the hides above, all will be together outside the box and, air will be able to pass through even if the tubes become curved or bent.

And if you wish to put fire on a navy [armada] that is in the harbour and nothing is to be seen above the surface of the water, all you have to do is close the said box with its counterweight and winches below, and above two short pipes six fingers long each with stopcocks attached and that inside are shut like [ ]32 and in the middle of the box there is another winch with two moistened canvas sails [ ] and moving the winch continuously,

86

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

because the movement of the sails refreshes the air, and a lot of sponges must be hung up soaked in rosewater because it cools the air and also smells very pleasant and [ ] and so they will have a space of time and when they find they need fresh air, they can go aloft and open the two short tubes that are at the top, and blow into one of them with the bellows and hot air will come out of the other, and the sleeves are at the top of the box and there are drawers attached to the sides that contain the minettes that have to be like syringes with a sharp tip and in it a screw that holds rotating like a boring instrument underneath the ship, and a device like a clock is located in the minettes that, all set to go off at the same time like an alarm clock, all strike with their harquebus wheel and all fire at the same time; and the box has windows in it, so those inside can see what is going on, and these ought to be made of glass or horn and, to make sure they do not break if a large fish should bump into them, for what they shall be equipped with an iron grille. A leather frame about one sexma33 in diameter could also be made, with the type of leather used for wine containers and the person grips it under the arms and there are a lot of sponges inside it well dampened with rosewater, to make the fresh atmosphere last longer and under the arms there are two frames one palm in diameter and five or six fingers high, somewhat less towards the shoulders, and inside the hoops there are bellows that are connected to the soft and fleshy parts of the arms [molledos]34, in such a way that by widening them, they expand to make room for the air and breath that the person exhales and, by tightening them the air is received again, because otherwise there would be no way of inflating leather under water, and a tube would run from the frame at the chest to the mouth, with its rings like a cylindrical bellows [reclamo de codorniz]; and if the body frame is tailor-made with its sockets for the arms perfectly fit, such that when opening them they widen and when closing they narrow, the bellows can be dispensed with; and the man will carry his own cord and counterweight, and two or more men can go.

Each one with his own breathing device, and they will go on a reinforced frame where they carry their winch for the aforementioned purpose, so that they can go up and down whenever they want, and their devices for gripping under the vessel and set fire or drill holes to her and extract whatever they want to from underwater. In these matters, it is thinking out the idea that is difficult, but once this is done you can add or remove facilities; all that is required are ingenious men to carry out the works and implement them; and to protect your sight from being damaged by the water you can make a mask that fits onto the nose and above the eyebrows stuck with pitch with the supports wrapped around the ears.

The fifth, the present machine will be extremely useful for raising water or stones or other things: build a wheel about three varas in diameter and lay a series of iron rungs in the form of a ladder that crosses it, of about one quarter, and construct a shaft and, in the first third, insert a beam that runs down to the right, and attach the weight that is wished, the heavier the better to give it greater force, and provide this with two handles one on either side, so that two men can move it towards themselves as though they were rowing, and in another third of the shaft place a crossbeam from which it hangs, with two more beams running down from the tips that support the ends of two levers [alzaprimas]35, which have to be fitted with an octagonal [ochavo]36 wheel at the end and, at the front, iron bars in the form of a small block [tas]37, which cross from one side to the

JERĂ“NIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

87

FIG. 12 Swinging machine for measuring the capacity of machines. Drawing Num. 36 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

other, and are secured in the timber or in iron crossbars, in such a way that they can rise freely and when they are lowered or fall, they come up against the crossbar and apply force to the large wheel by means of a crane or water wheel [noria] or whatever else so that you can hoist whatever you need to. This same swinging frame can serve for a ctesibius pump [tisibicas]38, other types of pumps, bellows and hammers [martinetes]39 because it is difficult to move them, as can be seen in Drawing No.12 [FIG. 12]. It can also be applied to raising water and make a water mill [cubo] that returns the water to the well from where it was rised. And take note that this machine and the others have to be proportional to the force that they exert, this being measured for each one in the following way: take a large beam and place a pillar at the tip that serves as a lever [alzaprima] and then with a Roman balance, place the tip of the beam in the wheel that has to raise that weight, and move the Roman balance until it makes the wheel stop, and then give it no

FIG. 13 Boat mill for raising water. Drawing Num. 41 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

88

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

more than one third of the force, because otherwise it will break.The sixth. The power of the mills that are used in Flanders and Italy between two boats with the river currents can be increased, and it can also be used for irrigation purposes in the following way: although two boats are used, only one serves to secure the wheel shaft while the mill operates in the other; make the one with the mill whatever size might be necessary, and make the other unnecessary by placing on both sides timber in the form of half a boat, but a little bit narrower, in which to secure the shafts, and set a wheel in either part and make the planks where the water beats wide at the front in the way shown in Drawing No.13 [FIG. 13]; and to cut the water properly, place another plank from the front of it to the end of the other, forming a sort of a circle.

Irrigation can also be provided by improving the dams that are used, and even though it is more costly to do so they will be stronger and safer and it is unlikely that they will be washed away by the river, given that the reason why they get washed away is usually because they are too steep, or for the whirlpools that form near them [coz del agua]40 that undermine the stones and gradually make them crumble away until they are completely demolished, and this can be prevented by doing two things: first, by constructing a low dam that parries some of the force of the river and next to it the large dam, which has to be more extended than the ordinary ones, made of stone like the guttering on roofs, so that the water running along them finds no obstructions. Water can also be raised for fountains or for irrigation, by placing a wide wheel in front with its planks under the bridge arch opening through which the greatest discharges flow, two barges [barcones]41 being placed at the two ends, in such a way that even if the river level rises,

Scoop wheel adaptable to the river level.

Drawing Num. 44 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA,

FIG. 14

CED, 174.

JERĂ“NIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

89

the wheel rises with the water; and this can be done by placing two pieces of timber with three balls in the two barges at the sides, each of which fitted with cogs [pezones]42, which are embedded in the timber, the cog protruding one quarter, the ball being made later, and two beams have to be embedded in each of the two arch abutments, and the three balls that are in the beams are laid in the channel that flows through, the beams being secured in the barges, and the shafts for the wide wheel are in those barges or other ones, in such a way that they rise and fall as the discharges increase and decrease through those channels, a water wheel or caisson wheel being applied to this, and it could also serve as a mill in the way depicted in Drawing No.14 [FIG. 14]. Furthermore, it could be used to raise water for the aforementioned purposes by installing the wheel under the mills because the raging torrent, even though it has passed through, is sufficient to raise many.

A mill may also be erected in a stream whose discharge is too low to grind, and there are two ways of doing this: making a wheel that is wide at the front with its caissons, which raises to a pond whatever amount of water is necessary, with appropiate fall, and by applying one of these machines or a water wheel that also raises water to the pond.

The other way involves erecting another wheel in the mill channel itself but downstream from the mill’s own wheel, so that after the water has applied its force upstream it does so once again downstream, raising the water over the grain-crushing press. And take note that for risk situations a much greater quantity has to be raised, if the water is made to flow down a drainage ditch from as great a height as possible and that the wheel with the planks in which it threshes, has another one on the shaft that threshes what the water rises; and if in the mills, the channel runs down to the wheel almost square and the water comes out as in those cubo type, it will exert greater force and will grind more because of the weight of the water. And so, the aforementioned machines and those that will be referred to later, can be utilised to remove the water from mines, although the most natural way of doing this when it is not possible to make an underground communication, is to bore a shaft in the deepest part next to the mine, and deepen it still further until stream water is reached so that the water in the mine is discharged into it, making it flow down through a hole; the device may also serve to drain and dry out some lakes that cause inconvenience to settlements, as well as to drain ditches or moats.

And if you want to raise groundwater for irrigation or fountains using a suction pump [tesibica], make a bronze spindle with four threads, one finger thick will be enough, and make sure the inner threads have another four that are smooth; and make sure the female is the right shape, one vara or more in diameter, and that the spindle is made of timber from evergreen oak [encina] and the bronze one is fitted into it, and the female fitted into very resistant stone from where the tubes run, which, so that they will last a long time and not burst, can be made from the wood of the olive, walnut or wild olive, because the sap that is in the timber expels the water easily; ones made of baked clay in the form of scoops [arcaduces]43 are also good, and these are positioned in a channel that is more than twice as wide as they and sealed with pitch and brick dust. A shaft made of evergreen oak wood of half a vara thick must be provided in the middle and it has to be fitted with two cogwheels [linternas]44 at the side, each one one vara in diameter; and a smaller wheel must share the same shaft as the wheel that moves the water, and the smaller one

90

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

shall have as many cogs as each one of the cogwheels being used. However, there shall be two cogs less in the middle of the wheel, because if one of the cogwheels is moved, it turns to one side and then engages the other and goes in the opposite direction. The screw threads have to be made in such a way that in one complete turn almost one quarter gets in, although it would be feasible to get more than one turn, making FIG. 15 Spindle pump. Drawing Num. 45 from the Licence of the wheel that threshes in the cog1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174. wheels of a greater diameter, and the wheel that threshes in the water wider than the aforementioned ones. This screw applies gently the pressure to the water, so the tubes will fail less frequently. Half one vara bronze rods can be used as the lighting mechanisms [chufetas]45 with their spindles in the form of a stationary screw, which is inserted in a bucket that is adjacent to the tube, able to be removed and reinstalled when it has to be straightened, in the manner shown in Drawing FIG. 16 Vertical shaft windmill. Drawing Num. 46 from the LiNo.15 [FIG. 15]. cence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, And in view of the fact that it CED, 174. might be doing a great service in many regions to improve the windmills that are used for grinding grain or for irrigation, or to drive bellows and hammers, they could be designed in the way shown in Drawing No.16, looking for a suitable location where air drift is strong and water is rised at less height so there would be more water for irrigation purposes. Make a large spindle thirty palms long or more, because the higher it is the more it is affected by the air, and attach six arms to it. Each one of the arms must be ten feet long from the spindle to the tip, and twenty feet high and, if it were even higher and wider it would have a greater capacity; the first third of the arm, i.e. three and a third feet, must not be provided with a sail, whereas the other two thirds towards the unattached end do have a sail, because any force will be greater towards the tip; and the sail shall be made in a billowing form as can be seen in Drawing No.16 [FIG. 16], because concave increases the wind force; and there must be a distance of two and a half feet from the end of the sail to the pillars, so a person can walk across, and the pillars have to be three varas. in a straight line to the circle as in the layout; the pillars can

JERĂ“NIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

91

FIG. 17 Dewatering pump for ships.

Drawing Num. 48 from the Licence of 1606 found at the Archivo General de Simancas, CCA, CED, 174.

be made to stand at elevations o one vara arranged in a square formation and, around them, a wooden channel, and at the top another one, and make a gate with its wheels below in the channel and they must be as wide as the distance between one pillar and another; and when the wind starts to blow, it causes the wheel to rotate covering the convex part and leaving the concave part; a weather vane can be positioned at the top that makes the gate move when the wind blows; and the windmills can be used to operate these machines.

The importance of the next machine can be appreciated in No.17 [FIG. 17]; because dewatering ships overcomes many of the problems caused by pumps, such as when the water level rises very high and when there is a storm, and in these circumstances the pump operates poorly and, if there is a battle on, worse, because they have to be exposed and, if they have a small breathing hole, they cannot evacuate the water and, if it is damaged by cannon shot, there will be one more available, at the most, and if this one is also damaged, it fails to bail out the water, and if the amount flowing in is greater than the amount pumped out, the vessel floods. The present machine would appear to overcome these problems because even in stormy conditions and when there is a battle raging, water can be bailed out and the artillery cannot reach it and, when a lot of water flows into the vessel, two or four machines can drain it out; the tubes have to be large, because of the great driving force; two pipes are positioned alongside the keel on each part, bow and stern, making a total of eight, although four more would be needed, because each one will drain away more water than can be evacuated from Your Majesty’s vessels, which make holes in the ship below and are eight feet apart, and they head towards the stern of the vessel, because with their current the water finds no obstruction when it is flowing out; and to straighten the pipes and tubes, make a bucket like the ones for carts, somewhat sturdier and well reinforced with bars [barreado]46, which is positioned where the water flows out of the vessel and place a metal spindle in it to

92

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

serve as a stationary screw, with the male and female parts tightly adjusted, in such a way that when one wishes to extract water, a lever is used to turn it and open it as in the stationary screw, and the two tubes that are on one side of the vessel, have to be eight feet apart; and on the other side of the vessel there have to be two more tubes exactly opposite them and also eight feet from each other, in such a way that one and the other from both parts come towards each other until they are one foot from the bucket; and each one of these tubes must have a hole through which a tightly fitting square plank passes, together with its iron valve [zapatilla]47 lined with deerskin, and whenever it needs to be straightened [aderezar]48 the valve is extracted by turning the spindle and the tube closed, without letting any water enter the ship; another one like this has to be placed on the same side as the bucket that collects the water [in the margin] and the water has to flow out of the four tubes towards the ship’s stern [signature and end of note in the margin]; propelled by a shaft that runs along the length of the ship and the ends provide two wheels to control the balance, when pressure is applied on one side, water is collected by the other and at the bow there will be another one and this will be sufficient in ordinary circumstances for water to be extracted through the two tubes, which converge into one; another possibility is to have the tubes one foot from the bucket where the spindle has to be, where they start to rise and twist and end up being one foot and a half in a straight line and insert a spindle in the form of a stationary screw and it is fitted tightly into its hole as the other half which has its crossbars in the middle that fit below and above into two iron or metal frames, and two holes must be drilled in the middle where the cogs from the other half have to fit, and this has to fit tightly into a very smooth bronze frame, and the half bullet does not need to have more than half a finger of metal per frame and the rest of it can be wooden to make it lighter; this will last a long time without it being necessary to straighten it and, when it is necessary, it can easily be removed by closing the screw where the water flows outs; the balance has to be under the deck, and the greater the weight on it, the more force it will have; and the pieces of timber will run from the wheels at the sides down to the keel, where they will tighten and collect the water and bale it out; and this can also be done with a wheel moved by two or four men on both sides.

The next device cannot be adjusted because the sea currents that are at the rear of the vessel are lighter and because the wheel is lighter than the vessel, so it is not possible to know exactly how far the ship has travelled; and the same drawback applies, albeit to a lesser extent, to the ones that are arranged from stern to bow, although it is possible to know a bit more accurately how far the vessel has travelled and how far it has been diverted [descaecer]49, and its approximate whereabouts; and as far as the currents are concerned, with experience it is possible to see how many more times the wheel has turned than the distance the ship has really travelled. If the ship had been diverted two leagues and the wheel had registered four, subtract the two.

Make a wheel with its planks at the front, about one vara in diameter or less, positioned between two supports and with forty-eight cogs, and this large cogwheel [engrane]50 in a spindle that has six cogs in the small cogwheel [linterna]; the wheel has to be set on the side where the rudder is, in such a way that once the vessel is loaded it does not sink too deep into the water and the spindle is what engages and raises the

JERĂ“NIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

93

amount that is wanted, where, through a small gate, it engages [in the margin] another cogwheel, which has to engage the aforementioned 6-bar (pilastra)51 spindle; engages [signature and end of margin] another wheel with forty-eight, in such a way that this is reached by multiplying that, when the wheel that isone vara in diameter revolves once, the ship travels three varas and when the second wheel turns once it travels the same distance, because the spindle that revolved eight times, makes the wheel that is above in the small gate rotate one more time and that wheel, beating against the other with the six cogs cogwheel, rotates eight times while the one below only turns once, and further wheels can be applied, so that the vessel travels ten thousand varas first with one turn of the wheel; and each one controls the number like a clock, knowing the number of times each one has revolved. And there is another similar wheel for the currents acting crossways at the stern, in such a way that any part of the of the ship’s side that picks up the current, turns the wheel. Take note that the wheels that thrash in the water have to be covered at the sides, and the same applies to all that is above the waterline, so that the waves cannot beat against them, and the current created by the ship cannot beat against the wheel that is located crossways for the currents. And all that has to be done to find out how far the vessel has travelled is to count the number of times the main wheel has turned, and then look how much the other has been diverted by the current, and make two lines from the point, one straight line for the route, and the other for how much it has been diverted, and plot a circle from the point and measure the distance from the straight line to the diversion, and you will find the amount. And take care to look at the number of times the wheel revolves with a favourable wind and, if the wind changes direction and makes the vessel modify its route, write down the time that this happens, and how long this lasts, and count the times that the wheel rotates and the number of turns will tell you how far the vessel has been diverted. In Valladolid on the twelfth day of March, in the year one thousand six hundred and two, Don Jerónimo de Ayanz.

And you asked us, in view of the work, research and devotion that you have given to find these solutions, designs and inventions, that are so useful and necessary for our service and for the public good, if we could consider granting you the privilege to enable you and your descendants, and no other persons without a licence granted by you or your descendants, to make use of them, or as we may wish. And we, taking into consideration all the aforementioned and all the plans, layouts and inventions that have been seen by Doctor Arias de Loyola52 and Doctor Ferrofino53 in fulfilment of our instructions, they give their approval to them holding them in high regard and considering them to be ingenious and important, we have accepted their view as satisfactory and so in witness whereof we issue this licence and empower you, - the aforementioned Jerónimo de Ayanz, for a period of twenty years henceforth, as from the date that appears on this licence, and your descendants or whoever might be appointed by you or by your descendants, to use them, and that no other person shall have the right to do so, as the above-mentioned inventions, devices and machines are new in these kingdoms; and so we defend, for a period of twenty years, that nobody else at all, regardless of their status, condition and quality shall dare to make, have and use such devices, but only you, the aforesaid Jerónimo de Ayanz and your descendants or those who have been granted by

94

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

you or your descendants’ a licence to do so, and that any person who should make or use those inventions, devices or designs without having your licence during that twenty year period would be liable to pay, each similar case each time, a penalty of fifty thousand maravedis and confiscation of thecrafts; the aforementioned penalty being applied in the following way: one third for my Chamber, another third for the judge who finds such a person guilty and the final third to the person who reports the infringement and we order any judge or jury in our kingdom and domains, each one within his jurisdiction, that, being required to do so by yourself, the aforementioned Jerónimo de Ayanz, or whomsoever has been appointed by you, to implement and apply such penalties; and we likewise order our Council, Presidents and members of any of the Courts and Tribunals and other places of justice, and our judges in those kingdoms and domains that they let you use those inventions and machines, in compliance with the terms and conditions contained in our licence. In San Juan de Ortega on 16th June 1603. Signed by His Majesty and countersigned by Juan Ruiz de Velasco, and signed by Conde de Miranda and Graduate Núñez de Bosques, Doctor Alonso de Ágreda and Graduate Don. Fernando Carrillo [signed with a decorative flourish] The King [signed with a decorative flourish]

JERÓNIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

95

NOTES in the form of a GLOSSARY

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

96

In the original text Jerónimo is written Hierónimo.

Almártaga. A sort of slag consisting of lead oxide cast in very small yellow or reddish scales that is glassy in appearance.

Dineral. A unit of weight used by those who conduct the tests to establish the law of precious metals such as gold and silver.

Cuchareta. Each one of the pans on the scales.

Fiel. Supporting point to enable a device to rotate.

Cendrada. Paste that remains of the silver after refining.

Azogue. Another name for mercury used at that time.

Cratícula. A square grid through which the ashes fall.

Espiráculos. Breathing pipe or hole to produce air draft.

Desazogar. Remove the mercury.

Capelo. In this case it means the still cover.

Espíritus. Condensates from the distilling process.

Portaneta. Small door.

Masapella. A round mass of silver that is obtained on treating aregentiferous materials with mercury.

Cimborrio. In this case the term means the dome that covers the stove.

Vara. Measurement of length about 84 cm long.

Aceña. Water mill for grinding flour located inside the course of a river.

Cochura. Well baked, toasted.

Tercia. A unit of measurement that is one third of a vara, i.e. about 28 cm.

Calda. A blast of heat, heatwave.

Asgar. To hold, to support.

Aguja de marear. Also known as aguja náutica [nautical needle], is the device used to record the direction of the keel with respect to North-South line of the horizon.

Acémilas. Mules.

Trébedes. A 3-legged metal support where pots were placed over the embers for cooking purposes.

Ratonera de agua. A device for catching water rats. In this case it refers to a door that must have had a sort of spring so that it was always shut unless somebody forced it open.

Cabo. Far end [of a rope].

Vaco. Empty.

Vaqueta. Calf leather, tanned and dressed.

Reclamo de codorniz. A sort of cylindrical bellows formed by a structure of hoops and covered with leather.

Cigüeña. Crank, handle.

Arga. See asga.

The brackets correspond to blanks in the original text.

Sexma. A unit of measurement equivalent to about 13.9 cm.

Molledos. Fleshy and round parts of certain limbs, in this case referring to the arms.

Alzaprima. Lever (rigid bar that transmits force).

Ochavo. Octagonal.

Tas. Small anvil used by silversmiths.

Tesibica. Suction pump driven by pistons. It takes its name from its inventor, Ctesibius of Alexandria.

Martinete. A mallet or hammer that is generally very heavy, used to hit certain metals, beating cloths, etc.

Coz del agua. A whirlpool that forms in the foundation area of the dam that can undermine construction.

Barcones. Barges.

Pezones. Protuberances in the form of a half semi-circle that serve as gears.

Arcaduces. Scoops or small boxes secured to a rope or chain that collect the water from a well and pour it out from the top.

Linternas. Cogwheels that serve to engage each to another, formed by two discs joined by vertical bars (pilastras).

Chufetas. Manual metal or clay burning grill that was generally used to light a cigarette or burn aromatic herbs.

Barreado. Reinforced with bars.

Zapatilla. Valve. These were the valves that opened to take in a fluid and closed when expelling it, they were used on the tesibicas.

Aderezar. To make straight, put back together.

Descaecer. This can be interpreted as meaning «to divert».

Peine. Cog. Pilastra. Vertical bars on the linterna that serve to engage the cogs on a cogged wheel.

Arias de Loyola. Juan Arias de Loyola. 17th Century Spanish cosmographer who invented a procedure for calculating longitude while at sea, winning a prize of 6,000 ducats and an annual income of 2,000 for the purpose of which he invented the procedure. He wrote a treatise about the way of finding longitude and the fixed compass needle.

Ferrufino. Refers to Julián Firrufino who served Felipe II as a fortifications and artillery engineer in the State of Milan as from 1577. Because of his knowledge of mathematics and artillery, he was commissioned in 1589 to teach the artillerymen at Burgos. He was a professor in the Mathematics Academy of Madrid.

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

N. GARCÍA TAPIA: Patentes de invención españolas en el Siglo de Oro. Madrid, Spanish Office for Patents and Marks,

Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce, 2008.

— Un inventor navarro, Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont (1553-1613). Pamplona, Jerónimo de Ayanz R&D Centre, Public University of Navarra, 2010.

Back to Contents

JERÓNIMO DE AYANZ ON HIS FOURTH CENTENARY

97

5 The Royal Segovia Mint Hydraulics and Devices JOSÉ MAR�A IZAGA REINER Industrial Engineer JORGE MIGUEL SOLER VALENCIA* Lecturer of Professional Training

DEVICES FOR ROLLING AND MINTING

The Segovia Mint Device was constructed specifically to accommodate a new technique for minting coins. One of the main purposes of this invention was to obtain good quality coins or, what amounts to the same, coins with a perfect circumference, uniform thickness, exact weight and images on the obverse and reverse minted in a very even and complete way, all identical. It enabled the user to check at a glance, on inspection, if the coins had been cut fraudulently. Quality pieces had to be a true likeness and image of the monarchy.

Midway through the 16th Century in the south of what is now Germany, machines or devices had been developed that made it possible to mechanically obtain sheets of metal whose thickness was uniform. This achievement was of great importance, given that it made it much easier to obtain coins of exactly the same weight that were also identical in shape and size. The process consisted of passing the metal between two parallel steel rollers, with a specific gap between them; the rollers had smooth surfaces and rotated in opposite directions. The gap between the rollers was adjustable. As the metal passed between the rollers, they compressed it and lengthened it. This operation was carried out successively in different yet similar devices, the gap between the rollers becoming narrower every time. The result was a strip or slat of metal which was as thick as the gap between the rollers, being longer every time; these were the so-called rolling machines.

If the obverse image of a coin was printed on the surface of one of the rollers and the reverse image on the other one, and if the two rollers were facing perfectly, when the sheet of metal passed under pressure through the two rollers, the prints were stamped on the surface. The result was a large strip of metal with the images printed throughout

99

its length and on both sides; these were the so-called minting devices, and the rollers were also referred to as minting dies [cuños]. [FIG. 1A] In the rolling devices the workers inserted the metal manually between the rollers, which dragged the material when they rotated, the thickness was reduced with each pass and several passes were required to reduce the thickness of the FIG. 1A pair of cylindrical minting dies for cincuentin coins, that are preserved in the Museo de la Casa de Moneda sheets to the thickness of the coins that (Mint Museum) Madrid. were to be minted, from seven to twenty passes, which were reduced to four for th the copper coins of the 18 Century. The resulting metal strips could be up to 3.75 metres long (four and a half varas) The workers inserted the metal sheet into the coiners once the required thickness had been attained in the rolling devices, and the stamped faces of the coins came out after one single pass.

These rolling and minting devices could be driven by animals (horse power) or by water (hydraulic power). Water power was used in Segovia and this was one of the characteristics that not only forged the history of the Segovia Mint, but also its location and the design and layout of the buildings that were built. [FIG. 1B] As the roller devices for rolling and minting were new machines, the harnessing of water to provide power was already widespread and was being applied to numerous activities in Spain and throughout Europe. Flour mills, paper mills and cloth mills had already been built along the River Eresma to harness its waters to move their wheels and hammers.

Each one of these machines or devices had a hydraulic wheel with a horizontal wooden shaft strengthened with iron, which was installed outside the machinery building, in the channel zone; the wheel was 3.75 metres in diameter (13 ½ Spanish feet) and 28 cm wide (1 Spanish foot), twenty straight blades being provided at the perimeter. The blades were subjected to the force of the water that flowed out of a raised duct and made them rotate. The hydraulic wheel was the driver of the machine and its velocity was regulated by increasing or decreasing the water flow- rate by means of a gate.

The hydraulic wheel was attached to a large wooden shaft [árbol] 22 feet long (the ones on the minting wheels were 13 ½ feet) that passed into the building through a hole in the wall, to which another cogged wheel with cross-beams was attached at the inner end, known as a linterna [mangle wheel].This mangle wheel was engaged to two other wheels with cogs known as «colaterales» [collaterals], at right angles to the former and running parallel to each other. Due to their position, these rotated in the opposite direction. Furthermore, each one of these two collateral wheels made one of the parallel steel rollers or minting dies [cuños] rotate, the metal being inserted between them. When the hydraulic wheel driven by the water rotated, the entire wheel system rotated operating the two rollers. Inside the machinery room there was a frame to support the various parts of the device.

100

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 1B

Weir or diversion dam [azud] in the Segovia Mint.

Hydraulic wheels were made of black poplar [olmo], Valsain pine being used for the shafts and cross-beams, Scots pine [pino albar] being reserved for the brackets, rafters and blades. Walnut, elm, alder and evergreen oak were used to construct the devices.

Only the reinforcements, rollers and the box that supported the devices were made of iron and steel. [FIG. 2] The first devices were brought dismantled from Hall in the Tyrol, near Innsbruck, under the supervision of the experts from the mint in that Austrian city.

At first, three rolling and two minting devices were installed, the number later being increased to five rolling and two minting devices. A few years later, in 1592, a further four rolling and minting devices were installed in Ingenio Chico which was devoted exclusively to minting silver and gold coins. [FIG. 3]

FIG. 2 Device mechanisms: one mangle wheel, two collaterals and a cylinder box. (Infographics IDEAREA).

FIG. 3

Room with the five devices, a virtual reconstruction (Infographics

IDEAREA).

THE ROYAL SEGOVIA MINT. HYDRAULICS AND DEVICES

101

The seven machines or devices performed the tasks of rolling the metal and minting the coins until 1771.At that time the number of rolling devices was reduced to four and the two minting devices were removed. One worker was allocated on each roller. As from that time the minting was carried out with a new technology that was incorporated into screw or spindle presses, which were also known as volantes [flyers].

The main sources of information used to study and reconstruct these devices virtually were: a model exhibited in the Segovia Museum, where it was deposited after the Mint was closed down; the 1664 plan of the Cuenca Mint, which was built using the Segovia Mint as a model, and which is a general plan, yet outstanding because of its great graphic detail; the minting cylinders kept at the Mint Museum (Madrid), which were kindly provided, the works published about similar devices from the PotosĂ­ Mint (Bolivia); the archaeological remains found at the Segovia Mint; and the visit to the Hall Mint Museum in the Tyrol and the device re-constructed there.

FORGING SHOP

From the very outset, the Royal Mint in Segovia was equipped with a large forge workshop where the tools needed to mint the coins were manufactured. It was located at the east end of the Device Room.

The rolling and minting rollers made of iron and steel were subjected to continuous wear and tear and new ones had to be manufactured to replace the worn ones. This was the main purpose of this workshop. It was also necessary to make manual minting dies to be used as tools to print rollers, as well as other utensils.

The complexity of the process involved in preparing the rollers and cylindrical minting dies, and the amounts concerned, accounted for the size of the workshop and the large number of machines that it contained.

The rollers were prepared starting with pieces of iron and steel, each part being knocked into its approximate shape by means of hits. A hydraulic mallet or hammer was arranged for that purpose [FIG. 4]. First of all the metal had to be heated to a forging temperature (approximately 1,100 ÂşC), which was done in a forging furnace using charcoal and air being blown with a leather bellows.

A lathe for metals was used at the next stage, to shape them into perfect cylinders and the surfaces were polished. The process was finished off manually with files. The minting rollers were then sent to the printer who stamped the coin images by hand. The process was completed with heat treatment to harden them.

The forger, the lathe operator and their assistants worked in this workshop, together with other workers such as the filers.

Since the Mint was installed in 1585, the forging furnace with its bellows, the hammer or mallet and the lathe were the three devices housed in this workshop, all driven by their respective hydraulic wheels. There was also a work bench with several vises, anvils, circular millstones for roughing down and honing, as well as a large number of hand tools.

102

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 4 A hammer or mallet in operation.

The hydraulic wheels were the same shape as the devices for rolling and minting, with a horizontal shaft and straight blades, but smaller in diameter, we know that the one for the lathe had 16 blades.

The forge, which was depicted in diagram form for the first time in Vallejo’s 1678 drawing, was dismantled from its original site in 1771 and transferred to the western end of the building, where it was no longer driven by water but manually, by the force of the workers.

No remains of the facilities have survived, and what can now be seen has been reconstructed using the aforementioned 1664 plan of the Cuenca Mint, with the aid of other models, remnants and historical documentation.

The archaeological excavations revealed the holes in the walls of the building through which each of the three shafts of the hydraulic wheels entered to move the three devices in this forge. The positions of these holes made it possible to establish exactly where the shafts were inside the building.

The mallet or hammer The first water-driven forging hammers known to exist in Spain date back to the 13th Century, so when they were installed in Segovia their use was widespread, especially in the north of the Peninsula.

The system comprised a wooden handle lying almost horizontal, the central part of which was fitted with a supporting shaft around which it revolved; a steel head in the form of a hammer or mallet that hit the piece to be worked, was provided at one end, and at the other end it was pressed downwards so the end of the hammer was raised.

The pressing action was brought about by a hydraulic wheel mounted on a thick wooden shaft. Four cogs [pujones] protruded from this shaft, lowering the end of the handle when they rotated. When the cog lost contact due to the rotary movement, the handle was free and the hammer dropped under its own weight hitting and deforming the piece that the forger had placed on the anvil. Four blows were obtained for each turn of the wheel. The

THE ROYAL SEGOVIA MINT. HYDRAULICS AND DEVICES

103

FIG. 5

Reconstruction of a hammer.

hammer reconstructed in the Royal Mint can give around 100 blows per minute under normal working conditions. Its steel head weighs 57 kg. [FIG. 5] Entire pine trunks were used to make the hammer handle and the hydraulic wheel shaft [รกrbol], the former being 35 cm in diameter and 2.85 m long and the latter 50 cm in diameter and 3.41 m long. Both were selected from a batch of trees in the Valsain forest.

The hammer handle is secured by a thick steel band known as boga, which is provided with two supports in the form of cylindrical stumps that revolves around bronze bearings fixed to a wooden structure called cepo. This support consists of two thick wooden columns in one single piece, firmly secured to the ground and joined at the top by two beams forming a bridge.

The wheel shaft is strengthened with numerous hoops or rings and other metal pieces that compress it to prevent it from cracking. The cogs are wooden elements made of evergreen oak firmly embedded in the shaft. All of these have been constructed closely following the recommendations issued at the beginning of the 18th Century by the engineer Pedro Bernardo Villarreal de Berriz.

The main iron pieces at the forge, the hammer head, the steel band [boga] and the anvils were constructed by specialized blacksmiths in Mondragรณn (Gipuzkoa), a representative being sent there equipped with full-scale wooden models with instructions for them to be built to the same shapes and sizes.

The entire assembly is joined together by means of wooden wedges, which apart from serving as joints that stay in place despite the hard and constant blows, enable the user to modify the position of the hammer at will, adapting it to the work that has to be done in each particular case. From Ancient Times until the end of the 18th Century and the early 19th Century, machines and devices were made of timber, iron being used only at specific points for reinforcement purposes and working parts.

104

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 6 Reconstruction of a lathe.

The smith used tongs to pick up the piece of red-hot steel heated in the forge and placed it on the anvil, while an assistant operated the lever that opened the gate allowing the water to flow onto the hydraulic wheel, which began to turn and transmitted the motion to the shaft and this moved the hammer. A variation of the opening caused the blow rate to speed up or slow down. The smith moved the piece of steel between blows so that it would hit in the right place to obtain the desired shape.

The lathe The forge lathe was also made of wood and this was reconstructed on the basis of the model in the drawings for the Cuenca Mint (1664). At the Segovia Mint, there was also a second lathe in what was known as Ingenio Chico, which might have been used only to turn the rollers to roll and mint gold and silver coins, moved by its own hydraulic wheel. Reference to it appears in documents dated 1677 and 1678.

They were operated by the turner, his job being to give the rollers coming from the forge a cylindrical form, for which purpose he used a sharpened steel tool. He also polished them with a natural abrasive stone. Both tools were equipped with a wooden handle that was held with force and precision, the turner supporting it on his shoulder and on the device itself. To start it he opened the gate that enabled the water to flow onto the hydraulic wheel, which rotated and set the lathe in motion. Here once again, the work rate could be speeded up or slowed down by increasing or decreasing the opening. The lathe rotation speed is the same as the velocity of the hydraulic wheel that moves it and it can reach as much as thirty revolutions per minute. [FIG. 6] The Segovia Device lathes, used to work metal and driven by hydraulic wheels, are one of the earliest known machines of their kind in the Western World.

THE ROYAL SEGOVIA MINT. HYDRAULICS AND DEVICES

105

FIG. 7

The Forge in

operation.

The Forge The forge was an essential element for working with metals. The iron was heated until it reached a temperature that made it malleable; the smith could cut it, shape it, perforate it or even join several pieces, which could be made of iron and steel, welding them using a technique known as calda. [FIG. 7] The forge itself consists of a work bench where the refractory clay furnace was placed, with a flue to remove the smokes and the bellows to blow in air, the latter normally being separated from the furnace by a dividing wall to prevent it from burning.

The mechanism that opens and closes the bellows is a handle attached to the hydraulic wheel shaft, which with the aid of a rod transforms the rotating movement into a reciprocating one that is transmitted to the bellows by means of a rocker arm.

The hammer, the lathe and the bellows in the forge workshop of the Segovia Minting Device were driven by water power and not by man power which was usual for these types of tasks; this indicates how the idea was to equip this Mint with the best work tools known at the end of the 16th Century.

RECOVERING THE HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES

Since the first decisions were taken to install a new Mint with modern technology, water power was chosen as the driving force, along the lines of what was done at Hall in the Tyrol. German technicians visited many places on the Peninsula looking for a suitable site for the new mint, eventually selecting the Antonio de San Millån’s mill in Segovia, which was used for grinding grain and manufacturing paper, for the construction of the new ceca.

Water can cause movement when it flows down from a certain height. If it is discharged onto a hydraulic wheel it will make the wheel rotate and the movement will en-

106

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

able it to operate a machine. to achieve this it was necessary to divert water from the Eresma River, let it flow through a channel to the site where the device was to be installed and ensure that there was a difference in elevation with respect to the river.

The weir from Antonio de San Millán’s mill was utilised, although we do know from the documents that the reconstruction of the diversion dam was total and not merely a heightening. The works began from the foundations and the work was done almost incessantly, even by moonlight, for fear of a rise in the river level that would ruin the work done so far. The weir was of the mixed type construction, the internal structure being wooden and the rest of it made of stone. The structure was carried out using thick timber sections fixed in place with large nails. The gaps between them were filled in with stones and the weir exterior was rounded off. Large granite blocks bound with iron clamps were used for the most exposed parts, such as the weir crown.

Once the water had been collected and raised by the diversion dam [azud], it flowed down a channel into the building passing under the El Parral Bridge, where a new arch had to be erected parallel to the old mill.

In 1995, upon a proposal from Segovia City Council, applied the Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero [Douro River Basin Authority] ordered the reconditioning of the above mentioned diversion dam. During the reconstruction process it was decided to replace the old timber and stone inner structure with a new concrete one while at the same time retaining the size, the shape and some of the original stonework. The diversion dam restoration was undoubtedly the first step towards the complete recovery of the Segovia Mint.

In the 16th Century, it was not yet possible to control movement transmission mechanisms more than a few metres, so the machines or devices were constructed connected to their driving force, in this case the hydraulic wheel, so much so that each device was regarded as being one single element, i.e., the wheel and the mechanism in association.

Hydraulic wheels, and each one of the devices to which they were attached, were laid out along the channel, in the same sequence or order as the manufacturing process, which gave rise to a linear arrangement of the plant. Juan de Herrera designed a building to house these facilities, which necessarily had to be also linear or extended, running parallel to the channel and the river. Juan de Herrera found this to be the solution of a problem, because he had to construct an industrial building with a new layout, designed for a specific process.

Sticking strictly to his style, which was sombre, he hit upon an austere and simple solution, a linear block for the ground floor and a first floor. The production activities along with the mechanical devices were laid out on the ground floor while the dwellings and more manual tasks were located in the upper floor. He designed the building with large windows so that natural light would enter and enable the work to be carried out; the windows being placed symmetrically and in linear fashion, with just the jambs in the windows and a fascia between the two floors that highlighted the linearity of the building.

Inside the building, the leat or ditch [zanja, socaz] of the old mill was widened and a wall was constructed parallel to the building to separate the two leats [caces], the new one next to the machine building and the original one belonging to the old mill. The new wall also served to support the rolling device wheel shafts and to protect, in the form of a spur, the construction for the river erosion.

THE ROYAL SEGOVIA MINT. HYDRAULICS AND DEVICES

107

The leat was the lower channel or drainage ditch into which the water flowed after passing over the wheels and through which it discharged back into the river. A drop was thus created between the upper and lower channel, which was where the wheels were installed.

The new upper channel, made entirely of Valsain pinewood, was split into two parts: the first, the inflow channel or canal madre, receiving the waters from the Eresma River; the second, downstream, was known as the caída de las ruedas [the wheel fall].

The purpose of the 16-foot wide canal madre was to supply the three wheels of the forge workshop, which were located on one side between the channel and the building.

The channel water was diverted to the wheels by head crowns with their respective gates to regulate them. This inflow channel also served as a mill pond and made the water flow to the la caída de las ruedas, where the large wheels moving the rolling and minting devices were positioned.

The caída de las ruedas was not one large single recipient like the canal madre, it was split into smaller flumes that via their head crowns, directly drove each hydraulic wheel of 3.75 metre diameter; originally 5 such wheels, subsequently increased to 7.

The entire channel assembly was raised above the leat and was supported on the northern side of the spur wall and the rest was supported on wooden pillars. The words of the supervisor midway through the construction process could not have explained the process more clearly: «about the wooden channel, the Germans are constructing it with very thick beams and with large planks above and the sides are as much as 18 feet wide, and I said that the channel looks big enough for the Douro to flow through» (6th August 1585). [FIG. 8] All of this was typical of Renaissance technology. At that time, most channels were wooden, not only in Spain but also in the rest of Europe.

In 1770, a decision was taken to try a new minting technology whereby the metal pieces already cut [planchets, cospeles] were minted by being hammered in spindle- or fly-type presses [screw], which were moved by the force of several men pulling ropes. All of this meant that the two water-driven minting devices and their respective hydraulic wheels were no longer required.

The royal architect Francisco Sabatini was commissioned to redesign the ceca [mint].

He rearranged the work processes inside the building. He removed the forge workshop from its previous location, together with the three hydraulic wheels that drove it, installing three fly presses in their place; he also removed one of the rolling devices. The number of hydraulic wheels in this channel was reduced from 10 to 4. [FIG. 9] As the wooden channel required repeated and costly repairs and in view of the fact that the discharge needed to move the four remaining devices was not as great, Sabatini designed and built a new and narrower stone channel to replace the old timber inflow channel [canal madre]. Given that the three wheels of the forge workshop had been dispensed with too, this new channel was constructed alongside the front wall of the building.

The wheel fall (caída de las ruedas) part was kept in its wooden form in the same position and the structure was left as it was, to provide water for the 4 rolling wheels, the only ones remaining in the whole factory.

In 1849, one of the four rolling device wheels started to move two monetary press or press machines that minted the coins, performing a task similar to the fly presses, whereas the other three continued to move the rolling devices, which had been reduced to three.

108

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

MINTER

MINTER

ROLLER

ROLLER

ROLLER

LATHE

HAMMER

BELLOWS

MAIN CHANNEL

WHEEL-FALL

Hypothetical reconstruction of the channels originally constructed in the 16th Century next to the Large Device. To the left, the main channel with the three wheels that moved the forge workshop devices, located between the latter and the building. To the right, the five flumes of caĂ­da de las ruedas that let the water flow down onto the five wheels of the first rolling and minting devices. All the facilities were made of wood.

SABATINI CHANNEL

ROLLER

ROLLER

ROLLER

ROLLER

FIG. 8

WHEEL-FALL

FIG. 9 The channel assembly after Sabatini had redesigned the complex in 1771. The canal madre (inflow channel) was replaced by a very large one side by side with the building, of granite, while the three hydraulic wheels in the forging shop were withdrawn. This was the configuration kept until 1866.

SABATINI CHANNEL

TURBINE

FIG. 10 The channels between 1866 and 1967. Sabatini’s granite channel has been conserved.

However, the timber flumes and their four hydraulic wheels have been removed and replaced by an innovative Fontaine-type turbine that moved all the factory devices. This turbine was replaced by another and subsequently by others, the last one, of the Francis-type, being seen in this drawing.

This configuration of the channel system remained unaltered until 1866 when the factory was leased to a French company, who retained the granite section of the channel, removed the small wooden flumes and the four remaining hydraulic wheels, installing a hydraulic turbine in their place; a modern machine that could operate the whole factory, which was equipped with mechanical presses, by means of a system of shafts, pulleys and leather driving belts, until 1868, when the Segovian Mint was finally closed down.

After the buildings were converted into flour mills the granite channel designed by Sabatini was retained, together with the location of the turbine at its far end, which was to be replaced several times by new ones [FIG. 10]. The last turbine, of the Francis-type with a rated capacity of 60 H.P., was removed from its position during the refurbishing works and exhibited on a plinth.

THE ROYAL SEGOVIA MINT. HYDRAULICS AND DEVICES

109

The channel reconstruction The basic criterion followed when converting the Segovia Mint into a minting technology museum, was that it should fulfil an educational function, placing special emphasis on showing the 16th Century facilities and technology as the most outstanding period, but without forgetting the rest of its long industrial history. It was decided to reconstruct the machinery so that it would actually operate, highlighting the use of water power and its ability to efficiently move the devices used to transform the metal.

Following generally accepted international restoration and museum codes of practice,, it was considered advisable to conserve the elements added at different times that have survived until the present day, preferably in situ, as a genuine example of the building’s industrial past, so activities were carried out that could be undone if necessary, thereby renovating it while at the same time conserving with high respect what was left, not just concentrating on one part or period.

As a result of these criteria, the granite channel constructed in 1771 was restored, according to Francisco Sabatini’s original design. Although the design was only partly known, it emerged with all its force, construction quality and size during the archaeological excavations. It was also demonstrated that in view of its good condition it could once again be used to convey water with just a few minor repairs.

The five flumes through which the water flowed to the rolling-device hydraulic wheels were then reconstructed in the way it was thought the technicians sent from the Tyrol between 1583 and 1585 had built them. Timber, the original material, was used for reconstruction purposes, the sizes and shapes of the leats being deduced from numerous documents and archaeological remains. The layout was established from the location of the side wall on which they were supported, which was identified during the archaeological work. The position of the holes through which the hydraulic wheel shafts entered to building made it possible to know exactly where the wheels had been and, thus, the length of their channel and the position of the leats. The bottom elevation is similar to that of the granite channel.

The forge workshop was also reconstructed to what it must have looked like between 1585 and 1771, after its characteristics were studied from documents and research work was conducted into the layout of the Cuenca Mint and historical models. The three hydraulic wheels used to drive the hammer, bellows and lathe, respectively, were reconstructed so that they could move these devices as they had done in the past; the wheels back onto the outer wall or north of the granite channel built in 1771.

This channel supplies water to these wheels through wooden leats, which are a hypothetical reconstruction of the original 16th Century ones, albeit positioned on the opposite side of the channel (aware of the fact that the above-mentioned Sabatini channel had never been equipped with wheels on its bank, although the timber channel that was replaced by it did have wheels, which were on the south face).

This enabled the designers to recreate the forge workshop devices as an essential part of the 16th Century factory, with the potential for showing visitors how the water moved the wheels and how they, in turn, moved the machines, all of which has great exhibitive and educational value.

110

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 11 The channel system after refurbishment. The three wheels that really moved the 16th Century forge workshop have been attached onto the 18th Century granite channel (on the left), positioned behind the wall and revolving by using the water from this channel. The set of wooden flumes, also dating from 16th Century and in use until 19th Century, has been reconstructed; they fed the five hydraulic wheels moving the three rolling and two minting devices.

The Segovia Mint hydraulic system that is currently being exhibited shows the different technological phases throughout its long factory history, with examples from the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. [FIG. 11] From the Renaissance and its rolling system for minting coins, we keep the final stretch of the channel, the caĂ­da de las ruedas, the timber channel, possibly as it was constructed in the 16th Century. It would consist of five flumes that would move the five hydraulic wheels setting in motion the three rolling devices and the two minting devices, as well as the forge workshop, which was really driven by water power.

From the Age of Enlightenment and the minting with a screw or spindle press, we keep Sabatini’s stone channel dating from the 18th Century, which reappeared in excellent condition after the archaeological excavations.

And we relay also from the Industrial Revolution technology, represented by the last turbine to operate there, successor to the first one that moved the coin presses until 1868 and that would subsequently constitute the driving force in the flour mills until 1967, thanks to the water conveyed by the aforementioned stone channel.

The hydraulic wheels The hydraulic wheels moved by the waters of the Eresma River were the force that drove the Segovia Device since the time it was constructed until 1866. As many as fifteen wheels were installed and working at the same time: three moved the forge workshop devices, five drove the rolling machines, two operated the minting devices, and a further five in the Ingenio Chico, four of which drove the machines for rolling and minting gold and silver, while the other one operated a lathe.

Several documents have furnished information about their characteristics and some of the dimensions of these wheels. It has been possible to deduce from the archaeological remains of the channels and the buildings that the wheels were vertical ( i.e. with horizontal shafts), and they were equipped with straight blades in the entire perimeter. The plan of the Cuenca Mint dating back to 1664 that contains drawings of the wheels confirms this arrangement and also reveals that the blades were finished with two side plates [gualderas].

The wheels fitted and currently operating were reconstructed in strict compliance with all the available information and in accordance with the technology used at that time. [FIG. 12]

THE ROYAL SEGOVIA MINT. HYDRAULICS AND DEVICES

111

FIG. 12 Cross section of a 3.75 metre diameter wheel for the rolling and minting devices, with the raised channel and the slopping duct, or leat [saetín], which conveys the water to the blades.

The water flowing from the raised channel reaches the wheels through a sloping leat [saetín] that discharges it against the blades, hits them and makes them rotate. The water comes into contact with the lower half of the wheel. After passing through the wheel, the water falls into the lower channel [socaz], which serves as a drainage outlet and returns it to the river. These types of wheels are consistent with the ones used in the 16th Century and earlier, and they were still constructed until the end of the 18th Century. They only harnessed a small amount of the water’s energy, never exceeding 35%.

They wheels were not all the same size. The ones that moved the rolling and minting devices had an outer diameter of 3.75 metres (13½ Castilian feet), the inner width being

FIG. 13 The three wheels of the forge workshop with their leats. The set of articulated levers at the top are the devices that enable the operator to raise or lower each one of the gates from inside the factory.

112

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

27.8 centimetres (1 Castilian foot) and were equipped with 20 blades. It was possible to deduce the approximate diameters of the wheels that drove the forge workshop by the gaps between them, which were provided by the holes in the wall where the shafts entered. The bellows wheel was given a diameter of 1.10 metres (4 feet), the hammer wheel 2.08 metres (7½ feet) and the lathe wheel 2.22 metres (8 Castilian feet). According to an 18th Century document, a lathe wheel had 16 blades and was 1 Castilian foot wide.

All the wheels were made of timber using the «unsquared beam» technique, with the joints and fittings fixed in place by means of wooden wedges, reinforcements and iron nails. They were mounted on shafts made with black poplar trunks, which is known because of repair work that had to be carried out. As we have already pointed out, these shafts were inserted through holes made in the building walls, the wheels remaining outside. The crosses were the wheel spokes and were fixed to the shaft crossing it at right angles one against the other. Four curved pieces were mounted on the crosses in the form of an arc, which were referred to as camones, which when joined together formed a complete circle. [FIG. 13] These pieces reinforced in the manner described constituted the wheel structure, the straight blades being mounted on them radially and fixed into position with nails and wedges. Using the blades for support, two circular plates (gualderas) were laid in place, one on either side, to enclose all the blades. Their function was to prevent the water from escaping down the sides during and after the impact. [FIG. 14] This construction system enabled the carpenters to mount the wheel onto the shaft in situ and repair it with relative ease, although this task became more difficult owing to the cramped work space and the laborious working conditions close to the channel.

There is a shear gate at the start of the leat that enables the operator to regulate the water flow to the wheel. To set the wheel in motion, the workers, from inside the device room, pulled a pole that operated articulated levers that made the gate rise and let the water flow through. The right speed for the wheel and its device was obtained by controlling the discharge rate.

For each of the hydraulic wheel parts and depending on their characteristics, the carpenters selected different types of wood, but the range was invariably limited to the

FIG. 14 Section of one of the reconstructed wheels and its constituent parts.

THE ROYAL SEGOVIA MINT. HYDRAULICS AND DEVICES

113

FIG. 15 How the lathe wheel operates. After the water has driven the blades it falls into the lower channel before flowing back into the river. The raised channel, made of granite, is provided with an overflow spillway to enable the surplus water to drain away.

tree species growing nearby. In the 18th Century, Valsain pine, Scots pine and black poplar or elm were used.

The wheels often broke down or suffered damage when working; sudden changes in the environmental conditions, damp, dry spells, the sun and the cold, all caused major faults and considerable deterioration, especially timber rot, so they constantly had to be repaired and the damaged parts replaced.

When the river flooded, the water flowed into the overflow channel from the confluence and made the level rise in the leat inside the factory, partially or completely submerging the blades. The wheels could still operate even in these conditions as long as the water level did not cover them by more than 30 or 40 centimetres.

The research work and the construction of the three hydraulic wheels in the forging shop were financed by Fundaciรณn Juanelo Turriano, whose purpose is to promote and coordinate the historical study of Techniques and Science. [FIG. 15]

114

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

NOTE

* When preparing the Master Project for the Segovia Mint, JOSÉ MARÍA IZAGA and JORGE SOLER were responsible for the study for the channels, devices and hydraulic wheels. For this study they used documentary sources provided by Glenn Murray, the visible remains of the Mint and the technological treatises from the period. They subsequently formed part of the team of advisors directed by Alonso Zamora, involved in the rehabilitation of the Segovia Mint. During this period, as the archaeological remains emerged during the excavations, they updated the previous study and collaborated in designing the channels. They also designed the hydraulic wheels and the forging machinery, as well as collaborated with Miguel Ángel Moreno in their construction. At present, they are carrying out the construction of a rolling device sponsored by Fundación Juanelo Turriano.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— Los Veintiún Libros de los Ingenios y Máquinas de Juanelo, 16th Century. Biblioteca Nacional de España, Mss 3372-3376.

J. A. FUENTES LÓPEZ: Molinos de sangre. Potosí, Casa Real de Moneda Circular, Sociedad Geográfica y de Historia «Potosí», 1998.

I. GONZÁLEZ TASCÓN: Fábricas Hidráulicas Españolas. Madrid, Ministry of Public Works, 1992.

I. GONZÁLEZ TASCÓN (Commissioned): Felipe II. Los ingenios y las máquinas. Madrid, State Owned Company for the Celebration of Felipe II and Carlos V Centennials, 1998.

J. M. LEGAZPI: Ingenios de madera, Oviedo, Caja de Ahorros de Asturias y Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1991.

G. S. MURRAY, J. M. IZAGA, J. M. SOLER: El Real Ingenio de la Moneda de Segovia. Maravilla tecnológica del siglo XVI, Madrid, Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 2006.

SEVERL AUTHORS.: Casas de Moneda. Segovia y Hall en Tirol. Colección Piedras de Segovia. Segovia, Segovia’s Townhall and the Austrian Historical Institute, 2007.

— Real Casa de Moneda de Segovia. Un paseo por la historia del Real Ingenio. Segovia, Municipal Tourism Office, 2012.

P. B. VILLARREAL DE BERRIZ: Máquinas hidráulicas de molinos y ferrerías y gobierno de los árboles y montes de Vizcaya.

Facsimile Edition of the 1736 document. San Sebastián, Sociedad Guipuzcoana de Ediciones y Publicaciones de la Real Sociedad Vascongada de los Amigos del País y Caja de Ahorros Municipal de San Sebastián, 1973.

Back to Contents

THE ROYAL SEGOVIA MINT. HYDRAULICS AND DEVICES

115

6 Juan Bautista Antonelli: Military Engineer and Army Accommodator JOSÉ IGNACIO DE LA TORRE ECHÁVARRI Head of the Archaeology and Heritage Department at the Army Museum

Juan Bautista is a preeminent man, Whose strange appearance causes an admiration That no-one else on the planet has dreamt of MARTÍN ALONSO ARIAS Perpetual Alderman of the Town of Alcántara

INTRODUCTION

Giovan Battista Antonelli, or Juan Bautista, as he signed his reports and memoranda after the 1560s, is one of the eminent military engineering figures of the Renaissance. However, like many others, his contributions to the defence of the Spanish Monarchy are unknown to the general public.

Towards the end of his life, Antonelli defined himself as a «military engineer» and «army accommodator», which were undoubtedly the foundations on which most of his professional life was laid1. Nevertheless, as we shall see later in greater detail, he was also involved in many other activities throughout his long career, some of which were associated with the army, such as military treatiser, artilleryman, informer or strategist; as well as other professions that he practiced such as architect, geographer and hydraulic engineer, all of which enabled him to deftly develop many skills other than those that were strictly military. We can gain insight into the works and personality of this Italian engineer, invariably at the service of the Spanish Crown, by studying all the aspects of his protracted and multifaceted career and by reading his numerous reports and his theoretical work. He received the support of well-known figures in the Spanish Court such

117

as the Duke of Alba or Juan Manrique de Lara, and, even, received recognition from Felipe II himself. These relations, together with his good work, enabled him to attain an important position, to the extent that he became the defender, protector and maximum exponent of a great dynasty of engineers that he managed to bring together in the circles of Felipe II, as well as serving as the model that all his relatives strived to live up to.

HIS FIRST YEARS IN ITALY

In both the introduction to Antonelli’s will, notarized in Madrid on 3rd October 1587, and in its codicil, drawn up in Toledo on 18th March 1588, Juan Bautista stated that he was the legitimate son of Gerolamo Antonelli and Lucrezia Saure, both from the small Italian village of Gatteo, belonging to the bishopric of Rimini, in the Italian Romagna2.

However, his date of birth is not known for certain, historians differing on this point and considering it to be sometime between 1527 and, more likely, 1531, as can be seen by analysing the most recent studies undertaken on the subject of our biography3. [FIG. 1]

FIG. 1

Something similar occurs with his years in Italy, there being very little information about his education and his activities before his allegiance to the Spanish Crown. The few data that do exist from this period come from a compilation made about Gatteo, in which the documents indicate that his father, Gerolamo, was a building site foreman, who had his own workshop close to the walls of the Malatesta Castle in the town4. [FIG. 2]

118

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 2

Family tree of the Antonelli family.

Malatestan Castle in the town of Gatteo.

At that time, the owner of Gatteo Castle was Gianfrancesco, from the Guidi da Bagno dinasty, Marquis of Montebello and Lord of Gatteo a title granted by papal licence between 1549 and 15595. This circumstance must have led to Antonelli entering the service of Count Guidi da Bagno, where he took up the post of «secretary and chancellor of the lance and harquebusier cavalry, with whom the aforementioned Count served Duke Cosme de Medici in that war [meaning the Siena War]»6.

JOINING THE SPANISH ARMY

Central Italy had become the main battlefield between the French troops of Henry II and the imperial armies of Charles V, who fought for supremacy in Europe. One of the crucial episodes in these confrontations took place in Siena, prompted by the expulsion in 1552 of the Spanish garrison that controlled it, the city being handed over to the French troops, allied to Pietro Strozzi7. In 1553, a military expedition sent by the Viceroy of Naples, Pedro Álvarez de Toledo, failed in its attempt to retake it, so in 1554 Cosme de Medici, allied to the Emperor Charles V, obtained permission to challenge Siena with his own army, which included Guidi di Bagno’s regiment of harquebusiers, together with other Italian warlords supporting Cosme de Medici.

It was to be Juan Bautista Antonelli himself, who on several occasions throughout his life, refers to the date on which his relationship with the Spanish Crown commenced. In 1575 he claimed to have served Felipe II «for almost twenty-four years», although he qualifies this by recalling the King: «It is twenty years already that Your Majesty personally knows me and gives me his orders». This information is confirmed in his will «And for the record I served and still serve his Majesty King Felipe for thirty-six years in Italy, Flanders and in Spain and in Berbería as a military engineer and accommodator of the army and I still serve him»8. Therefore, Antonelli came into contact with the imperial armies of Charles V in 1551, while he was under the orders of Guidi di Bagno at the service of Cosme de Medici. And, as he himself points out, it was in 1555 when he met Prince Felipe during his stay in Italy, because of those wars.

Siena became an excellent field laboratory, being used to apply the new fortification techniques and where some of the best military architects of the times were brought together, such as Pietro Cataneo from Siena or Giovan Battista Zanchi, de Pesaro9.

Both of them published military treatises in 1554: Quattro primi libri di architettura and Del modo di fortificar le città, respectively. We do not know if Antonelli came into contact with either of them, in view of the fact that at the time his relationship with the army was rather different, he did not yet show any interest in fortifications, although it is undoubtedly the case that the works of these two engineers influenced his future theoretical work, as becomes clear on reading them. [FIG. 3] The only data known concerning his involvement in this war refers to the fact that, in that same year, i.e. 1554, «Gio. Battista Antonelli» took part in the «Plunder of Siena», taking Beatus Colombini’s relics from the Temple of St. Abonda, and sending them to Antonelli’s own parish church at San Lorenzo di Gatteo10.

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

119

FIG. 3

Depiction of the Siege of Siena, 1554-1555.

Apart from this scant information, little is known about his formative years, which was apparently the period when he gained experience in the various battlefields where he was present, acquiring skills in and a notion of exactly what was involved in the profession of military engineer, which he was to put into practice as from 1562. This circumstance, as Mario Sartor points out, would appear to rule out the possibility that he was trained in the Pessaro’s circle with Girolamo Genga, as had been suggested by other authors, and which was in fact the case with two other military engineers, namely Filippo Terzi and Francesco Paciotto, who also worked for the Spanish Crown11.

THE TERCIOS OF FLANDERS

After the War of Siena, Antonelli joined the Spanish Army, disassociating himself from Count Guidi di Bagno, who fell out of favour when he was blamed for the assault and robbery suffered by the King of France’s envoys in Gatteo, in 1554. This incident led to his possessions being confiscated and to him being persecuted by Pope Paulo IV Carafa, after which he sought refuge in Spain.

On his part, Antonelli headed north, joining the imperial army of Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Savoy and His Majesty’s Captain General, which was fighting against the troops of Henry II in the military operations deployed in the Netherlands, Flanders and in Picardy (France)12. The role played by Antonelli in these campaigns was confirmed by him-

120

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 4

ANTON VAN DEN WYNGAERDE,

Campamento de las tropas de Felipe II entre Amiens y Dourlens, 1557. Stedelijke

Prentenkabinet, Antwerp.

self in the Epitomi that he wrote in Toledo between 1560 and 1561, to which reference will be made below. He mentions on no less than three occasions that he served as military assistant to the field marshall Jean de Ligne, Count of ’Arenberg, helping him in the tasks of «providing a camp to the army while that war lasted». The only one of these campaigns in which Antonelli states that he participated was «giornatta di Dorlano»13, as well as in the Battle of San Quintin (10th August 1557), when he started to serve Juan Manrique de Lara, who was at that time Felipe II’s Captain General of Artillery14.

Pinpointing the exact location of the main stronghold of Dorlan has been a problem, it being speculated wether it was in Orleans or in Arlon (Luxembourg), however, it is almost certain that it refers to the town of Dourlens or Doullens (French Picardy) – according to modern spelling –15. This location is considered the most likely in view of the route followed by the Spanish Army during these military campaigns and is backed up by the fact that the Dourlens Camp was drawn in 1557 by Anton van den Wyngaerde, at subsequently immortalised in the frescoes in the Galería de Paseo del Palacio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, where Lazzaro Tavoroni and Fabrizio Catello depicted the most outstanding acts of warfare undertaken by the army led by Emanuele Filiberto. These contain some details of the camps set up in Dourlens and San Quintin, as well as the actions involving Spanish troops in Ham, Châtelet and Gravelines, where Antonelli must have also participated, as he formed part of the same campaign that came to an end with the Peace of Câteau-Cambrésis (1559).

Therefore, the military camps depicted by Wyngaerde [FIGS. 4 and 5], Tavoroni and Catello would have been the ones organised by Juan Bautista Antonelli to accommodate

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

121

FIG. 5

ANTON VAN DEN WYNGAERDE,

Batalla de San Quintín, 1557. Bibliothèque Nationale, París, Colección Hennin, no.

358.

the Spanish troops, fulfilling the functions inherent to the military assistant to the field marshall which was the post he occupied and not long after would refer to in his Epitomi dela manera de alloggiare un campo16. His duties included designing and supervising the various defensive and technical aspects that had to be taken into account when it came to setting up a camp: the choice of site, defining the area allocated to the army, sharing it out to each regiment, accommodating the military chiefs; as well as supervising the construction of the numerous defensive elements, bastions and ditches, the arrangement of cannons, the ammunition depot and the barrack huts for the on-site provisions.

TOLEDO AND ANTONELLI’S THEORETICAL WORKS

After the Peace of Câteau-Cambrésis, declared on 2nd April 1559, which put an end to the conflicts between Spain, France and England, most of the Duke of Savoy’s army was sent back to the Peninsula and with it, Antonelli. Once in Madrid he met Guigi di Bagno again, who as we have already pointed out, escaping from Pope Paul IV Carafa had sought refuge in Spain, where he was to die ten years later «assisted by G. Battista Antonelli, from Gatteo, Military Engineer of Felipe II»17.

122

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 6

FRANZ HOGENBERG,

Engraving from the City of Toledo, 1572, in Civitates Orbis Terrarum, edited by GEORG BRAUN.

In October 1559 Antonelli arrived in Toledo [FIG. 6], the city where Felipe II had decided to set up Court that same year. For a few months, and while in Toledo, he enjoyed what he referred to as the «otiosa pace»18, before beginning to prepare the first of the three military treatises that remain: the Epitomi dela manera de alloggiare un campo, which he began to draft on 24th April 156019 [FIG. 7]. His experience as «army accommodator» for Emanuele Filiberto, and especially the action he saw in the Dorlano venture, gave him food for thought to write this work, which he dedicated to Juan Manrique de Lara by way of compensation, according to Antonelli, for the loss of another treatise. And this was not the only time that the engineer from Gatteo picked up his quill to put his thoughts together, given that, as he himself pointed out, he had already written one before, nowadays lost, which he gave to Manrique de Lara, which was stolen from his tent before the battle of San Quintín20.

FIG. 7 GIOVAN BATTISTA ANTONELLI,

Epitomi dela manera de alloggiare un campo, Folio 134r.

Army Museum, ME (CE) 44.100.

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

123

After this compendium of castrametation, Antonelli wrote the Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne and, finally, the Epitomi del Trattato dell’Artilleria, which he started to write in March 156121 [FIGS. 8 and 9]. The reason for writing these three works was merely to compile all the knowledge that was available at that time in matters involving fortification, artillery and castrametation, probably with a view to demonstrating his own skill and expertise where arms were concerned. However, the three Epitomi did not contain very important information that could be regarded as State secrets, they being basically manuals that featured very general ideas, albeit accompanied by interesting drawings that were outstanding in their own right because of their FIG. 8 GIOVAN BATTISTA ANTONELLI, Epitomi wealth of detail and educational simplicity. delle fortificationi moderne, Folio 1r. Army MuAntonelli was already theorising in these seum, ME (CE) 44.100. manuals about questions that he was later able to put into practice when he embarked on his fortification plans, in view of the actions that he promoted and the proposals that he put forward in the numerous Memoriales submitted to Felipe II. In fact, in the Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne he had already described the poor state of the fortifications in «tutta spagna» because they were «antiquissime Tappie», and referred to the need for them to be improved immediately, several years before undertaking the task of modernising Spain’s defences22. He also stated that it was necessary to fortify the kingdom’s frontiers, making the most of the mountainous conditions to increase the defensive capacity of the strogholds, something that he would subsequently take very much into account when he began to carry out his tasks as a military engineer, at the same time as he proposed that small towers be constructed, within sight of each other, as the best way of safeguarding the peninsular frontiers, an idea that was later put into practice on the Catalunian coast and in the Kingdoms of Valencia and Murcia23.

Without going into an in-depth analysis of his theoretical works, it is nevertheless necessary to point out that Antonelli’s Epitomi clearly show influences from other treatisers of his days, such as the aforementioned Pietro Cataneo and G.B. Zanchi, as well as the works by Giacomo Lanteri24, Giacomo Leonardo25, or the work by Giambattista Belluzzi (1545), the first treatise devoted to land fortifications, a hand-written work whose copies were widely-read in Europe. Although there is no explicit reference to any of these authors in Antonelli’s manuscripts, his awareness and the influence exerted on the works of the engineer from Gatteo are quite apparent, even he sometimescopied paragraphs from their treatises word for word. Something similar happens with the works from classic authors, to whom he constantly refers as «los antiguos» [the ancients] in his castrametation epitome, which makes it patent that he was an avid and well acquainted reader of the works of Vitruvius, Polybius or Vegetius, albeit without ever quoting them either.

124

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 9 GIOVAN BATTISTA ANTONELLI, Epitomi del Trattato

dell’Artilleria, Folio 79r. Army Museum, ME (CE) 44.100.

Furthermore, these Epitomi would appear to be a way for Antonelli to present his credentials to Felipe II and Juan Manrique de Lara, for whom Juan Bautista undoubtedly wished to work once he had settled in Spain. That is why he dedicated the three works to them, reminding them of the major military campaigns in which he had participated at their orders, so that he could make them see that he had more than enough skills in the militia. That is also why he used the literary technique in the epitome devoted to the artillery of introducing several sonnets that Captain Alessandro Spinola or Jacopo Celoni da Cervia had dedicated to him, praising and extolling his expertise and work. The next few lines in which he appears depicted as «Vos, de la Artillería docto servidor / Sabio Antonelli el Marcial furor»26; or «Gloria inmortal, débase a vos / Sabio Antonelli, que al Rey mostrase / del fulminante terrestre el uso en breve»27 serve as good examples.

It was not a new formula, as many other Renaissance authors had also applied this technique, what came as a surprise in Antonelli’s case, was the fact that he is introduced as an artilleryman in these verses, a facet for which there is no documentary evidence, and neither is it mentioned in any of his subsequent writings. It is nevertheless true to say that artillery was closely related to fortification and that Juan Bautista could well have acquired sound knowledge observing the artillery marching with the army or using it to accommodate the camps in Flanders and Picardy. These two matters were to be extensively dealt with by Antonelli in his epitomes.

These three compendiums were not however his only theoretical works, given that Antonelli refers in them to three other treatises that he had either already started or intended to write: one «treatise on storming cities and fortresses, another on their defences and fortifications, and the other about army’s ordinance and squadrons»28. He provides further details in the Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne, where he confirms that he had started the «treaty on storming cities and fortifications» a few months before, and that he had to temporarily set aside the one on fortifications to concentrate on writing «this summary dealing only with fortifications»29. Therefore, if we add those other works by Antonelli, also written in Toledo, to the three Epitomi at the Museo del Ejército [Army Museum], plus the one that was stolen from Manrique de Lara in San Quintín, there would be a total of seven treatises. An extensive theoretical work therefore, before starting his activities as an engineer.

The three Epitomi conserved entered jointly the Army Museum, and there is a record of their existence since 195730. They are bound in one single volume, and all that remains of

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

125

the parchment covers are traces of four fleur-de-lis on the corners, although in 1957 the librarian at the Army Museum, Fernando Ruano, described the presence of four golden lines that framed them and a coat of arms in the centre that reminded him «of the one adopted

by Angelucci and Gelli on transcribing the controversial brand of Cristóbal Frieslera»31.

ENGINEER TO FELIPE II

His proximity to the Court in Toledo and his friendship with illustrious military officers like Juan Manrique de Lara served to consolidate his professional aspirations and enabled him to rapidly rise through the ranks in the service of the Crown. In fact, shortly after he had completed the last of these three Epitomi in Toledo, dated March 1561, Antonelli was commissioned into the service of Felipe II, and he had to put to one side his work on the rest of the treatises that he had begun to write.

The frequent attacks perpetrated by the Barbary corsairs against coastal settlements, together with the new threat posed by the use of gunpowder, made it necessary for a global intervention to be undertaken along the Mediterranean Coast of Spain, in order to modernise the old defensive structures. With a view to this, Antonelli was sent to the Kingdom of Valencia on 2nd October 1561 to embark on an inspection of the defences in the region and inform about what actions should be urgently taken32. In this document he is now referred to as an «ingeniero», the beginning of a long career that would lead him to face up, for more than a quarter of a century, to the major challenges that the Crown entrusted him with, which ranged from a comprehensive defence planning on the Peninsula’s territories, to drawing up a plan to improve its communications, as well as specific actions in some of the most strategically important garrisons, such as Alicante, Cartagena, Cadiz, Oran or Mazalquivir, not to mention his involvement in projects that were of paramount importance in firmly establishing the Spanish Empire, such as designing the forts for the Straits of Magellan or the preparations for the annexation of Portugal to the Spanish Crown.

The first actions that he took as an engineer involved travelling along the Mediterranean Coast, sending back reports to Felipe II and to his War Council. Between August and October 1562, Antonelli sent four reports to the monarch, in which he gave details of the general criteria for the defence of a garrison on the basis of its location, its natural defence features and the natural and human resources that could be mustered to carry out the fortification works33. As Mario Sartor pointed out, it would appear that in these initial reports, and for the very first time, Juan Bautista was putting into practice theoretical criteria that he had formulated earlier and verifying their validity34.

It can be seen from a letter that Felipe II sent to Alicante in 1562, that the monarch already held him in high esteem, not only because he regarded him as «our engineer», but also due to the fact that the King commissioned to him the fortification work for that garrison, in view of «the great need that this city has for its fortification to be completed to perfection (...)»35.

However, Antonelli did not act alone. As was customary in the Spanish Crown’s fortification process, the engineers were accompanied by a military officer who supervised

126

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 10 Bernia Fort (Callosa d’en Sarrià, Alicante), work by ANTONELLI, 1563.

Archivo General de Simancas, Sig: MP and D, 19,063.

his technical performance, a situation which caused quite a few confrontations between the two, in view of their different perspectives regarding the proposed interventions36. In Antonelli’s case, it was the «maestre raçional» Vespasiano Gonzaga, subsequently Viceroy of Valencia, who was responsible for accompanying Juan Bautista on his visits to all the places that required fortification and to report back to the King and his War Council.

They began to work together in 1562, making and issuing reports on certain garrisons along the Mediterranean Coast, assessing the pre-existent defence resources in the region and their defence requirements, in view of the increasing attacks made by the Barbary corsairs and the threat posed by the Turkish fleet37.

That was how Antonelli began to draw up a comprehensive plan to defend the Spanish frontiers, in which he recommended the number of fortifications required, selected the ideal sites to build them, how best to construct them, etc. In his own words, Antonelli said that his proposal involved «sealing the coast as with a wall, ensuring that some places were bastions, the ports were gateways, and the towers the sentry boxes or vantage points»38. This plan showed Antonelli to be an accomplished specialist in studying and becoming fully aware of the territory. According to him, Spain had to fortify itself, as it was the head of Felipe II’s whole empire and the guarantor of the defence of Catholic religion, believing that the Catholic monarch «… dexava a españa la mar por fosso y por adarves las fronteras que havía ganado en berbería, y los reynos que tenía en Italia»39 [had to ge Spain to have the sea as a moat and the new frontiers won to Barbarians and his kingdoms in Italy as bastions].

Hence, his major contribution to the task of fortifying the Peninsula had more to do with the overall planning of its territorial defence than with the actions performed at any specific garrison. Even so, he was directly involved in the fortification of many Mediterranean garrisons too, the most outstanding ones being the fortresses in Sierra de Bernia, Oropesa, Guardamar, Xávea, Cullera, Denia, Benidorm, Peñíscola and Alicante, amongst others, or the «large towers that have to be built in the Kingdom of Murcia»40. In 1562, he issued instructions for the Bernia Fort to be constructed [FIG. 10], this turning out to

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

127

be one of his most severely criticised works, it being even stated that he was not particularly skilful where large fortifications were concerned41. He was faced with similar problems that very same year when it came to submitting a project for the activities to be undertaken on Santa Bárbara Castle in Alicante that, after fierce opposition from the people, was rejected by the Court of Valencia and by Felipe II himself42.

In 1565, the Turks attacked Malta and, although the Christians were victorious, this served to demonstrate that nowhere in the Mediterranean could be considered absolutely safe, which meant that the need was seen to increase the actions on the fortifications.

Antonelli was commissioned to take action in the North African garrisons of Mazalquivir and, later, Oran. Both were of vital strategic importance in the fight against the Turks.

During these years, rivalry began between Antonelli and another Italian engineer, Giacomo Palearo, known as «El Fratín»43. The underlying causes of the rivalry were different ways of conceiving fortifications that, according to Antonelli, ought to be functional, easy to put into practice and not too costly, so that they did not lose their basic function.

His intense activity as an engineer continued unabated, and he undertook a variety of performances, visits and inspections, sending back reports on how to defend the Mediterranean and Pyrenean frontiers. Thus, in 1569 Antonelli was involved in reconnaissance tasks on the frontier separating Navarre and Guipuzcoa from France and, once again, on the coast of the Kingdom of Valencia. On that same year, he prepared a report on the defence of the frontiers of Navarre, warning of the existence of three weak points that he recommended to be fortified in order to prevent possible attacks from abroad, as well as the need to carry out structural reforms to the fortifications in Pamplona and Fuenterrabía44. And, on 6th December 1569 he furnished information on the deficiencies affecting the major towers and garrisons along the coast of the Kingdom of Valencia, and the need to act urgently.

In 1571 his name was put forward to design the fortifications for the City of Cartagena, undoubtedly one of the most important tasks that he ever undertook, in view of the strategic interest of this major Mediterranean port. Furthermore, he established the layouts for 36 gunnery towers in the Kingdom of Murcia (1578), and he was responsible for other major fortifications, such as the garrisons of Oran and Cadiz.

HIS FACET AS AN ARCHITECT (1570-1571)

In 1570, when he was working in the Kingdom of Valencia, he was called by the Court in Madrid to take charge of the celebrations for the solemn ceremony whereby Queen Ana of Austria (1570), Felipe II’s fourth wife45 was to formally enter Madrid. [FIG. 11] The details of this celebration are well known thanks to the chronicler Juan López de Hoyos, who described the pomp as «an imitation of the Majesty of Ancient Rome»46. Antonelli was commissioned to construct in the Prado de San Jerónimo, for such great occasion, a series of fortifications in the likeness of the Port of Algiers as well as an artificial pond «500 feet long and 80 feet wide», where eight small galleys sailed that staged a naval combat emulating a classic naumachia, obviously updated to represent the fight against the Turks. Furthermore, according to Llaguno, Antonelli was responsible for draft-

128

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 11 First arch for the formal entry of Queen Ana de Austria in Madrid, 1570.

FIG. 12

Gate to the City or Antonelli’s Gate, Carta-

gena.

ing the three triumphal arches (in Prado de San Jerónimo, Puerta del Sol and Calle Mayor), which were adorned with huge statues and medals of Lucas Mithata and Pompeyo Leoni, the pictorial decorations being commissioned to Alonso Sánchez Coello and Diego de Urbina47. As Mario Sartor points out, this was Antonelli’s maximum moment of glory and fame, the esteem and recognition that the engineer enjoyed at this time being made patent with this appointment48.

This was not his only contribution to the field of architecture, because in 1571, during his stay in Cartagena, he participated in the construction of the Cuatro Santos Chapel inside the old Cathedral, at the same time as he raised the city’s fortifications49. In 1576, and also in Cartagena, he constructed the Puerta de la Villa [City Gate], also known as Puerta de Antonelli, which, crowned by the Hapsburg Coat of Arms [the Austrias], led into the fortress’s walled enclosure. [FIG. 12]

HIS PERFORMANCE IN PORTUGAL (1580)

During the military operations prior to the absorption of Portugal by Spain, Antonelli was entrusted with the sensitive mission of surveying the frontier with Portugal so that he could inform the King about the state of its fortifications, bridges, mountain passes and tracks. This was by no means new to Antonelli, who had already performed similar tasks several years before at the Pyrenean and Valencian frontiers, but on this occasion

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

129

FIG. 13

El Duque de Alba revistando las tropas en Cantillana (Badajoz), 13th June 1580. Sala de Batallas de El Escorial.

his activities went beyond the mere vigilance of the frontier posts and the identification of weak points, because he had to provide data of great strategic and operational importance in order to enable the Duke of Alba’s army to enter Portugal successfully50. In this sense, the engineer from Gatteo suggested which positions the Spanish troops should take and how the artillery ought to be mobilised, as well as dealing with such aspects as the army’s logistical supplies and describing the operational details51. He was assisted in these activities by his nephews Francisco Garavelli and Cristóbal de Roda, who helped him to develop the layouts for the accommodation of the army and to conduct the survey of the frontier points.

In a letter sent in February 1580, before the breaking in the diplomatic relations that was used to justify the invasion of Portugal, Antonelli advised that the Spanish troops should organise in secret and launch a surprise attack on Setubal, while the rest of the army crossed the frontier via Badajoz52. In March 1580, he informed about the «orders and routes that the troops had to follow for the gathering and formation of an army in Badajoz»53. However, Antonelli hoped to play a more important role in this venture, writing on 20th April 1580: «If the day goes on successfully for the awareness that I have of the land, and of the warfare matters, and especially on how to accommodate an army, I understand that I will be able to serve His Majesty with the Chief of Staff, as I did on [the day of] San Quintin and Dorlan, which is the most important thing about a venture»54.

Antonelli thus returned to his origins as an army accommodator, taking an active part in planning the camp for the Duke of Alba’s troops near Badajoz, facilitating his entry into Portugal through the Alentejo Region, without coming up against any resistance. [FIG. 13]

130

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

THE FORTS IN THE STRAITS OF MAGELLAN, 1581

In 1581, and from Tomar, the Duke of Alba informed Felipe II about the team of engineers selected to construct the fortifications in the Straits of Magellan, which was considered to be of paramount importance to Spain’s interests overseas. The names of Juan Bautista Antonelli, his brother Bautista and his nephew Cristóbal all appeared in this report, together with Terzi, Spannocchi and Setara55 who were also Italian. Ultimately, Juan Bautista Antonelli was the one to design the forts that had to be built and, together with Captain Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, he showed the layouts to the Duke of Alba, suggesting that he laid an iron chain between the forts to prevent any vessels from passing.

Nevertheless, and in spite of his proposal being accepted, Antonelli never sailed for South America, because the Crown had already reserved for him another project of vital importance. In a letter to Juan Delgado, Secretary of the War Council, Juan Bautista wrote: «the engineer who could go and carry out the two tasks that have to be performed in the Straits of Magellan is Bautista Antonelli, who serves as an engineer in the Kingdom of Valencia, where he has been involved with the fortification at Peñíscola and in Alicante’s Castle and, earlier, he worked on the castle in Bernia and on the fortification of Cartagena amongst other things; he is 36 years old, more or less»56. In the end it was Bautista who left for the Straits of Magellan, however his brother’s project would never be carried out.

RIVERS NAVIGATION IN SPAIN, 1581-1587

In 1580, Antonelli was in charge of the works performed on a dam over the River Monnegre, in the Boroughs of Tibi and Jijona, Province of Alicante. It was his first job as a hydraulics engineer and he was able to count on the support of his nephew, Cristóbal Antonelli. Yet he only managed to see a few metres of wall erected, because the works were interrupted for nine years owning to a lack of resources. The task was taken up by his nephew and by other architects and engineers like Giacomo Palearo or Juan de Herrera, who made major modifications to Antonelli’s project. [FIG. 14] Nevertheless, his greatest hydraulic engineering works came when the Spanish Crown absorbed Portugal. This occurrence brought with it the need to explore new communication channels, in order to expedite the transport of goods and troops between the centre of Castile and Lisbon. Once again, Antonelli was to play the leading role in this major venture, the one which was to give him greatest fame and to have the biggest repercussions. A large number of documents and reports remain from this period that bear witness Juan Bautista’s intensive activity in the final years of his life. On those documents, he gives an account of the feasibility of navigation on the River Tagus, from Lisbon to Madrid and Toledo, a project on which he was assisted by his nephews Cristóbal de Roda and Francisco Garavelli Antonelli, and could rely on the valuable support of well-known contemporaries such as the engineer Juanelo Turriano, the architect Juan de Herrera, the historian Ambrosio de Morales and, even Felipe II himself, who, enthusiastic about the project, commissioned him in 1582 to conduct the first navigation test from Lisbon to Madrid in a boat.

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

131

FIG. 14

Tibi Dam, on the River Monnegre (Alicante).

In 1584, Felipe II wanted to try out for himself the journey from Vaciamadrid down to Aranjuez. Prince Felipe, the infantes, some Grandes de España and other personalities from the Court accompanied the monarch in two barges designed by Antonelli, who was also given the honour of the captaincy during the trip. This event was described by Antonelli as «the most special of all the projects that a prince has ever done», comparing the grandeur of these works with that of the Roman Caesars57.

Yet Antonelli’s project was far more ambitious, in view of the fact that he was thinking about making all the rivers in Spain navigable. With this in mind, he wrote to Felipe II in 1582, telling him: «what is being done to the Tagus can also be done to the Douro and in a short space of time it will be possible to supply Oporto and Galicia… Your Majesty may also sail along Guadiana, Guadalquivir, Ebro and other rivers when they are all set, and go wherever you need to as quickly as possible»58. As the Tagus venture was successful, on 15th December 1584 Felipe II turned his thoughts to the Guadalquivir, which he ordered Antonelli to be surveyed, with a view to making it navigable from Seville to Cordoba, until 1585, when he received 37,500 maravedis «to cover the expenses involved in the trip you went on to carry out survey work on the River Guadalquivir, on orders from His Majesty».

The trips, reports and works throughout the length of the Tagus were undertaken in the following years, until January 1588, the date on which he went on his final river trip to Toledo, where he died shortly after. It was his nephew, Cristóbal de Roda, who embarked on the complete route between Toledo and Lisbon, taking 15 days to complete it.

As a tribute to this magnificent work, Martín Alonso Arias, Perpetual Alderman of the Town of Alcántara, dedicated the following sonnet to him:

132

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

El ingenio más raro y peregrino Que en el mundo universo se ha hallado, Y un juicio tan claro y acendrado Que alcanza poco menos que divino Es uno que de Italia a España vino Que servir a Filipo ha profesado A quien el gran Monarca ha encomendado Que por el hondo Tajo abra camino: La obra más insigne y excelente Que hasta hoy se ha visto en nuestra España De quien se han mil bienes prometido.

[The most original and singular genius To be found anywhere in the world With such clear and true judgement Who is nothing short of divine He is one who came to Spain from Italy Who professed to have served Felipe II Who was commissioned by that Great Monarch To open up the deep Tagus The most famous and excellent work That has ever been seen in Spain From whom a thousand benefits were promised.]

THE END OF HIS DAYS AND HIS FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

Antonelli died on 31st March 1588 in the City of Toledo, at the age of 57. After thirtyseven years at the service of the Spanish Monarchy, twenty-six of which were spent as a military engineer, he had achieved great professional prestige and Court recognition, with the commissioning of the acts to celebrate the formal entry of Queen Ana of Austria into Madrid or the navigability of the River Tagus with Felipe II, not to mention the great confidence placed in him on entrusting him with the preparations for the «Day of Portugal».

As Mario Sartor points out, the position attained by Antonelli when he received the favour of the Court served to enable him to bring to Spain under his protection other members of his family, to work with him. Although it is easy to understand the trust he could have had in them, on considering them to be ideal for such important posts, with the passage of time his relatives went on to reach the level of engineers in their own right, developing their own careers on the Peninsula and overseas59. This reality commenced at the beginning of the 1570s, with the arrival of his younger brother, Bautista60, and continued with the incorporation of his nephews: Cristóbal and Francisco Garavelli Antonelli, sons to his sister Caterina; Juan Bautista Antonelli «el mozo» [the young], Bautista’s son; and Cristóbal de Roda, his sister Rita’s son61. The fact that they were such

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

133

a protracted family and that several of its members shared the same name has led to considerable confusion, them being often associated with the wrong works, it even being wrongly stated that Juan Bautista «the Elder» had «moved» overseas, as a result of a confusion between him and his brother Bautista, who was the one who was actually working in the Caribbean.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that Antonelli championed all of them, his relationship did not end up well with all these family members, as can be deduced by reading his will, in which he requires the sum of 150 ducats from his brother Bautista and 50 ducats and 1,000 reales from his nephew Cristóbal de Roda 50 ducats, both sums being loans or advance payments that they had received in the past. By contrast, he made his nephew Cristóbal Garavelli Antonelli heir to his estate, leaving Francisco 300 ducats and numerous items of apparel, while he also bequeathed to his sister Laura, a nun in Gatteo, 100 ducats and the possessions of their father Girolamo.

On analysing the will and its codicil, in which he lists all his possessions, it can be seen that he lived a comfortable life, without going through the hardships with which the lives of other engineers and men of arms of his times were fraught, constantly having to demand their fees so they could survive. Antonelli’s salary, at 800 ducats a year, made him one of the highest paid technicians of his times, although he found this insufficient, especially when it was compared to the amount received by his main rival, Giacomo Palearo «El Fratín». In a letter dated 20th April 1580 he complained bitterly, reminding Felipe II about his tasks, duties and many sacrifices, and he asked him to improve it: «The salary and favour that Your Majesty does me, is really not enough. I humbly beg of you to realise that El Fratin, who has neither my skill nor my years of service, and who does not better me in enthusiasm or loyalty, to whom you send two thousand ducats per year […] that you send me the same amount, not only because I am in great need of it, but also since in the past Your Majesty gave me more merit than him, let nobody asume that I have lesser merits […]»62.

In the list of possessions drawn up by Diego Sotelo in 1588, he mentions among his belongings one box of cosmography instruments, a «fortification treatise» written in Spanish, documents concerning his work in Mazalquivir, «what ought to be done in Portugal to conserve the Kingdom», reconnaissance and defence of Sierra de Espadán and the Bernia fort, the defences for the Alfaques de Tortosa, plus several royal patents and orders concerning the defence of the coast in the Kingdom of Valencia. Sotelo also refers to the existence of «a handwritten book comprising twenty sheets, entitled the Captain General of Artillery… an Engineer and a servant to His Catholic Majesty, whose contents concern the post of Captain General in peace and in war and whatever else may be involved, addressed to His Gracious Catholic Majesty King Felipe». It would appear to be most likely that this was the Epitomi del Trattato dell’ Artilleria that is conserved in the Army Museum63.

134

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

NOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

That is how Juan Bautista is described in his will and codicil, AGS, Contaduría-Mercaderes, 370-38 (File 7). There is a copy in the Toledo Registry Archives, published by L. TORO BUIZA: «Juan Bautista Antonelli, the Elder», Boletín de la Academia Sevillana de Buenas Letras, second period, Vol. VII, no. 7, 1979, Pages 41-56.

AGS, Contaduría-Mercaderes, 370-38 (File 7).

Biographical data on Juan Bautista Antonelli have been compiled by Mario Sartor on the occasion of the critical edition of the Epitomi in the Army Museum, M. SARTOR: «Giovan Battista Antonelli: the arms career», 2009; also in M. SARTOR (ed.): Omaggio agli Antonelli, Minutes from the Primo Convengo Internazionale sull’architettura militare degli Antonelli da Gatteo (Gatteo, 3rd to-5th October 2003). Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2004. Formerly, LLAGUNO Y AMIROLA and J. CEÁN Y BERMÚDEZ: Noticias de los arquitectos y arquitectura de España desde su restauración. Madrid, Imprenta Real, 1829, Volume III; re-edited by Turner, Madrid, 1977, Pages 9-11 and 193-242; a monographic work on the Antonelli family in G. GASPARINI: Los Antonelli. Arquitectos militares italianos al servicio de la Corona española en España, África y América. Caracas, Ed. Arte, 2007.

M. SARTOR collected the information about the Antonelli family that appeared in the Indice delle memorie della Comunità di Gatteo -1549, an Italian manuscript from the 18th Century in the Malatesta Library, Cesena, as well as the data provided by G. SASSI in his Ecclesiografia cesenate, a manuscript dating back to the 19th Century in the Malatesta Library, Cesena, which contains documentation coming from the San Lorenzo de Gatteo Parish Archives; in M. SARTOR, 2009.

E. TURCI: Il castello di Gatteo già dei Malatesta e dei Guidi di Bagno. Cesena, Società Editrice Il Ponte Vecchio, 2004, Page 60 and subsequent pages.

R. P. PEDRETTI: Castrum Gathei. Forli, Casa Editrice Tipografica L. Bordandini, 1918, p. 16; and E. TURCI: Il castello di Gatteo già dei Malatesta e dei Guidi di Bagno, op. cit., p. 75.

On the Siena War: A. SOZZINI: Diario delle cose avvenute in Siena dal 20 luglio 1550 al 28 giugno 1555, Florence, Gio. Pietro Viesseux Editore, 1842; V. DE CADENAS: La República de Siena y su anexión a la corona de España. Madrid, Instituto Salazar y Castro, C.S.I.C.,1985.

AGS, Contaduría-Mercaderes, 370-38 (File 7).

M. SARTOR, 2009, Page 63.

Cited in M. SARTOR, 2009, Page 14.

M. SARTOR, 2009, Pages 61-62, does not think he received his training in Pessaro, in view of his professional profile; this opinion being backed up by A. CÁMARA, Giovanni Battista Antonelli e la definizione professionale dell’ingegnere nel Rinascimento spagnolo, in M. SARTOR (ed.): Omaggio agli Antonelli, op. cit., Pages 163, 171.

G. B. ANTONELLI, 131r, ME (CE) 44.100.

Manuscript from the Army Museum, ME (CE) 44.100, Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne. Toledo, 1560, Folio 2r; Folio 41v; and Folio 131r.

«Ha potuto tanto in me quel calore ch Don Gio: Manrique de Lara mi ha porto che orina che inanzi la giornata di san Quintino mi springlese á serivere...», in G. B. ANTONELLI, Folio 41v., ME (CE) 44.100.

We ourselves mistakenly proposed that it was Arlon, cited in DE LA TORRE, 2002, p. 225.

G. B. ANTONELLI: Epitomi dela manera de alloggiare un campo, Folio 131r and subsequent, ME (CE) 44.100.

Memorie della Comunità di Gatteo, Documents from the Municipal Archives, Malatesta Library, Cesena; L.R. PEDRETTI: Castrum Gathei, Forlì, Ed. Tipografica L. Bordarini, 1918, Pages 15-16 [Pedretti Collection, Malatesta Library, Cesena]. Archivio Storico-gentilizio de los Condes Guidi di Bagno, Castillo de Torriana: document compilation by L. ABBONDANZA. This expression appears contained in the dedication to Juan Manrique de Lara in the Epitomi dela manera de alloggiare un campo, f. 131r, ME (CE) 44.100.

G. B. ANTONELLI: Epitomi dela manera de alloggiare un campo, Folio 131r and subsequent, ME (CE) 44.100.

G. B. ANTONELLI: Epitomi dela manera de alloggiare un campo, Folio 131r., ME (CE) 44.100.

Studies on and references to Antonelli’s epitomes in F. RUANO PRIETO: «Hitherto unpublished military studies from the 16th Century», Ejército. Revista ilustrada de las armas y servicios, no. 202, 1956, Pages 37-43; L. ZOLLE BETEGÓN, «Fortification and Artillery Epítomes», in F. MARÍAS (coord.), Carlos V. Las armas y las letras. Madrid, Governmental Company for the Commemoration of Felipe II and Carlos V Centennials, 2000, Pages 352-354; J. I. DE LA TORRE ECHÁVARRI: «Military Art and the Epítomes of Juan Bautista Antonelli: on fortification, artillery and castrametation», in Tesoros del Museo del Ejército, Madrid, Ministry of Defense, 2002, Pages 223-246; J. I. DE LA TORRE ECHÁVARRI: «L’arte militare nei trattati di Giovanni Battista Antonelli», in M. SARTOR (ed.): Omaggio agli Antonelli, op. cit., Pages 69-94. A. CÁMARA also gives his opinion on the subject: Giovanni Battista Antonelli e la definizione professionale dell’ingegnere, in M. SARTOR (ed.): Omaggio agli Antonelli, op. cit., Pages 163-198.

ME (CE) 44.100, Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne, Folio 33v.

ME (CE) 44.100, Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne, Folio 31v.

G. LANTERI: Due dialoghi del modo di disegnare le piante delle fortezze secondo Euclide (1557) and Del modo di fare le fortificazioni (1559).

G. LEONARDO: Libro sopra pigliar una fortezza per furto (1555).

A. SPINOLA, in the Epitomi della Artigleria, Folio 42v, ME (CE) 44,100.

J. CELONI, in the Epitomi della Artigleria, Folio 43r. ME (CE) 44,100.

G. B. ANTONELLI: Epitomi dela manera de alloggiare un campo, Folio 132r and v. ME (CE) 44.100.

G. B. ANTONELLI: Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne, Folio 2r. ME (CE) 44.100.

F. RUANO: «Hitherto unpublished military studies from the 16th Century», in Ejército. Revista ilustrada de las armas y servicios, 1956, no. 202, Pages 37-43.

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

135

31. F. RUANO, 1956, p. 38.

32. AGS, Estado, 329-I-34: Los puntos de la instrucción que llevó Juan Bapta. Antoneli, ingeniero que fue a Valencia, a 2 de octubre

de 1561, Cited in M. SARTOR, 2009, Page 65.

33. AGS, State, 329-I-35 [1562].

34. SARTOR: El oficio de las armas…, 2009, Pages 65 and 66.

35. AGS, G.A., 70 [1562], f. 219.

36. A. CÁMARA: «The profession of engineer: the King’s Engineers», in

M. SILVA (ed.): Técnica e Ingeniería en España. El Renacimiento. Zaragoza, Institución Fernando el Católico, 2004, Pages 125-164; J. I. DE LA TORRE (2009): «Si vis pacem, para vellum: la cultura militar defensiva en la España del siglo XVI (ca. 1530-1570), in M. SARTOR (ed.): Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne. Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2009, Pages 107-199.

37. AGS, Estado, 329-I-13 [30 March 1563]: Discurso sobre la fortificación y defensa del Reyno de Valencia del maestre racional de aquel Reyno, y de Juan Bautista Antoneli.

38. AGS, G.A., 72, Folio 295 and 296.

39. A. CÁMARA: Fortificación y ciudad en los reinos de Felipe II. Madrid, Nerea, 1998, Page 69.

40. AGS, G.A., 70 [1562]; A. CÁMARA: «Las torres del litoral en el reinado de Felipe II: Una arquitectura para la defensa del territorio (I)», in Espacio, tiempo y forma (EFT). Revista de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia de la UNED. Series VII, History of Art, no.

3, 1990, Pages 55-86; and A. CÁMARA: «Coastal towers during the reign of Felipe II: architecture to defend the territory (and II)», in Espacio, tiempo y forma (EFT). Revista de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia de la UNED. Series VII, History of Art, no.

4, 1991, Pages 53-94.

41. Cited in A. CÁMARA, 1998, p. 119.

42. Furs, Capitols, Provisions, e actes de corf, fets y otorgats per la S.C.R.M. del Rey Don Phelip nostre senyor ara gloriosament regnant, 1564 cap. CXV; cited in E. SALVADOR (1974): Cortes valencianas en el reinado de Felipe II. Valencia.

43. M. VIGANÒ, «… like doctors who invariably disagree»: «Giovan Battista Antonelli e Giovan Giacomo Paleari Fratino sulle frontiere di Spagna», in M. SARTOR (ed.), Omaggio agli Antonelli, op. cit., Pages 219-262; and M. VIGANÒ: «El fratin mi ynginiero»: I Paleari Fratino da Morcote ingegneri militari ticinesi in Spagna (XVI-XVII secolo). Bellinzona, Edizioni Casagrande, 2004.

44. AGS, G.A., 72 [1569], ff. 182-185, 294: Discurso sobre la defensa de la frontera de Navarra y de la de Guipúzcoa y sobre el modo de hacer fortificaciones de tapierías y sus provechos.

45. E. LLAGUNO Y AMIROLA and J. CEÁN Y BERMÚDEZ: Noticias..., op. cit., t. III, 1829, Page 10; ZOLLE, 2000, Page 353.

46. J. LÓPEZ DE HOYOS: Real aparato y suntuoso recibimiento con que Madrid recibió a la serenísima reina Doña Ana de Austria...

Impreso en la coronada villa de Madrid por Juan Gracián. 1572.

47. A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «El poder de la imagen y la imagen del poder: la fiesta en Madrid en el Renacimiento», in Madrid en el Renacimiento. Madrid, Dirección General de Cultura de la Comunidad de Madrid, 1986.

48. M. SARTOR, 2009, p. 71.

49. J. I. DE LA TORRE ECHÁVARRI: «L’arte militare nei trattati», op. cit., p. 74.

50. AGS, G.A., 102, f. 57: letter sent by Llerena on 28th March 1580 to Juan Delgado, Secretary of the War Council. For the role played by Antonelli on the occasion of the annexation of Portugal, see: M. SOROMENHO: «Il Portogallo nella Monarchia Iberica: i percorsi di Giovanni Battista Antonelli», in M. SARTOR (ed.), Omaggio agli Antonelli, op. cit., Pages 263-273.

51. AGS, G.A., 102, folios 104, 53, 54, 65; these contain the correspondence between Antonelli and Felipe II and between Antonelli and Juan Delgado, Secretary of the War Council, as from 14th March 1580; AGS, G.A., 102, Folio 57: letter sent by Llerena on 28th March 1580 to Juan Delgado.

52. Letter to His Majesty dated 23rd February 1580. AGS, G.A., 101, f. 336; cited in M. SARTOR, 2009, p. 77.

53. Cited in CARRILLO DE ALBORNOZ: Abriendo camino. Historia del Arma de Ingenieros, Madrid, Ministry of Defense, 1997, Page 67.

54. AGS, G.A., 102, Folio 57.

55. AGS, G.A., 112, F. 216, 14th April 1581: Relación que el Duque de Alba envió de las personas que le propusieron para ingenieros para los fuertes del estrecho y ayudantes dello.

56. Aparici Collection, t. V, R. 2 [1581]. Aparici makes reference to the AGS documentation, Sea & Land (former classification

by GA), 614.

57. AGS, G.A., File 72, cited in A. CÁMARA, 1998, Page 213.

58. AGS, G.A., 125, Folio 159, letter dated 9th May 1582 addressed to Felipe II. 59. M. SARTOR 2009, Pages 76-77.

60. «Representation by Juan de Ibarra to the King in favour of Baptista Antonelli», given in Madrid on 23rd September 1593, in E. LLAGUNO Y AMIROLA: Noticias..., op. cit., Volume III, Page 267.

61. M. SARTOR (ed.): Omaggio agli Antonelli, op. cit.; E. LLAGUNO Y AMIROLA and J. CEÁN Y BERMÚDEZ: Noticias de los arquitectos y arquitectura de España desde su restauración. Madrid, Turner, 1977, Pages 9-11 and 193-242; a monographic work on the Antonellis, G. GASPARINI: Los Antonelli. Arquitectos militares italianos al servicio de la Corona española en España, África y América.

Caracas, Ed. Arte, 2007.

62. AGS, G.A., 102, Folio 128: letter from Llerena dated 20th April 1580.

63. F. RUANO: «Hitherto unpublished military studies from 16th Century», op. cit., p. 39.

136

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. ANGULO ÍÑIGUEZ: Bautista Antonelli. Las fortificaciones americanas del siglo XVI. Madrid, Hauser and Menet, 1942.

J. V. BOIRA MAIQUES:

«Geografia i control del territori. El coneixement i la defensa del litoral Valencia al segle XVI: l’enginyer Joan Baptista Antonelli», Cuadernos de Geografía, Universitat de València, no. 52, 1992, Pages 183-199.

X. CABANES: Memoria que tiene por objeto manifestar la posibilidad y facilidad de hacer navegable el río Tajo desde Aranjuez hasta el Atlántico. Madrid, Imprenta de don Miguel de Burgos, 1829.

A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «La arquitectura militar y los ingenieros de la monarquía española. Aspectos de una profesión (1530-1650)», Revista de la Universidad Complutense, no. 3, 1981, Pages 255-269.

— «El poder de la imagen y la imagen del poder: la fiesta en Madrid en el Renacimiento», in Madrid en el Renacimiento. Madrid, Dirección General de Cultura de la Comunidad de Madrid, 1986.

— «Las torres del litoral en el reinado de Felipe II: Una arquitectura para la defensa del territorio (I)», in Espacio, tiempo y forma (EFT). Revista de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia de la UNED. Series VII. History of Art, no.

3, 1990, Pages 55-86.

— «Las torres del litoral en el reinado de Felipe II: una arquitectura para la defensa del territorio» (y II), in Espacio, Tiempo y forma (EFT). Revista de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia de la UNED. Series VII. History of Art, no.

4, 1991, p. 53-94.

— Fortificación y ciudad en los reinos de Felipe II. Madrid, Ed. Nerea, 1998.

— «Giovanni Battista Antonelli e la definizione professionale dell’ingegnere nel Rinascimento spagnolo», in M. SARTOR (ed.): Omaggio agli Antonelli. Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2004, Pages 163-198.

J. CARRILLO DE ALBORNOZ: Abriendo camino. Historia del Arma de Ingenieros, Madrid, Ministry of Defense, 1997.

V. DE CADENAS: La República de Siena y su anexión a la corona de España. Madrid, Instituto Salazar y Castro, C.S.I.C., 1985.

P. CATANEO: I Quattro Primi Libri d’Architettura. Venecia, Imprenta de los Figliuoli di Aldo [Manuzio], 1554.

C. DUFFY: Siege Warfare. The Fortress in the Early Modern World, 1494-1660, vol. 1. Londres, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.

G. GASPARINI: Los Antonelli. Arquitectos militares italianos al servicio de la Corona española en España, África y América. Caracas, Ed. Arte, 2007.

J. LORENZO ARRIBAS: «Un proyecto inédito del arquitecto Juan de Villanueva para hacer navegable el Tajo», in M. CRIADO DEL VAL (dir.): Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Caminería Hispánica, tomo I, Pages 463-478.

Madrid, Ministry of Public Works, 2000.

E. LLAGUNO Y AMIROLA and J. CEÁN Y BERMÚDEZ: Noticias de los Arquitectos y Arquitectura de España desde su restauración, three volumes. Madrid, Ed. Turner, 1979.

F. RUANO PRIETO: «Unos estudios militares inéditos del siglo XVI». Ejército. Revista ilustrada de las armas y servicios, no. 202, 1956, Pages 37-43.

E. SALVADOR ESTEBAN: Cortes valencianas en el reinado de Felipe II. Valencia, 1974.

M. SARTOR (ed.): Omaggio agli Antonelli, Minutes from the Primo Convengo Internazionale sull’architettura militare degli Antonelli da Gatteo (3-5 October 2003). Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2004.

— «Giovan Battista Antonelli: el oficio de las armas»; in M. SARTOR (ed.): Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne.

Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2009, Pages 9-106.

— (ed.): Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne. Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2009.

M. SOROMENHO: «Il Portogallo nella Monarchia Iberica: i percorsi di Giovanni Battista Antonelli», in M. SARTOR (ed.), Omaggio agli Antonelli, Minutes from the Primo Convengo Internazionale sull’architettura militare degli Antonelli da Gatteo (3-5 October 2003). Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2004, Pages 263-273.

L. TORO BUIZA: «Juan Bautista Antonelli, El Mayor», Boletín de la Real Academia Sevillana de Buenas Letras, no. 7, 1979, Pages 41-56.

J. I DE LA TORRE ECHÁVARRI: «El arte militar y los Epítomes de Juan Bautista Antonelli: sobre fortificación, artillería y castramentación», in Tesoros del Museo del Ejército, Madrid, Ministry of Defense, 2002, Pages 223-246. 2nd edition, 2007.

— «L’arte militare nei trattati di Giovanni Battista Antonelli», in M. SARTOR (ed.), Omaggio agli Antonelli. Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2004, Pages 69-94.

— «Si vis pacem, para vellum: la cultura militar defensiva en la España del siglo XVI» (ca. 1530-1570); in M. SARTOR (ed.) Epitomi delle fortificationi moderne. Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2009, Pages 107-199.

E. TURCI: Il castello di Gatteo già dei Malatesta e dei Guidi di Bagno. Cesena, Società Editrice Il Ponte Vecchio, 2004.

G. B. ZANCHI: Del modo di fortificare la cittá. Venecia, Pietrasanta, 1554.

L. ZOLLE BETEGÓN: «Epítomes de fortificación y artillería», in F. MARÍAS (coord.), Carlos V. Las armas y las letras, Madrid, Governmental Company for the Commemoration of Felipe II and Carlos V Centennials, 2000, Pages 352-354.

Back to Contents

JUAN BAUTISTA ANTONELLI: MILITARY ENGINEER AND ARMY ACCOMMODATOR

137

7 Cristóbal de Rojas.

From Masonry to Engineering* ALICIA CÁMARA MUÑOZ Professor of Art History. UNED

Cristóbal de Rojas, the master mason who came to be a King’s Engineer. Finding out about how this career promotion process occurred gives us insight into the circumstances surrounding construction professionals during the Spanish Renaissance. Rojas’s name is remembered mainly as a result of the treatise that he published in 1598, but also because of work on the fortification of Cadiz, where he began as master builder and ended up as an engineer, assigned to these works for many years. While he was there, he had to put up with the War Council imposing the criteria of Tiburzio Spannocchi, Master Engineer of the Kingdoms of Spain, in spite of the criticisms that Rojas repeatedly made known to the Council. His arguments against this decision were invariably based on what his experience as an architect taught him – although he was in fact a master mason – coupled with his war experience, questioning the fact that Spannocchi’s skills as a draughtsman were sufficient to endorse him as an engineer.

Be that as it may, in the treatise of 1598 he stated that he was an admirer of Spannoc1 chi , maybe because he now saw himself as a Court Engineer, protected by the scientific circle that grew up around the Mathematics Academy. However, the years changed this assessment, judging by the manuscript dated 1607, in which he referred to him as an «extremely arrogant engineer who thought there was nobody else in the world like himself»2, and he was undoubtedly talking about Spannocchi since the arguments he used to heap scorn upon him are the same ones that formed the basis of a report he drew up on the citadel planned by Spannocchi for Cadiz, which we shall be seeing later on. But that was not enough for him, as the report was never published, so in the 1613 treatise he went straight to the point and questioned the value of the drawings done by engineers who arrived from far-off lands3, as was the case with Spannocchi, and we will have an opportunity to read other specific criticisms levelled at his drawings seen in the light of a comparison

139

with what experienced soldiers and architects knew. Therefore, this text could well have been entitled «quarrymen versus draughtsmen». There is one other aspect to be taken into consideration, and that Rojas’s socially humble background also affected his career, which meant that he could in no way be compete against engineers who were noble gentlemen, and in fact, Spannocchi expressed a certain contempt for engineers who received from the king the same nobility that he had enjoyed by birth right, when they had formerly been quarrymen and carpenters4. This was the case with Rojas. Thus, as time passed by, and owing to the Cadiz controversy, what had been a good relationship came to an end, one which had begun when Spannocchi recommended him as the master builder for that city’s fortifications5. The figure of the Court Engineer, well experienced generally on the fortifications defending the monarchy’s extensive frontiers, and the question of the protectors of ones or others, that idea of being «a protégé of», could have led to another way of approaching the subject, but knowing how a quarryman came to be captain and engineer is interesting because it gives us greater insight into the profession. These and other debates and circumstances crop up throughout the text, which aims to examine questions hitherto hardly dealt with concerning the profession of engineer in the Renaissance.

This is the brief history of an ambition. The tale of a good master mason, trained in the construction of El Escorial Monastery, who was appointed master builder for some major works, and who, first in Pamplona and later in Cadiz, must have realised the great career potential offered by engineering. Indeed, fortifications and public works were necessary for defending and controlling the monarchy’s territories, the king’s engineers enjoyed great recognition in society and were very well paid, and all Rojas needed was war experience to aspire to being given the title of engineer when circumstances led him to successfully try to achieve this.

FROM MASTER STONEMASON TO «MASTER BUILDER ENGINEER»

Cristóbal de Rojas was born in 1555, in one of two possible birthplaces: it was originally thought that it was Toledo, where he might have taken up mathematics, but more recently consideration has been given to the possibility that he was born in Baeza, a city where stoneworking had reached admirable heights of perfection by the Renaissance, whence other great stonemasons of the times hailed, such as Ginés Martínez de Aranda6. Whatever the case may be, his training commenced when he was a child, given that in 1602 he claimed to have forty years’ experience, from which it can be deduced that it started when he was seven7. Until 1584, he worked as a master stonemason in El Escorial, where he came into contact with Juan de Herrera, one of his protectors. Rojas was not the only one to become an engineer as a result of his work helping to construct El Escorial Monastery. Gaspar Ruiz too, another engineer that Spannocchi prided himself on having trained as such8, began as a master, in this case as a bricklayer, although he stated that he was also a master in stonemasonry, in El Escorial9. It is Gaspar Ruiz, the son of one of the Monastery’s quantity surveyor, who explains how two master masons like himself and Rojas came to be trained as engineers, because he recalls that it was Felipe II personally who decided that it was necessary to train Spanish engineers as experts in military

140

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

architecture in view of the fact that there were not enough members of this profession.

He heard news of Gaspar Ruiz’s skills, and he was one of the names put forward for training in that profession, in his case, under the auspices of Casale. It is also interesting to note when trying to comprehend the engineering debates that raged in this period, that Gaspar Ruiz also gave precedence to experience over what «theoretical engineers» might plan when constructing Cabeza Seca in Portugal, in his confrontation with Leonardo Turriano, using amongst other arguments that instead accepting the ideas of an Italian engineer like Turriano, the king ought to listen to and heed Spanish engineers. His demand for recognition of experience was not limited only to fortification professionals it also applied to other areas, and in this case it also reflected the thoughts of his patron Cristóbal de Moura, Marquis of Castel Rodrigo and member of the Council of State, who said that Euclid was not necessary when there was plenty of experience, given that «practicing things is worth more than the theory of things»10. It was the same situation as the one in which Rojas found himself, confronting Spannocchi in Cadiz, defending experience against the Italian engineer who did beautiful drawings. If we consider the fact that both Turriano and Spannocchi, who were excellent draughtsmen moving in their element in the Court,, were appointed senior engineers, these clashes can be regarded as being between engineers trained in construction and those who came from the world of war and science, who were extremely highly rated in the circles close to power.

Once the stonework had been completed on El Escorial Monastery, in 1584, Rojas went to Seville, where Juan de Minjares had also gone, the latter having been a quantity surveyor at El Escorial. Minjares was constructing the Casa de Contratación (House of Trade) in Seville following plans drawn by Juan de Herrera, who he was to meet again later in 1597 when the two of them were informing about the Cadiz fortifications. His scientific training and his command of measuring instruments had by then already become apparent in his years in Seville, because he had asked the City Council for permission «to devise and publish» a plan for the city in 158911.

Between 1588 and 1589 he was involved as a «master stonemason» in the construction of the citadel in Pamplona, for which the stone work was crucial, as Rojas was to remind those who his reports many years later. In 1589, he returned to Madrid, where he once again came into contact with Juan de Herrera and that was when he first applied for the post of engineer. He argued that he knew the universal principles and rules of the engineering profession, that he was a «practical man» and that he was versed in the theoretical and practical aspects required to make buildings firm long-lasting. The War Council asked the Captain General of Artillery Juan de Acuña Vela for a report on his application, according to which Rojas had not only carried out major architectural works (he did not say if designed or drafted) but was versed in stone works and was very good at mathematics, so «he could easily be an engineer as he sees, and practices with them»12.

As a consequence they sent him as a master builder to the Cadiz fortifications. That is not what he wanted, because he did not go as an engineer, but it was undoubtedly a city in which to learn, given that the best Giovan Battista Calvi, Giacomo Palearo «El Fratín», Giovan Battista Antonelli and Tiburzio Spannocchi. He went to Cadiz when Herrera informed that Rojas was not necessary to attend to other matters at the Court, which once again reminds us that Herrera was his patron13. In fact, Herrera’s death in 1597 occurred

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

141

FIG. 1

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS.

Perfil del Fuerte de San Martín en Santander, 1591. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D

38, 054.

at the same time as Rojas was finally assigned to Cadiz, so his career could never take the course that he had dreamt of, even though the fortifications of Cadiz and the surrounding area were a perfectly good assignment.

In spite of having a well-planned career as an engineer, it must be pointed out that he always felt proud of being a master stonemason. Even as late as 1609, having been granted the qualification of engineer many years earlier, he signed together with Alonso de Vandelvira, a report against the construction of the Puntal and Matagorda Forts in Cadiz, which ended thus, «and we say this in God and in our own conscience as master masons and the experience we have gained in works involving water»14. Therefore, special importance should be attached to the stonework layouts in his treatise Theory and Practice of Fortification, written in 1596, which has been associated with the treatise drawn up by Alonso de Vandelvira between 1578 and 1591, although it never came to be printed, and especially with the Enclosures and Working Drawings by Ginés Martínez de Aranda, who would have written his work in approximately 1600, after having been a master builder for Cadiz Cathedral15. The pride he took in proclaiming himself to be a stonemason was based upon his conviction that an engineer had to know the principles of construction, because that was what prevented them from being deceived by a bricklayer, given that the latter «as soon as they sensed that the engineer was not practical, laughed at him behind his back, and made fun of him, and all of this was detrimental to the building process».

To cut a long story short, what he meant to say in 1613 was that his career was the best, an assertion that was based, on the one hand, upon the fact that he had war experience that enabled him to select the right sites and, on the other hand, he was well versed in the science of «firmness, proportion and recreation at sight», not to mention stone cutting and vault enclosuring, «all of which is very difficult for those who have not done it before, and learnt how to from good teachers»16. In the light of this, we must take it for granted that Rojas found his expertise as a stonemason helped to make him a better engineer.

His first stay in Cadiz was brief, since from the Court, where he had gone to report on the state of the city’s fortifications, he was sent to Brittany as an engineer answerable to

142

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

Juan del Águila, Francisco Armentia17 replacing him as master builder in Cadiz. During the journey, in July 1591, he debuted as a fortification engineer able to draft well-drawn plans and layouts to scale, preparing a project to rebuild San Martín Fort in Santander, which was necessary to protect the port [FIG. 1]. He was ordered to do this by Luis Fajardo, Captain General of the Ocean Seas Armada, who was later to be decisively involved in the Cadiz fortifications, and in 1614 was to coincide once again with Rojas in the taking of La Mamora. In Cristobal de Rojas’s professional promotion process, we cannot fail to mention the fact that enclosed with the letter from Fajardo concerning this fort in Santander, was the «opinion and recommendations from Cristóbal de Rojas, master builder engineer»18, a term that combined professions, but was less prestigious than King’s Engineer. This name can be found in a few other cases, and it helps us to understand how the post of «master builder architect», which historians so often interpret by simplifying it to «architect», was actually used in other works, since in reality they are different categories, especially when a royal appointment is involved. For example, in 1608, it was decided that the King’s Engineer Bautista Antonelli should earn 60 ducados for the fortifications in Catalonia, instead of the 35 ducados that the master builder engineer was earning up to that point, when he was in charge of them19. So, in the world of military architecture and engineering, there were major distinctions where salaries and consideration were concerned between the functions of the senior masters and the King’s Engineers.

In Brittany, Rojas gathered experience in war, which was required of engineers. Furthermore, the need to be «a protégé» of one of the members of the war caste that Felipe II surrounded himself with, is what led him to hope that his career would be linked to Juan del Águila, of whom he states in the prologue to his treatise of 1598 that «as a captain of great worth and experience, he does not let those who are working for him lie idle». In fact, Juan del Águila was the person who made him a captain in 1595 while he was staying in Brittany, and it was clear that he was under his wing when he wrote about Rojas, when the latter return to the Court, that any favour that the king did for him «I would take it as my own, because he has served so well»20. That clearly meant he was someone’s protégé, and to prosper this was essential. Perhaps a few years later, when he ran into problems in his engineering activities in Cadiz, he lacked the direct support of a courtier, although he did enjoy the protection of the powerful Duke of Medina Sidonia, whose behaviour was different from that of the nobles who spent their time in the Court21. We do not know why Rojas dedicated his short treatise, published in 1613 in which he updated the treatise of 1598, to Juan Hurtado de Mendoza, Duque del Infantado, but we are of the opinion that one reason could have been that he was a member of the King’s War Council and Council of State, so Rojas might have been seeking not only the protection that he himself needed, but also protection for his young son Bartolomé, for whom he request and was granted in the same year, 1613, a salary of 10 escudos per month so that he could train him to be an engineer at his side, even though he was only ten years old22.

In a Brittany that had risen up against the King of France and seeking independence, the Duke of Mercœur offered Felipe II the port of Blavet, now Port Louis, the best in Brittany, as well as other places, in exchange for his help. Rojas arrived there in 1591, the original Aguila Castle being the work of Rojas, who then proceeded to strengthen the fort that was already there with two half-bastions made of earth and fascine, dug a fosse, in the face

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

143

FIG. 2 CRISTĂ“BAL DE ROJAS, Plano del

sitio de Craon, 1592.

Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 24, 040.

of the helplessness of the local troops, according to Cabrera de Córdoba23. We still have one drawing that he was definitely responsible for, depicting the siege of [FIG. 2], a major victory, which led Felipe II to believe that he could take the whole of Brittany. Another of the drawings known to us, in this case of Blavet, has also been attributed to him24, yet there must have been another one, given that Rojas’s account refers to letters and colours to indicate different elements, and these do not appear in the preserved one. Rojas also put his stay in Santander to good use, because being there enabled him to become familiar with the materials available in the zone, and as a result he was able to propose that the limestone for the fortification be transported from Santander and Laredo, because the quality was very poor in Blavet, in the many vessels that sailed from Santander to Brittany25.

During the time he spent in Brittany he argued a lot with Giulio Lasso26, but largely managed to turn the controversies to his advantage, because his proposal for a bastion, which combined the angle and the curve, was included in the fortification lectures that he gave at the Mathematics Academy, and we can see it graphically in his treatise [FIG. 3].

144

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS, drawings to explain the controversy with Giulio Lasso in Brittany, with the new bastion design.

1594. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 05, 059.

FIG. 3

He also stated that he preferred solid bastions to hollow ones, a question that still concerned him in 161127. In Brittany he learnt to construct with earth, fascine and grass on the forts that he built on orders from Juan del Águila, but Rojas was aware that these materials could only be utilised in Flanders, not in Spain, where it was difficult to find them, and it was necessary to construct «using whatever happened to be in each particular place»28. Nevertheless, in his 1598 treatise, he pronounced himself in favour of fascine embankments, much more difficult to mine29. This was an apparent contradiction, but typical of the period, defending that experience enabled one to theorise knowing that, it was precisely this experience that made it necessary to rule out that theory on many occasions.

THE ENGINEER IN THE ACADEMY

In 1595, Rojas returned to the Court, and in that year he was finally granted the qualification of King’s Engineer. He had spent seven years serving as an engineer, and in Brittany he had also served «with his arms and horse, and was there at all times when the occasion to fight arose», which permitted him to aspire not only to the title of engineer but also to the rank of ordinary captain. Being a captain was by no means a small matter, given that through his position in the army, he would be obeyed as an engineer, a profession which brought him constantly into contact with field masters and other captains. Viewed by the

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

145

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS, Teorica y practica de fortificacion, conforme las medidas y defensas destos tiempos.

Madrid, Luis Sánchez, 1598. Plan of the City of Cadiz.

FIG. 4

Planta de la ciudad de Cádiz, 1609. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 19, 124.

FIG. 5

War Council, which bore in mind the support lent by Juan del Águila when considering Rojas’s application (for which he had even given him permission to travel from Brittany to the Court to concern himself directly with this ambition, because since 1594 he had been requesting it without success), he was granted the title of engineer and a salary of 40 escudos a month, the same amount that he was already receiving with Juan del Águila, but for the time being he was not promoted to the rank of ordinary captain30.

The following year, after the English attack, he was sent to Cadiz, where he arrived in July 1596, although he was not finally posted there until June 159731. We can deduce that it was between 1595 and 1597 when he gave his lectures in the mathematics Academy

146

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

that gave rise to his famous treatise. The fact that he had a book of fortifications ready to be printed soon became a new argument, in this case effective, for him to eventually be granted the rank of captain, even if it was «ad onoris», i.e., without a salary. He achieved this on 30th April 1597, although he was not paid the salary due to ordinary captains until 161332. The treatise was published in 1598, when he had already been assigned as an engineer in Cadiz. He might have dealt with the printing side while he was at the Court between December 1597 and March 1598, when he took the layout and the model of the city fortifications, because he had to explain, when he asked for his travelling expenses, that his only reason for the journey was to show the layout and model, which suggests that somebody could well have insinuated that the trip was made for FIG. 6 CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS, Teorica y practica de fortifiprivate reasons, maybe associated with the cacion, conforme las medidas y defensas destos tiempos.

33 Madrid, Luis Sánchez, 1598. The treatise cover. publication of the treatise .

He poured out into his treatise, all he had learnt from other engineers, other treatises and his own practice. In this sense, as we have already commented, he included his experience with the fascine in Brittany or the model for the bastion he devised, but the City of Cadiz also appeared [FIG. 4], and it is present in the form of a very large development of Santa Catalina Fort, a project that Rojas defended against Spannocchi’s citadel, and which virtually served as an endorsement of what he was capable of doing in Cadiz. The fort actually erected was not that large [FIG. 5], and in 1598 he was still struggling to get the War Council to accept its construction34. He eventually succeeded, and it is now one of the few fortifications that remain in Cadiz from that period.

Once again Rojas would end up triumphing through perseverance, but this success was also due to his awareness of the power of the printing press, which has left for posterity the Cadiz that he imagined, turned into a universal model of a fortified city on an island.

It would take many pages to analyse the treatise and this is not the place to do it, but when reflecting upon the profession of engineer followed by Cristóbal de Rojas, it must be pointed out that his treatise was a splendid product of the Mathematics Academy run

by Juan de Herrera. A luxurious edition, because of the format and the prints illustrating it, the cover is a synthesis of all the elements that the a fortification gate should have, given that, all in all, it is the best expression of the architecture of power, with ringed columns, diamond tips and such symbolic elements as the coat of arms with the Order of the Golden Fleece explaining that we find ourselves before the gate of a fortress, able to frighten the enemy by showing the might of its owner [FIG. 6].

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

147

Rojas openly boasted about his good relations with the Court, recalling that the person who encouraged him to give his lectures and later publish them was Francisco Arias de Bobadilla, Conde de Puñonrostro, who also gave his opinion – by the way – about the fortification of Cadiz in 1597. Julián Firrufino, a geometry lecturer and Spannocchi, are among the scientists that he mentions, the latter attending some of his fortification lectures, someone who could «be a master to the most versed in the subject», even including the instrument that Spannocchi used to plot the layouts and drawings of the terrain, as a model example of a scientific instrument. And of course, he made reference to his protector Juan de Herrera, who he compared to Archimedes and Vitruvius35.

In the treatise he concerned himself with FIG. 7 CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS, Teorica y practica de what the soldier and engineer specialising in forfortificacion, conforme las medidas y defensas destos tifications must know, i.e. geometry, arithmetic, tiempos. Madrid, Luis Sánchez, 1598. Potrait of Cristóbal de Rojas. figures and their demonstrations, all of these in their applied form. He used prints to explain each of the parts of a fortification, together with their names, and made an interesting summary of what other treatisers (Busca, Castriotto, Lanteri, Tetti, Cataneo, etc.) had written, and how military architecture had evolved. The treatise also explains all about the instruments used for measuring purposes, how to cut the stones to make arches and vaults, the way to form squadrons, what a city should be like, how to besiege a fortified place, etc., everything that an engineer might need to know was found on those pages, but this is not the place to deal with this36.

The portrait of him that appears in the treatise [FIG. 7] depicts him as the captain engineer he had ultimately become, with the geometry book in one hand and the compass in the other, a serene countenance and an intelligent look, dressed for war with armour.

He tells us how old he is, because he wants it to be an autobiography, forty-two years, and he also informs the reader the purpose of his profession: constructing fortresses, like the quadrangular and the pentagonal one he is showing, to dominate the whole world, the globe that can be seen in the plate containing the figure of Rojas It is undoubtedly the best possible portrait of a Renaissance engineer, who is neither a noble or a cavalier in a military order, he is a self-made engineer, and he makes this patently clear. That is what makes the case of Rojas particularly interesting when studying how professions evolved in the 16th Century, as he was somebody who started out as a mason in the impressive stonecutting workshop that was the construction of El Escorial Monastery, gaining war experience to become an engineer, and is responsible for giving lectures on fortifications in what claimed to be the best scientific academy of the period, he was a genuine winner when he published his treatise.

148

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

At the Academy he struck up relations with other people who were just as interesting when it comes to finding out about how applied science evolved in Spain during Rojas’s time37, such as Juan de Cedillo Díaz or Alonso Turrillo. The former had read mathematics in Salamanca and in Toledo and, after studying fortifications for two years with Rojas, he was to work directly on them to gain experience38. And the latter accompanied Rojas to Cadiz to help him with the measurements and layouts39, and some years later would end up designing the palace for the Duke of Uceda in Madrid40, his model for that palace being recalled with admiration by Caramuel in his treatise41. The limits between professions were still poorly defined. The profession of military architecture could have been called King’s Engineer, which was just as appealing to a master stonemason like Rojas as it was to a mathematician such as Cedillo. Rojas carried on as an engineer whereas Cedillo returned to mathematics, becoming the senior cosmographer for the West Indies in 1611and Professor of Mathematics to the Royal Court, taking over from García de Céspedes, posts which he held until his death in 162542.

«IF THIRTY ENGINEERS ARE BROUGHT TOGETHER THEY WILL NEVER AGREE»

The strategic importance of Cadiz since Ancient Times, owing to its geographical position at the limiting end of Europe – «of the three parts of the world it is the line and end: set like a heart right in the middle of the world. It has Asia in front of it, Africa to the right, Europe to the left and America at its back»43 – increased when it became the fortress for Seville, because its defences not only safeguarded a city but also a large bay that the enemies of the monarchy had to break through if they wanted to get hold of the riches that arrived in the fleets from the West Indies. This central image on the sphere also put across a circular image in 1626 [FIG. 8]. When the new and powerful English enemy, associated with the Dutch, attacked the Spanish ports on the Atlantic and in the Caribbean, the sacking of Cadiz in 1596 was a humiliating episode for the powerful Spanish monarchy. That is why Cadiz needed an engineer who would live there on a permanent basis, and that engineer was Cristóbal de Rojas.

Ciudad y bahía de Cádiz, 1626.

Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 06, 044.

FIG. 8

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

149

He arrived at a devastated city, where he was not paid, and nobody had any money to lend him not even one real [brass farthing]44. He drew up another layout for the city and bay for its defence, which he took to the Royal Court so that his proposals could be discussed with the plans in front of them45. He prepared this report and the survey of the bay at the behest of Pedro de Velasco, a member of the King’s War Council since 158746, and an Army General in Andalucia, for whom what the king was going to order Rojas to carry out was only worthy of the almost mythical Gabrio Cervellón, «or worthy of the most intelligent men in this matter», but not Cristóbal de Rojas, who was a «good man», but all you had to do was to talk to him about fortification to understand «how little he had studied or comprehended, and that before you can call yourself an engineer you must go much more deeply and analyse the subject», so it would be advisable to commission another man to do it. Velasco even summarised Rojas’s career by saying that as a master stonemason he was good, «but once he had become skilled in that, he set his sights on the art of fortification, which is quite different and not comparable»47, returning him by this to the condition of stonemason, as if he had tried to overstep limits for which he had no ability. Rojas did not seem to be ill at ease moving in those circles of power, because he left his detractor Velasco waiting in Carmona for him to take the plans to him, while he himself went to the Royal Court directly with them on the orders of the Duke of Medina Sidonia. Of course Pedro de Velasco found this rather annoying, but there were no other engineers, and Rojas was commissioned to undertake the tasks involved in constructing both the fortifications in Cadiz and on Gibraltar.

Velasco was not the only one to express his misgivings about the engineer, given that certain famous military officers, such as Prince Juan Andrea Doria were far from overjoyed about Rojas’s work, and he was deemed to lack the required practice. However, one of his protectors was Bishop Antonio Zapata, son of the first Conde de Barajas, who played an outstanding role in fortification, and throughout his life showed great interest in architecture. Zapata came to be cardinal, Viceroy of Naples and Inquisitor General, but he was never forgotten in Cadiz, and in 1610 Suárez de Salazar dedicated to him the Grandezas y Antigüedades of Cadiz.

1597 was a vital year, in which all those involved submitted their reports. In Rojas’s case he sent reports on Gibraltar and Ceuta as well, where one of the bastions is reminiscent of the Brittany proposal which is included in his treatise. The War Council studied the plans submitted by «El Fratín», Spannocchi and Rojas, and decided basically to follow Spannocchi’s layout, especially with respect to the citadel or castle in the Puerta de Tierra, this project having been approved in January 1592; the Council selected the largest of the designs proposed by Spannocchi, given that, apart from having a greater capacity, they made it possible to utilise the bastions erected by Calvi and those that had been started by Juan Bautista Antonelli, following Fratín’s project48. The words that open this section were written by Rojas himself in a long report dating from 1602 in which he questioned the validity of Spannocchi’s citadel project, using as an argument the principle accepted by everyone that engineers could never be in agreement49, undoubtedly not only to cover himself and be on the safe side, but also to declare himself indebted to the advice given by the deceased Felipe II, to the effect that an engineer should invariably abide by what was most advisable for his service50.

150

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

By 1590, he had already had to take over responsibility as master builder for the Tiburzio Spannocchi’s project, and was witness to the problem that it posed, and which affected one of the basic principles of fortification, such was that the entire circuit could be covered by firearms, and from the gun house that would have to be constructed between the bastions of San Felipe and Santa Cruz, the San Felipe bastion51 was not exposed. Juan de Acuña, Captain General of Artillery, put the problem down to the fact that the measurements for the layout that Spannocchi had reserved for that part of the sand bar, the one that was most in need of defence, were not in keeping with the place, and it was necessary for Tiburzio to come up with solution, because the master builder Rojas52 was not skilled enough. The main problem that Rojas detected was that Spannocchi’s layout, «very good in itself and a very worthy effort in general», could not fit in with the one that already existed, because it did not coincide with the scarp, and one of the other drawbacks was the resulting «ugliness», apart from the foundation problems53.

We will not dwell upon the technical questions, all we would like to point out are two things: firstly, although Rojas did not dare to directly criticise the layout of Spannocchi, who was so famous and highly thought of in the Royal Court, he did nevertheless question the way it adapted to what already existed, which he felt sure of as a master builder and, secondly, that terms such as ugliness and beauty were certainly not out of place in the world of military architecture.

The disagreements nearly came to a head when Rojas became an engineer and was responsible for implementing Spannocchi’s layout after the attack by the English. His questioning of the citadel project made the War Council feel uneasy, and it was said that Rojas, annoyed because his opinion had not been taken into account, «has looked for new ways and sites wanting to make a castle in La Caleta [the cove] and that the gate in the walls be created in the San Felipe bastion». The controversies surrounding how to fortify Cadiz were so heated in 1597, that Andrés de Prada, Secretary of the War Council, had signed the Spannocchi layout «as a way of preventing any alterations or modifications from being made»54. Years earlier, he had done the same with the layout designed by Fratin, the Captain General of the French Artillery in Alava, so we can conclude that this was not the first time that the War Council protected its decisions from the changes the engineers were inclined to make, always convinced that they were better than the rest.

Spannocchi was to return to Cadiz in 1603, but Rojas had not ceased in his determination and, as we said, in 1602 had explained in detail his objections to the citadel project. He compared it to the ones in Antwerp and Pamplona, concluding that, neither the measurements nor the scarp, nor the double walls around the citadel walls, which would complicate the defence for the interior stairways, nor the utilisation of stone ashlars in a zone where it was possible to make good masonry, nor the fosse opening out onto the sea that would make an attack easy at low tide, were questions that could be allowed.

These are just some of the aspects that he uses as examples of poor fortification in his treatise handwritten in 1607, and that he attributed to a «very arrogant» engineer who had never been involved in warfare, referring to Spannocchi55. Although he thought it was a good idea that the latter went to the city (once again he does not dare to engage in a head-on confrontation), and considered it essential to heed the opinions of war-weary soldiers, who spoke with the voice of experience, as «plotting lines and tracing on paper

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

151

FIG. 9

JOÃO BATISTA LA-

VANHA,

Viage de la Catholica Real Magestad del Rei D. Filipe III N.S. al Reino de Portugal i relación del solene recebimiento que en el se le hizo. Madrid, Thomas Junti, 1622. Plan of La Mamora.

… can be very misleading», yet when an old soldier is on the land, cannot be taken in and, y went on to say, Vitruvius himself write that it was necessary to build as the masters did in each particular place56. What is interesting here is not only the quote from Vitruvius, reference being made to his training in architecture, but also the fact that the absolute validity of the drawings is questioned, when Rojas states that they can be deceptive.

It was his experience that was talking here, and it was undoubtedly a direct attack on Spannocchi’s projects, even though the latter was probably one of the best draughtsmen that emerged in the Renaissance where the engineering profession was concerned. The completed the long report on the citadel by reminding the king that he had spent seven years working in Cadiz, so he had an in-depth working knowledge, having measured all the places, and he likewise stated that he was prepared to go to the Court «in order to give an even fuller account of» his opinion57.

He did not get over the grudge he bore against Spannocchi, that great draughtsman, and he printed it out in 1613, launching a ferocious attack on engineers who arrived from foreign lands who were able to plot «highly refined sketches… pleasing to the eye, very hard to be carried out though, as I have observed in Spain, and rectifying them afterwards»58. After the unprecedented documentation that we have just seen, there is very little doubt that he was referring to the great draughtsman Spannocchi, whose layouts had to be remedied in Cadiz. The publishing of this was great revenge, because this contained even greater criticism, but in 1613 there were still people who considered Commander Tiburzio Spannocchi to be the great draughtsman who came from afar.

Cristóbal de Rojas was once again involved in military action when in 1599 he set sail with Juan Cedillo Díaz, both as engineers, with the Armada of the Adelantado of Castile, Martín de Padilla, to carry out surveying work in Lisbon, Coruña and Isla Terceira for four months, in the face of the increased threat of the English Navy. Later, after years of hardship through a lack of investment in the Cadiz fortifications, which he spent constructing works for the Duke of Medina Sidonia in Sanlucar59, Rojas was commissioned to undertake new ventures in Africa. He was sent to Oran and Mazalquivir in 1611 to

152

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 10

Proyecto de fortificación para La Mámora, 1614. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 16, 048.

see how the fortification work could be continued60. In 1614 he was sent to La Mamora with the expedition that, commanded by his old acquaintance Captain General Luis Fajardo, left Cadiz in 1614. It was essential to conquer La Mamora to make both Larache and the Spanish Coastline safe, and the virtues of its taking were extolled by writers, being depicted, together with Larache, on the Triumphal Arch of the Italians when Felipe III entered Lisbon in 1619 [FIG. 9], which showed the extent to which engineers’ drawings received publicity in Court circles61. The venture was to cost Rojas his life, because he fell ill in La Mámora, and even though Luis Fajardo sent him back to Cadiz, he died just one hour after arriving home62.

And yet again we find him, in the year of his death, playing second fiddle to the admiration that other kinds of engineers received, because although the fortress layout sent with the letter from Don Luis Fajardo could well have been the work of Rojas, and the same applies to the drawing of the territory around La Mamora River [FIGS. 10 ad 11], the letter was sent to the engineer Juan de Medicis63, and the reason for this must have caused him pain, given that, according to the War Council, «although the engineer Cristóbal de Rojas was there, and he received his training in Cadiz, these works must have been done by a more distinguished and intelligent person»64. However, once again things were not as clear as they might have seemed, in view of the fact that eventually a fortification was built that was not as large as some wanted, and the one that was con-

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

153

FIG. 11

Río de La Mámora, 1614. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 05, 131.

structed was more like the one proposed by Rojas65. Yet another controversy along the lines of those where Rojas called for experience, as he had done in the treatise of 1613, because experience was «the principle and mother of science, devices and mechanical and liberal arts of men»66.

OTHER ARCHITECTURES

In addition to fortifications, his profession as a stonemason led him to apply for the Zuazo Bridge [FIG. 12] work on the death of the Venetian engineer Juan Marín, who had been responsible for the bridge works between 1574 and 159067. However, the Vizcain engineer Miguel de Arteaga was eventually appointed, even though all Cristóbal de Rojas asked for was that he was given an increase on the salary he received for building the fortifications, given that «masters very skilled in the art of stonemasonry»68 just like himself had always worked on the bridge. This happened before he left for Brittany, but years later, in 1602, and in spite of the fact that he was by now a qualified engineer, he was one of the master masons consulted by the Duke of Medina Sidonia about the best way to close the main arch69. This bridge was the subject of many debates about foundations, how many arches it ought to have, the shape of the main arch, and many

154

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

other circumstances affecting its building process that were to give great insight into Renaissance bridge construction.

In the handwritten treatise of 1607, Rojas wrote that the foundations for Cabeza Seca fort, Zuazo bridge in Cadiz and the wharf in Malaga had been laid with stones, and that where using stones was concerned, «I would hazard a guess that that is exactly what one would do who was born in the Indies where they do not know how to build, because that kind of building is neither art nor new». He suggested something new, which involved «ramming the stones down with piles well locked together»70.

That is what he wanted to do FIG. 12 Puente Zuazo, 1592. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 08, 068. with the forts at El Puntal and Matagorda, for which more than one thousand pine trees had already been cut down by 1608, in order to lay the foundation piles Nevertheless, in 1612 Rojas wrote that as the fort at El Puntal was on sandy soil and piles could not be driven in, they were going to lay the foundations with wagonloads of stones, following the advice of other such as Vitruvius, Palladio and others, which was how the Zuazo bridge, the wharf in Malaga and other quays had been built, thus contradicting himself. In that same year, he went to Jerez to deal with the channelling of the Guadalete, and there, he did propose the use of piles to form caissons that would be filled with rubble, in order to divert the course of the river71. Thus, once again, and regarding engineers’ work, we can see not only the value of experience, but also the caution with which we have to read the treatises, in which an attempt is made to codify questions that are continually be reappraised in practice. Once they had seen everything with the master Alonso de Vandelvira, they reached the conclusion that it would take four years of non-stop work to construct each fort, eight years in all, and this would cost two hundred thousand ducados [ducats]72, which they considered to be absurd.

The good relations between Rojas and Vandelvira73, master builder on the Cadiz fortifications, can be accounted for on purely professional grounds, amongst other reasons, including the links they both had with the Duke of Medina Sidonia, for whom Vandelvira completed the Caridad Church in Sanlúcar de Barrameda, the place where the Duke Don Alonso was buried when he died in 1615, Vandelvira being «the Architect for his house»74. The military vocation of Don Alonso, the 7th Duke of Medina Sidonia, Captain

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

155

FIG. 13

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS,

Diseño de tres torres para construir en la costa de Andalucía, 1613. Archivo General de Siman-

cas, MP y D 36, 017.

of the Ocean Seas and the Andalusian Coasts, was apparent at his burial, when between 500 and 600 soldiers formed part of the funeral cortege75. Furthermore, dukes invariably used the engineers sent to to fortify that coast for their own purposes,, as was the case years before Rojas, with Juan Pedro Livadote, who visited the coast with Luis Bravo de Laguna in 1578, recording it all in a painting. Livadote, who years later was to become master mason for the royal works in the City of Madrid, made, between 1572 and 1575, the gallery in the Duke and Duchess’s palace in Sanlucar, considered to be the element that best defined the new Italian art incorporated into the image of the palace, as well as drawing up the plans of a convent for the Dominican nuns of the Madre de Dios order76.

Other projects by Cristóbal de Rojas worth mentioning, include the tower for San Sebastián’s tip and towers along the Andalusian Coast in 1613 [FIG. 13], plus the Gibraltar wharf, part of which had crumbled away in 1605. He wrote a report at the time, and once again in 1608, not only on the old wharf but also on the new one, travelling to Gibraltar and Tarifa accompanied by Alonso de Vandelvira. However, yet again he came up against supervisors held in higher esteem; this time they were Spannocchi in 1606, and Jerónimo de Soto and Bautista Antonelli in 160877 [FIGS. 14 and 15].

The fact that Rojas was also involved as an architect in the construction of Cadiz Cathedral is also particularly interesting, even though he only played a minor role. The cathedral had been virtually destroyed by the English 159678, the deans fleeing to Medina Sidonia, where the Duke wanted the cathedral to be transferred on a permanent basis, but Felipe II told them all to return to Cadiz79 and order the cathedral to be rebuilt at the same spot (in 1595 there had been a project to move it further into the urban area of the city), «because it formed part of the city walls and fortress to withstand the battering of the sea to the south and so that the opprobrium caused by the heretics would be erased from memory». In accordance with Antón Solé80, for the reconstruction process it was visited by Ginés Martínez de Aranda, the bishopric’s master builder, Cristóbal de Rojas making the models and preparing the plans. In fact, according to the documentation it was Martínez de Aranda who rebuilt it, almost exactly as it was before the attack, because it had not been completely destroyed. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that Ginés Martínez de Aranda was architect to Don Maximiliano de Austria, appointed

156

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 14

Planta y perfil del muelle de Gibraltar, 1605. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 05, 128.

FIG. 15

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS, Planta

y perfil del muelle de Gibraltar, 1608. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 42, 071.

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

157

FIG. 16

JUAN DE CEDILLO,

Proyecto para la catedral de Cádiz. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D 42, 075.

FIG. 17

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS,

Planta del reparo de la iglesia mayor de Cádiz, 1608. Archivo General de Simancas, MP y D

42, 074.

Bishop of Cadiz in 1597, whom he would later follow to Santiago de Compostela, another one of those as was the case with Vandelvira and the Duke of Medina Sidonia. The masonry stonework for the cathedral has been associated not only with Ginés Martínez de Aranda’s treatise but also with the construction of El Escorial, Cristóbal de Rojas81 being a potential link. Once it had been rebuilt there were fears for its safety, given that it was at risk of being reduced to ruins like the episcopal houses that had been beside it, as a result of the battering the walls received from the gale-force winds, «when the sea is raging the waves cause such damage that each one makes it shudder and the whole building

158

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

FIG. 18

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS,

Proyecto de almacenes y tabernas para el Puntal de la Ballena, 1604. Archivo General de

Simancas, MP y D 42, 067.

quakes»82. In 1603 Spannocchi had suggested that a platform be placed over the sea, an idea that was discussed in 1608, creating an embankment and a wall that jutted out slightly over the sea to protect it, and which would also serve as a bastion. With this in mind, the Duke of Medina Sidonia sent to Dr. Cedillo, «an engineer who looked at it, weighed it up and made the layout for it». Cristóbal de Rojas prepared another layout and the King had to decide, as soon as possible, which plan to adopt [FIGS. 16 and 17]83.

New storage facilities were also required [FIG. 18], and their layouts were designed by Cristóbal de Rojas in 1604, although the Duke’s orders to survey the land and make the plans also included the graduate Cedillo. They were designed to be located near Puntal de la Ballena, the best place, according to the Duke of Medina Sidonia, after the pilots had drop anchor in the bay, in view of the fact that it was a sheltered spot, close to the river in deep water with freshwater wells. That was where Rojas prepared the plans for two small depots and a large one, with a building for taverns and warehouses. Once the foundations had been laid, local pinewood was used for the framework, stone and limestone for the walls, and the corners, doorways and windows were made of ashlar masonry.

Ironwork was used for the window grills. As this site was exposed to the wind, it was not advisable for there to be «too many openings, frills and embellishments, the works had to be strong, resistant and not too costly»84, a turn of phrase that perfectly summed up the characteristics of the architecture of engineers in the 16th to 18th Centuries, strong

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

159

FIG. 19

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS,

Casa de Juan de las Heras en el Puerto de Santa María, 1603. Archivo General de Simancas,

MP y D 42, 064.

160

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

and without «frills and embellishments», invariably adapted to a reality that put usefulness before adornment. In places where it was very windy, like Cadiz, there was no room for frills and embellishments, all that was required being that the corners, the windows and the doors were made of good stonework. Once again, Rojas proved to be an excellent constructor, although he was not a magnificent painter. He was not a bad draughtsman, but he was by no means outstanding when it came to scenographic perspectives like the ones created by painters or an engineer such as Spannocchi. This can be demonstrated by comparing any of Spannocchi’s urban landscapes with the view of the Port of Santa María depicted by Rojas [FIG. 19], in which the farmhouse and some of the buildings seem to have been taken from treatises rather than being real constructions, and he even painted in the foreground a series of figures in the way that they might be found all around in Civitates Orbis Terrarum, undoubtedly in an attempt to show that he was on a par with the way in which cities were being depicted in the Renaissance.

By way of conclusion, let’s take another look at someone who triumphed at 42 years of age: treatise, portrait, captain, King’s Engineer, lecturer at the Mathematics Academy, etc., but who ten years later did not have one real for a pair of shoes or anyone who would avail him85. Nevertheless, he made use of all the periods when he had less work to do by writing treatises. He thus became the most prolific writer of treatises in the Spain of that period, and we even have his portrait, which can be said of very few. Following his career has taught us quite a lot about the distinctions made between the different posts involved in building construction, and not only where fortifications were concerned, about how it was possible to become an engineer in the Renaissance and how engineers (and not only the members of this professions) associated the tasks they were commissioned with and their triumphs with certain protectors who were essential to their careers. He started off as a stone mason, but in 1608 Rojas proudly wrote that the King and the Duque of Lerma held him in such high esteem that when he was called upon by the War Council over matters concerning fortifications, they asked him to put his hut on. He would have been pleased to know that in 1672 he was remembered as one of the Spanish military treatisers together with Luis Collado, Cristóbal Lechuga and Julio César Firrufino86, some of whom have also been studied in these lectures on the history of engineering.

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

161

NOTES

* This work forms part of the R&D&i project The draughtsman engineer at the service of the Spanish Monarchy. 16th – 18th Centuries (DIMH), HAR2012-31117, Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain).

1.

C. DE ROJAS:

Teorica y práctica de fortificación, conforme las medidas y defensas destos tiempos. Madrid, Luis Sánchez, 1598, in Tres tratados sobre fortificación y milicia. Madrid, CEDEX-CEHOPU, 1985, Page 25. To overcome the difficulties that he was going to come up against with the publication of his lectures at the Academy, apart from the support lent by Juan de Herrera, he also expected to be helped by «Commander Tiburcio Espanochi, a servant to His Majesty the King, and very esteemed by His Majesty and the entire Spanish nation for his exceptional genius, who was in this Court, and who once honoured me with his presence, while I was lecturing this material, in which he could be a teacher of many of those who are well versed in it».

C. DE ROJAS: Sumario de la milicia antigua y moderna (Ms. 1607). In C. DE ROJAS: Tres tratados..., op cit., Page 332.

C. DE ROJAS: Compendio y breve resolucion de fortificacion, conforme a los tiempos presentes. Madrid, Juan de Herrera, 1613. In C. DE ROJAS: Tres tratados..., op cit., Page 269.

INSTITUTO DE HISTORIA Y CULTURA MILITAR (hereinafter IHCM), Colección Aparici, Volume VI. Documentation concerning Spannocchi, Memorial on Spannocchi dated 1589.

ARCHIVO GENERAL DE SIMANCAS (hereinafter AGS), Guerra y Marina, File 578, f. 232. Among his many merits serving the king when in 1601 he finally awarded the qualification of Main Engineer of the Kingdoms of Spain, Spannocchi maintained that among the people he had introduced to the profession, «he introduced Captain Rojas because he was master builder in the Cadiz works».

J. CALVO LÓPEZ: «The layouts for the stonework in Teórica y práctica de fortificación de Cristóbal de Rojas», in F. BORES et al. (eds.): Actas del Segundo Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción. Madrid, Universidad de A Coruña-CEHOPU, 1998, Pages 67-75.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 623, f. 146. In a report on the Cadiz fortifications, he justifies his opinions by stating «the experience that I have gained over forty years so far in building brickwalls, and because I have left Spain to see the things of war and to understand the way to lay out trenches in a garrison and other things associated to it …». 28th December 1602.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 570, f. 149, and File 578, f. 232. Tiburzio Spannocchi, who arrived in Spain when the building of El Escorial was almost completed, was proud of having introduced Cristóbal de Rojas, Leonardo Turriano, Próspero Casola and Gaspar Ruiz to the world of engineering, and the same applied to Jerónimo de Soto, who had been at his side since 1585, according to the memorial of 1600. Nevertheless, Gaspar Ruiz said that he had been trained by Brother Juan Vicencio Casale in Portugal.

The truth is that although Gaspar Ruiz says in a memorial that he was a master stonemason and builder in the construction of the Monastery, in the documentation he appears as a master bricklayer, and his father Antón as quantity surveyor for bricklaying. The memorial in AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 574, f. 163. Documentation published by A. BUSTAMANTE: La octava maravilla del mundo (estudio histórico sobre El Escorial de Felipe II). Madrid, Editorial Alpuerto, 1994, Pages 425, 428, 429, 584 and 679.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 574, f. 163, and File 599, ff. 66, 69, 70. On the occasion of the fierce disagreement over the layout for Cabeza Seca, between Spannocchi and Leonardo Turriano, Cristóbal de Moura stated that he had met Gaspar Ruiz’s father, and that he had been a quantity surveyor in San Lorenzo del Escorial, in whom the king implicitly trusted, that he had had the keys to the house in Campillo «and to all others that we had there». The son, of the same name, did not seem to him «very skilled in the art, but constructed this building and learnt a lot from that good Friar, who was a man of importance» (he is referring to Casale), so he considered that he could continue to work on the construction of Cabeza Seca. With respect to these discrepancies between Spannocchi and Leonardo Turriano in which Gaspar Ruiz intervened so often, see A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «Leonardo Turriano at the service of the Castilian Crown Castilla», in A. CÁMARA (ed.): Leonardo Turriano, ingeniero del rey. Madrid, Fundación Juanelo Turriano, 2010, Page 112.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: El Capitán Cristóbal de Rojas, Ingeniero Militar del Siglo XVI (Madrid, 1880). Madrid, CEDEX-CEHOPU, 1985, Page 16.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Page 17, and AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 262, f. 86. The request is dated 25th February 1589, the report by Juan de Acuña was dated 8th March, and the decision by the Council was reached on 28th March, just over a month after the application.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 262, f. 86. Inquiry to the War Council on 28th March 1589.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Page 129.

J. CALVO LÓPEZ: op cit., 1998. Concerning stonemasonry in Spain at that time, see J. C. PALACIOS: Trazas y cortes de cantería en el Renacimiento Español. Madrid, Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales, 1990; doctoral thesis by J. CALVO LÓPEZ: El manuscrito «Cerramientos y trazas de montea» de Ginés Martínez de Aranda. Madrid, ETSAM, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 1999; and J. CALVO LÓPEZ and M. A. ALONSO-RODRÍGUEZ: «Perspective versus Stereotomy: From Quattrocento Plyhedral Rings to Sixteenth-Century Spanish Torus Vaults», Nexus Network Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2010, Pages 75111.

C. DE ROJAS: Compendio y breve resolucion..., op cit., Pages 268, 270.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 599, f. 212. Francisco de Armentia was going to earn 25 ducados a month, which was what Rojas was earning when he left for Brittany.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 321, s. f.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 691, f. 269.

C. DE ROJAS:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

162

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

20. E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Pages 24 and 29.

21. L. SALAS ALMELA: Medina Sidonia: el poder de la aristocracia, 1580-1670. Madrid, Marcial Pons, 2009.

22. IHCM, Colección Aparici, File 777 from the section Mar y Tierra.

23. L. CABRERA DE CÓRDOBA: Historia de Felipe II, rey de España. Ed. by J. MARTÍNEZ MILLÁN and C. J. DE CARLOS MORALES, Salamanca, 24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

Junta de Castilla y León, 1998, Vol. III, Page 1,348.

S. TAKAYANAGUI: «Activities of Cristóbal de Rojas on the expedition to Brittany (France). Fortification during the period of Felipe II’s involvement in the French Civil War. Construction of the forts in Blavet and León». Castillos de España, journal published by Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, No. 144, 2006, Pages 31-43.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 355, f. 116. Cristóbal de Rojas from Blavet on 13th August de 1592.

A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «The search for a profession. Giulio Lasso in Brittany». Introduction to the book by M. S. DI FEDE and F. SCADUTO: I Quattro Canti di Palermo. Retorica e rappresentazione nella Sicilia del seicento. Palermo, Edizioni Caracol, 2011, Pages 9-26.

The debates on the advisability of hollow or filled in bastions was dealt with by the treatisers in the 17th Century. References to this appear in A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «Fortification: the Empire of Geometry», in H. O’DONNELL (dir.) and L. RIBOT (coord.): Historia Militar de España. Edad Moderna, II. Escenario Europeo. Madrid, Comisión Española de Historia Militar-Real Academia de la Historia, Ministerio de Defensa, 2013, Pages 341-371, cited on Page 346.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Pages 131 and 132.

C. DE ROJAS, 1598, op cit., Page 126.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 419, f. 319, and File 438, f. 271 and 272. The first application that we know of dates back to May 1594, but he was not successful until October 1595. The leave he was granted by Juan del Águila for three months was also to enable him to deal with the family requirements of his wife and children. To make sure that he was awarded at least «ad honoris» he also presented the Captain’s certificate that had been given to him by Juan del Águila (File 477, f. 216).

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Page 34, and AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 535, f. 295. Memorial of Cristóbal de Rojas dated 24th January 1598, asking for expenses for the trips he had made.

AGS, Registro del Consejo, Book 73 and 111, notification dated 4th August 1613, granting him a salary as an ordinary captain in the infantry.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 520, f. 111, File 535, ff. 294, 295 and 296.

Concerning his proposal for Santa Catalina Fort in his 1598 treatise, see C. DE ROJAS: op cit., Page 122. AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 518, f. 25. Cristóbal de Rojas had begun to fortify the city by building this fort, and the city said this would take up most of the fortification money, so it ought to be the last building to be constructed. Letters from the City of Cadiz in August 1598.

C. DE ROJAS, prologue to the Treatise of 1598, op. cit., p. 25.

For this treatise and its relationship with the way fortifications had evolved throughout the 16th Century, see F. COBOS-GUERRA: «The formulation of the main bastioned fortification in the 16th Century. The Apología by Escrivá (1538) on the Tratado by Rojas (1598)», in M. SILVA SUÁREZ (ed.): Técnica e ingeniería en España. El Renacimiento. Zaragoza, Real Academia de Ingeniería, Institución Fernando el Católico, 2004, Pages 401-438.

Where this subject is concerned, the essential work is still the book by VICENTE MAROTO and M. ESTEBAN PIÑEIRO: Aspectos de la ciencia aplicada en la España del Siglo de Oro. Salamanca, Junta de Castilla y León, 1991. See also, on the Mathematics Academy, a good synthesis in M. ESTEBAN PIÑEIRO: «Institutions for training technicians», in M. SILVA SUÁREZ (ed.): op cit., Pages 165-202.

IHCM, Colección Aparici, Volume VI, Pages 276, 280 and 283. In 1601, he claimed that for more than 28 years «he had been professing mathematical sciences, having read them in Salamanca and in Toledo… and almost three years I served Your Majesty involved in the fortification of Cadiz and Gibraltar». It can be deduced from this that he could have been Rojas’s mathematics teacher in Toledo, if it is true that Rojas was born in that city, because this was around 1573, when Rojas was 18 years old. Furthermore, he explains in 1598 that «for about two years he had studied fortification with Captain Rojas and wished to serve Your Majesty in that responsibility and to do so well he is needed to carry out practical work», so he applied for the post of master builder deputy in Cadiz. His application was rejected, but he was given a maintenance post with 20 escudos. He offered to give a mathematics lecture to the soldiers «and to whoever might turn up» on holidays.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 504, f. 52. 1st June 1597. Turrillo says he has studied the profession of engineer for three years, and that he has been working with Rojas for a year. It could well be the case that the relationship between them was struck up at the mathematics Academy.

V. TOVAR MARTÍN: «The palace of the Duke of Uceda in Madrid, capital building of the 17th Century». Reales Sitios, magazine issued by Patrimonio Nacional, No. 64, 1980.

Cited by B. BLASCO ESQUIVIAS: Arquitectos y tracistas. El triunfo del Barroco en la corte de los Austrias. Madrid, CEEH, Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2013, Page 370.

I. VICENTE MAROTO and M. ESTEBAN PIÑEIRO: op cit., Pages 236-238.

J. B. SUÁREZ DE SALAZAR: Grandezas y Antigüedades de la isla y ciudad de Cadiz, en que se escriben muchas ceremonias que usava la Gentilidad, Varias costumbres antiguas, Ritos funerales con monedas, estatuas, piedras, y sepulcros antiguos: ilustrado de varia erudición, y todas buenas letras. Por Ioan Baptista Suarez de Salazar Racionero de la Santa Iglesia de Cadiz. Dirigido al illustrissimo Cardenal don Antonio Çapata. Cadiz, Clemente Hidalgo, 1610, Page 6.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 502, f. 123. Cristóbal de Rojas, 1st September 1597 to Andrés de Prada.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 457, f. 484. On 7th July 1596 Rojas stated that, after surveying all of it and doing the most urgent things for its defence he would go to the Royal Court «with the layout for it together with the well surveyed positions for the pot and bay to construct some forts or fortifications sufficient to ensure that what had occurred would not happen again», undoubtedly referring to the previous problems with Spannocchi’s layout. In September of that same year, the Duke of Medina Sidonia informed about his departure to the Court with the layout (Idem, File 459, f. 146).

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

163

46. AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 499, ff. 21, 22. The Agenda at San Lorenzo on 17th September 1596. Pedro de Velasco «must call

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

Cristobal de Rojas later wherever he might be, and orders him to go back to Cadiz». Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this order is that he had to survey the entire bay and its places, studying the range of the artillery for the new fortifications, just in case there was anywhere that the enemy could be out of range.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 459, f. 369. Pedro de Velasco to the King, 30th September 1596. «I took the engineer away from Cadiz, so that he could survey La Vaya, the distance on the coast up to the entry point into Sanlucar’s Sandbar, and the Sandbar itself, located in that city, and all the others in the river as far as Seville, which he did, and I ordered him to draw plans of the layout, so that I could take them with me when I went to see the King. With a view to this, he gave the engineer an advance payment of 500 reals from his salary. Rojas was going to take the plans to Carmona, but he waited in vain for many days, and he complained that the Duke of Medina Sidonia might have given the engineer permission to go to the Court to present the layout of the Cadiz fortification, without taking into account what he had agreed to with the engineer.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 337, f. 47, and File 497, f. 2. The War Council ordered in great detail which works had to be constructed, and how the engineer Rojas has to organize the activities and the jobs to be done. 31st May 1597.

There are many testimonies, both handwritten and printed, about engineers never approving of the works planned by others where fortifications were concerned. In this respect, see M. VIGANÒ, «… como los Médicos, que siempre discordan». Giovan Battista Antonelli and Giovan Giacomo Paleari Fratino «on the frontiers of Spain», in M. SARTOR (ed.): Omaggio agli Antonelli, Minutes from the First International Conference on the Military Architecture of Antonelli from Gatteo (Gatteo, 3rd to 5th October 2003). Udine, Forum Edizioni, 2004, Pages 219-262.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 623, f. 146.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 285, f. 315. Report by Martín de Uzquiano, supervisor and quantity surveyor for the fortification of Cadiz, 29th June 1590.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 298, f. 53. The War Council registers the letter from Juan de Acuña from Cadiz on 6th June 1590, and decides that Spannocchi must go to the city. Bishop Antonio Zapata was of the same opinion, and demanded the same.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 282, ff. 234, 235, 236. 18th March 1590.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 499, ff. 5, 6.

C. DE ROJAS, 1607, op cit., Page 332. «The embankment has to slope down towards the city … and another city wall must not be erected inside to support the embankment, and then a staircase has to be built to enable the soldiers to go up to the bastion, as a very arrogant engineer said who thought that there was no other like him anywhere in the world, and the mistake he made there lay in the fact that the poor gentleman had never seen war». In this matter, he is not telling the truth, because Spannocchi did have war experience, but in everything else, he agreed with Spannocchi’s proposals for the Cadiz citadel, and with his own criticism of that project.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 623, f. 146. 28th December 1602.

Ibidem. This is not the place to go into detail about all Rojas’s considerations on construction, but this real denouncement of Spannocchi’s project is an excellent supplement to the treatise that Rojas had published, that gives insight into the principles of military architecture that were being followed at the turn of the century.

C. DE ROJAS: op cit., Page 269.

F. CRUZ ISIDORO: «The artistic heritage of the Guzmanes (1297-1645)», in J. RUBIALES TORREJÓN (coord.): El río Guadalquivir.

Del mar a la marisma. Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Vol. II. Seville, Autonomous Region of Andalusia, 2011, Pages 160-167. Cited on Pages 165 and 166.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Pages 103 and 104.

With respect to the Larache and La Mamora Forts, F. J. BUENO SOTO: «Larache and La Mamora: two Spanish fortifications in the times of Felipe III». Aldaba, journal of the centre associated with the UNED in Melilla, No. 34, 2008, Pages 51-96. Concerning the entry into Lisbon and the messages about the triumphant entries of the Spanish monarchs, A. CÁMARA: «The Court fiesta and the ephemeral art of the monarchy between Felipe II and Felipe III», in Las sociedades ibéricas y el mar a finales del siglo XVI. Vol. I. La Corte. Centro e imagen del poder. Madrid, State Society for the Commemoration of the Centenaries of Felipe II and Carlos V, 1998, Pages 67-90.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Page 117.

For this engineer, see F. COBOS-GUERRA and J. J. DE CASTRO FERNÁNDEZ: «The engineers, the experiences and the scenarios of Spanish military architecture in the 17th Century», in A. CÁMARA: Los ingenieros militares de la monarquía hispánica en los siglos XVII y XVIII. Madrid, Ministry of Defence, Spanish Association of Friends of Castles, Centre of European Hispanic Studies, 2005, Pages 71-94.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Page 116.

Regarding this and other matters concerning Rojas’s activity, see the Thesis by S. TAKAYANAGUI: Activities and Profession of Military Engineers of the Late 16th Century’s Spain. Consideration from Carrier of Cristóbal de Rojas (1555?-1614). This thesis was defended in 2005, in Japanese, the author being kind enough to send me a short summary in English.

C. DE ROJAS: Compendio y breve resolucion..., op cit., Page 248.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 228, f. 66.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 306, f. 129. He stated that there was «no master in the whole region more capable of finishing off that bridge as required for perpetuity as it is a public building and a very important one where there have always been very competent masters in the art of Masonry».

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 599, f. 210. The Duke of Medina Sidonia from Sanlucar on 24th October 1602.

C. DE ROJAS: op cit., Page 350.

E. DE LOS RÍOS MARTÍNEZ: «The reports issued by Cristóbal de Rojas and Julio César Fontana for constructing a wharf and a bridge spanning the River Guadalete in Jerez de la Frontera», Laboratorio de Arte, No.14, 2001, Pages 13-25. The ultimate aim of that project was to link the River Guadalete to the River Guadalquivir with a navigable waterway, and Leonardo Turriano also aired his opinion about this in 1624. A. CÁMARA: op cit., 2010, Page 73.

164

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

72. E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Pages 127 to 129.

73. Although he was not a qualified engineer, Vandelvira worked for the Duke, and was a master builder for the Cadiz fortifica-

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

tions, a post that he took up after renouncing the post of master builder for Seville Whole Market and other works in that city. In 1607, the economic situation of the Cadiz fortifications was so that Rojas stated that Vandelvira was so good that if he had been in Rome it would have been necessary to go there to fetch him and get him to work on the constructions in Cadiz, and furthermore, given that he was taken away from his works in Seville «it is not fair that he should pay for our old sins», which was undoubtedly a reference to the never-ending struggle to obtain money for the city and bay fortifications from the outset. IHCM, Colección Aparici, Volume 6, File 683 in the section Mar y Tierra. The following year, in 1608, he was appointed master builder of the city, and received a salary of 25 escudos per month. IHCM, Colección Aparici, Volume 43, Files 683 and 911in the section Mar y Tierra and book 102 in the Council’s Register. Regarding other works by Vandelvira in Cadiz, reference can be made to H. SANCHO: «The Vandelviras in Cadiz», Archivo Español de Arte, Vol. 21, Nos. 81-84, Pages 43-54. Madrid, CSIC, 1948. Architectural training would also lead him to designing altarpieces, F. CRUZ ISIDORO: «Alonso de Vandelvira (1544-1626): designer of reredos», Trocadero. Revista de Historia Moderna y Contemporánea, No. 16, 2004, Pages 301-310.

J. M. PALENCIA CEREZO: A portrait of Luisa Francisca de Guzmán and Medina Sidonia painted by Alonso Cano», Goya. Revista de Arte, No. 343, April-June 2013, Pages 140-153, Page 141. On that church and other works by Vandelvira for the Duke and Duchess, see A. J. MORALES: «Alonso of Vandelvira and Juan de Oviedo in the Mercy Church in Sanlucar de Barrameda», Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología: BSAA, No. 47, 1981, Pages 307-320.

SALAS ALMELA: op cit., 2009, Page 56.

M. PAGE PÉREZ GÓMEZ: «Residence and power: the Duke and Duchess of Medina Sidonia’s Palace in Sanlucar de Barrameda», in V. MÍNGUEZ (ed.): Las artes y la arquitectura del poder. Castellon de la Plana, Universitat Jaume I, 2013; F. CRUZ ISIDORO: «Juan Pedro Livadote at the service of the Countess of Niebla: the Madre de Dios Convent (1574-1576)», Laboratorio de Arte, No. 22, 2010, Pages 131-164; L. I. ÁLVAREZ DE TOLEDO: El palacio de los Guzmanes. Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Fundación Casa Medina Sidonia, 2003. With respect to the works he was commissioned to carry out in Madrid, A. CÁMARA: «Urban model and works in Madrid during the reign of King Felipe II», in Minutes from National Congress Madrid en el contexto de lo hispánico desde la época de los descubrimientos. Madrid, Universidad Complutense, 1994, Pages 39-40. Regarding Livadote in Gibraltar carrying out the job of visiting the towers on the Andalusian Coast, and in general about his work on these towers, AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 208, f. 57, File 209, f. 133, File 227, f. 168, File 234, ff. 208, 352 and 353.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Pages 99 and 100.

«The English left this church so charred and destroyed that nearly all of it has been rebuilt, and its chapels renovated. Before there were eleven with two collaterals that now serve as a transept for the main chapel», A. DE HOROZCO: Historia de la ciudad de Cadiz (1598). Cadiz, Printing by Don Manuel Bosch, 1845, Page 246.

A. DE CASTRO: Historia de Cadiz y su provincia desde los remotos tiempos hasta 1814. Cadiz, Printing by the Revista Medica, 1858, Page 418.

P. ANTÓN SOLÉ: «The old Santa Cruz Cathedral in Cadiz. Historic and artistic study of its architecture», Archivo Español de Arte, t. XLVIII, No. 189, Pages 43-54. Madrid, CSIC, January-March 1975, Pages 83-96.

The most thorough study of the old cathedral is the one undertaken by J. CALVO LÓPEZ: «The old Cadiz Cathedral in the light of the documents contained in the Archivo de Simancas», in S. HUERTA (ed.): Actas del IV Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción. Madrid, Instituto Juan de Herrera, SEHC, COAC, COAATC, 2005, Pages 185-194.

J. B. SUÁREZ DE SALAZAR: op cit., Page 13.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 706, Doc. 216.

AGS, Guerra y Marina, File 638, s. f. The Duke’s report is dated 4th July 1604.

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: op cit., Page 88.

A. DE ÁVILA HEREDIA: Variedad con fruto. Valencia, 1672. Dedication, the author uses them as examples of experts in mathematics and militia who wrote treatises and were rewarded with favours, but the example that he gives as being the one most favoured by the King is Tiburzio Spannocchi.

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

165

BIBLIOGRAPHY

L. I. ÁLVAREZ DE TOLEDO:

El palacio de los Guzmanes. Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Fundación Casa Medina Sidonia,

2003.

P. ANTÓN SOLÉ:

«La catedral vieja de Santa Cruz de Cadiz. Estudio histórico artístico de su arquitectura». Archivo Español de Arte, t. XLVIII, No. 189, Pages 43-54. Madrid, CSIC, January-March 1975, Pages 83-96.

A. DE ÁVILA HEREDIA: Variedad con fruto. Valencia, 1672.

B. BLASCO ESQUIVIAS: Arquitectos y tracistas. El triunfo del Barroco en la corte de los Austrias. Madrid, CEEH, Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2013.

F. J. BUENO SOTO: «Larache y La Mamora: dos fortificaciones españolas en tiempo de Felipe III». Aldaba, journal issued by the centre associated with the UNED in Melilla, No. 34, 2008, Pages 51-96.

A. BUSTAMANTE: La octava maravilla del mundo (estudio histórico sobre El Escorial de Felipe II). Madrid, Editorial Alpuerto, 1994.

L. CABRERA DE CÓRDOBA: Historia de Felipe II, rey de España. Ed. de J. MARTÍNEZ MILLÁN and C. J. DE CARLOS MORALES, Salamanca, Junta de Castilla y León, 1998.

J. CALVO LÓPEZ: «Los trazados de cantería en la Teórica y práctica de fortificación de Cristóbal de Rojas», in F. BORES and OTHERS (eds.): Actas del Segundo Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción. Universidad de A Coruña, CEHOPU, 1998.

J. CALVO LÓPEZ: El manuscrito «Cerramientos y trazas de montea» de Ginés Martínez de Aranda. Madrid, ETSAM, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 1999.

J. CALVO LÓPEZ: «La catedral vieja de Cadiz a la luz de los documentos del Archivo de Simancas», in S. HUERTA (ed.): Actas del IV Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción. Madrid, Instituto Juan de Herrera, SEHC, COAC, COAATC, 2005, Pages 185-194.

J. CALVO LÓPEZ and M. A. ALONSO-RODRÍGUEZ: «Perspective versus Stereotomy: From Quattrocento Plyhedral Rings to Sixteenth-Century Spanish Torus Vaults», Nexus Network Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2010, Pages 75-111.

A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «Modelo urbano y obras en Madrid en el reinado de Felipe II», in Actas del Congreso Nacional Madrid en el contexto de lo hispánico desde la época de los descubrimientos. Madrid, Universidad Complutense, 1994, Pages 31-48.

A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «La búsqueda de una profesión. Giulio Lasso en Bretaña». Preamble to the book M. S. DI FEDE and F. SCADUTO: I Quattro Canti di Palermo. Retorica e rappresentazione nella Sicilia del seicento. Palermo, Edizioni Caracol, 2011, Pages 9-26.

A. CÁMARA MUÑOZ: «La fortificación: el imperio de la geometría», in H. O’DONNELL (dir.) and L. RIBOT (coord.): Historia Militar de España. Edad Moderna, II. Escenario Europeo. Madrid, Comisión Española de Historia Militar-Real Academia de la Historia, Ministerio de Defensa, 2013.

A. DE CASTRO: Historia de Cadiz y su provincia desde los remotos tiempos hasta 1814. Cadiz, Imprenta de la Revista Médica, 1858.

F. COBOS-GUERRA: «La formulación de los principios de la fortificación abaluartada en el siglo XVI. De la Apología de Escrivá (1538) al Tratado de Rojas (1598), in M. SILVA SUÁREZ (ed.): Técnica e ingeniería en España. El Renacimiento. Zaragoza, Real Academia de Ingeniería, Institución Fernando el Católico, Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, 2004, Pages 401-438.

F. COBOS-GUERRA and J. J. DE CASTRO FERNÁNDEZ: «Los ingenieros, las experiencias y los escenarios de la arquitectura militar española en el siglo XVII», in A. CÁMARA: Los ingenieros militares de la monarquía hispánica en los siglos XVII y XVIII. Madrid, Ministerio de Defensa, Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2005, Pages 71-94.

F. CRUZ ISIDORO: «Alonso de Vandelvira (1544-1626): tracista de retablos». Trocadero. Revista de Historia Moderna y Contemporánea, No. 16, 2004, Pages 301-310.

F. CRUZ ISIDORO: «Juan Pedro Livadote al servicio de la condesa de Niebla: el convento de Madre de Dios (15741576)», Laboratorio de Arte, No. 22, 2010, Pages 131-164.

F. CRUZ ISIDORO: «El patrimonio artístico y los Guzmanes (1297-1645)», in J. RUBIALES TORREJÓN (coord.): El río Guadalquivir. Del mar a la marisma. Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Vol. II. Sevilla, Junta de Andalucía, 2011, Pages 160-167.

M. ESTEBAN PIÑEIRO: «Instituciones para la formación de los técnicos», in M. SILVA SUÁREZ (ed.): Técnica e ingeniería en España. El Renacimiento. Zaragoza, Real Academia de Ingeniería, Institución Fernando el Católico, Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, 2004, Pages 165-202.

C. J. HERNANDO SÁNCHEZ: «Non sufficit orbis? Las estrategias de la Monarquía de España», in H. O’DONNELL (dir.) and L. RIBOT (coord.): Historia Militar de España. Edad Moderna, II. Escenario Europeo. Madrid, Comisión Española de Historia Militar-Real Academia de la Historia, Ministerio de Defensa, 2013, Pages 29-78.

A. DE HOROZCO: Historia de la ciudad de Cadiz (1598). Cadiz, Imprenta de don Manuel Bosch, 1845.

166

RENAISSANCE ENGINEERS

E. DE MARIÁTEGUI: El

Capitán Cristóbal de Rojas, Ingeniero Militar del Siglo XVI (Madrid, 1880). Madrid, CEDEX-

CEHOPU, 1985.

A. J. MORALES:

«Alonso de Vandelvira y Juan de Oviedo en la iglesia de la Merced de Sanlúcar de Barrameda», Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología: BSAA, No. 47, 1981, Pages 307-320.

J. C. PALACIOS: Trazas y cortes de cantería en el Renacimiento Español. Madrid, Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales, 1990.

J. M. PALENCIA CEREZO: «Un retrato de Luisa Francisca de Guzmán y Medina Sidonia atribuible a Alonso Cano».

Goya. Revista de Arte, No. 343, April-June 2013, Pages 140-153.

M. PAGE PÉREZ GÓMEZ: «Residencia y poder: el palacio ducal de los Medina Sidonia en Sanlúcar de Barrameda», in V. MÍNGUEZ (ed.): Las artes y la arquitectura del poder. Castellón de la Plana, Universitat Jaume I, 2013.

E. DE LOS RÍOS MARTÍNEZ: «Los informes de Cristóbal de Rojas y Julio César Fontana para hacer un muelle y un puente sobre el río Guadalete en Jerez de la Frontera», Laboratorio de Arte, No. 14, 2001, Pages 13-25.

C. DE ROJAS: Teorica y practica de fortificacion, conforme las medidas y defensas destos tiempos. Madrid, Luis Sánchez, 1598, in C. DE ROJAS: Tres tratados sobre fortificación y milicia. Madrid, CEDEX-CEHOPU, 1985.

C. DE ROJAS: Compendio y breve resolucion de fortificacion, conforme a los tiempos presentes. Madrid, Juan de Herrera, 1613, in C. DE ROJAS: Tres tratados sobre fortificación y milicia. Madrid, CEDEX-CEHOPU, 1985.

C. DE ROJAS: Sumario de la milicia antigua y moderna (Ms. 1607), in C. DE ROJAS: Tres tratados sobre fortificación y milicia. Madrid, CEDEX-CEHOPU, 1985.

L. SALAS ALMELA: Medina Sidonia: el poder de la aristocracia, 1580-1670. Madrid, Marcial Pons, 2009.

H. SANCHO: «Los Vandelvira en Cadiz», Archivo Español de Arte, Vol. 21, Nums. 81-84, Pages 43-54. Madrid, CSIC, 1948.

J. B. SUÁREZ DE SALAZAR: Grandezas y Antigüedades de la isla y ciudad de Cadiz, en que se escriben muchas ceremonias que usava la Gentilidad, Varias costumbres antiguas, Ritos funerales con monedas, estatuas, piedras, y sepulcros antiguos: ilustrado de varia erudición, y todas buenas letras. Por Ioan Baptista Suarez de Salazar Racionero de la Santa Iglesia de Cadiz. Dirigido al illustrissimo Cardenal don Antonio Çapata. Cadiz, Clemente Hidalgo, 1610.

S. TAKAYANAGUI: Activities and Profession of Military Engineers of the Late 16th Century’s Spain. Consideration from Carrier of Cristóbal de Rojas (1555?-1614). Doctoral Thesis. Tokyo, 2005.

S. TAKAYANAGUI: «Actividades de Cristóbal de Rojas en la expedición a Bretaña (Francia). Fortificación durante el periodo de la intervención militar de Felipe II en la guerra civil de Francia. Construcción del fuerte de Blavet y del León». Castillos de España, journal issued by the Asociación Española de Amigos de los Castillos, No. 144, 2006, Pages 31-43.

V. TOVAR MARTÍN: «El palacio del duque de Uceda en Madrid, edificio capital del siglo XVII», Reales Sitios, journal issued by Patrimonio Nacional, No. 64, 1980.

Back to Contents

CRISTÓBAL DE ROJAS. FROM MASONRY TO ENGINEERING

167

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY FUNDACIÓN JUANELO TURRIANO

JUANELO TURRIANO COLLECTION ON THE HISTORY OF ENGINEERING 2016

Elena and MARTÍNEZ JIMÉNEZ, Javier, Los acueductos de Hispania.

Construcción y abandono.

SÁNCHEZ LÓPEZ,

2015

Cristiano, Juanelo Turriano, de Cremona a la Corte: formación y red social de un ingenio del Renacimiento.

ZANETTI,

ROMERO MUÑOZ,

Dolores, La navegación del Manzanares: el proyecto Grunenbergh.

LOPERA, Antonio,

Arquitecturas flotantes.

Juan Miguel, Jorge Próspero Verboom: ingeniero militar flamenco de la monarquía hispánica.

MUÑOZ CORBALÁN,

JUANELO TURRIANO LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF ENGINEERING 2016 CÁMARA MUÑOZ, Alicia

and REVUELTA POL, Bernardo (eds.), «Libros, caminos y días». El viaje

del ingeniero.

CÁMARA MUÑOZ, Alicia

(ed.), El dibujante ingeniero al servicio de la monarquía hispánica.

Siglos XVI-XVIII. English edition: Draughtsman Engineers Serving the Spanish Monarchy in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries.

2015 NAVASCUÉS PALACIO,

Pedro and REVUELTA POL, Bernardo (eds.), Ingenieros Arquitectos.

CÁMARA MUÑOZ, Alicia

and REVUELTA POL, Bernardo (eds.), Ingeniería de la Ilustración.

2014 CÁMARA MUÑOZ, Alicia

and REVUELTA POL, Bernardo (eds.), Ingenieros del Renacimiento.

English edition (2016): Renaissance Engineers.

2013 CÁMARA MUÑOZ, Alicia

and REVUELTA POL, Bernardo (eds.), Ingeniería romana.

English edition (2016): Roman Engineering. «That the greatness of the empire might be attended with distinguished authority in its public buildings»

OTHER BOOKS 2014

Pedro and REVUELTA POL, Bernardo (eds.), Una mirada ilustrada.

Los puertos españoles de Mariano Sánchez.

NAVASCUÉS PALACIO,

168

2013

Juan Ignacio, Submarino Peral: día a día de su construcción, funcionamiento y pruebas.

CHACÓN BULNES,

2012

Inmaculada, El discurso del ingeniero en el siglo XIX. Aportaciones a la historia de las obras públicas.

AGUILAR CIVERA,

CRESPO DELGADO,

Daniel, Árboles para una capital. Árboles en el Madrid de la Ilustración.

2011

Pepa and REVUELTA POL, Bernardo (eds.), Ildefonso Sánchez del Río Pisón: el ingenio de un legado.

CASSINELLO,

2010 CÁMARA MUÑOZ, Alicia CASSINELLO,

(ed.), Leonardo Turriano, ingeniero del rey.

Pepa (ed.), Félix Candela. La conquista de la esbeltez.

2009 CÓRDOBA DE LA LLAVE,

Ricardo, Ciencia y técnica monetarias en la España bajomedieval.

José Ramón (ed.), Pensar la ingeniería. Antología de textos de José Antonio Fernández Ordóñez.

NAVARRO VERA,

2008 RICART CABÚS, Alejandro,

Pirámides y obeliscos. Transporte y construcción: una hipótesis.

Ignacio and NAVASCUÉS PALACIO, Pedro (eds.), Ars Mechanicae.

Ingeniería medieval en España.

GONZÁLEZ TASCÓN,

2006

Glenn; IZAGA REINER, José María and SOLER VALENCIA, Jorge Miguel, El Real Ingenio de la Moneda de Segovia. Maravilla tecnológica del siglo XVI.

MURRAY FANTOM,

2005

Ignacio and VELÁZQUEZ SORIANO, Isabel, Ingeniería romana en Hispania.

Historia y técnicas constructivas.

GONZÁLEZ TASCÓN,

2001

José Ramón, El puente moderno en España (1850-1950).

La cultura técnica y estética de los ingenieros.

NAVARRO VERA,

1997 CAMPO Y FRANCÉS,

Ángel del, Semblanza iconográfica de Juanelo Turriano.

1996/2009 Los Veintiún Libros de los Ingenios y Máquinas de Juanelo Turriano.

1995 MORENO,

Roberto, José Rodríguez de Losada. Vida y obra.

Back to Contents

169

This book reproduces the lectures delivered during a course held at the National Distance University’s associated facility in Segovia and co-sponsored by the university and Fundación Juanelo Turriano. Renaissance engineers is the second volume of a collection launched in 2012 with Roman engineering as a platform for the publication of the lessons authored by reputed specialists on the occasion of these courses.

The book analyses the decisive contribution made by Renaissance engineers to land use planning and modern knowledge. It reviews the oeuvre of renowned engineers associated with the Spanish monarchy during that pivotal period and describes how they acquired the high esteem in which they were held by the governing class: building fortifications, channelling rivers, inventing devices and machines, writing treatises and describing the cities and territories visited in their travels.

170