Military Architecture, Cartography and the Representation of the Early Modern European City: A Checklist of Treatises on Fortification in the Newberry Library

1994 ◽  
Vol 160 (2) ◽  
pp. 222
Author(s):  
P. D. A. Harvey ◽  
Martha D. Pollak
Author(s):  
Константин Сергеевич Носов

В работе рассматриваются взгляды на военное зодчество двух итальянских архитекторов XV в. - Леона Баттисты Альберти и Антонио Аверлино (Филарете). Трактат Альберти «Десять книг о зодчестве» стал первым архитектурным трактатом со времен Витрувия, а Филарете писал свой «Трактат об архитектуре» параллельно с руководством строительными работами в Кастелло Сфорцеско. Проводится сопоставление представленных в этих трактатах теоретических взглядов на военное зодчество с реализацией их на практике на примере строившегося в то же время этого миланского замка. В результате исследования было выявлено, какие рекомендации Альберти и Филарете нашли воплощение на практике, а какие остались лишь в теории. Самым удивительным представляется тот факт, что главная воротная башня Кастелло Сфорцеско, даже получившая название Башня Филарете в честь строившего ее архитектора, не имеет практически ничего общего с описанием ворот как цитадели, так и города Сфорцинды из трактата. Сравнение описаний военного зодчества в трактатах Альберти и Филарете позволило выявить как черты сходства, так и отличия. К чертам сходства автор работы считает возможным отнести общую концепцию планировки города с цитаделью и главной башней внутри и одинаковый концептуальный подход к фортификации - оба архитектора относятся еще к эпохе башенной фортификации, описания бастионов в их работах нет. Различия состоят в подходе к источникам и общем осмыслении системы обороны. Если Альберти в основном следует античной традиции, Филарете опирается на реалии современной ему итальянской фортификации. Однако в трактатах обоих архитекторов есть новаторские идеи, которые начнут широко применяться только в Новое время в так называемой «новой фортификации». У Альберти это гласис, у Филарете - треугольный равелин перед воротами. The work deals with the views on military architecture of two 15th century Italian architects - Leon Battista Alberti and Antonio Averlino (Filarete). Alberti’s treatise “De re aedificatoria” became the first architectural treatise since Vitruvius, while Filarete wrote his “Libro architettonico” while directing the building works in Castello Sforzesco. Theoretical views on military architecture presented in these treatises are compared here with their realization in Milan castle (Castello Sforzesco), erected at the same time. The research reveals which of Alberti’s and Filarete’s recommendations were implemented and which remained only in the realm of theory. The most surprising is the fact that Castello Sforzesco’s main gate tower, named Filarete Tower after the architect who erected it, has nothing in common with either the citadel gate or the city Sforzinda gate described in the treatise. Comparing military architecture described by Alberti and Filarete reveals similarities as well as differences. The general conception of the city - with the citadel and the main tower inside - and identical conceptual approach to fortification can be attributed to similarities in their approaches: both architects belong to the era of tower fortification, their works lack any descriptions of bastions. The differences constitute their approach to sources as well as their general comprehension of defense systems. Whereas Alberti mainly follows ancient tradition, Filarete is guided by realistic contemporary Italian fortification. Both treatises, however, are comprised of new ideas, which will begin to be widely used only in the Early Modern period in the so-called fortificazione alla moderna. They are Alberti’s glacis and Filarete’s triangular ravelin in front of the gate.


2019 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 04003
Author(s):  
Svetlana Birk

Modern megacities are becoming spaces where religious processes unfold most actively. And this poses the problem of studying the functioning of religion in urban space. Cities always were religious centers, religion defined social behavior, but the specificity of the urban way of life left its mark on religion and influenced religious evolution. This article attempts to explore the interaction of religion and the urban environment in its wide historical context. The conditions for the existence of a historical religion (Christianity) in a medieval European city contributed to the transition of religion to a new stage of historical evolution - to the emergence of an “early modern religion” (Protestantism), which led to a radical disenchantment of the social world and the concentration of religiosity in the human inner world. A new type of religiosity, embodied in Protestantism, has become one of the factors contributing to the modernization process.


1970 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 155-177
Author(s):  
Silje Susanne Alvestad

In this article, I am concerned with certain aspects of the language use in ANDREWS and KALPAKLI’s The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early-Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society (2005). More specifically, I show how the authors tend to use distinct sets of words to describe a particular kind of practice depending on whether it occurs in the Ottoman Empire or in some western European city, even though they claim that the practices are equivalent. Typically, the practice in question involves an adult male, a young dependent boy, a sexual act between the two, and some kind of payment for the boy. This kind of practice is more often than not referred to in terms of activities of love when it occurs in the Ottoman Empire, but in terms of sexual debauchery involving boy prostitutes when it takes place in some western European city. Thus, in the article, in which I draw on certain insights from Critical Discourse Analysis (see, e.g., REISIGL and WODAK 2001), I show, by means of several quotations, that the vocabulary used to describe the practices is quite frequently euphemistic when the Ottoman Empire is concerned and correspondingly dysphemistic when cities in Western Europe are concerned. The subtitle of the work represents an exception to this pattern.I conclude the article by pointing out two issues that might shed some light on the authors’ choice of words.Keywords: evaluative language in academic discourse, euphemism, dysphemism, Ottoman lyric poetry, Ottoman Turkish language, early-modern cultural studies


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document