The Mediaeval Builder And His Methods

New York: Dorset Press, 1992. First edition thus (revised from earlier edition). First Printing [Stated]. Hardcover. Very good/Very good. MADKAT Studio. [8], 99, [3], 10, [6] pages. Introduction. Appendices. 19 black-and-white illus. Includes Forenote and Introduction, and sections on: On the General subject; Master Craftsmen; Building Contracts; Mason Guilds; Guild Lodges; Building Officers; Mediaeval Drawings and Patterns; Notes on the Illustrations; Appendices I: The Livery Companies; Appendices II. Authorities quoted. Also includes Further Notes on The Mediaeval Builder by Francis B. Andrews. A survey of still-extant structures from the mid-13th to 15th centuries offers a fascinating look at the era's notable builders and their techniques. This volume surveys not only the work of masons, bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers, glaziers, and painters but also the materials they used to build both grand and simple structures. Illuminating illustrations include a selection of rare and revealing plates from medieval manuscripts. Some of the ideas presented here had previously appeared under the auspices of the Birmingham Archaeological Society. This edition includes further notes compiled by the author, which appeared six years after the original publication, when more research had been undertaken. This is a classic book on the subject of mediaeval guilding which will leave the reader with a sense of wonder at what was performed with what was available. The Mediaveal Builder deals with notable builders of the period from the mid-thirteenth to the fifteenth century. It discusses the work of masons, brick-layers, carpenters, plumbers, glaziers, painters, and the material they used. The subject of the Builder of mediaeval times is a long and difficult one, one of complications and of conflicting evidences, and the records--such as there are--are often capable of more than one interpretation. The men of those days are in no way comparable with those of present experience. They approached their work in so fundamentally different a manner--the one, more from the love of it; the other, more because of its rewards. They approached their work in so fundamentally different a manner--the one, more from the love of it; the other, more because of its rewards. Therefore they can only be considered on their own grounds and in relationship to their own day, and clear knowledge of it and of them is hard to come by.