Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
John Yeomans was the master bricklayer selected for Winslow Hall
(Buckinghamshire) and here we have a valuable insight as to how his gauged
work was priced for various architectural applications, through an abstract of
payments and allowances in the accounts (Bolton and Hendry, 1927, Volume
IV, 65):
Ffor Bricklaiers Work
Ffor the Workmanship of 210 Rods 2 Qrts. 64
75
⁄
100
ft
£
s
D
Brickwork at 27sh per Rod
284
9
7
Ffor the Ornaments of 118 Windows at 15 sh ea
88
10
0
Ffor 2819 ft rubd work at about 6d per ft Sup.
70
9
0
Ffor 770 ft rub work in coping of new garden at 4d per ft
12
6
8
Ffor cutting 264 ft Groyning at 4d per ft
4
8
0
Ffor Workmanship of 2 Ovens
2
0
0
Ffor 291 ft rubd and gaged peers with staff moldings at 10d per ft Sup
12
2
6
Ffor 9
1
⁄
2
ft Streight Arch at 10d per ft Sup
0
7
11
Undoubtedly the rising aspirations of the seventeenth-century city bricklayer
would have provided added impetus to learning the finer skills of gauged
brickwork, thus giving the best masters undoubted parity with the finest
stonemasons. It must still be remembered that, despite the rules of the respec-
tive guilds, there was no clear separation between the craft of the bricklayer
and the stonemason. This was particularly true at the highest levels of the craft,
where knowledge and skills were complementary; hence how Helder was able
to work on the construction of the fine stonework of the Temple Bar. As in the
Netherlands at this time, bricklayers were frequently contracting for work that
involved both brick and stone, and the reverse was also true. Evidence to support
this can be gleaned from studying the contracts relating to the re-building of
the city churches after The Great Fire; here masons such as Cartwright, Fulkes,
Marshall, Pearce and the Strong brothers executed brickwork as well as stone-
work (Campbell, 2002, 10-21). This cross-fertilisation of skills and knowledge
was particularly important for the development of fine gauged brickwork, at a
time when there was a more classical and theoretical approach to architecture.
The essence of this contemporary view of the bricklayer is summed up by
Moxon (1703, 237) who says:
Whether the White Mafon, which is the Hewer of Stone, or the Red Mafon, which
is the Hewer of Brick, be the moft ancient, I know not: but in Holy Writ, we read
of making of Bricks before we read of Digging or Hewing of Stones; therefore we
may fuppofe the Red Mafon (or Bricklayer) to be the moft Ancient.
