This article is about the troublesome relationship between the two book genres that shaped the rapidly developing discipline in the nineteenth century: the general surveys of architectural history and the monograph on a specific country or building style. With the nineteenth-century historiography of medieval and Renaissance Dutch architecture as a case study, this article explores the interaction between both genres, paying attention to their respective terminology, descriptive methods, classification, and value judgements. Instead of a mutual exchange between the two genres, this article demonstrates that the architectural survey, with its grand narrative on architecture’s stylistic development, was at the top of a hierarchy of academic writing that defined the architectural canon. Judgements presented in surveys about the unimportance of the Dutch Middle Ages and Renaissance scarcely changed over the years, despite new factual material, whereas the monographs were entirely determined by the surveys. Dutch authors devaluated themselves as the suppliers of ‘additional knowledge’ to the general surveys, taking over their terminology and assessment framework that lend themselves poorly to the appreciation of local architecture. The monographs on the Dutch architectural past demonstrate that national architectural history writing — mediating between local and geographical specificities and general stylistic categories — found itself at the intersection of two sweeping ideals of the nineteenth century: the ideal of Romantic nationalism and that of the professionalisation of knowledge.

中文翻译：

---

在经典的边缘：十九世纪第一次建筑调查中的荷兰建筑

这篇文章是关于塑造 19 世纪快速发展的学科的两种书籍类型之间的麻烦关系：建筑史的一般调查和特定国家或建筑风格的专着。本文以 19 世纪中世纪和文艺复兴时期荷兰建筑史学为案例研究，探讨两种流派之间的相互作用，关注它们各自的术语、描述方法、分类和价值判断。本文不是这两种流派之间的相互交流，而是表明建筑调查以其对建筑风格发展的宏大叙事，处于定义建筑经典的学术写作层次结构的顶端。尽管有新的事实材料，但调查中关于荷兰中世纪和文艺复兴不重要的判断多年来几乎没有改变，而专着则完全由调查决定。荷兰作者贬低自己作为一般调查“附加知识”的提供者的身份，接管了他们的术语和评估框架，这些术语和评估框架不利于对当地建筑的欣赏。关于荷兰建筑历史的专着表明，国家建筑史写作——在地方和地理特征以及一般文体类别之间进行调解——发现自己处于 19 世纪两大理想的交叉点：浪漫民族主义的理想和职业化的理想。知识。