Wooden Manor Houses In Estonia 1700–1850: From Archaic Traditions to Modern Ideas

Abstract

Estonian manorial architecture has been a topic of interest toarchitectural and art historians for the last hundred years, buthundreds of wooden manor houses, of which many still exist day,have largely remained unnoticed. The reason for this lack of researchinto wooden architecture are manifold but can most easily beassociated with socially complex relationships and previous researchmethods, resulting in the only monograph to date, Gustav Ränk’s Dieälteren baltischen Herrenhöfe in Estland (1971), which analysed woodenarchitecture in the 17th century, known in Estonia as the Swedishperiod. Since it is generally accepted that previous classificationsof wooden architecture do not allow for great conclusions, the aimof this article is to give an overview of the architectural genesis ofwooden manor houses during the manorial ‘golden era’, asking howmodern ideas made their way into local architecture. In this regard,this paper also deals with architectural treatises and handbooks fromthe 18th and early decades of the 19th centuries and the question ofthe adaptation of architectural theorists’ ideas to local architecture.The genesis of Estonian wooden manorial architecture can bedivided into three distinguished periods that are similar to the overalldevelopment of manorial architecture in the Baltics. Although thevery first wooden noble residences built at the beginning of the 18thcentury were small urbaltisch buildings with a central chimney thatresembled those built in the Swedish era, newer architectural formsmore in touch with the architectural trends of the time appearedon lands that had either escaped the negative consequences of theGreat Northern War and plague or had been donated by the Russianrulers. In other places, manorial architecture continued with thetraditions, which began to change more strongly in the second half ofthe century, reflecting the landlords’ greater need for representativepurposes. This not only brought changes to construction techniquesbut also to the buildings’ overall appearance: most wooden dwellingsdoubled in size and were decorated according to late Baroque orearly Neoclassical elements. More major changes took place in thefirst decades of the 19th century, which gave contemporaries a chanceto describe wooden dwellings as ‘light and summery’, testifying tochanges in building traditions.Since at this stage of research only a handful of building masters,masons and construction carpenters are known to have worked inthe building of wooden manor houses, this article suggests that thelandlords may also have drawn the ground plans themselves, with thehelp of architectural treatises and handbooks of the time. Althoughthe architectural ideas of Nikolaus Goldmann, Friedrich ChristianSchmidt and David Gilly are tangible, it is possible that in manycases the influence was more indirect and depended on the generalstylistic and technical changes of the period. This architecturalconservativism can partly be explained by the fact that Baltic manorslargely depended on local craftsmen and peasants from nearbyvillages, but also by the nobility’s general aversion to all things new.A much more accessible treatise for many noblemen at the time mayhave been the economic handbook written by local pastor AugustWilhelm Hupel, which included some thoughts on the buildingprocess; however, since he did not introduce any new architecturalideas, but rather carried on with the local traditions, it is possiblethat his ideas were put to practice elsewhere, where landlords didnot actively live. The same conclusion can be drawn about thestandardised model façade projects, which made certain façadescompulsory for cities in the Russian Empire in the early decadesof the 19th century, but had very little effect on Estonian woodenmanor houses.Although this article brings clarity to many aspects of woodenmanorial architecture, the most important contribution to the historyof Baltic manorial architecture is bringing attention to the fact thatwood as a building material was not only widespread but held adominant role in building practice. This not only emphasises Balticmanorial architecture’s peripheral role on the map of European art,but also creates new perspectives to delve deeper into the connectionswith Scandinavia and other countries, where the material played apart in the building practices of the higher and lower strata of society.