arquiteturavirtual.weebly.com · CONTENTS Preface xxi General Introduction xxiii Part I: Classicism and the Renaissance 1 A. The Classical and Medieval Traditions 3 Introduction 3

Architectural Theory

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_1_pretoc Final Proof page i 13.6.2005 10:18pm

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_1_pretoc Final Proof page ii 13.6.2005 10:18pm

ARCHITECTURAL THEORY

Edited by Harry Francis Mallgrave

Volume I

An Anthology from Vitruvius to 1870

Editorial material and organization � 2006 by Harry Francis Mallgrave

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK

550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of Harry Francis Mallgrave to be identified as the Author of the Editorial Material in this Work

has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,

except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of

the publisher.

First published 2006 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1 2006

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Architectural theory, volume I: an anthology from Vitruvius to 1870 /

edited by Harry Francis Mallgrave.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-0257-5 (hard cover : alk. paper)

ISBN-10: 1-4051-0257-8 (hard cover : alk. paper)

ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-0258-2 (pbk. : alk. paper)

ISBN-10: 1-4051-0258-6 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Architecture–Philosophy. I. Mallgrave, Harry Francis.

NA2500.A7115 2005

720’.1–dc222004030886

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Set in 10/13pt Dante

by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India

Printed and bound in the United Kingdom

by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and

which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices.

Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable

environmental accreditation standards.

For further information on

Blackwell Publishing, visit our website:

www.blackwellpublishing.com

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_1_pretoc Final Proof page iv 13.6.2005 10:18pm

CONTENTS

Preface xxi

General Introduction xxiii

Part I: Classicism and the Renaissance 1

A. The Classical and Medieval Traditions 3

Introduction 3

1. Vitruvius 5

from On Architecture, Book 1 (c.25 BC)

2. Vitruvius 9


3. Vitruvius 11


4. Vitruvius 12


5. Old Testament 15

from I Kings

6. Old Testament 18

from The Book of Ezekiel (c.586 BC)

7. New Testament 20

from The Revelation of Jesus Christ to Saint John (c.95 AD)

8. Abbot Suger 22

from The Book of Suger, Abbot of Saint-Denis (c.1144)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page v 14.6.2005 9:31am

9. William Durandus 24

from The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments (1286)

B. Renaissance and Baroque Ideals 26

Introduction 26

10. Antonio di Tuccio Manetti 28

from The Life of Brunelleschi (1480s)

11. Leon Battista Alberti 30

from On the Art of Building, Prologue and Book I (1443–52)


from On the Art of Building, Book 6 (1443–52)


from On the Art of Building, Book 9 (1443–52)

14. Il Filarete 36

from Book 1 of his untitled treatise on architecture (1461–3)

15. Il Filarete 39

from Book 8 of his untitled treatise on architecture

16. Sebastiano Serlio 42

from Book 3, The Complete Works on Architecture and Perspective (1540)

17. Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola 44

from Preface to Rules of the Five Orders of Architecture (1562)

18. Palladio 46

from The Four Books of Architecture (1570)

19. Juan Bautista Villalpando 48

from Ezekiel Commentaries (1604)

20. Georgio Vasari 50

from Preface to Lives of the Most Eminent Italian Architects, Painters,

and Sculptors (1550, 1568)

21. Georgio Vasari 53

from ‘‘Life of Michelangelo’’ in Lives of the Most Eminent Italian Architects,

Painters, and Sculptors (1550, 1568)

22. Peter Paul Rubens 55

from Preface to Palaces of Genoa (1622)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page vi 14.6.2005 9:31am

VI CONTENTS

Part II: Classicism in France and Britain 57

A. French Classicism: Ancients and Moderns 59

Introduction 59

23. René Descartes 61

from Rules for the Direction of the Mind (1628)

24. Roland Fréart de Chambray 62

from Preface to A Parallel of the Ancient Architecture with the Modern (1650)

25. Paul Fréart de Chantelou 65

from Diary of the Cavaliere Bernini’s Visit to France (1665)

26. François Blondel 70

from ‘‘Inaugural Lecture to the Academy of Architecture’’ (1671)

27. François Blondel, 72

from Architecture Course (1675)

28. René Ouvrard 72

from Harmonic Architecture (1677)

29. Claude Perrault 74

annotations to French translation of The Ten Books of Architecture of

Vitruvius (1673)

30. François Blondel 76

from Architecture Course, Vol. II (1683)


from The Ten Books of Architecture of Vitruvius, second edition (1684)


from Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns After the Method of the

Ancients (1683)

33. Jean-François Félibien 81

from Preface to Historical Survey of the Life and Works of the Most Celebrated

Architects (1687)

34. Charles Perrault 82

from Preface to Parallel of the Ancients and Moderns with Regard to the Arts

and Sciences (1688)

35. Charles Perrault 83

from ‘‘Design of a Portal for the Church of Sainte-Geneviève in Paris’’ (1697)

36. Michel de Frémin 84

from Critical Memoirs on Architecture (1702)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page vii 14.6.2005 9:31am

CONTE NTS VII

37. Jean-Louis de Cordemoy 86

from New Treatise on All Architecture or the Art of Building (1706, 1714)

B. British Classicism and Palladianism 88

Introduction 88

38. Henry Wotton 89

from The Elements of Architecture (1624)

39. Christopher Wren 91

from Tract I on architecture (mid-1670s)

40. Christopher Wren 93

from Tracts II and IV on architecture (mid-1670s)

41. Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury 94

from Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (1711)


from ‘‘A Letter Concerning Design’’ (1712)

43. Colin Campbell 101

Introduction to Vitruvius Britannicus, Vol. I (1715)

44. Nicholas Du Bois 103

Translator’s Preface to The Architecture of A. Palladio (1715)

45. William Kent 106

‘‘Advertisement’’ to The Designs of Inigo Jones (1727)

46. James Gibbs 107

Introduction to A Book of Architecture (1728)

47. Robert Morris 109

from An Essay in Defence of Ancient Architecture (1728)

48. Alexander Pope 112

from Of False Taste (1731)

49. Isaac Ware 114

‘‘Advertisement’’ to Andrea Palladio: The Four Books of Architecture (1737)


from ‘‘An Essay upon Harmony’’ (1739)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page viii 14.6.2005 9:31am

VIII CONTENTS

Part III: Neoclassicism and the Enlightenment 119

A. Early Neoclassicism 121

Introduction 121

51. Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach 122

from Preface to Outline for a Historical Architecture (1721)

52. Voltaire 123

from Philosophic Letters on the English (1733)

53. Jacques-Gabriel Soufflot 125

from ‘‘Memoir on Architectural Proportions’’ (1739)

54. Jacques-Gabriel Soufflot 126

from ‘‘Memoir on Gothic Architecture’’ (1741)

55. Carlo Lodoli 127

from Notes for a projected treatise on architecture (c.1740s)

56. Baron de Montesquieu 130

from Preface to The Spirit of the Laws (1748)

57. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 132

from ‘‘Discourse on the Sciences and Arts’’ (1750)

58. Jean Le Rond D’Alembert 135

from ‘‘Preliminary Discourse of the Editors’’ (1751)

59. Jacques-François Blondel 138

from ‘‘Architecture’’ in Diderot’s Encyclopedia (1751)

60. Charles-Étienne Briseux 140

from Preface to Treatise on Essential Beauty in the Arts (1752)

61. Marc-Antoine Laugier 141

from Essay on Architecture (1753)

62. Marc-Antoine Laugier 144

from Essay on Architecture (1753)

63. Isaac Ware 147

from A Complete Body of Architecture, Chapter II (1756)

64. Isaac Ware 148

from A Complete Body of Architecture, Chapter IX (1756)

65. William Chambers 150

from A Treatise on Civil Architecture (1759)


from A Treatise on the Decorative Part of Civil Architecture (1791)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page ix 14.6.2005 9:31am

CONTE NTS IX

B. Greece and the Classical Ideal 154

Introduction 154

67. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett 155

from ‘‘Proposals for publishing an accurate description of

the Antiquities of Athens’’ (1748)

68. Robert Wood and James Dawkins 158

from The Ruins of Palmyra (1753)

69. Johann Joachim Winckelmann 159

from Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture (1755)

70. Allan Ramsay 163

from ‘‘A Dialogue on Taste’’ in The Investigator (1755)

71. Julien-David Le Roy 165

from The Ruins of the Most Beautiful Monuments of Greece (1758)


from The Ruins of the Most Beautiful Monuments of Greece (1758)

73. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett 169

from Preface to The Antiquities of Athens (1762)


from History of the Art of Antiquity (1764)





77. Giovanni Battista Piranesi 178

from ‘‘Observations on the Letter of Monsieur Mariette’’ (1765)


from Opinions on Architecture (1765)


from ‘‘An Apologetical Essay in Defence of the Egyptian and

Tuscan Architecture’’ (1769)

C. Character and Expression 190

Introduction 190

80. Germain Boffrand 191

from Book of Architecture (1745)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page x 14.6.2005 9:31am

X CONTENTS

81. Étienne Bonnot de Condillac 193

from Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge (1746)


from History of the Arrangement and Different Forms that the Christians

Have Given to Their Churches (1764)

83. Jacques-François Blondel 197

from Course of Architecture (1771)

84. Nicolas Le Camus de Mézières 199

from The Genius of Architecture (1780)

85. Nicolas Le Camus de Mézières 201

from The Genius of Architecture (1780)

86. Jean-Louis Viel de Saint-Maux 204

from Letters on the Architecture of the Ancients and the Moderns (1787)

87. A. C. Quatremère de Quincy 206

from Methodical Encyclopedia (1788)

88. Étienne-Louis Boullée 210

from Architecture, Essay on Art (c.1794)

89. Étienne-Louis Boullée 213

from Architecture, Essay on Art (c.1794)

90. Claude Nicolas Ledoux 216

from Architecture Considered in Relation to Art, Morals, and Legislation (1804)

91. John Soane 218

from Royal Academy Lectures on Architecture (V and XI; 1812–15)

Part IV: Theories of the Picturesque and the Sublime 221

A. Sources of the Picturesque 223

Introduction 223

92. John Locke 224

from An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)

93. William Temple 229

from ‘‘Upon the Gardens of Epicurus; or, of Gardening in the

Year 1685’’ (1692)

94. John Vanbrugh 230

from Letter to the Duchess of Marlborough (1709)


from ‘‘The Moralists’’ (1709)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xi 14.6.2005 9:31am

CONTE NTS XI

96. Joseph Addison 234

from The Spectator (1712)

97. Robert Castell 239

from The Villas of the Ancients Illustrated (1728)

98. Batty Langley 241

from New Principles of Gardening (1728)


from Lectures on Architecture (1736)


from Designs of Chinese Buildings (1757)

B. Toward a Relativist Aesthetics 249

Introduction 249

101. John Locke 250

from An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, fourth edition (1700)

102. Joseph Addison 253

from The Spectator (1712)

103. Jean Baptiste du Bos 256

from Critical Reflections on Poetry, Painting, and Music (1719)

104. Francis Hutcheson 258

from An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1725)

105. George Berkeley 261

from the ‘‘Third Dialogue’’ of Alciphron (1732)

106. David Hume 266

from A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40)

107. Allan Ramsey 267

from ‘‘A Dialogue on Taste’’ in The Investigator (1755)

108. Alexander Gerard 269

from An Essay on Taste (1756)

109. David Hume 271

from ‘‘Of the Standard of Taste’’ (1757)

110. Edmund Burke 273

from A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime

and Beautiful (1757)

111. Edmund Burke 277

from A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime

and Beautiful (1757)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xii 14.6.2005 9:31am

XII CONTENTS

112. Lord Kames 284

from Elements of Criticism (1762)

113. Robert and James Adam 286

from Preface to The Works in Architecture of Robert and James Adam (1773–8)

C. Consolidation of Picturesque Theory 290

Introduction 290

114. Thomas Whately 291

from Observations on Modern Gardening (1770)

115. Horace Walpole 295

from ‘‘The History of the Modern Taste in Gardening’’ (1771)


from A Dissertation on Oriental Gardening (1772)

117. William Gilpin 300

from Observations on the River Wye (1782)

118. Joshua Reynolds 303

from Discourses on Art (1786)

119. John Soane 305

from Plans, Elevations, and Sections of Buildings (1788)

120. Uvedale Price 307

from Essays on the Picturesque (1794)

121. Richard Payne Knight 312

from ‘‘Postscript’’ to The Landscape, second edition (1795)

122. Humphry Repton 316

from Sketches and Hints on Landscape Gardening (1795)

123. Uvedale Price 319

from ‘‘An Essay on Architecture and Buildings as connected with

Scenery’’ (1798)

124. Richard Payne Knight 322

from An Analytical Inquiry into the Principles of Taste (1805)

125. John Soane 325

from Royal Academy Lectures on Architecture, V, VIII, and XI (1812–15)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xiii 14.6.2005 9:31am

CONTENTS XIII

Part V: The Rise of Historicism in the Nineteenth Century 331

A. Challenges to Classicism in France, 1802–34 333

Introduction 333

126. Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand 334

from Précis of the Lectures on Architecture (1802)


from On Egyptian Architecture (1803)

128. Christian Ludwig Stieglitz 340

from Archaeology of the Architecture of the Greeks and Romans (1801)


from The Olympian Jupiter (1814)

130. Charles Robert Cockerell 343

from ‘‘On the Aegina Marbles’’ (1819)

131. William Kinnard 344

annotations to Stuart and Revett’s The Antiquities of Athens,

second edition (1825)

132. Otto Magnus von Stackelberg 345

from The Temple of Apollo at Bassae in Arcadia (1826)

133. Jacques Ignace Hittorff 347

from ‘‘Polychrome Architecture Among the Greeks’’ (1830)

134. Gottfried Semper 348

from Preliminary Remarks on Polychrome Architecture and Sculpture in

Antiquity (1834)

135. Léon Vaudoyer 351

excerpts from three letters of 1829, 1830, and 1831

136. Émile Barrault 353

from To Artists (1830)

137. Victor Hugo 356

from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1832)


from Preliminary Remarks on Polychrome Architecture and Sculpture in

Antiquity (1834)

139. Léonce Reynaud 359

from ‘‘Architecture’’ in the New Encyclopedia (1834)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xiv 14.6.2005 9:31am

XIV CONTE NTS

B. The Gothic Revival in Britain, Germany, and France 362

Introduction 362


from Letter to H. Zouch (1759)


from A Description of the Villa of Horace Walpole at Strawberry Hill (1774)

142. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 366

from ‘‘On German Architecture’’ (1772)

143. François René Chateaubriand 368

from The Genius of Christianity (1802)

144. Friedrich von Schlegel 370

from Notes on a Trip through the Netherlands (1806)

145. Joseph Görres 373

from ‘‘The Cathedral in Cologne’’ (1814)

146. Georg Moller 375

from Monuments of German Architecture (1815–21)

147. Thomas Rickman 376

from An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of English Architecture (1817)

148. William Whewell 378

from Architectural Notes on German Churches (1830)

149. Robert Willis 381

from Remarks on the Architecture of the Middle Ages (1835)

150. A. W. N. Pugin 383

from Contrasts (1836)

151. A. W. N. Pugin 385

from The True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture (1841)

152. John Mason Neale and Benjamin Webb 386

from The Ecclesiologist (1841)

153. Victor Hugo 388

from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1832)


from ‘‘Architecture’’ in the New Encyclopedia (1834)

155. Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc 391

from ‘‘On the Construction of Religious Buildings in France’’ (1844)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xv 14.6.2005 9:31am

CONTENTS XV

C. The German Style Debate 395

Introduction 395

156. Immanuel Kant 396

from Critique of Judgment (1790)

157. August Schlegel 398

from Lectures on Literature and the Fine Arts (1801–2)

158. Friedrich Gilly 399

from ‘‘Some Thoughts on the Necessity of Endeavoring to Unify the

Various Departments of Architecture . . . ’’ (1799)

159. Karl Friedrich Schinkel 401

Literary fragments (c.1805)

160. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 403

from The Philosophy of Fine Art (1820s)

161. Friedrich von Gärtner 406

from Letter to Johann Martin von Wagner (1828)

162. Heinrich Hübsch 407

from In What Style Should We Build? (1828)

163. Rudolf Wiegmann 410

from ‘‘Remarks on the Book: In What Style Should We Build?’’ (1829)


from Notes for a textbook on architecture (c.1830)


from Notes for a textbook on architecture (c.1835)

166. Rudolf Wiegmann 415

from ‘‘Thoughts on the Development of a National Architectural Style

for the Present’’ (1841)

167. Johann Heinrich Wolff 417

from ‘‘Remarks on the Architectural Questions Broached by Professor

Stier . . . ’’ (1845)

168. Eduard Metzger 419

from ‘‘Contribution to the Contemporary Question: In What Style Should

One Build!’’ (1845)

169. Carl Bötticher 421

from ‘‘The Principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building’’ (1846)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xvi 14.6.2005 9:31am

XVI CONTE NTS

D. The Rise of American Theory 425

Introduction 425

170. Thomas Jefferson 426

Letters (1787, 1791, 1805, 1810)

171. Benjamin Latrobe 432

from Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1807)

172. George Tucker 435

from ‘‘On Architecture’’ (1814)

173. William Strickland 437

from Introductory lecture on architecture (1824)

174. Thomas U. Walter 439

from ‘‘Of Modern Architecture’’ (1841)

175. Arthur Delavan Gilman 440

from ‘‘Architecture in the United States’’ (1844)

176. Thomas Alexander Tefft 443

from ‘‘The Cultivation of True Taste’’ (1851)

177. Ralph Waldo Emerson 444

from ‘‘Self-Reliance’’ (1841)

178. Ralph Waldo Emerson 446

from ‘‘Thoughts on Art’’ (1841)

179. Horatio Greenough 449

from Letter to Washington Allston (1831)


from ‘‘American Architecture’’ (1843)


from ‘‘Structure and Organization’’ (1852)

182. Henry David Thoreau 456

from his journal ( January 11, 1852)

183. Andrew Jackson Downing 457

from A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening (1841)


from Cottage Residences (1842)


from Hints to Persons about Building in the Country (1847)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xvii 14.6.2005 9:31am

CONTENTS XVII


from The Architecture of Country Houses (1850)

187. Calvert Vaux 465

from Villas and Cottages (1857)

188. James Jackson Jarves 468

from The Art-Idea (1864)

Part VI: Historicism in the Industrial Age 471

A. The Battle of the Styles in Britain 473

Introduction 473

189. Thomas Hope 474

from Observations on the Plans and Elevations Designed by James Wyatt (1804)

190. Thomas Hope 476

from An Historical Essay on Architecture (1835)

191. Thomas Leverton Donaldson 478

from ‘‘Preliminary Discourse before the University College of London’’ (1842)

192. John Ruskin 479

from The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849)

193. James Fergusson, A. W. N. Pugin, Edward Lacy Garbett, and Robert Kerr 482

from The Builder (1850)

194. Edward Lacy Garbett 488

from Rudimentary Treatise on the Principles of Design in Architecture (1850)


from ‘‘The Nature of Gothic’’ (1851–3)

196. Matthew Digby Wyatt 493

from The Industrial Arts of the Nineteenth Century (1851)

197. Richard Redgrave 495

from ‘‘Supplementary Report on Design’’ (1852)

198. Owen Jones 497

from The Grammar of Ornament (1856)


from ‘‘The Deteriorative Power of Conventional Art over Nations’’ (1859)

200. Robert Kerr 500

‘‘The Battle of the Styles,’’ from The Builder (1860)

201. James Fergusson 502

from History of the Modern Styles of Architecture (1862)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xviii 14.6.2005 9:31am

XVIII CONTENTS

202. William Morris 503

Prospectus for Morris, Marshall, Faulkner and Company (1861)

B. Rationalism, Eclecticism, and Realism in France 505

Introduction 505

203. Albert Lenoir and Léon Vaudoyer 506

from ‘‘Studies of Architecture in France’’ (1844)


from ‘‘On the Construction of Religious Building in France’’ (1845)

205. César Daly 510

from ‘‘On Liberty in Art’’ (1847)


from Treatise on Architecture (1850)


from ‘‘Architecture’’ in Reasoned Dictionary (1854)

208. Gustave Courbet 515

from ‘‘Statement on Realism’’ (1855)

209. Charles Baudelaire 516

from ‘‘The Painter of Modern Life’’ (1859)


from Lectures on Architecture, Lecture VI (1859)


from Revue générale, Vol. 21 (1863)


from Revue générale, Vol. 23 (1866)

213. Bourgeois de Lagny 524

from ‘‘Salon of 1866’’


from ‘‘Style’’ in Reasoned Dictionary (1866)


from Lectures on Architecture, Lecture XII (1866)

216. Émile Zola 527

from The Covered Market of Paris (1872)

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xix 14.6.2005 9:31am

CONTENTS XIX

C. Tectonics and Style in Germany 529

Introduction 529

217. Karl von Schnaase 530

from Dutch Letters (1834)

218. Karl Bötticher 531

from Greek Tectonics (1843)

219. Eduard van der Nüll 533

from ‘‘Suggestions on the Skillful Relation of Ornament to Untreated

Form’’ (1845)

220. Heinrich Leibnitz 534

from The Structural Element in Architecture (1849)


from The Four Elements of Architecture (1851)


from Science, Industry, and Art (1852)

223. Jacob Burckhardt 545

from The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860)

224. Jacob Burckhardt 546

from The History of the Italian Renaissance (1867)


from Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts (1860)


from Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts (1860)

227. Rudolf Hermann Lotze 555

from History of German Aesthetics (1868)


from On Architectural Style (1869)

229. Richard Lucae 558

from ‘‘On the Meaning and Power of Space in Architecture’’ (1869)

Additional Recommended Readings 561

Acknowledgments 568

Index 583

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_2_toc Final Proof page xx 14.6.2005 9:31am

XX CONTE NTS

PREFACE

The idea of sketching an architectural cross-section through the lines of Western

cultural development is a compelling one, if only because the profile of the

ideological continuum is on occasions tenuous at best. Theory possesses no

tangible form. It exists in large and heavy tomes as well as in short and spirited manifestoes.

It is found in the angle of a molding, the silhouette of a roofline, as well as in the

impassioned assertions of the confident practitioner. Theory is at times imbued with

revolutionary fervor, and it admittedly emanates or takes its lead from larger cultural

sensibilities. Architectural theory, for all its occasional abstraction, is nothing less than the

history of our ideas regarding our constructed physical surroundings.

If we accept this broad definition of theory, we must also accept a wide-ranging approach

to the problem of an anthology, one that responds from many sides. Theory needs its

context, just as any history of ideas needs its intellectual framework, and the expense and

materiality of architecture perhaps make it even more a closely guarded pawn of political

ambition, wars, and economic downturns. But ideas also move with a certain volition and

tempo of their own, fascinating in their own right. The famous seventeenth-century

‘‘quarrel’’ between the Ancients and the Moderns, for instance, was not only a learned

academic dispute concerning past and present accomplishments, but one whose momentous

implications for the sciences and arts required more than a century to unfold. Similarly,

the seemingly innocent notion of the ‘‘picturesque’’ in late eighteenth-century Britain

demanded the same 100 years of aesthetic cultivation to achieve its subtle refinement.

And Ralph Waldo Emerson’s notion of ‘‘self-reliance’’ not only crystallized the pioneering

spirit of nineteenth-century America but it also strongly resonated within architectural

circles for several generations – and arguably still reverberates in American architecture

today. Each idea thus possesses its specific circumstances and points of origin, and to this end

we have framed each section of our anthology with a historical overview and provided each

entry with an introduction. To further the reader’s understanding, we have also suggested a

few additional readings in a section at the end of the book.

The decision to include a greater (rather than fewer) number of texts and documents in

this anthology as well requires an abbreviated format for each selection and a number of

necessary stylistic conventions. The use of simple ellipses, ‘‘ . . . ’’, denotes the omission of

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_3_posttoc Final Proof page xxi 9.6.2005 9:02am

words or phrases within a sentence. Square brackets, [ . . . ], indicate the omission of a

sentence, sentences, or several short paragraphs, and they can be employed at the beginning

or end of a text as well. Asterisks, * * * , refer to the lengthier omission of a paragraph or

more, although in some (noted) cases they also appear in the original text. We have left all

English texts in their original punctuation, spelling, and style. Books are italicized and the

use of quotation marks indicate shorter writings.

The increasing body of texts within the chronological structure reflects not only the

growing number of historical documents but also the growing complexity or nuances of the

theoretical debate. The aim of this anthology has been to balance the presentation of texts

with the always growing richness of ideas, and to provide an introduction to, and an

overview of, the subject matter to be reviewed. No anthology is intended to supplant the

teaching of architectural theory or to constitute a course in itself; this anthology is most

definitely not presented to discourage the reader from turning to the multitude of sources

themselves. Anthologies are by nature restrictive, cursory, subjective, even arbitrary in their

selection, and always in need of revision. At their best, anthologies provide a framework for

ideas and encourage the reader to study the material and its historical context with greater

seriousness and depth.

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_3_posttoc Final Proof page xxii 9.6.2005 9:02am

XXII PREF ACE

GENERAL INTRODUCT ION

Architectural theory has its unique distinctions. It comprises a broad body of ideas

and debates, which over many centuries has not only come to form a substantial

literary edifice but also one ever more complex and refined in its details and issues.

With the articulate engagement of one generation responding to the ideas of another,

architectural theory is more often than not contentious and instructive. It is not born in

isolation. It reflects the aspirations of emperors and the whims of kings, and again the

insights of lay critics and the pride of competing professionals. As an intellectual enterprise,

architectural theory draws upon the larger currents of its time – political, social, scientific,

philosophical, and cultural – and in this way it often cannot be understood outside of these

insinuating forces. As a constructional art, architecture also speaks to the physical world or

more generally to human aspirations and values. The study of these ideas is, in its own way,

a lucid compendium of human history.

The present volume, which is the first of two, begins with theory in ancient and classical

times and concludes in 1870. The different eras within this time span, of necessity, are

uneven in their presentation. The earliest records we have of architectural thinking in the

West are the lay and religious Hebraic traditions recorded in the Old Testament, which

became one of the two cornerstones of the later Christian worldview. The other cornerstone –

classicism – is generally taken as synonymous with the Greco-Roman tradition. Although we

know aspects of this antique culture extremely well, our knowledge of its architectural

dimension is limited to its few surviving monuments and to the treatise of Vitruvius, the

lone literary work to come down to us from Roman antiquity. But Vitruvius was operating

within a fertile line of theoretical development parallel to and more prolific (in terms of

writings devoted to architecture) than that of the Middle East, a tradition of theory that

stretches back at least five centuries before him. All of these texts (perhaps hundreds) have

unfortunately been lost.

Our textual holdings from Late Roman and medieval times – when the Christian and

classical traditions merge into the body of beliefs that we define as Western culture – is

scarcely much larger. Nevertheless, its glorious architectural monuments testify to a refined

body of theoretical knowledge. It is only with the Renaissance that this dearth of textual

evidence begins to be remedied. The production of inexpensive paper, the invention of the

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_3_posttoc Final Proof page xxiii 9.6.2005 9:02am

printing press, the use of vernacular languages, and the rise of literacy rates – all conspire to

make the transmission of ideas more efficient and therefore more abundant. Renaissance

writers, at the same time, prided themselves in recovering what they believed to be the lost

ideals of classicism. Western theory now plots a relatively straight course (although with

interesting regional variations) down to the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, when

secular forces-at-large now openly clash with the religious traditions and political structures

inherited from the past. The result is that fascinating shattering of theory along nationalist

and ‘‘stylistic’’ lines that we generally subsume under the ambiguous concept of historicism.

In contrast to the often pejorative use of this term with respect to architectural practice,

we shall employ the idea of historicism in a positive sense as an attempt to resolve the

apparent discrepancy between greater historical understanding (increasingly viewed in

absolute and teleological terms) and an emerging modern industrial state (bourgeois life)

that tended toward relativism in both historical and cultural terms. The nineteenth century

became increasingly time rich in its theoretical possibilities. And what emerges from it, of

course, is that worldview of more modest persuasion which we – too narrowly – refer to as

modernism.

The concluding line of 1870 may seem arbitrary but it is chosen for several reasons. First

the year, or more correctly the years surrounding it, define a time of significant theoretical

change. Theory in its four centuries since the Renaissance had been dominated largely by

Italian and French writers and was generally ‘‘academic’’ in its bearing. And even though this

system and its body of beliefs was tottering well before 1870, academic principles fall into a

sharp decline in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, even though classicism as a

formal attitude and vocabulary survive. The year, with the defining moment of the Franco-

Prussian War, also has symbolic connotations for both Europe and North America. The

French defeat not only ushered in for that country (and its proud culture) both economic

and military decline, but it also signaled the beginning of cultural parity in the West. Britain,

with its proud intellectual traditions, was now confidently pursuing its path of design

reforms through the Arts and Crafts Movement. The United States, whose first independent

theoretical stirrings appear only in the previous generation, was embarking during its post-

bellum years on a period of unparalleled economic and cultural expansion. And the soon to

be unified Germany, with its unrivaled system of higher education, had become by 1870

perhaps the dominant player in architectural theory – at least as theory developed in the

twentieth century. Cultural identities within the Nordic countries and central Europe, in

Austria, Switzerland, Spain, and Italy, were also manifesting themselves around this time. It

was thus a period of momentous transformation.

Still another reason for choosing the year 1870 to conclude this volume is to respond to

earlier intellectual histories that tended to isolate the twentieth century. This study does not

represents a ‘‘modernist’’ view of the world, and indeed it rejects the historiographic notion

of a divide proffered by so many twentieth-century historians. Intellectual production is

rather a continuous and always evolving process, for architecture is sometimes a closed

process frequently circling upon relatively few alternative strategies or ideas. Modernism, if

it can be defined at all, is a phenomenon that forms itself over centuries, and whether we

trace its roots to the Enlightenment, to the seventeenth century, or to the Renaissance is

largely a matter of historical preference. The fact that architectural theory is a closed process

should also not be interpreted to mean that it can be understood in and of itself. Indeed, this

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_3_posttoc Final Proof page xxiv 9.6.2005 9:02am

XXIV GE NERAL I NTRODUCT ION

particular field of ideas can be grasped in its outlines only by taking into account the context

of the philosophical, political, and cultural world in which it arises. It is therefore hoped that

the broad approach of this volume will bring both an overview and something of substance

to architectural curricula and add substance to the teaching of history and theory.

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_3_posttoc Final Proof page xxv 9.6.2005 9:02am

GENERAL INTRODUCT I ON XXV

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_3_posttoc Final Proof page xxvi 9.6.2005 9:02am

PART I C LASS I C I SM AND THERENA ISSANCE

Mallgrave / Architectural 1405102578_4_Part IA_001-009 Final Proof page 2 9.6.2005 9:03am

A . THE CLASS I CAL AND MED IEVALTRAD I T IONS

Introduction

The word ‘‘classical’’ in English, like its Latin counterpart classicus, carries with it rich connotations. The Latin

word derives from the verb calare, ‘‘to call,’’ but this meaning in the Late Roman Republic gave way toreferring to those ‘‘of the first class,’’ as opposed to those of the lower classes. Similar meanings accompanied

it until its early English usage in the sixteenth century, when the word more generally came to refer to someone orsomething of the highest rank or importance, a standard or model to imitate. Around the same time, ‘‘classical’’ also

came to be associated with any of the Greek and Roman writers of antiquity who were held up as worthy models foremulation. When we speak of the classical tradition in architecture, we refer to the intellectual and artistic

productions of Greek and Roman antiquity, and to the ‘‘rediscovery’’ of this legacy in medieval times, theRenaissance, and in the ensuing centuries.

INTRODUCT ION TO PART IA 3

Classicism in architecture, by happenstance, begins with Vitruvius – or Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (c.85–c.20 BC) as he is

sometimes called, although only the middle name is certain. Classicism is synonymous with Vitruvius because, of thedozens of treatises written on architecture in classical times, his is the one to have survived into modern times. Only a

few details of the life of this architect, engineer, and scholar are known with certainty. He was born probably in thesecond decade of the first century BC, and his breadth of knowledge suggests a good liberal education, training with

architects, and travel to various parts of Asia. The chapters of his treatise on the design of houses suggest somefamiliarity with this subject, but sometime around mid-century he was hired into the service of Julius Caesar as a

military engineer. Over the next decade he traveled with the conqueror during his campaigns into Gaul and probablyAfrica, where Vitruvius prepared fortifications and engines of war. After the Ides of March in 44 BC the architect was

without a patron, but within a few years he found employment as an engineer under Caesar’s adopted son Octavian.His decision proved a wise one, because during the years 42–31 BC the forces of Octavian and those of Marc Anthonywere squaring off for the control of Rome – a conflict that ended with the defeat of Anthony and Cleopatra at Actium in

31 BC. Four years later Octavian assumed the honorific title of Augustus Caesar and the Roman Empire was born. Thenow aged Vitruvius was at this point working hard to complete the treatise on which he had probably worked for many

years. He dedicated it to the new Emperor, and shortly thereafter built the one building that he included in his 10scrolls, the basilica at Fano. His description of this building, of which nothing has survived, would in itself also later

shape the idea of classicism. Vitrvuius must have died shortly after completing his treatise in the mid-20s BC.De architectura, or the text generally referred to as the Ten Books of Architecture, embraces many more concerns

than what today is considered to fall within the realm of architecture. The last three books deal with water (aqueducts,wells), time-pieces (zodiacs, planets, astrology, sundials), and mechanics (pulleys, screws, catapults, battering rams). Thefirst seven books concern architecture, in both its material, constructional, and theoretical aspects. Perhaps the heart of

his treatise is found in Books 3 and 4, in which he presents the proportional rules and description of three types oftemples, first and foremost their columns, which later will be construed as ‘‘orders.’’ Books 5 and 6 concern other building

types, such as basilicas, treasuries, theaters, gymnasia, and dwellings. In Book 1 he presents the six principles ofarchitecture, which are order, arrangement, eurythmy, symmetry, propriety, and economy. A few pages later he reduces

these principles to the more famous Vitruvian triad – following a seventeenth-century translation – of commodity,firmness, and delight. Notwithstanding his rules for proportion and symmetry, Vitruvius was not especially dogmatic in his

strictures and he allowed the architect considerable latitude in adjusting proportions where the eye deems it necessary.This freedom would be disallowed in later years as proportional rules often came to be seen as sacrosanct canons.

The history of ‘‘classicism’’ in relation to De architectura is an interesting one. Limiting the historical importance ofthese scrolls is the fact that Vitruvius composed them prior to the reign of Augustus, of whom Suetonius once noted that‘‘he found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble.’’ Thus many of the major monuments whose ruins still grace

the city today were not yet built or even contemplated. And when they later came to be constructed they were notdesigned to the proportional and design specifications outlined by Vitruvius. Hence his treatise has only a small

connection with Roman imperial architecture. Speaking in favor of the treatise of Vitruvius, however, is its relation withthe classical past. He was an architect versed not only in such Greek philosophers as Pythagoras, Archimedes,

Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle, but also in the work of such contemporaries as Varro and Cicero. Moreover, he makesreferences to dozens of passages and previous treatises on architecture, the vast majority of which were Greek.

Vitruvius’s own taste in architecture tended toward the late-Hellenic style, especially the Ionian work of Hermogenes(late third or early second century) and Hermodorus of Salamis (mid-second century). In this way, Vitruvius actuallyreveals more of the theoretical body of Greek architecture than of the contemporary Roman situation.

The classicism of Vitruvius, however, defines only one foundation stone of the antique tradition upon whichWestern intellectual development is based; the other derives from the rise and eventual dominance of Christianity in

the West. With its roots in Judaism, Christian culture is at least as old as its parallel Hellenistic and Romancounterparts, with which it would become conjoined after Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius in AD 312. From his new


4 INTRODUCT ION TO PART IA

throne in Constantinople (founded 324–30), Constantine granted religious freedom to all, but himself converted to

Christianity, which now aligned its fortunes (at this point a religion still with a small number of followers) with that ofthe new Empire.

The fates of both the eastern and western Roman empires, however, were not peaceful ones. The Visigoth Alariccaptured Rome in 410 (the western empire had moved its capital to Ravenna in 404), and thus began the centuries

of the so-called barbarian invasions (actually tribal migrations) that plagued the political stability of Europe wellbeyond the crowning of Charlemagne as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in the year 800. Seven-hundred Viking

longships camped on the Champ de Mars in 885 and laid siege to Paris for 11 months. As the Byzantine empire fellinto serious decline in the eleventh century, both Turks and Mongols pressed into Europe from the east, while only

the Pyrenees protected the Franks from Muslim incursions moving up through Spain. Pope Gregory VII declared thesupreme legislative and judicial power of the Papacy in 1075, and 40 years later the first of the Crusades was raisedto wrest Jerusalem from Islamic control. By the time of the fourth Crusade (1198–1216), the Latin Church had

achieved its apogee as a political and military power and essentially unified Europe with its language, law, andtheology. Moreover, contacts with Arab scholars had reintroduced the fruits of the Greco-Roman classical tradition

into the West. Thus the Gothic period appeared at the moment when a classical cultural renaissance was takingplace in Europe; scholars renewed historical interest and the production of books increased dramatically.

Throughout these years the Church’s relationship with classicism was nevertheless ambiguous, to say the least. On theone hand classicism bore the marks of paganism, and therefore many of its secular practices (such as art) were often

viewed with suspicion. On the other hand there was a genuine interest in recapturing, as it were, the legacy of the past.For instance Vitruvius, whose impact on Roman architecture was very slight, gains considerably in stature in the Epistles ofSidonius Apollinarius in the fifth century AD. The oldest existent manuscript of his treatise dates from the ninth century,

and from that time forward it was copied and distributed by the monastic route. The Archbishop of Rouen bequeathed acopy of the treatise to his cathedral in 1183 and Vincent of Beauvais quoted Vitruvius on proportions – affirming that De

architectura was read during Gothic times. Nevertheless, the book of Vitruvius – until the Renaissance – was by nomeans an influential text, and the major monuments of Romanesque and Gothic times (even with their reminiscences of

classical motifs) followed local traditions and the technical knowledge of vaulting that had been evolving since LateRoman times. Symbolism, a prominent feature of Gothic architecture in particular, remained wedded to theological and

pedagogical interests. The great monuments of the Middle Ages were extensions of the Church’s teachings.

1 V I TRUV IUSfrom On Architecture, Book 1 (c.25 BC)

Vitruvius compiled his 10 ‘‘books’’ (actually scrolls) from a variety of sources, almost entirely Greek. We

might therefore see him – like his contemporary Cicero – as a champion of a Greek revival that wasprominent in the last years of the Roman Republic. This was a movement among the Roman intelligentsia, in

all of the liberal arts, to assimilate and transpose concepts or terminology from Greek theory. The problem inherentin such a process of grafting, as Vitruvius’s many interpreters have often pointed out, is that of achieving conceptual

clarity and consistency of terms.

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (c.9–c.20 BC), from Book 1 of De architectura [On architecture] (c.25 BC), trans. Morris Hicky Morgan, in Vitruvius: The Ten Books on

Architecture. New York: Dover, 1960 (orig. 1914), pp. 5, 13–17.


V I TRUV IUS , ON ARCH I T EC TURE , BOOK 1 5

The following passages from the first and second chapters of Book 1 illustrate this problem. After an initial

discussion of the areas of education that the aspiring architect should master, Vitruvius identifies the six principlescomposing the art and science of architecture. But only the last two principles – propriety and economy – are

relatively straightforward in their meaning. Order (Greek taxis) is the ordering of parts alone and as a whole, andthus implies the concepts of a module and symmetry. Arrangement (Greek diathesis), which has also been rendered

in English as ‘‘design,’’ is similar to order but also adds the idea of aptness of placement. It is also familiar toarchitects through his discussion of the floor plan, elevation, and perspective. Eurythmy (Latin eurythmia is a

transliteration of Greek eurythmos) and symmetry (Greek symmetros; no Latin equivalent) are more elusive.Symmetry, which for Vitruvius is a key concept, is a proper harmony of the parts to each other and to the whole,

defining a kind of beauty. Eurythmy, which has also been translated as ‘‘proportion,’’ is not dissimilar to order andarrangement, and it suggests the use of numerical ratios. It is also the visible coherence of form.

In the next section, after his very broad definition of architecture, Vitruvius reduces architecture to the principles

of durability (Latin firmitas), convenience (Latin utilitas), and beauty (Latin venustas). These are the three terms thatHenry Wotten translated in 1624 (in a different order) as ‘‘commodity, firmness, and delight.’’ The idea of

constructing a work in a durable and convenient way is self-evident, and what he means by beauty is made manifestby his invocation of the term ‘‘symmetry.’’

The Education of the Architect

1. The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and

varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgement that all work done by the other arts is put

to test. This knowledge is the child of practice and theory. Practice is the continuous and

regular exercise of employment where manual work is done with any necessary material

according to the design of a drawing. Theory, on the other hand, is the ability to demon-

strate and explain the productions of dexterity on the principles of proportion.

2. It follows, therefore, that architects who have aimed at acquiring manual skill without

scholarship have never been able to reach a position of authority to correspond to their

pains, while those who relied only upon theories and scholarship were obviously hunting the

shadow, not the substance. But those who have a thorough knowledge of both, like men

armed at all points, have the sooner attained their object and carried authority with them.

[ . . . ]

The Fundamental Principles of Architecture

1. Architecture depends on Order (in Greek ��Ø�), Arrangement (in Greek �Ø�Ł��Ø�),

Eurythmy, Symmetry, Propriety, and Economy (in Greek �NŒ��Æ).

2. Order gives due measure to the members of a work considered separately, and

symmetrical agreement to the proportions of the whole. It is an adjustment according to

quantity (in Greek ��). By this I mean the selection of modules from the members of

the work itself and, starting from these individual parts of members, constructing the whole


6 V I TRUV I US , ON ARCH I T ECTURE , BOOK 1

work to correspond. Arrangement includes the putting of things in their proper places and

the elegance of effect which is due to adjustments appropriate to the character of the work.

Its forms of expression (in Greek N��ÆØ) are these: groundplan, elevation, and perspective.

A groundplan is made by the proper successive use of compasses and rule, through which

we get outlines for the plane surfaces of buildings. An elevation is a picture of the front of a

building, set upright and properly drawn in the proportions of the contemplated work.

Perspective is the method of sketching a front with the sides withdrawing into the back-

ground, the lines all meeting in the centre of a circle. All three come of reflexion and

invention. Reflexion is careful and laborious thought, and watchful attention directed to the

agreeable effect of one’s plan. Invention, on the other hand, is the solving of intricate

problems and the discovery of new principles by means of brilliancy and versatility. These are

the departments belonging under Arrangement.

3. Eurythmy is beauty and fitness in the adjustments of the members. This is found when the

members of a work are of a height suited to their breadth, of a breadth suited to their length, and,

in a word, when they all correspond symmetrically.

4. Symmetry is a proper agreement between the members of the work itself, and relation

between the different parts and the whole general scheme, in accordance with a certain part

selected as standard. Thus in the human body there is a kind of symmetrical harmony

between forearm, foot, palm, finger, and other small parts; and so it is with perfect buildings.

In the case of temples, symmetry may be calculated from the thickness of a column, from a

triglyph, or even from a module; in the ballista, from the hole or from what the Greeks call

the ��æ��æ��; in a ship, from the space between the tholepins (�Ø��ªÆ); and in other

things, from various members.

5. Propriety is that perfection of style which comes when a work is authoritatively

constructed on approved principles. It arises from prescription (Greek Ł�Æ�Ø�fiH), from

usage, or from nature. From prescription, in the case of hypaethral edifices, open to the sky,

in honour of Jupiter Lightning, the Heaven, the Sun, or the Moon: for these are gods whose

semblances and manifestations we behold before our very eyes in the sky when it is cloudless

and bright. The temples of Minerva, Mars, and Hercules, will be Doric, since the virile

strength of these gods makes daintiness entirely inappropriate to their houses. In temples to

Venus, Flora, Proserpine, Spring-Water, and the Nymphs, the Corinthian order will be found

to have peculiar significance, because these are delicate divinities and so its rather slender

outlines, its flowers, leaves, and ornamental volutes will lend propriety where it is due. The

construction of temples of the Ionic order to Juno, Diana, Father Bacchus, and the other gods

of that kind, will be in keeping with the middle position which they hold; for the building of

such will be an appropriate combination of the severity of the Doric and the delicacy of the

Corinthian.

6. Propriety arises from usage when buildings having magnificent interiors are provided

with elegant entrance-courts to correspond; for there will be no propriety in the spectacle of

an elegant interior approached by a low, mean entrance. Or, if dentils be carved in the

cornice of the Doric entablature or triglyphs represented in the Ionic entablature over

the cushion-shaped capitals of the columns, the effect will be spoilt by the transfer of the

peculiarities of the one order of building to the other, the usage in each class having been

fixed long ago.



7. Finally, propriety will be due to natural causes if, for example, in the case of all sacred

precincts we select very healthy neighbourhoods with suitable springs of water in the places

where the fanes are to be built, particularly in the case of those to Aesculapius and to Health,

gods by whose healing powers great numbers of the sick are apparently cured. For when

their diseased bodies are transferred from an unhealthy to a healthy spot, and treated with

waters from health-giving springs, they will the more speedily grow well. The result will be

that the divinity will stand in higher esteem and find his dignity increased, all owing to the

nature of his site. There will also be natural propriety in using an eastern light for bedrooms

and libraries, a western light in winter for baths and winter apartments, and a northern light

for picture galleries and other places in which a steady light is needed; for that quarter of the

sky grows neither light nor dark with the course of the sun, but remains steady and

unshifting all day long.

8. Economy denotes the proper management of materials and of site, as well as a thrifty

balancing of cost and common sense in the construction of works. This will be observed if,

in the first place, the architect does not demand things which cannot be found or made

ready without great expense. For example: it is not everywhere that there is plenty of

pitsand, rubble, fir, clear fir, and marble, since they are produced in different places and to

assemble them is difficult and costly. Where there is no pitsand, we must use the kinds

washed up by rivers or by the sea; the lack of fir and clear fir may be evaded by using

cypress, poplar, elm, or pine; and other problems we must solve in similar ways.

9. A second stage in Economy is reached when we have to plan the different kinds of

dwellings suitable for ordinary householders, for great wealth, or for the high position of the

statesman. A house in town obviously calls for one form of construction; that into which

stream the products of country estates requires another; this will not be the same in the case

of money-lenders and still different for the opulent and luxurious; for the powers under

whose deliberations the commonwealth is guided dwellings are to be provided according to

their special needs: and, in a word, the proper form of economy must be observed in

building houses for each and every class.

The Departments of Architecture

1. There are three departments of architecture: the art of building, the making of time-

pieces, and the construction of machinery. Building is, in its turn, divided into two parts, of

which the first is the construction of fortified towns and of works for general use in public

places, and the second is the putting up of structures for private individuals. There are three

classes of public buildings: the first for defensive, the second for religious, and the third for

utilitarian purposes. Under defence comes the planning of walls, towers, and gates, perman-

ent devices for resistance against hostile attacks; under religion, the erection of fanes and

temples to the immortal gods; under utility, the provision of meeting places for public use,

such as harbours, markets, colonnades, baths, theatres, promenades, and all other similar

arrangements in public places.

2. All these must be built with due reference to durability, convenience, and beauty.

Durability will be assured when foundations are carried down to the solid ground and


8 V I TRUV I US , ON ARCH I T ECTURE , BOOK 1

materials wisely and liberally selected; convenience, when the arrangement of the apart-

ments is faultless and presents no hindrance to use, and when each class of building is

assigned to its suitable and appropriate exposure; and beauty, when the appearance of the

work is pleasing and in good taste, and when its members are in due proportion according to

correct principles of symmetry.


Vitruvius devotes almost all of Book 2 of his treatise to a discussion of materials, but he introduces these

technical matters with his exposition on the origin of architecture. What this story reveals is the extent ofVitruvius’s travels, although it is unclear if he indeed ventured to Spain and Portugal. The vividness of his

description of the Phrygians suggests that he visited these parts of central and western Asia Minor, generally what is

today Turkey. He also seems to have visited Athens, but the city’s most famous monument – the Parthenon – isunfortunately not mentioned in his treatise. This passage also becomes important in the mid-eighteenth century

when Marc-Antoine Laugier, who is seeking to overturn the relevance of Vitruvian theory, again draws on theprimitive hut to prove that architecture is a rational art.

The Origin of the Dwelling House

1. The men of old were born like the wild beasts, in woods, caves, and groves, and lived

on savage fare. As time went on, the thickly crowded trees in a certain place, tossed by

storms and winds, and rubbing their branches against one another, caught fire, and so the

inhabitants of the place were put to flight, being terrified by the furious flame. After it

subsided, they drew near, and observing that they were very comfortable standing before the

warm fire, they put on logs and, while thus keeping it alive, brought up other people to it,

showing them by signs how much comfort they got from it. In that gathering of men, at a

time when utterance of sound was purely individual, from daily habits they fixed upon

articulate words just as these had happened to come; then, from indicating by name things

in common use, the result was that in this chance way they began to talk, and thus

originated conversation with one another.

2. Therefore it was the discovery of fire that originally gave rise to the coming together of

men, to the deliberative assembly, and to social intercourse. And so, as they kept coming

together in greater numbers into one place, finding themselves naturally gifted beyond the

other animals in not being obliged to walk with faces to the ground, but upright and gazing

upon the splendour of the starry firmament, and also in being able to do with ease whatever

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, from Book 2, chapter 1 of De architectura [On architecture] (c.25 BC), trans. Morris Hicky Morgan, in Vitruvius: The Ten Books on

Architecture. New York: Dover, 1960 (orig. 1914), pp. 38–41.



they chose with their hands and fingers, they began in that first assembly to construct

shelters. Some made them of green boughs, others dug caves on mountain sides, and some,

in imitation of the nests of swallows and the way they built, made places of refuge out of

mud and twigs. Next, by observing the shelters of others and adding new details to their own

inceptions, they constructed better and better kinds of huts as time went on.

3. And since they were of an imitative and teachable nature, they would daily point out to

each other the results of their building, boasting of the novelties in it; and thus, with their

natural gifts sharpened by emulation, their standards improved daily. At first they set up

forked stakes connected by twigs and covered these walls with mud. Others made walls of

lumps of dried mud, covering them with reeds and leaves to keep out the rain and the heat.

Finding that such roofs could not stand the rain during the storms of winter, they built them

with peaks daubed with mud, the roofs sloping and projecting so as to carry off the rain

water.

4. That houses originated as I have written above, we can see for ourselves from the

buildings that are to this day constructed of like materials by foreign tribes: for instance, in

Gaul, Spain, Portugal, and Aquitaine, roofed with oak shingles or thatched. Among the

Colchians in Pontus, where there are forests in plenty, they lay down entire trees flat on the

ground to the right and the left, leaving between them a space to suit the length of the trees,

and then place above these another pair of trees, resting on the ends of the former and at

right angles with them. These four trees enclose the space for the dwelling. Then upon these

they place sticks of timber, one after the other on the four sides, crossing each other at the

angles, and so, proceeding with their walls of trees laid perpendicularly above the lowest,

they build up high towers. The interstices, which are left on account of the thickness of the

building material, are stopped up with chips and mud. As for the roofs, by cutting away the

ends of the crossbeams and making them converge gradually as they lay them across, they

bring them up to the top from the four sides in the shape of a pyramid. They cover it with

leaves and mud, and thus construct the roofs of their towers in a rude form of the ‘‘tortoise’’

style.

5. On the other hand, the Phrygians, who live in an open country, have no forests and

consequently lack timber. They therefore select a natural hillock, run a trench through the

middle of it, dig passages, and extend the interior space as widely as the site admits. Over it

they build a pyramidal roof of logs fastened together, and this they cover with reeds and

brushwood, heaping up very high mounds of earth above their dwellings. Thus their fashion

in houses makes their winters very warm and their summers very cool. Some construct

hovels with roofs of rushes from the swamps. Among other nations, also, in some places

there are huts of the same or a similar method of construction. Likewise at Marseilles we can

see roofs without tiles, made of earth mixed with straw. In Athens on the Areopagus there is

to this day a relic of antiquity with a mud roof. The hut of Romulus on the Capitol is a

significant reminder of the fashions of old times, and likewise the thatched roofs of temples

on the Citadel.

6. From such specimens we can draw our inferences with regard to the devices used in

the buildings of antiquity, and conclude that they were similar.

Furthermore, as men made progress by becoming daily more expert in building, and as

their ingenuity was increased by their dexterity so that from habit they attained to consid-

erable skill, their intelligence was enlarged by their industry until the more proficient


10 V I TRUV I US , ON ARCH I T EC TURE , BOOK 2

adopted the trade of carpenters. From these early beginnings, and from the fact that nature

had not only endowed the human race with senses like the rest of the animals, but had also

equipped their minds with the powers of thought and understanding, thus putting all other

animals under their sway, they next gradually advanced from the construction of buildings to

the other arts and sciences, and so passed from a rude and barbarous mode of life to

civilization and refinement.

7. Then, taking courage and looking forward from the standpoint of higher ideas born of

the multiplication of the arts, they gave up huts and began to build houses with foundations,

having brick or stone walls, and roofs of timber and tiles; next, observation and application

led them from fluctuating and indefinite conceptions to definite rules of symmetry. Per-

ceiving that nature had been lavish in the bestowal of timber and bountiful in stores of

building material, they treated this like careful nurses, and thus developing the refinements

of life, embellished them with luxuries.


Vitruvian theory is sometimes described as anthropomorphic in the sense that he predicates proportional ruleson the ratios of the human body. Here, in this explication of the idea of ‘‘symmetry’’ in Book 3, he supplies

this theoretical basis for why proportions are important. His description of a man with outstretched limbs,placed within a circle and square, later becomes the basis for various Renaissance sketches, the most famous of

which is that of Leonardo da Vinci. This proportional aligning of architecture with the human figure, or moregenerally with the proportional rules of nature, will become a cornerstone of classical theory.

On Symmetry: In Temples and in the Human Body

1. The design of a temple depends on symmetry, the principles of which must be most

carefully observed by the architect. They are due to proportion, in Greek �anal�g�iia.

Proportion is a correspondence among the measures of the members of an entire work,

and of the whole to a certain part selected as standard. From this result the principles of

symmetry. Without symmetry and proportion there can be no principles in the design of any

temple; that is, if there is no precise relation between its members, as in the case of those of a

well shaped man.

2. For the human body is so designed by nature that the face, from the chin to the top of

the forehead and the lowest roots of the hair, is a tenth part of the whole height; the open

hand from the wrist to the tip of the middle finger is just the same; the head from the chin to




V I TRUV IUS , ON ARCH I T ECTURE , BOOK 3 11

the crown is an eighth, and with the neck and shoulder from the top of the breast to the

lowest roots of the hair is a sixth; from the middle of the breast to the summit of the crown

is a fourth. If we take the height of the face itself, the distance from the bottom of the chin to

the under side of the nostrils is one third of it; the nose from the under side of the nostrils to

a line between the eyebrows is the same; from there to the lowest roots of the hair is also a

third, comprising the forehead. The length of the foot is one sixth of the height of the body;

of the forearm, one fourth; and the breadth of the breast is also one fourth. The other

members, too, have their own symmetrical proportions, and it was by employing them that

the famous painters and sculptors of antiquity attained to great and endless renown.

3. Similarly, in the members of a temple there ought to be the greatest harmony in the

symmetrical relations of the different parts to the general magnitude of the whole. Then

again, in the human body the central point is naturally the navel. For if a man be placed flat

on his back, with his hands and feet extended, and a pair of compasses centred at his navel,

the fingers and toes of his two hands and feet will touch the circumference of a circle

described therefrom. And just as the human body yields a circular outline, so too a square

figure may be found from it. For if we measure the distance from the soles of the feet to the

top of the head, and then apply that measure to the outstretched arms, the breadth will be

found to be the same as the height, as in the case of plane surfaces which are perfectly

square.

4. Therefore, since nature has designed the human body so that its members are duly

proportioned to the frame as a whole, it appears that the ancients had good reason for their

rule, that in perfect buildings the different members must be in exact symmetrical relations

to the whole general scheme. Hence, while transmitting to us the proper arrangements for

buildings of all kinds, they were particularly careful to do so in the case of temples of the

gods, buildings in which merits and faults usually last forever.


No book reveals the ‘‘Roman’’ character of De architectura better than Book 4, the Preface to which forms

this dedication to the Emperor Augustus Caesar. Vitruvius, in his ambition to write a ‘‘complete and orderlyform of presentation,’’ obviously felt he was setting a historical precedent. Even more enchanting to later

generations is his often-repeated discussion of the origin of the three architectural orders: the Doric, Ionic, and

Corinthian. These stories are sometimes said to compose the ‘‘mythology’’ of architecture, fables that wereeventually discredited by the rational forces of the Western Enlightenment, but once again they demonstrate the

anthropomorphic basis of Vitruvian theory. One sentence within this passage that should not be overlooked is hisadmission that the proportions for both the Doric and Ionic columns changed after some ‘‘progress in refinement

and delicacy of feeling.’’ Renaissance humanists, operating from a very different aesthetic basis, regarded this





remark as a fault of his theory and sought to find hard and fast rules for proportions, ones that would not

change over time. In the end, this dispute over the invariability of proportions would eventually lead classical theoryinto a crisis.

The Origins of the Three Orders, and the Proportions of theCorinthian Capital

1. Corinthian columns are, excepting in their capitals, of the same proportions in all

respects as Ionic; but the height of their capitals gives them proportionately a taller and more

slender effect. This is because the height of the Ionic capital is only one third of the thickness

of the column, while that of the Corinthian is the entire thickness of the shaft. Hence, as two

thirds are added in Corinthian capitals, their tallness gives a more slender appearance to the

columns themselves.

2. The other members which are placed above the columns, are, for Corinthian columns,

composed either of the Doric proportions or according to the Ionic usages; for the

Corinthian order never had any scheme peculiar to itself for its cornices or other ornaments,

but may have mutules in the coronae and guttae on the architraves according to the triglyph

system of the Doric style, or, according to Ionic practices, it may be arranged with a frieze

adorned with sculptures and accompanied with dentils and coronae.

3. Thus a third architectural order, distinguished by its capital, was produced out of the

two other orders. To the forms of their columns are due the names of the three orders,

Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, of which the Doric was the first to arise, and in early times. For

Dorus, the son of Hellen and the nymph Phthia, was king of Achaea and all the Peloponne-

sus, and he built a fane, which chanced to be of this order, in the precinct of Juno at Argolis,

a very ancient city, and subsequently others of the same order in the other cities of Achaea,

although the rules of symmetry were not yet in existence.

4. Later, the Athenians, in obedience to oracles of the Delphic Apollo, and with the

general agreement of all Hellas, despatched thirteen colonies at one time to Asia Minor,

appointing leaders for each colony and giving the command-in-chief to Ion, son of Xuthus

and Creusa (whom further Apollo at Delphi in the oracles had acknowledged as his son). Ion

conducted those colonies to Asia Minor, took possession of the land of Caria, and there

founded the grand cities of Ephesus, Miletus, Myus (long ago engulfed by the water, and its

sacred rites and suffrage handed over by the Ionians to the Milesians), Priene, Samos, Teos,

Colophon, Chius, Erythrae, Phocaea, Clazomenae, Lebedos, and Melite. This Melite, on

account of the arrogance of its citizens, was destroyed by the other cities in a war declared by

general agreement, and in its place, through the kindness of King Attalus and Arsinoe, the

city of the Smyrnaeans was admitted among the Ionians.

5. Now these cities, after driving out the Carians and Lelegans, called that part of the

world Ionia from their leader Ion, and there they set off precincts for the immortal gods and

began to build fanes: first of all, a temple to Panionion Apollo such as they had seen in

Achaea, calling it Doric because they had first seen that kind of temple built in the states of

the Dorians.


V I TRUV IUS , ON ARCH I T ECTURE , BOOK 4 13

6. Wishing to set up columns in that temple, but not having rules for their symmetry, and

being in search of some way by which they could render them fit to bear a load and also of a

satisfactory beauty of appearance, they measured the imprint of a man’s foot and compared

this with his height. On finding that, in a man, the foot was one sixth of the height, they

applied the same principle to the column, and reared the shaft, including the capital, to a

height six times its thickness at its base. Thus the Doric column, as used in buildings, began

to exhibit the proportions, strength, and beauty of the body of a man.

7. Just so afterwards, when they desired to construct a temple to Diana in a new style of

beauty, they translated these footprints into terms characteristic of the slenderness of

women, and thus first made a column the thickness of which was only one eighth of its

height, so that it might have a taller look. At the foot they substituted the base in place of a

shoe; in the capital they placed the volutes, hanging down at the right and left like curly

ringlets, and ornamented its front with cymatia and with festoons of fruit arranged in place

of hair, while they brought the flutes down the whole shaft, falling like the folds in the robes

worn by matrons. Thus in the invention of the two different kinds of columns, they

borrowed manly beauty, naked and unadorned, for the one, and for the other the delicacy,

adornment, and proportions characteristic of women.

8. It is true that posterity, having made progress in refinement and delicacy of feeling, and

finding pleasure in more slender proportions, has established seven diameters of the

thickness as the height of the Doric column, and nine as that of the Ionic. The Ionians,

however, originated the order which is therefore named Ionic.

The third order, called Corinthian, is an imitation of the slenderness of a maiden; for the

outlines and limbs of maidens, being more slender on account of their tender years, admit of

prettier effects in the way of adornment.

9. It is related that the original discovery of this form of capital was as follows. A freeborn

maiden of Corinth, just of marriageable age, was attacked by an illness and passed away.

After her burial, her nurse, collecting a few little things which used to give the girl pleasure

while she was alive, put them in a basket, carried it to the tomb, and laid it on top thereof,

covering it with a roof-tile so that the things might last longer in the open air. This basket

happened to be placed just above the root of an acanthus. The acanthus root, pressed down

meanwhile though it was by the weight, when springtime came round put forth leaves and

stalks in the middle, and the stalks, growing up along the sides of the basket, and pressed out

by the corners of the tile through the compulsion of its weight, were forced to bend into

volutes at the outer edges.

10. Just then Callimachus, whom the Athenians called katathj�iit«xn�§ for the refine-

ment and delicacy of his artistic work, passed by this tomb and observed the basket with the

tender young leaves growing round it. Delighted with the novel style and form, he built

some columns after that pattern for the Corinthians, determined their symmetrical propor-

tions, and established from that time forth the rules to be followed in finished works of the

Corinthian order.



5 OLD TESTAMENTfrom I Kings

Vitruvius died more than two decades before the birth of Christ, and thus he could not have imagined what

would become the Judeo-Christian tradition and its eventual assimilation into the Roman Empire. Thisreligious tradition was, in fact, a parallel world existing alongside Greco-Roman antiquity, with similar yet

different ties to the various cultures of the Middle East and Egypt. In Hebrew canon, the two Old Testament books ofKings formed one volume and constituted one of the eight books of the Prophets. Together they compose legendary

Jewish history from the time of Ahaziah (c.850 BC) to the release of Jehoiachin from Babylonian imprisonment(c.561 BC). Its author is sometimes said to be Jeremiah, who lived in the late seventh and sixth centuries, although

this point has been disputed.I Kings gains its importance to architectural theory because it contains one of the oldest descriptions of

architecture that has survived into modern times. Moreover, it describes the famed Temple of Solomon: the templebuilt in Jerusalem by King Solomon in the mid-tenth century and destroyed by the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar in586 BC. The complex was constructed by Phoenician artisans and its centerpiece was the sanctuary, in front of which

stood the two bronze pillars of Yachin and Boaz. The following two passages make clear the importance of costlymaterials to the chronicler, but equally the importance of numerical proportions (in this case supplied by the Lord

himself) to preclassical design. Numeric ratios were thus central not only to the Greco-Roman civilization but also theJudaic and later Christian cultures as well.

Chapter 6

Solomon builds the temple

And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were

come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the

month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

2 And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof was

threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits.

3 And the porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was the length thereof,

according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was the breadth thereof before the house.

4 And for the house he made windows of narrow lights.

5 And against the wall of the house he built chambers round about, against the walls of

the house round about, both of the temple and of the oracle: and he made chambers round

about:

6 The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad,

and the third was seven cubits broad: for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed

rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house.

Old Testament, from I Kings, chapters 6 and 7 in the King James version of the Holy Bible.


OLD TESTAMENT , I K I NGS 15

7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was

brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the

house, while it was in building.

8 The door for the middle chamber was in the right side of the house: and they went up

with winding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third.

9 So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of

cedar.

10 And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high: and they rested on

the house with timber of cedar.

11 And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying,

12 Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and

execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I

perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father:

13 And I will dwell among the chi

Documents

arquiteturavirtual.weebly.com · CONTENTS Preface xxi General Introduction xxiii Part I: Classicism and the Renaissance 1 A. The Classical and Medieval Traditions 3 Introduction 3