Four Historical Definitions of Architecture 9780773586871

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
1 Introduction
2 Architecture as a Techn?
3 Architecture as a Mechanical Art
4 Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts
5 Architecture as an Art of Disegno
6 Alberti and the Arts of Disegno
7 Vasari and the Arts of Disegno
8 Architecture as a Fine Art
9 Boullée and the Fine Arts
10 Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
V
X
Z

Citation preview

FO U R H I S TO R I C A L DEFINITIONS OF A R C H I T E CT U R E

This page intentionally left blank

FO U R H I S TO R I C A L DEFINITIONS OF ARCHITECTURE

STEPHEN PARCELL

McGILL-QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY PRESS Montreal & Kingston • London • Ithaca

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2012 isbn 978-0-7735-3956-3 Legal deposit second quarter 2012 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Aid to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. McGill-Queen’s University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund for our publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Parcell, Stephen, 1954– Four historical definitions of architecture / Stephen Parcell. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-7735-3956-3 1. Architecture—Philosophy. 2. Architecture—Europe—History. I. Title. na2500.p37 2012

720.1

c2011-905309-8

Designed and typeset by studio oneonone in Minion 10.2/14

Contents

Acknowledgments vii 1

Introduction 3

2

Architecture as a Techne¯ 21

3

Architecture as a Mechanical Art 40

4

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts 59

5

Architecture as an Art of Disegno 105

6

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno 122

7

Vasari and the Arts of Disegno 149

8

Architecture as a Fine Art 178

9

Boullée and the Fine Arts 220

10

Conclusion 248 Notes 255 Bibliography 309 Index 331

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

This book began as a doctoral dissertation at McGill University, completed under the supervision of Dr Alberto Pérez-Gómez. I wish to acknowledge not only his guidance and inspiration, but also the generous academic setting he has provided for devotees of architectural history, theory, and philosophy. Dalhousie University awarded sabbatical leaves for research, reflection, and writing. I also wish to acknowledge my students and colleagues at Carleton University (1984–87) and Dalhousie University (since 1987), whose architectural projects raised questions that are pursued historically in this book. I am grateful to the Canadian Centre for Architecture for providing a generous year-long residence as a research associate that enabled historical core samples to be extracted from the depths of its collection.

This page intentionally left blank

FO U R H I S TO R I C A L DEFINITIONS OF A R C H I T E CT U R E

This page intentionally left blank

1 Introduction

This book investigates four historical definitions of Western architecture: as a techne¯ in ancient Greece, as a mechanical art in medieval Europe, as an art of disegno in Renaissance Italy, and as a fine art in eighteenth-century Europe. These definitions situated architecture within larger classifications of knowledge. They established alliances between architecture and other disciplines. They also influenced elements of architectural practice that we now associate with three characters (the designer, the builder, and the dweller) and three things (material, drawing, and building). The book examines writings in these historical periods and focuses on the practical implications of several texts: Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon; Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria, Book 1; and Étienne-Louis Boullée, Essai sur l’art. As a series, these four historical definitions show how the concept of architecture and the elements of architectural practice have changed. Even the word “architecture” has ambiguous roots. Before embarking on a journey into architectural history, this introduction pauses to reflect on circumstances in the present. It considers some epistemological issues, raises some questions about current architectural practices, and prepares an itinerary for the historical chapters. It also steps briefly into a cognate discipline, music, that has shared some common ground with architecture for several hundred years and has begun a critical journey into its own historical definitions. Listening to philosophers of music discuss their discipline enables light to be cast obliquely onto our own. This musical preamble begins with a vivid institutional description by Christopher Small, placed in a historical and philosophical context by Lydia Goehr, and situated epistemologically by Paul Oskar Kristeller in a modern

classification that includes architecture. This preamble is followed by an equivalent circuit through current architectural conventions before departing for ancient Greece. This is the first of many interdisciplinary relationships that will be formed or broken throughout the book.

A Musical Preamble Musicking In Musicking, Christopher Small analyzes a typical performance of Western concert music.1 He focuses on first-hand experience – the setting, the event, the characters, and their relationships – in a way that is both familiar and remote, using critical distance and some wry humour to question what we normally take for granted. From outside, the concert hall is a grand building in the city, a beacon of culture for the initiated. After passing through a large entrance, we arrive in a grand foyer. It is decorated with chandeliers, statues, and mirrors, or is distorted spatially with ascending stairways, sloped ceilings, and angled walls that induce mild disorientation. This is a space for socializing and anticipating the performance to come. Cued by a signal, we enter the auditorium and find the seats that have been assigned. The inner space of the auditorium is even larger than the foyer: a self-contained world with no vestiges of the city outside. There are no windows through which daylight or views can enter. The auditorium is also insulated from exterior sounds. Conversely, sounds inside the auditorium will remain contained. The decor of the hall is opulent but subdued, suggesting wealth but also seriousness. All of the seats face the same direction: toward a raised platform. The floor is sloped to provide a sightline from each seat. The seats are fixed and no one is permitted to move. Looking forward, one cannot see faces, only the backs of heads. In the auditorium, social activity among audience members is prohibited once the performance has begun. As the word “auditorium” suggests, this room is dedicated to hearing. One’s experience of the performance must not be disturbed by talking, coughing, foot-tapping, or humming. The performance is a form of communication in which the listener receives but does not respond in a noticeable way. The design of the auditorium and its accompanying etiquette indicate that this is an event for many private individuals, not for 4

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

a social group. During the performance, an invisible threshold at the edge of the stage separates the performers from the listeners. Physical contact between the two groups is prohibited. The performers remain out of sight before the performance and disappear soon after it finishes. The performers and the audience also use separate doors to enter and exit the building. The performance begins. Led by a conductor, the performers faithfully follow the notations in the score from beginning to end. The composer probably died long ago, so the score is now the sole authority. The musical work is presented for its own sake. It is not an accompaniment to a social event. The audience listens attentively to appreciate the musical work through the performance. A stellar performance will let the work shine through. Any emotions expressed by the performers suggest that the composer felt similar emotions and wished to evoke them in the listeners. After being performed thousands of times, this work has become part of the classical canon. By comparing this performance to others, listeners can discern subtle differences and judge its relative merits. The audience marks the end of the performance by applauding. The performers bow to the audience and depart. As Christopher Small and others have noted, we take this institution for granted as the standard way of composing, performing, and listening to music; however, it is barely two hundred years old and is European in origin. Due to its formal etiquette, a classical concert with Mozart or Beethoven on the bill provides the clearest example of this institution in action, but the same relationships are evident in performances of popular music and even recorded music. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works In The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, Lydia Goehr situates the concert hall in a larger historical and philosophical context.2 She notes that Western music had been composed, performed, and listened to differently in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Composers were aware of the occasion at which their music would be performed, then customized the music to suit the particular instruments, place, and occasion. Their notations provided only basic guidelines for the performers, who improvised accordingly. The composer also might be present to perform and keep time. People attending a musical event did not merely listen but would applaud, Introduction

5

talk, or sing along. The music accompanied the social event; it was not valued for its own sake. The person who commissioned the music was regarded as its owner. In the late eighteenth century, these elements of musical practice began to transform into the institution described by Christopher Small. Goehr associates elements of the concert hall with a pair of theoretical concepts – das Werk (‘the work’) and die Werktreue (‘fidelity to the work’, ‘authenticity’) – that developed in Germany and spread to other Western countries. When composers started referring to their products as “works,” this was not a benign change in terminology. The “musical work” concept defined a new network of socio-political relationships involving the composer, the performer, the listener, the sound, the performance, and the score. The companion concept, die Werktreue, refers to the faithfulness with which musicians perform the work by following the notations in the score, without adding anything superfluous or inconsistent. It also refers to the faithfulness with which listeners attend to the music when it is being performed. The musical work has a curious ontological profile: It is not a concrete, physical object. It is not a private idea in the mind of a composer, performer, or listener. It does not exist in an eternal world of ideal, uncreated forms. It is not identical to any one of its performances. Its parts exist simultaneously, not temporally. It is not identical to its score, but performances and the score enable the work to be detected. The musical work is also a governing concept that regulates a network of practices and institutions. The composer is recognized as the creator of the work and is entitled to ownership and copyright protection. The composition must be sufficiently novel to avoid plagiarism, even of a composer’s previous work. The composer is expected to notate the work comprehensively in a score. Once the work is notated, it can exist on its own, without the composer. A musical work is not necessarily composed for a particular event or particular performers. Once created, the musical work exists in a virtual museum where it is fixed for posterity and may be brought out periodically for performance. To perform a work faithfully, the performers must follow the notation from beginning to end. If some characteristics (such as tempo and dynamics) are not fully notated, the performers must add them in a way that is faithful to the work. The listeners must pay close attention so that the work can be recognized through the performance.

6

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

These ontological and practical properties encompass not only “serious” music but also popular music and even folk music.3 Goehr notes that some individuals in the twentieth century composed or performed music in ways that challenged a few of these properties but did not really abandon the “work” concept or devise a comprehensive alternative.4 Like Christopher Small, Lydia Goehr presents current musical conventions in a critical way, stressing that their philosophical framework is not timeless and universal but is only two hundred years old and European in origin. Alternatives are invited but inertia is recognized. The Modern System of the Arts These two books by Small and Goehr focus strictly on music, but an architect who reads them may notice parallels in architecture. Mapping one discipline metaphorically onto the other relies on analogies between composer and designer, performer and builder, listener and dweller, sound and material, score and drawing, and performance and building. Parallels between the concept of a musical work and the concept of an architectural work also may be evident. The larger framework that permits this mapping is an epistemological classification, the fine arts, that has included both music and architecture for the past 250 years. In his two-part essay “The Modern System of the Arts,” Paul Oskar Kristeller notes that the five major fine arts (painting, sculpture, poetry, music, and architecture) were rooted in ancient, medieval, and Renaissance thought, but did not form a set until the eighteenth century.5 Kristeller points out that concepts of taste, sentiment, genius, originality, and creative imagination are associated with the development of modern aesthetics in France, England, and Germany. He adds that the fine arts still rely on these concepts, despite minor modulations.6 To present the fine arts as a historically limited field, the first half of his essay surveys earlier eras in which these five arts were conceived differently and were not necessarily associated with one another. The second half of his essay discusses theoretical writings in the eighteenth century. As a scholar of Renaissance philosophy, Kristeller recognized the historical limits of the modern fine arts within a broader horizon. His essay is an implicit invitation for others to investigate the changing historical definitions of particular arts.

Introduction

7

Epistemological Classifications The present study accepts Kristeller’s invitation by considering four definitions of architecture, each in a particular historical situation: • architecture as a techne¯ (ancient Greece) • architecture as a mechanical art (medieval Western Europe) • architecture as an art of disegno (Renaissance Italy) • architecture as a fine art (eighteenth-century Western Europe) Each definition (techne¯, mechanical art, art of disegno, or fine art) is an epistemological classification that includes architecture and two or more other disciplines. Kristeller’s essay mentions these four definitions only briefly and does not discuss architecture in particular.7 Although many writers have studied architectural intentions and buildings in these historical periods, no one has focused on these definitions of architecture. There have been brief references to these classifications in publications on architecture; and brief references to architecture in publications on these classifications.8 By pursuing the classifications that Kristeller mentions, this book considers historical changes in the very definition of architecture. In each of the four definitions (e.g., architecture as a techne¯), the word “as” points to a larger classification where architecture is rooted during a certain period. It does not suggest a theatrical role, as if architecture were a timeless, universal discipline that can wear different masks at will. Historical definitions of architecture are not limited to four. One could also pursue ars contemplativa and ars fabricandi, for example. The four definitions in the present study are major classifications in significant historical periods. Beyond our discipline of architecture, one of the academic contexts for this study is the history of epistemological classifications. Epistemology organizes human knowledge, usually in a hierarchic structure. When viewed from the top down, a singular, all-encompassing subject (often philosophy) is divided into a hierarchy of descending categories (e.g., fine art, science), which in turn are divided into disciplines (e.g., music, architecture). When viewed from the bottom up, many individual disciplines are assembled into a hierarchy of ascending categories, which in turn are assembled into a unified concept of knowledge. Each category (e.g., fine art) recognizes the shared properties of its disciplines (e.g., music, architecture) but disregards 8

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Detail of epistemological diagram from Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning [1605], ed. William Aldis Wright (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869).

their differences. Just as an individual member of a family is designated by two names, the identity of a discipline is based on both its individuality and the larger classification where it resides (e.g., architecture as a fine art). As we shall see, disciplines in the same epistemological category share a family resemblance but also a sibling rivalry. The concept of “discipline” comes from Latin disciplina ‘instruction of pupils’.9 It encompasses various elements of theory and practice: principles, methods, terms, practitioners, an authoritative canon, publications, courses, and communal events.10 Introduction

9

As the history of epistemology has shown, hierarchies, levels, categories, disciplines, and subdisciplines are not timeless.11 This is evident from the different classifications of knowledge in treatises and encyclopedias, as well as the different assemblies of subjects in academies and universities since 1900. At the lower levels in the hierarchy, new disciplines and alliances are frequently formed or dissolved, while the upper levels remain more constant. From ancient Rome to the Renaissance, the “liberal arts” classification (artes liberales), which typically included the trivium (language arts) and the quadrivium (mathematical arts), provided a stable reference for many disciplines, including architecture.12 Because disciplines are not timeless and universal, statements such as “Architecture is …” and especially “Architecture has always been …” should be qualified within historical and cultural limits to avoid projecting modern Western concepts beyond their horizon. Disciplines and classifications are rooted in particular historical periods, so they operate at a scale that is smaller than the philosophical context of Western civilization and the universal context of the human condition. As Chapter 2 will show, the ancient Greeks had no word or concept that corresponds to “architecture.” The word originated in ancient Rome. This philological detail suggests not only that the definition of architecture is variable, but that the very concept of architecture has historical limits. Therefore, attempts to define an architecture of Western civilization or an architecture of the human condition may require deeper premises than what are available to us through the word “architecture.” Conversely, the historical variability of “architecture” suggests that the future is open to new definitions – and perhaps a reconstitution of the discipline in which the word “architecture” is retired in favour of something new.

Current Elements of Practice Another academic context for the present study is the history of architectural practice. In the modern era, three characters (designer, builder, dweller) and three things (material, drawing, building) are basic elements that mark out a conventional field of practice in architecture. Each element has particular properties and particular relations to the other elements. As Christopher Small and Lydia Goehr have shown, similar elements have marked out a 10

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

conventional field of practice in music since the eighteenth century: three characters (composer, performer, listener) and three things (sound, score, performance). Descriptions of architecture in current publications and lectures typically emphasize two elements of practice and let the rest disappear into blind spots. Consequently, we are led to believe that designers produce buildings. This oversimplifies and distorts the field of practice. Framing the field in this narrow way promotes two beliefs: that the designer is a creator, and that the building is an aesthetic object. This has several consequences: It marginalizes the builders and the process of construction; it neutralizes the dwellers and the social program for the building; it disregards the building’s materiality and earthly context; and it skips over the representations with which the design is developed. When these four other elements are recognized, the field of practice expands once again. Acknowledging that designing, building, and dwelling are gradual processes rather than timeless states is also a reminder that architecture is not just spatial but also temporal. As Kristeller’s essay shows, modern premises did not necessarily exist in earlier periods. Using modern concepts such as “designer” and “aesthetic object” to interpret architectural work in ancient Greece, for example, would misconstrue that distant field of practice. Conversely, ignoring different elements of practice in history would shrink our own horizon. Instead, this book takes a hermeneutic approach by weaving six elements of current architectural practice across those historical periods. Anachronistic juxtaposition is bound to cause ripples but also may challenge our current conventions. The motivation for this historical study is not to pursue history as an antiquarian exercise but to understand current concepts and practices in a broader context. In music, Small, Goehr, and others present historical analyses but also critiques that question the conventional roles of the composer, performer, and listener, along with the conventional concepts of sound, score, and performance. They also question the current definition of the discipline of music and the governing concept of the musical work. To promote comparisons among historical periods, the template of terms in the matrix below is a current “weft” that extends horizontally through the “warp” of the historical chapters. The first term defines the discipline. The next six terms are elements of practice. The final term is a governing concept that regulates those elements. These eight current terms Introduction

11

Eight current terms and four historical definitions of architecture.

reappear differently in eight numbered subheadings in Chapters 2, 4, 6, and 9, which in turn are assembled in Chapter 10. The typical concert hall event described by Small and Goehr is a compact situation where most of the six elements of musical practice are present and the tensions among them are experienced directly. Equivalent elements in architectural practice are more dispersed, both spatially and temporally, so relationships among them are encountered less often and less vividly. The following description brings them together in a way that is both familiar and remote, using the design, construction, and inhabitation of a small, fictional workplace to illustrate basic elements and relationships in current architectural practice. Like Small’s critical account of the concert hall, it presents the bare bones and ligaments of our conventional system, without the flesh with which better projects cover its sharp edges and articulated joints. 1 Architecture It seems odd to refer to this small workplace project as “architecture.” “Architecture” is an abstract noun. It is inherently singular and does not designate particular things such as buildings. Recognizing architecture is difficult because many different lines have been drawn between what is 12

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

and is not architecture: proportionate vs. non-proportionate, ornate vs. plain, grand vs. humble, complex vs. simple, unique vs. typical, rich vs. poor, sacred vs. secular, etc. The word “architecture” is now sufficiently ambiguous to be adopted for novel domains such as “molecular architecture” and “computer architecture,” in which the word designates a complex organization.13 Conventions in education and practice have reinforced architecture’s ambiguity. Since the mid-nineteenth century, the discipline of architecture has been studied at a senior university level.14 It is now regarded as a composite subject defined indirectly by the multiple facets it shares with other subjects such as art, engineering, sociology, psychology, and history. Because architecture has no presence in primary or secondary education, it is assumed to be an esoteric subject with no roots in earlier experience. Aptitude for architecture is often assumed from a student’s talents in cognate subjects such as drawing and mathematics, or from equal strengths in arts and sciences. As a practice, architecture is defined by government legislation and regulated by professional bodies that determine who is and who is not an architect. By law, only registered architects can make architecture. 2 Designer In the simplest scenario, a designer is one person who receives a commission, develops a design, obtains approvals, and notates instructions for a builder. In a larger and more complex project, the designer would be divided into multiple figures, such as a project architect, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, interior designer, and cost consultant. After receiving the commission and an initial fee, the designer meets with the dweller to discuss the objectives and constraints for the workplace project. The esoteric references they bring to the conversation induce mild disorientation. This is a time for getting acquainted and anticipating the building to come. The designer returns to the studio and composes a design on paper, using lines to notate the edges of surfaces and volumes. The design is mainly a composition of forms, assembled in a harmonious way. The designer keeps certain internal and external forces in mind but does not represent them explicitly. The design responds to the dweller’s objectives but also expresses the designer’s own character and ambition. It is expected to be unique, with a form that is somewhat different from all other buildings Introduction

13

in the world. The designer draws characteristics from previous designs but does not analyze those designs rigorously and does not regard ancestors as the ultimate authority. The designer does not believe that there is a single, perfect design for this workplace that is waiting to be discovered. Instead, designs are relative and the criteria for evaluating them are variable. When the design for this new workplace is finished, the designer is recognized legally as its author. The federal government grants the designer copyright protection from others who might copy the form of this design. One also cannot copy one’s previous work, as this would constitute selfplagiarism. The design represents the project in its finished state. All of its components are notated before construction can begin. A clear line separates the designer from the builder. The designer’s contribution ends with the completion of the drawing. The drawing shows that the designer is only generally aware of the materials that will be used and the abilities of the builder who will acquire and assemble them. The designer’s awareness of construction comes from books and perhaps from watching builders in action, not from previous hands-on experience. Consequently, the drawings include a few technical misunderstandings that the builder finds amusing. The designer does not meet the builder during construction but obtains a photograph of the completed workplace as soon as the builder leaves. 3 Material From the earth’s point of view, materials remain constant. Nothing is really created or destroyed. Human beings, like forces of nature, move materials from one place to another or change their chemical composition. Before commissioning this new workplace, the dweller concluded that the earth’s current distribution of materials did not provide what was needed, and assumed that materials could be redistributed to address the new objectives. In accepting the commission, the designer implicitly agrees. The designer’s drawing does not represent materials explicitly, but its formal composition implies that certain materials will be used. The designer believes that the form of the design is primary and its materials are a secondary resource. The design uses common materials with properties the designer recalls from earlier encounters. The designer does not push the properties of these materials beyond their normal limits so that the design 14

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

will not be compromised during the building stage. The design is developed with an assumption that a typical builder will have the equipment and skills to distribute the materials into the prescribed forms. 4 Dweller The dweller can furnish a room but lacks the qualifications to design and build a larger workplace. In the simplest scenario, a dweller commissions the design of a building, monitors its composition, receives the finished building, lives in it, and observes its relation to other things. In a larger and more complex project, an individual dweller would be divided into multiple figures, such as a client, regulator, financier, owner, tenant, and observer. The dweller presents a simple program to the designer. Shelter is already presumed, so the program focuses on additional objectives and constraints. These conditions inform only a few characteristics of the design. The rest come from the designer. The final workplace expresses the ambitions of both the designer and the dweller. Both refer to it as “mine.” The designer (or a hired photographer) photographs the workplace as soon as the builder leaves but before the dweller begins to use it and alter it. This photograph freezes the workplace in a state that conveys the maximum influence of the designer. It is similar to the designer’s initial drawing of the workplace, but now the image is more lifelike. This photograph may be published later as an authoritative record of the designer’s creation. The acceptance of photography suggests that the work can be appreciated sufficiently through visual representations, without invoking other senses or bodily experience. As soon as the photograph is taken, the dweller can introduce other furnishings and start using the workplace. However, because the design is expressive and authoritative – and because the designer happened to be famous – the dweller feels obliged to furnish the workplace in a way that is faithful to the design. 5 Builder The designer and the builder of this workplace project are separate figures. Professional and union regulations prohibit designers from participating in construction, but visual supervision is permitted. In the simplest scenario, Introduction

15

a builder receives the drawing, brings equipment, acquires the materials, and assembles them into a building. In a larger and more complex project, an individual builder would be divided into multiple figures, such as a general contractor, foreman, tradesmen, and labourers. The builder is hired after the design is completed, never meeting either the designer or the dweller. The builder’s primary reference is the drawing, which stands as a contract. If the drawing does not describe all of the details, the builder would have to obtain clarifications from the designer or fill in the blanks in a way that is faithful to the design. Because this workplace is built only once, it is not possible to compare different interpretations of it by different builders. Therefore, the builder is regarded not as an interpreter who translates a drawing strategically into a building, but as a transmitter who follows directions without making mistakes. Consequently, the builder is less prominent than the two other figures and does not receive public recognition. Still, the builder also refers to the finished building as “mine.” 6 Building This building is recognized as a singular form, even though it adjoins other buildings. Because a design is expected to be unique, it cannot just blend into the continuum of the city. The building does not have a name, only a street address. The name of the dweller’s business is displayed on the front of the building, but if the business ever moves to another location, the name will move with it. The names of the designer, the builder, and the dweller do not appear on the building, but the designer (and perhaps the dweller) will be mentioned if the design is published. The building is not a precise reflection of anyone’s expectations. The designer cannot conduct full-scale rehearsals on-site and make adjustments along the way. Therefore, some parts of the building seem larger or smaller than expected, with some odd details that were not considered when preparing the drawing. Certain parts of the building display an odd mode of representation, as if they were geometric forms made with gigantic drawing instruments rather than building elements made from materials. The prefabricated items selected from catalogues also seem odd in their new setting.

16

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Throughout the day and throughout the year, the building does not perform quite as expected, so additional climate controls and partitions are installed. This building displays a medium level of craft and finish. Particular types of buildings do not necessarily warrant a high or low level of craft, based on their civic importance or inherent longevity. The level of craft depends largely on the funds that the dweller wishes to allocate to the design, the building, and its subsequent maintenance. A high level of finish is never expected in parts of a building that are hidden from view. 7 Drawing The primary purpose of the drawing is to instruct the builder. The drawing is notated fully because the designer departs as soon as the drawing is transmitted. Because the drawing is flat, linear, and reduced in scale, it cannot show everything and cannot serve directly as a template for construction. By depicting the finished state of the building, the drawing serves as the builder’s target. The builder has to interpret this synchronic drawing as a diachronic series of steps that leads to completion. The designer does not notate step-by-step instructions because only the final product is important and it can be achieved in different ways that the builder knows better than the designer. Any problems or opportunities that arise during construction are suppressed so that the final building corresponds to the drawing. In the simplest scenario, a drawing conveys the design to the builder. In a larger and more complex project, this single drawing would be divided into separate drawings or other representations: preliminary drawings for discussion with the dweller, interim drawings for the designer to consider options, explanatory or rhetorical drawings for obtaining approval, and multiple drawings for everyone if the design is complex. The drawing is productive and forward-looking. Any preliminary drawings that study nature or precedents would remain within the private realm of the designer. 8 Architectural Work The six elements described in this workplace project mark out a conventional field of current practice. They could be articulated further into many

Introduction

17

more figures, items, and steps, but the six basic elements and their relationships are sufficient to operate the system. These elements are easy to recognize but the concept of “the architectural work” that governs them is more elusive. Lydia Goehr’s ontological analysis of “the musical work” defines that concept indirectly: by describing its secondary influences and by indicating what it is not. Several twentieth-century philosophers included architecture when analyzing the ontology of works of art. Roman Ingarden (1893–1970) is the most notable example. A quarter of his book Ontology of the Work of Art is devoted to the architectural work.15 Ingarden’s philosophical analyses of architecture, music, painting, and film attempt to be universal and timeless, but his reliance on premises from the fine arts anchors his philosophy firmly in late eighteenth-century Europe. Unlike Goehr, Ingarden’s ahistorical approach considers only a few elements of practice and does not mention different practices before the advent of the work concept. Anticipating some of the curious ontological features that Goehr identifies in the musical work, Ingarden stresses that an architectural work is not equivalent to a building.16 He might refer to the workplace above as a large, solid object that should last for many years but is not the definitive version of its architectural work. If a tornado demolishes this building and a new version is built – even by the same builder – the result will be different but the architectural work will remain the same. The builder constructs a building, not an architectural work. Even the drawing made by the designer is not definitive, as it is only a notation for the builder and a record of the designer’s intentions. The designer may be credited as the author of the building but is not the sole authority for the work. Once created, the work becomes autonomous. This architectural work is not a workplace for a dweller; its use is incidental. Visitors might observe the building attentively to appreciate the architectural work. A stellar building would let the architectural work shine through. Ingarden’s ontological analysis begins to clarify the properties of an architectural work, but a circuitous approach via music may be more effective. The discipline of music was not mentioned in the workplace scenario above but may have been lingering as a metaphor in the margins. The figures and items in Small’s and Goehr’s descriptions of a modern concert hall can be mapped onto equivalent figures and items in the architectural domain: composer/designer, performer/builder, listener/dweller; sound/material, 18

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

performance/building, and score/drawing. As with any metaphor, each pair of elements shares certain properties but not others. As Goehr has shown, these six elements of musical practice are governed by concepts of “the musical work” (das musikalische Werk) and “fidelity to the work” (die Werktreue). Through induction, one would expect the six elements of architectural practice to be governed by an equivalent concept, “the architectural work.” Goehr traces the advent of the work concept in music to Germany in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. This provides an obvious starting point for pursuing an equivalent historical concept in architectural theory; however, a concurrent paper trail of documents on the concept of “the architectural work” is not evident. Still, it is possible that the work concept governed the field of architectural practice but was not designated theoretically by that particular term. The phrase “architectural work” that appears in earlier publications from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries17 seems like a false clue because it relies on a much older meaning of “work” that refers to physical labour and still resides in the terms “works department” and “public works.” Therefore, the historical question remains open: whether an equivalent concept in architecture developed alongside the “work” concept in music. On the legal front, the term “architectural work” has become part of copyright law, but in the United States, for example, this did not occur until 1990. The Copyright Act defines an architectural work as “an original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings … The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual standard features or design elements that are functionally required.”18 This legal definition indicates that an architectural work is concerned with form but not function: a distinction that Roman Ingarden would have supported. Copyright applies only to formal compositions; an invention that is useful must be registered instead as a patent. The origin of the “architectural work” concept also might align with historical changes in those six elements of architectural practice: designer, builder, dweller, material, drawing, and building. Again, late eighteenthcentury Germany is the obvious place to start. Historical parallels between elements in music and elements in architecture could provide clues; for Introduction

19

example, the first conductor appeared around the same time as the first contractor.19 Unfortunately, there are few publications on historical elements of practice in architecture. There are far more studies of historical elements of practice in music. Tracing the origin of the “work” concept in architecture would be one project; identifying attempts to end it would be another. As Goehr notes in The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, the work concept in music faced some challenges in the twentieth century.20 Some musicians departed from conventions of practice: by merging the roles of composer and performer, by making scores that cannot be performed conventionally, and by making compositions that anticipate new ways of listening. However, within the larger discipline, she notes that their efforts were fragmentary and their products still were conceived as works. Meanwhile, some architects also departed from conventions of practice: by merging the roles of designer and builder, by making drawings that cannot be built, and by making projects that anticipate new social programs and ways of dwelling. With Kristeller characterizing the past 250 years as the period of the fine arts for painting, sculpture, poetry, music, and architecture, some of these current conventions will return in Chapter 8, “Architecture as a Fine Art.” In this first chapter, the discipline of music has been serving as a metaphor to illuminate the discipline of architecture obliquely, highlighting characteristics that would be less evident if architecture were approached directly. Throughout the rest of the book, music and other disciplines will play only a supporting role, whenever direct comparisons are needed. Equipped with the eight elements of practice that will run laterally through the historical chapters, we can now investigate the four historical definitions of architecture, starting in ancient Greece.

20

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

2 Architecture as a Techne-

Elements of Practice in Techne¯ In the first century bce, Vitruvius notes that his treatise on architecture was preceded by other writings from ancient Greece that have not survived.1 Consequently, we must use secondary sources and philological details to discern elements of architectural practice in ancient Greece. The Greeks had no word that corresponds to what we now call “architecture” – or even “art.” They also did not distinguish between what we regard as fine art (painting, sculpture, etc.) and craft (carpentry, weaving, etc.). All of these endeavours, including building, were encompassed by techne¯, a domain with particular meanings and relationships. Techne¯ was the cumulative set of abilities that the Greeks had acquired during their development into a civilized culture. Techne- was not merely a catalogue of technical skills for making products; it was a larger realm of knowledge and intervention that encompassed not only artisans but also patrons and ancestors. It relied on cultural memory, empirical experience, and strategies for circumventing limits. The domain of techne- existed in both archaic and classical Greece but its circumstances were somewhat different in each period.2 Archaic Greece and the age of the epics must be distinguished from classical Greece, the age of the philosophers. Hellenistic Greece and Rome were different again. In the present chapter, emphasis is placed on techne¯ up to the fifth century bce, the early classical period when the Parthenon was built, prior to the philosophical reconception of techne¯ by Plato in the fourth century. The following eight sections correspond to the template of terms from Chapter 1.

1 Abilities Archaic Greece did not distinguish between craft techniques and feats of magic. Homer indicates that artisans made not only objects for daily use but also things that were exceptional in action or appearance: devices that produce magical effects (thaumata) and finely crafted luxury items for nobility (daidala).3 Their mentor was Daidalos, the mythical artisan who made things that were even more wondrous, including a costume to seduce a bull, a labyrinth to contain a minotaur, and wax wings to escape from the labyrinth.4 Metal workers also looked to Hephaistos, the patron blacksmith who could make magical objects that moved and spoke by themselves (automata).5 Although the abilities attributed to Daidalos and Hephaistos were superior to those of their human descendants, the difference was a matter of degree, not of kind. They used the same type of intelligence and sought similar effects. This continuity and rapport among gods, mythical ancestors, and humans was prevalent in ancient Greece. Techne- in archaic Greece encompassed a wide range of occupations, including prophets, healers, legislators, builders, minstrels, carpenters, blacksmiths, metal workers, potters, acrobats, cooks, navigators, and horse trainers.6 Some occupations were more manual; some were more intellectual. Techne- included subjects that our modern era would categorize as sciences, crafts, and arts. It could result in a physical object (a house, a painting), a performance (a song, a dance), or an altered condition (health in humans, training in horses).7 Its activities could be done both inside and outside the home, by both women and men. These diverse occupations may suggest that techne¯ encompassed every activity that requires skill or manual labour, but it did not. Techne- did not include agriculture. A farmer releases the earth’s natural fertility, whereas an artisan shapes natural substance into a different form for human use.8 In archaic and early classical Greece, techne¯ was a classification below mousike¯. Mousike¯ was a ritualized fusion of poetry, music, and dance that relied on divine inspiration. The gods would breathe words into poets, song into musicians, and motion into dancers.9 Unlike techne¯, mousike¯ was overseen by the Muses and inspired directly by the gods. A clear line was drawn between them: “The poet … was animated by a divine spirit as an instrument of those forces which direct the world and maintain order in it,

22

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

whereas the [artisan] was merely one who preserved the stock of knowledge inherited from his ancestors.”10 Poets relied not only on divine guidance, but also on skills they had acquired from their ancestors, indicating that their discipline spanned both mousike¯ and techne¯.11 Conversely, the building of a temple or a significant civic structure required not just techne¯ but also divine guidance. On behalf of a patron or a city, an official envoy – called a theoros, the root of the words theoria and theory – would be sent on a pilgrimage to consult with an oracle at a location such as the sanctuary at Delphi.12 The theoros received instructive words or signs from the oracle, then returned to the city to deliver them. As a messenger between the divine realm and the mortal realm, the theoros had to be an extremely reliable, high-ranking citizen. Meanwhile, the architekton remained at home and was not involved directly in this “theoretical” activity. Later he would receive divine instructions indirectly from the theoros and the civic committee, to guide his activities in the realm of techne¯. Techne- did not include political action in archaic or early classical Greece. The knowledge of one’s craft was unrelated to the knowledge of moral virtue on which political action was based. Artisans remained within their domain of expertise. Later, with the advent of democracy in classical Greece, artisan-citizens would participate fully in the polis along with all other citizens, but this change was due to a redefinition of the political realm rather than a recognition that manual crafts and politics were related in an intrinsic way. These two activities later found themselves in the same category when the Sophists expanded the boundaries of techne¯ to include rhetorical speech and political government as skills that can be taught.13 This new classical definition of techne¯ – any ability that can be described and taught – shifted the earlier archaic definition that had emphasized the transformation of nature and the magical revelation of its life force. Each techne¯ was defined by its specific source material (e.g., leather) and/or its specific end products (e.g., shoes, bridles). Techne- did not include a generic “sculpture” or “architecture” category to refer to a family of formal objects or a general discipline, separate from its material, its production, or its use. Making a statue in stone was fundamentally different from making a statue in bronze. Each techne¯ remained distinct because it required different techniques and was done by a different group of tektonai (artisans). The

Architecture as a Techne-

23

word architekton, as a classical extension of the archaic tekton (builder), referred to a particular individual and his relation to other builders. In turn, the word architektonikos was an adjective that referred to the architekton. The more abstract word “architecture” (α´ρχιτεκτονι´α; architektonia) did not appear in Greek before the second century ce, after architectura had appeared in Latin.14 The Greeks apparently did not conceive architecture as a general category or discipline in its own right. Therefore, to speak of “the architecture of ancient Greece” – or even “architecture as a techne¯ ” – would be an anachronism. Instead of abstract nouns (e.g., sculpture, architecture) and general nouns (e.g., building, temple), the ancient Greeks had nouns for particular things with particular uses, such as domos (house, house of a god), oikema (dwelling place, room), oikos (house), hedra (sitting place), naos (innermost part of a temple), and topos (place).15 The original Greek word architekton had been assembled from two units, each with its own meaning: tekton ‘builder’ and archi- ‘chief.’ The compound architekton was formed from two of what the Greeks called onoma, the name of a person or thing. Linguists now call this grammatical element a morpheme, the smallest unit of meaning.16 The Greek language consisted largely of linked morphemes, combined in a rich variety of ways. This structural characteristic suggests a particular way of thinking about things, in which relationships are described additively and their original sources remain evident. To modern readers, adding a hyphen to highlight the hinge between morphemes – a Heideggerian and Derridean practice – disrupts the smooth surface of the written (transliterated) language and provides a graphic reminder of the individual “names,” their etymological roots, and their linked structure: for example, archi-tekton. Greek existed as a spoken language, a continuous chain of morphemes and meanings, long before it was a written language of discrete compound words. In fact, the Greeks originally had no word for “word.”17 Their affinity for linked parts rather than singular wholes is evident also in the Propylaea on the Acropolis, which the Greeks in the fifth century bce considered a great success, although to modern eyes its heterogeneous forms and the joints between them seem irregular.18 Translating the word architekton from Greek to Latin was not a benign move. The Latin word architectus appeared around 200 bce and had two different meanings: master-builder and inventor.19 The first meaning retained the Greek etymology but the second did not. In Vitruvius, De architectura (ca. 25 bce), the earlier role of the architekton (a chief builder who 24

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Etymology of the word “architecture” in Greek, via Latin.

directs other builders) is superseded by a different role that is more diverse and less concrete but still inhabits the shell of the Greek word. The word architectura (architecture), a derivative of architectus, is recorded first in Cicero, two decades before Vitruvius.20 Its meaning is even more abstract because it does not refer to a particular thing. The word architectura is singular and indivisible. Adding a hyphen (archi-tectura) does not illuminate its meaning. Detached from its Greek roots and no longer divisible in a meaningful way, the Latin word architectura was free to make new associations and acquire new meanings. 2 Ancestors Modern archaeology has determined that the Greeks were neither technical inventors nor innovators. Their tools and technical knowledge had been borrowed from the eastern Mediterranean and were not developed significantly. Their myths about techne¯, however, tell a different story: Prometheus stole fire from Athena and gave it to humans. Other gods provided tools. Athena is credited with inventing the set-square and the line. Hephaistos, the patron of metalwork, contributed the hammer and pincers. Daidalos, a mythical human ancestor rather than a god, was credited with inventing the saw, the axe, the plumb-line, and glue. In archaic Greece, tools were considered active collaborators that help bring an artisan’s work to perfection, step by step.21 Both Hephaistos and Daidalos served as role models for artisans. They used tools to transform natural materials into magical and well-crafted objects for particular worldly desires. The intermediate steps, however, remained a secret. In archaic Greece, technical secrets were kept within brotherhoods of artisans and were divulged only to initiates. The brotherhood for builders was called Daedalidae (sons of Daidalos/Daedalus). Architecture as a Techne-

25

This still leaves the question, where did techne¯ come from? Who discovered how to work with these materials, and who discovered the models for making objects that respond to worldly desires? According to mythology, neither Athena nor Hephaistos taught artisans how to do these things. Instead, artisans attributed these discoveries to the chain of ancestors who had preceded them in their particular craft. Despite being prompted initially by gods, techne¯ was largely a human development. Even Daidalos did not invoke supernatural assistance to overcome obstacles; he relied on his own abilities. Techne- was acquired through apprenticeship, normally within a family. A son observed and assisted his father, then followed in his footsteps. Even Daidalos had learned his skills from his father and grandfather.22 Authorship in techne¯ was essentially collective, not individual. On the occasions when an artisan inscribed his name on a product, he typically added his father’s name to acknowledge the ancestral chain of artisans. Inscribing one’s name was an indication of pride in one’s inherited abilities, not a claim for personal authorship. Artisans attributed the development of their craft to a series of ancestors who had refined their inherited techniques in response to the shifting boundaries of worldly desires, not to individuals who set themselves apart by inventing new techniques and new products for no particular purpose. Tradition also provided a common ground for artisans within each techne¯. Artisans shared the same basic concepts and practices and did not depart significantly from their ancestral canon. Therefore, detailed on-site instructions were unnecessary. 3 Life Force In archaic Greece, the principal materials used by artisans were wood from trees, clay from the earth, leather from animals, and metal imported from abroad. Stone came later. An artisan was defined first by the material in which he worked and then by the things he made. Because his role involved transforming nature into artifice, the particular material he obtained was crucial to the product’s eventual success. An artisan either harvested and prepared the material himself or inquired to understand its source: how the timber had been harvested and cured, or where a piece of stone had been situated in the quarry.23 26

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Olive tree. Photograph by Rodrigo Nuno Bragança da Cunha, Wikimedia.

As one might expect in archaic Greece, natural substances had a certain life force. Indra Kagis McEwen notes, “In preclassical Greece, hyle, as forest, timber, or firewood, was part of a divine and deathless physis. Hyle, wood, was cut up, probably with all the circumspection devoted to the cutting up of a sacrificial victim, to be remade, in order that it might reappear in another guise – as a boat or, even more magically, as flame.”24 Materials belonged to nature and had to be sacrificed properly before they could reappear in another form that would retain their original life force. If a similar object was made by someone who had not been initiated in the techne¯, its material would not retain this life force, would not be well crafted, and would be considered essentially dead. The archaic artisan was not a creator but a transformer who turned something into something else. The etymology of techne¯ indicates an analogy with birth: the root tec- refers to the act of making something appear.25 Several centuries later, Aristotle suggested that the processes of techne¯ extend and imitate the processes of nature, and that these two processes share a common purpose: “If a house were a natural product, the process would Architecture as a Techne-

27

pass through the same stages that it in fact passes through when it is produced by art; and if natural products could also be produced by art, they would move along the same line that the natural process actually takes.”26 4 Patron The patron, whether public or private, provided the primary motivation for techne¯. The skills of the artisan – including those of Daidalos – led to a product or action that extended the patron’s normal abilities. As Janet Atwill notes, “In these ancient contexts, techne¯ is never reducible to an instrument or a means to an end. Instead, art intervenes when a boundary or limitation is recognized, and it creates a path that both transgresses and redefines that boundary. Fate and necessity may set temporary limits for invention, but their boundaries are perpetually redrawn by techne¯.”27 By directing techne¯ toward the patron’s abilities rather than the product, the artisan had to respond strategically. Techne- therefore may be characterized as the choice of a path; the making (poie¯sis) of a product was merely an intermediate step in the larger domain of techne¯. As Jean-Pierre Vernant notes, “When considering a product, the ancient Greeks were less concerned with the process of manufacture, the [poie¯sis], than with the use to which the article was to be put, the [khresis]. And for each piece of work, it is this [khresis] that defines the [eidos] that the worker embodies in matter. In effect, the manufactured object, like living creatures, is subject to final causes. Its perfection lies in its adaptation to the need for which it has been produced.”28 One can imagine Daidalos and other artisans observing the patron in action to find out if their strategy was successful. As with healers who used techne¯ to modify a patron’s health, the product was a means of changing the capacities of the patron by employing the right action at the right time. An innovative product would be developed only when the standard canon for the craft could not satisfy a patron’s desires. An artisan in the techne¯ tradition did not make innovative things for the sake of novelty. An artisan also did not make things for the sake of self-expression. Techne- was a collective domain. In archaic Greece, an artisan who worked for the public good was designated as a demiourgos ‘public worker’ (demos ‘people’ + ergon ‘work’).29 Working for the public carried a responsibility but also a certain prestige. Archaic artisans were paid nothing for their 28

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

public work but received gifts when they worked for private clients. When techne¯ was performed for a city, it manifested the public realm. Without the artisan making objects and performing actions, the public realm would have remained imperceptible. Consequently, the artisan had a dual responsibility to produce and to reveal. This is the sense in which Martin Heidegger defines techne¯ as a “letting appear.”30 5 Architekton To become proficient in a craft required five to ten years of apprenticeship. By then, the apprentice would have learned the ancestral traditions of the craft and acquired sufficient experience to act intelligently in diverse situations. The techne¯ category included many different occupations – including architekton – and all were at the same level. Techne- included “every skilled worker whose labours contributed to the manufacture of objects in durable materials, and who depended on the exercise of his craft for a living. Defined thus, the miner, the bronze nail-maker, the goldsmith, the jeweller, the quarrymason, the sculptor, the architect, the tanner, the cobbler, the harness-maker, the lumberman, the shipwright, the joiner and inlayer, the potter, are all equally deserving of consideration. None was any more or less a professional and a craftsman than any other.”31 Tekton initially designated a carpenter but eventually referred to a builder in either wood or stone.32 In occupations involving wood and woodworking tools, the term tekton covered a range of artisans, from those who make furniture to those who make ships. Although the word tekton referred to both wood and stone, a carpenter usually was not also a stone mason. Stone and wood have different origins and properties. Working in stone also requires different tools and skills. Architekton designated a chief builder. In Greek literature, the word architekton first appeared in the fifth century bce, when Herodotus refers to Eupalinos directing the construction of a water tunnel in Samos, carved out of rock: “The designer [α´ ρχιτε´κτων (architekton)] of this work was Eupalinos, son of Naustrophus, a Megarian.”33 Herodotus later mentions another architekton: “Having viewed the Pontus, Darius sailed back to the bridge, of which Mandrocles of Samos was the chief builder [α´ ρχιτε´κτων (architekton)].”34 The word architekton ‘chief builder’ made sense in the techne¯ tradition because it referred to an individual who directs others. A Architecture as a Techne-

29

derivative word, architechne¯, did not exist, as the notion of a “chief craft” that directs other crafts would make no sense. An architekton who directed the construction of a public building in stone, wood, and metal did not have to be an expert in all of these technai but had to know enough about them to converse intelligently with the artisans.35 Like other tektonai, his own techne¯ was defined by material, but it included more than one. The apprenticeship of an architekton was broader than for other artisans, but still within the realm of techne¯. It involved the on-site construction of public works, complemented by experience in the shops of carpenters, metalsmiths, and stone masons. Belonging to a family with expertise in several materials would have been beneficial for an architekton. In addition to understanding materials and their traditions, an architekton would have to be familiar with ancestral buildings and know how a new building could extend the abilities of a patron or a polis. These types of expectations are consistent with the range of expectations for any artisan. An architekton worked only on public buildings, not on houses. Historians have disagreed on whether this was because a temple, a theatre, or a fortress involved many skilled artisans and needed someone to coordinate them; or because a public building required someone with expertise in geometry and ornamentation. The first option seems more credible in archaic situations, when techne¯ was the prevalent mode of knowledge and production. The second option would arise later, when Plato, Aristotle, and then Vitruvius promoted a more theoretical mode of knowledge. The distinction between tekton and architekton hinges on the meaning of “direction.” A director can act in two ways: from the bottom up (to guide, to keep something on a straight path, to regulate); and from the top down (to order, to control, to prescribe).36 In the first scenario, a large group of tektonai recognizes that coordination is needed and appoints one of its own to step back from direct physical work so that he can direct them. In the second scenario, an independent person establishes his own design and directs the craftsmen to implement it. The first scenario is consistent with the etymology of architekton, in which tekton is the common root and the prefix archi- refers to a member of a group who assumes the elevated role of chief or head. Other Greek words with this prefix also suggest an elevated relationship, not a separate category.37 Along with architekton for carpentry and building, the prefix archi- was applied in situations involving metal and

30

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

stone – archikamineutes (head smelter man) and archilatomos (head quarryman) – but not clay, bronze, or cloth.38 Wages for working on a public building did not indicate a higher status for the architekton than for other tektonai. In fact, the opposite was true. The financial accounts for the construction of the Parthenon indicate that the masons who carved the pediment figures earned slightly more than regular masons and carpenters, and twice as much as an architekton.39 With the rise of the theoretical mode of knowledge in classical Greece, the status of the artisan began to decline, especially in crafts that required more physical effort than mental effort. The growing attention to contemplative and democratic life led to rankings within the category of techne¯. Xenophon explained it differently: “Banausic occupations leave no spare time for friendship or for the affairs of the city.”40 Despite the pejorative connotation of “banausic,” his remark suggests that the problem was not techne¯ itself, but the fact that its demands on one’s time prevented political participation. The techne¯ tradition distinguished decisively between two levels: the initiated tekton (including the architekton) and the uninitiated workers (thetes) whom a tekton might hire to provide manual labour.41 Plato’s Politicus [Statesman], a dialogue on government, draws a line in a different place: between the architekton and everyone else. “Now consider a master builder. No master builder is a manual worker – he directs the work of others … He provides the knowledge but not the manual labor … so he might fairly be said to possess one of the theoretical forms of science … The master builder must give the appropriate directions to each of the workmen and see that they complete the work assigned.”42 Here the architekton is associated only with the mind and is raised to a level above all others, while the tekton is indistinguishable from manual labourers (thetes) and is associated only with the hand. This is a major departure from the archaic techne¯ tradition, in which an artisan attended not only to the immediate product or action but also to the ancestral tradition and the patron’s abilities. Aristotle echoed Plato’s distinction between thinking and doing by drawing an even clearer line between the architekton and the tekton and by extending it to all technai, not just to building: “The master craftsmen [α´ ρχιτε´κτονας] in every profession are more estimable and know more and are wiser than the artisans, because they know the reasons of the things

Architecture as a Techne-

31

which are done; but we think that the artisans, like certain inanimate objects, do things, but without knowing what they are doing.”43 Aristotle’s doctrine of four causes distinguished clearly between the final cause (why) and the efficient cause (how). As with Plato, the difference he describes between the architekton and the tekton seems more like an illustration of an emerging philosophical concept than a record of their traditional roles. 6 Construction The Greeks distinguished clearly between the artisan and the item that was made. They expected the finished item to respond perfectly to the patron’s desires, but accepted that the artisan and the process of making could be messy. When builders started using stone in the sixth century bce, the high level of craft that had been attained in items made of wood, metal, and leather was expected also in certain buildings. In general, public buildings were highly crafted whereas private houses were not. Attention was paid to craft from beginning to end, from the gathering of the natural materials to the final polishing. As Alison Burford notes, “Soundness of construction, exactness of detail, complete adequacy of function, ingenuity and boldness of invention – the good craftsman’s best work displayed many if not all of these qualities. With quite simple tools he could make a block of marble exactly rectangular and perfectly level on every surface, which, where necessary, would be polished smooth … The carpentry of the ships he built would have the quality of cabinet work rather than boat-building, so fine were the joints and so firm the resulting wall of wood.”44 Craft was not just for the eyes. In public buildings, the stone in the underground courses was dressed and joined just as carefully as the stone above ground.45 The same level of craft was achieved throughout the building, regardless of visibility.46 Unlike a labourer who follows instructions and focuses on an immediate task, an artisan did not simply apply standard techniques. Because techne¯ emphasized the patron’s use of the product, the artisan had to customize it accordingly. Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant have traced the relation between techne¯ and me¯tis, a form of practical intelligence that uses cunning and minimal effort to achieve its objectives: “In order to reach his goal directly, to pursue his way without deviating from it, across a world which is fluctuating and constantly oscillating from one side to another, he must

32

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

himself adopt an oblique course and make his intelligence sufficiently wily and supple to bend in every conceivable way and his gait so ‘askew’ that he can be ready to go in any direction … to devise the straightest way to achieve his end.”47 A tekton making a ship out of wood would use me¯tis to achieve a construction perfectly suited to the patron’s desired abilities. An architekton directing the construction of a public building also would use me¯tis to make subtle formal adjustments (column entasis, varied modules, rising stylobates, etc.) in response to local circumstances. As me¯tis invokes the metaphor of a circuitous route, it might guide the construction of a single column or an entire building. The architekton and the tektonai would not visualize every part in advance but instead proceed one step at a time, confident that the ancestral canon and their own wits would guide them to completion.48 In techne¯, any departures from the ancestral canon were small adjustments to address the particular situation. Ancient Greek artisans, including the architekton, were not innovators but could be strategic when necessary.

Parthenon, Athens (447–438 bce), exterior detail. Photograph © Scott Gilchrist, stock.archivision.com.

Architecture as a Techne-

33

“In architecture one sees traditional forms undergoing slight but unmistakable changes in each new monumental structure; proportions differed subtly, but without ever straying far from the path laid down in the immediately preceding work, which in turn looked to the one before it, and so on … At no stage did craftsman and patron start with an entirely blank page before them.”49 “His techne depends upon fidelity to a tradition that is not scientific; and outside this tradition any attempt at innovation would leave him at the mercy of chance … There is no real experimentation.”50 “They did not prize originality in art … Before Herodotus and Xenophon, nobody had cited the names of artists. Even Aristotle had affirmed that an artist should erase the traces of his person from a work of art.”51 7 Paradeigma It remains an open question whether an architekton in ancient Greece used drawings or models to visualize a building or to present it to a patron. The few surviving scaled buildings and inscribed drawings seem to have been made later for votive or funerary purposes, not for construction.52 Historical literature mentions three types of representations used in the construction of public buildings. As soon as the patron and architekton had decided on the size and general layout of a building, they specified the overall dimensions, materials, parts, and workmanship in a written inscription (syngraphei).53 This construction contract enabled quarrymen to supply stones that were reduced already to the approximate size and shape of each component. A comprehensive set of drawings would not have been necessary. As construction proceeded, the on-site architekton provided two other types of representations to the builders to ensure that details in the finished construction would be consistent.54 An anagrapheus was a full-scale flat template that showed the profile of an extruded detail such as a molding. A paradeigma was a full-scale volumetric sample of a more complex form, such as a column capital.55 If the paradeigma had been carved in stone rather than in wood, it could become part of the eventual building. Unlike modern representations, the anagrapheus and the paradeigma were not intermediate steps from an ideal realm (a design) to a material realm (a building). Instead, they remained within the material realm, where they enabled one material detail to be replicated in another material detail. Coordinated by the architekton, the builders worked out certain features as the building was 34

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

constructed gradually from bottom to top. They were guided by the terms of the contract and the ancestral canon, but did not reproduce a comprehensive set of details that had been drawn in advance. 8 Deathless Building The Greeks made certain things, such as private houses, in an expedient way. These items did not invoke the techne¯ tradition, did not require highly skilled artisans, and were not intended to outlast their immediate use. Other things, such as public buildings, did invoke the techne¯ tradition, did require highly skilled artisans, and were made to last forever. Both sets of objects existed and were used, but were ontologically different. Items that were finely crafted by an artisan looked back in time to invoke ancestral sources and looked forward in time to outlast their immediate circumstances. In effect, they became deathless. This extended life gave them an elevated status on that Greek sliding scale from humans to ancestors to mythical ancestors to gods. As noted by Indra Kagis McEwen, “Generally speaking, Homeric eyes fill with wonder on one of two occasions: first, when the spectacle suggests an unseen divine presence, and second, when the sight beheld is of something particularly well made. These two instances are not unrelated … Gods were divine because they were athanatoi, deathless.”56 The Greeks had no concept of creation by humans. Creation presumes independent action and the ability to create something from nothing.57 Instead, techne¯ was an act of making (poiein) that transformed natural matter. It made something from something. Greek cosmogonic myths from Hesiod to Timaeus also relied on the transformative concept of birth to explain the origin of the world.58 Techne- did not privilege an original moment of invention. Instead, it presumed a continuing refinement toward perfection. It relied heavily on the discoveries that ancestors had made, providing a canon of successful techniques and examples from which all artisans could draw when making new items. In ancient Greece, the concept of plagiarism was unknown.59 The Greeks expected artisans to copy previous examples, demonstrating fidelity to tradition. They believed that willful invention by an individual would be detrimental to the collective goal of perfection. Because techne¯ draws from actual items made by humans, these earlier items can be considered “ancestral paradeigmata”: particular examples from Architecture as a Techne-

35

which subsequent particulars are made, similar to the physical paradeigmata used by builders to replicate details for public buildings. This transfer from particular to particular did not shift to an abstract mode of thought (such as a general principle, a theoretical idea, or an ideal form) that is independent of the material and its use. Instead, it remained within the material world of experience.

Beyond Techne¯ The ancient Greeks had no word that corresponds to what we now call “music.” Mousike¯ was a more general category for inspired dancing and singing, sometimes accompanied by instruments. Activities of mousike¯ were patronized by the Muses, the goddesses of poetic inspiration. Dionysian cults engaged in mimetic rites in an ecstasy of dance and song. Mousike¯ was associated directly with the divine and therefore had a higher status than techne¯, which invoked the feats of human ancestors and the ingenuity of artisans. Orphic sects in the sixth century bce introduced a more contemplative understanding of music, distinct from the ongoing Dionysian rites. Privileging the voice and the lyre, they focused mainly on words and pitch intervals. In this tradition, Pythagoras (and/or his followers in the fifth century) recognized that consonant pitch intervals correspond to simple numerical ratios.60 Interpreting this empirical observation as a key piece of evidence about the order of the world, the Pythagoreans inaugurated a search for similar harmonic orders in other places and phenomena – including architecture – that would continue for several millennia. Music was only the beginning of the search for harmony. “Given a world replete with internal relationships, music can easily account not only for the mathematical meanings of harmony, but for the entire generality of the term which develops as part of a progressive musicalization of every aspect of experience … The musician creates harmony in the pitch and duration of tone and in gesture; man creates harmony in the conduct of his life; the statesman creates harmony in society; the Demiurge creates harmony in the cosmos; the philosopher creates the harmony of dialectic and the music of discourse.”61 The Pythagorean belief that the most important characteristic of music is pitch, and that pitch can be reduced to number, eventually would imply 36

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

that the sound of music is inconsequential. Aristoxenus, a follower of Aristotle, later recognized this implication and developed a more comprehensive theory based on the human experience of sounds and rhythms.62 Metaphysical concepts of harmony were developed separately from the ethical use of music in the Greek polis. The most significant venues for music were public rituals, especially dramas and religious festivals that extended the Dionysian tradition. These performances were devoted to important cultural matters, not just entertainment. Their integration of words, melody, dance, costumes, and instrumental accompaniment epitomized mousike¯.63 Dance was one domain in which music and building shared some common ground, especially in archaic Greece. Dance was an integral component of most forms of mousike¯. Building was associated with dance by providing a place for dramatic performances of mousike¯ that invoked the earlier archaic myths involving Daidalos. The ritual dance defined a space of performance that would be concretized in the building of the labyrinth. The labyrinth – and later, the agora and the theatre – became evident only when ritual actions manifested the worldly orders that had remained latent until then. Greek categories of phenomena also established an alliance between dance and building due to their intrinsic temporality. As Edward Lippman notes, “The Greek division of the arts was not into the categories temporal and spatial, but into temporal and static.”64 This suggests that public buildings were imagined not as inert masses but as paused figures with a capacity to become metaphorically animated.65 This temporal characteristic negates modern attempts to interpret ancient Greek buildings retroactively as spatial compositions or as aesthetic objects. In classical Greece, music and building continued their collaboration in dramatic rituals, although music (as part of mousike¯) was overseen by the Muses whereas building (as a form of techne¯) invoked human and mythical ancestors. Certain types of music departed from the domain of mousike¯ and were associated instead with techne¯. Music for public ceremonies was required to follow standard practice rather than inspiration, situating it firmly in the domain of techne¯. Instrumental music (melos) for domestic events such as weddings, funerals, and banquets was regarded also as a form of techne¯, in which instrumental skills were dissociated from poetry and employed mainly for immediate pleasure and human use.66 Aristotle considered human voices to be superior to musical instruments because they belong to creatures with a soul.67 Plato regarded instrumental music as a form of techne¯, but believed Architecture as a Techne-

37

that its status could rise in situations where music was used to promote moral virtue.68 He called for the prohibition of certain modes because they would encourage improper behaviour through imitation, suggesting that the effect of bad music is like the effect of bad company.69 When the Pythagoreans discovered a mathematical analogue for pitch intervals and harmony, this apparently universal property actually demoted music in the eyes of the Greeks. Although musical harmony later became extremely influential as the basis for universal analogies in the Pythagorean and Neoplatonic traditions of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, in ancient Greece its association with rational knowledge rather than inspiration led the Greeks to regard this property of music as a form of techne¯.70 The gods continued to permeate all of Greek life but the Muses did not speak directly to artisans. Still, the artisans’ achievements rose far beyond what we might associate with craft. The Parthenon has been glorified by our modern era as the epitome of architecture, despite being produced within the techne¯ tradition that it shared with shoemaking and horse training.

The Demise of Techne¯ Some components of the techne¯ domain began to erode in classical Greece. Alongside the traditional model of apprenticeship, in which an ancestor physically shows and describes a craft to a descendant, the Sophists described the techne¯ of rhetoric in written handbooks. In turn, this knowledge could be taught to students without the physical presence of an ancestor. Separating the body of knowledge from the person and the setting was a first step away from the immediacy of techne¯; however, these handbooks provided examples of earlier successes, concrete advice for action, and guidelines on how and when to use these skills. By emphasizing strategic action to transform a worldly situation, they remained within the tradition. The eventual demise of techne¯ was anticipated by Plato, following the lead of Socrates. The discussion of techne¯ in Plato’s early dialogues gave way to a discussion of theoretical knowledge and ideal forms in his middle dialogues.71 This new mode of knowledge continued to refer to the making of human products but now devised an ideal, immaterial, eternal realm above everything in the temporal world. Using dialectical induction, Socrates and Plato sought first principles that would remain fixed. In turn, all worldly 38

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

products – including everything that had been made by ancestors – would be reconceived as imitations that point toward ideal models. Ancestors, patrons, and artisans suddenly became subordinate. Time was no longer an immediate present with a deathless potential. The concept of “first principles” was foreign to the techne¯ tradition; it presumed a different epistemological model.72 Although Aristotle brought back techne¯ for discussion, he subjected it to Plato’s distinction between the ideal and the real by separating those who “know how” (efficient cause) from those who “know why” (final cause).73 This effectively drove a wedge into the middle of techne¯ and undermined the central role of the artisan. Aristotle joined Plato in placing a knowledge of timeless and placeless principles above all else: “Now induction supplies a first principle or universal, deduction works from universals … The wise man therefore must not only know the conclusions that follow from his first principles, but also have a true conception of those principles themselves.”74 When Aristotle ranked the two best ways to devote one’s life – contemplating universals (θεωρι´α; theoria) and doing politics (πραξις; praxis) – he was thinking only of free citizens with leisure time. He dismissed those with wage-earning occupations, retailers, and those who pursue vulgar arts (technai) by making things (ποι´ησις; poie¯sis).75 He regarded theoria, the contemplation of timeless universals, as the highest human activity. Several centuries later, Vitruvius applied Plato’s epistemological model to an architectural setting. In this regard, Vitruvius is Socrates’ descendant. Although Vitruvius provides plenty of advice on how to deal with particular worldly situations and often refers to Greek precedents, he too has left behind the techne¯ tradition. The presence of fundamental principles at the beginning of his treatise, along with his general ambition to be comprehensive and timeless, indicates that the Romans were operating with a different type of knowledge.76 Although ancient Rome was still a culture of myth and ritual,77 in Vitruvius’s treatise there are many new elements of architectural thinking that resonate with our own, including theoretical principles, a desire for a static body of knowledge, a liberal education to develop the virtuous character of a free man, the invention of a building by an individual, ideas of representation, the elevated role of an architect, and the subordinate role of a builder. This new epistemological model and its various institutional components were accompanied by a new word: architectura.

Architecture as a Techne-

39

3 Architecture as a Mechanical Art

“Mechanical arts” was not a separate category that replaced techne¯. Under different names, it developed gradually for more than a thousand years. It originated from a qualitative distinction within the ancient techne¯ tradition, was developed in different ways by ancient and early medieval philosophers, and finally emerged as the mechanical arts in the ninth and twelfth centuries. Instead of being an independent category, the mechanical arts and its forerunners in craft were contrasted with a higher and more divine category: the liberal arts.

Liberal Arts and Vulgar Arts Within the category of techne¯, the late classical Greeks regarded certain crafts more highly than others. With their aristocratic tradition and their social desire for the good life, they favoured intellectual activities that were free of physical labour and contributed to the common good. Consequently, they ranked their many crafts on a scale between “free” (eleutheros) and “banausic” (banausos ‘mechanical’, ‘vulgar’).1 Despite this qualitative distinction, all of these crafts remained within the category of techne¯, as actions or products that drew lessons from ancestors to respond to the desires of a current patron, whether public or private. The free-versus-banausic distinction was secondary. Banausic crafts that required physical labour were considered inferior because they debased the mind and body and drew one’s attention away from virtuous activities. In Republic, Plato referred to them not as techne¯, a

General ranking of crafts within the techne¯ tradition (Greece, fourth century bce).

neutral term with neither positive nor negative connotations, but as tas banausias, a pejorative term.2 Aristotle made a similar comment: “The young … must participate in such among the useful arts as will not render the person who participates in them vulgar [βα´ ναυσον (banauson)]. A task and also an art or a science must be deemed vulgar if it renders the body or soul or mind of free men useless for the employments and actions of virtue.”3 Metalworking was the most banausic craft because of its oppressive working conditions and the physical strength needed to pound hot metal into shape. The god Hephaistos, patron of metalwork, was imagined as a lame, misshapen individual and a subject of ridicule. Woodworking, stone carving, and building also required physical effort, so these technai were located near the banausic end of the scale. Although performing music and painting relied on manual skills, they required less physical effort and therefore were located closer to the free end of the scale. The wages for artisans typically corresponded to their place on the freeto-banausic scale. In the construction of a public building, a painter earned more than a carpenter. The wage for an architekton was similar to that of a tekton, even though he may not have engaged directly in physical labour.4 Philosophers in Greece and Rome accepted the premise that crafts should be classified and ranked from high to low, but they differed on which Architecture as a Mechanical Art

41

Hephaistos; detail of Skyphos, side A, by the Kleophon Painter (ca. 420 bce). Toledo Museum of Art (Toledo, OH), purchased with funds from the Libbey Endowment, gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, 1982.88. Photograph: Tim Thayer, Oak Park, MI.

criteria should be used to rank them. Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz identifies seven different schemes:5 1

The Sophists (from late fifth century bce) distinguished crafts according to their objectives. Crafts for pleasure (e.g., painting) were ranked higher than crafts for utility (e.g., building). This classification was commonly used. 2 Plato (427–347 bce) distinguished crafts according to their relation to real things. Crafts that make use of real things (e.g., hunting) are the highest. Crafts that produce real things (e.g., building) are in the middle. Crafts that imitate real things (e.g., painting) are the lowest.6 3 Aristotle (384–322 bce) used Plato’s basic criterion but included only two categories: Crafts that complete nature (e.g., building) are higher than crafts that imitate nature (e.g., painting, sculpture, poetry).7 4 Cicero (106–43 bce), as a Roman orator, distinguished arts according to their impact on society.8 Arts that produce a major effect of usefulness or grandeur (e.g., politics, military arts) are the highest. Arts that pro-

42

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

duce a medium effect (e.g., sciences, poetry, rhetoric) are in the middle. Arts that produce a minor effect are the lowest.9 5 Quintilian (35–95 ce), also a Roman orator, distinguished arts according to their products: Some arts require no action and seek only understanding (e.g., astronomy), some arts produce actions (e.g., dance), and some arts result in products that can be seen (e.g., painting).10 Like Aristotle11 and the Pythagoreans before him, he called these three categories theoretical, practical, and productive, using not Latin but Greek terms: θεωρητικη′ (theoretike¯), πρακτικη′ (praktike¯), and ποητικη′ν (poetikon). Quintilian does not rank the arts explicitly. As an orator, his primary intention was to situate rhetoric, which he locates mainly in the “practical” category, alongside dance. 6 Galen (129–200), the famous anatomist and surgeon, distinguished liberal arts (artes liberales) from vulgar arts (artes vulgares) based on the physical effort they require.12 This continued the classical Greek distinction between free crafts and banausic crafts. Arts that require intellectual skill (e.g., medicine, oratory, geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy) are highest. Arts that require manual skill but no great strength (e.g., painting) are not quite as high. Arts that require physical toil (e.g., building) are the lowest. Galen’s interest in medicine may have led him to include it in his top category. This classification was commonly used. 7 Plotinus (205–70), the first Neoplatonic philosopher, distinguished arts according to their degree of spirituality. Arts that are purely intellectual (e.g., geometry) are the highest and closest to the spiritual world. Arts that improve or ornament human action (e.g., rhetoric, politics, military arts) are second. Arts that imitate nature (e.g., painting) are third. The remaining arts are lower because they cannot reflect the spiritual world. Arts that help nature (e.g., medicine, agriculture) are fourth. Arts that produce physical objects (e.g., building) are the lowest.13 Although a building cannot reflect the spiritual realm, it can reflect the internal idea of the builder.14 In these seven classifications of techne¯, building was assigned a mediocre status by Plato (2) and Aristotle (3). In the five other classifications, including the two that were commonly used (1 and 6), building was placed at or near the bottom of the scale. Clearly, the premises of these ancient classifications

Architecture as a Mechanical Art

43

are quite different from our modern distinctions between art and craft and between art and science. As a free man, a Greek citizen was encouraged to obtain a general education (ε´γκυ´κλιος παιδει´α; enkyklios paideia) that would prepare him to take an active role in the polis.15 The subjects of study were drawn from fourth-century recommendations by Plato (who favoured mathematical skills) and Isocrates (who favoured language skills). When the curriculum stabilized in the Hellenistic era, it included seven liberal subjects: arithmetic, astronomy, dialectic, geometry, grammar, music theory, and rhetoric. These subjects were intended to develop a liberated mind rather than responding to worldly needs. Although the curriculum had stabilized, its aims were more ideal than achievable. Geometry and arithmetic focused on the abstract principles and axioms that had been established by Euclid and Pythagoras, rather than productive uses such as the measurement of land and the calculation of debts. This general education included no technai that were even remotely banausic or manual, such as painting and music. Gymnastics, vocal music, and instrumental music had been part of Greek education since the archaic era, but they disappeared when the general education curriculum stabilized in the late Hellenistic period.16 Technai involving materials, such as woodworking, ceramics, and stone carving, were nowhere in sight. In Rome during the first century bce, Vitruvius advised prospective architects to obtain a general education in the liberal arts, to develop manual skills in drawing, and to become familiar with other disciplines (history, law, physics, medicine) that offered lessons to be applied later in practical work.17 Despite his recommendation that architects ascend beyond the basic level of the liberal arts and continue their education with additional studies – what he called encyclios disciplina – no formal courses were available in disciplines other than medicine.18 Education in these advanced subjects still relied on ad hoc tutors and the apprenticeship model with which technai had been conveyed since the archaic era. These classifications of crafts may suggest a smooth transition from Greek to Latin, in which techne¯ (craft) became ars (art), and building construction became architectura (architecture). The local activities of doing and making continued much as before, but the epistemological model that Plato and Aristotle had developed, placing universal theory above all worldly

44

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Seven liberal arts (enkyklios paideia) in late Hellenistic Greece (mid-first century bce).

matters, resulted in a much different context for the crafts/arts. This would clear the way for new institutions, roles, and beliefs. The word “art” comes from the Latin ars ‘art, skill, craft’ and probably from the root ar- ‘to fit’.19 Its Latin etymology can be traced further to Sanskrit -rtih ‘manner, mode’ and to the Greek adjectives arti ‘just’ and artios ‘complete’.20 Although it has become common to speak of “art” in ancient Greece, the Greeks did not have such a concept. The Romans used ars to refer to a broad range of human activities that follow conventions and can be described and taught. Ars mechanica was a singular term that referred specifically to the art of mechanics: how to make military devices, lifting devices, etc. In ancient Rome it was not used in a plural form to encompass a wider set of practices that included architecture. “Mechanical arts” would appear later as a medieval term.21 The Greek distinction between free crafts and banausic crafts was recreated in Latin as a distinction between “liberal arts” (artes liberales) and “vulgar or sordid arts” (artes vulgares, artes sordidi). In Hellenistic Greece and Rome, the liberal arts typically consisted of seven: arithmetic, astronomy, dialectic, geometry, grammar, music theory, and rhetoric.22 Three notable writers – Varro, Cicero, and Vitruvius – proposed variations. Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 bce), a contemporary of Cicero, included medicine and architecture as his eighth and ninth liberal arts.23

Architecture as a Mechanical Art

45

His extensive Libri novem disciplinarum (Nine books of disciplines) has not survived, so his criteria cannot be examined; however, his books did influence others who referred to them during the next few centuries. Varro was the only philosopher to identify architecture explicitly as a liberal art. Vitruvius mentions that Varro wrote a book on architecture but does not cite it as an influence on his own treatise.24 The fact that Varro chose to add medicine and architecture may have indicated a special relation between them, as well as with the seven other liberal arts. Because philosophers who classified human knowledge used explicit criteria and considered a wide range of subjects for inclusion or exclusion, Varro’s proposition for the liberal arts would have been significant. We do not know of its status between the second century bce and the fifth century ce, when it was refuted vehemently by another philosopher. In De officiis (On Duties), Cicero passed along abundant wisdom to his errant son, including advice on choosing an appropriate occupation. A general education in the seven liberal arts would be the best preparation for a public orator. For gentlemen who are not of the highest class, he recommends a second rank of occupations that require intelligence and/or benefit society. As examples, he cites medicine, architecture, and teaching, along with agriculture and large-scale wholesale importing.25 He does not recommend occupations that require manual labour but not skill, nor any trade that is carried on in a workshop, “for no workshop can have anything liberal about it.” At the very bottom are occupations that provide sensual pleasures, including cooking, performing, and dancing. In Cicero’s view, architecture is not situated in the first rank of the liberal arts, but it is more liberal than vulgar. Unlike Varro’s classification, Cicero’s was not rigorously philosophical, as he was primarily an orator. It amounted to only a few passing comments in books on other topics. Vitruvius’s recommendation for architects to obtain a liberal arts education has led at least one historian to infer that Vitruvius was declaring architecture to be a liberal art.26 Vitruvius did not state this explicitly, nor is it supported by the various classifications and criteria with which philosophers were defining the liberal arts (described above): an art for pleasure rather than utility; an art related directly to real things; an art requiring no physical effort; an art that is non-productive; an art that causes a major worldly effect; and an art that is strictly intellectual. To classify architecture

46

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Nine liberal arts, after Varro, Libri novem disciplinarum (first century bce).

as a liberal art would be a stretch. It would have to be divided and reframed in a way that emphasizes theoretical issues and disregards its archaic roots in nature and techne¯. Alternately, it would have to rely on a secondary meaning of “liberal art” (invoked by Cicero and Vitruvius), in which architecture is a suitable profession for a free man, a gentleman from an elevated social class who is acquainted with a variety of subjects and directs builders from above. This secondary meaning is concerned with the social status of a practitioner, whereas the primary meaning of “liberal art” is based on the universality of its knowledge.27 Meanwhile, music was encountering a similar ambivalence in its epistemological classification: It was divided into three categories and situated at different levels. As mousike¯ in Greece, it was located in a higher realm altogether, in a category above techne¯. As a mathematical subject, Pythagorean music theory was undoubtedly a liberal art. As a manual craft, the performance of instrumental music was treated merely as a skill for pleasure or application, well below the qualifications for a liberal art but still above the banausic and vulgar domain of building.

Architecture as a Mechanical Art

47

Martianus Capella and the Bridesmaids The basic set of seven liberal arts was drafted in classical Greece, stabilized in the Hellenistic era, and maintained as an ideal curriculum in ancient Rome. It would become an occasional subject for debate during the next millennium, as new criteria for classifications were introduced. This was a period of consolidation more than development. Throughout the Middle Ages, architecture consistently was excluded from the liberal arts, after being judged decisively in a story by Martianus Capella. In the late Roman Empire (early fifth century) Martianus Capella wrote De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (The Marriage of Philology and Mercury), which would become the best known text on the seven liberal arts. Using a courtship and wedding as an allegory, Martianus introduces the two main characters: Philology, a mortal but learned woman, and Mercury, an immortal man. Together, they portray the ancient liberal arts as a union of human eloquence and divine knowledge. Philology, as a human, requires a special cloak for protection on her journey to heaven and a special potion to make her immortal, like her future husband. Their wedding is attended by both gods and philosophers. Martianus characterized the seven liberal arts – arithmetic, astronomy, dialectic, geometry, grammar, music theory, and rhetoric – as Mercury’s gifts to his bride, Philology. Medicine and architecture are maidens waiting expectantly alongside the seven others, but their concern with earthly matters makes them unworthy to join the liberal arts group. They do not belong at the wedding of human eloquence and divine knowledge. “Jupiter … asked how many bridesmaids remained to be heard from. The Delian [Apollo] suggested that Medicine and Architecture were standing by, among those who had been prepared to perform. ‘But since these ladies are concerned with mortal subjects and their skill lies in mundane matters, and they have nothing in common with the celestial deities, it will not be inappropriate to disdain and reject them. They will keep silent in the heavenly company and will be examined in detail later by the maiden herself.’”28 By inviting medicine and architecture to the festivities but then bluntly excluding them, Martianus challenged Varro’s earlier set of nine liberal arts. With medicine and architecture now out of the picture, Martianus devoted one book to each of the seven remaining liberal arts. His association of liberal arts and celestial deities was a new addition to the various criteria 48

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Seven liberal arts, after Martianus Capella, The Marriage of Philology and Mercury (early fifth century).

proposed by his predecessors. Architecture still was excluded from the liberal arts, but now on different grounds. Music qualified as one of the seven bridesmaids, but only as a manifestation of Pythagorean harmony – not as practical performance. Manlius Boëthius (480–524), a Christian philosopher after the fall of Rome, believed that the cosmos is based on number and that studying mathematics shows one how to contemplate things that are abstract and immaterial.29 To promote mathematical education, he translated Greek texts into Latin. Boëthius focused on only four of the standard liberal arts – geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music theory – and designated them as artes quadriviales, the quadrivium (four ways to knowledge).30 Until then, these subjects had not been assembled explicitly as a set. The textbooks he wrote would support liberal education for many centuries. His treatise on music, De institutione musica (On the institution of music), relied on Pythagorean principles and would become the standard text on music theory throughout the Middle Ages. Echoing Pythagoras, he declared that music is based essentially on number and not sound. “We should not grant all judgment to the senses – although the whole origin of this discipline is taken from the sense of hearing … Pythagoras, having Architecture as a Mechanical Art

49

Four liberal arts of the quadrivium, after Boëthius (early sixth century).

abandoned the judgment of hearing, had turned to the weights of rules. He put no credence in human ears, which are subject to change.”31 Boëthius declared that a true musician is not a performer or composer, but a theorist who can reach through a performance to detect the rational (numerical) properties of the music. To promote the theorist, he demeaned the others: “Those of the class which is dependent upon instruments and who spend their entire effort there … are excluded from comprehension of musical knowledge, since … they act as slaves … The second class of those practicing music is that of the poets, a class led to song not so much by thought and reason as by a certain natural instinct. For this reason this class, too, is separated from music … The third class is that which acquires an ability for judging, so that it can carefully weigh rhythms and melodies and the composition as a whole. This class, since it is totally grounded in reason and thought, will rightly be esteemed as musical.”32 To us, this definition of music may seem odd, but it illustrates Boëthius’s premise that the four liberal arts are forms of universal knowledge, not expressions of human experience. By regarding the essence of music as numerical harmony and not sound, Boëthius could assemble a comprehensive set of analogies involving three types of music: cosmic, human, and instrumental.33 This principle then could be applied to everything in which the Pythagoreans recognized harmony: planetary motion, the seasons, the human soul, etc. He added that the fast motion of the heavenly bodies must produce sound but human ears are unable to detect it. Cassiodorus (ca. 487–580), a friend of Boëthius, attempted to preserve ancient culture after the fall of Rome. He valued the arts because they pro-

50

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

The trivium and the quadrivium (ninth century).

vide us with rules. Cassiodorus returned to the standard seven liberal arts from the Hellenistic era that had been reinforced by Martianus Capella, but divided them into two groups: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric (language arts, artes sermocinales); and geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music theory (mathematical arts, artes reales).34 Together, these seven arts prepared one to study the highest science: theology. This distribution of subjects would influence the educational curriculum in medieval Europe. Later, in the ninth century, the three remaining liberal arts from ancient Greece and Rome – grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric – became known as the artes triviales, or trivium (three ways to knowledge). Rather than being strictly an ideal schema for philosophers, the trivium and quadrivium also provided a model for childhood education. The linguistic subjects of the trivium served as a foundation for the mathematical subjects of the quadrivium. Meanwhile, other philosophers were proposing broader classifications that ranked subjects from physical to intellectual, or from mundane to divine.35 They resisted drawing a hard line between liberal arts and vulgar arts that would reinforce an opposition between them. Instead they devised intermediate gradations that later would become a new category: the mechanical arts. Philostratus the Athenian (170–247) established an intermediate level he called “semi-learned”: “All the arts that exist among mankind have different

Architecture as a Mechanical Art

51

spheres of action, but all aim at money, whether little or much, or simply enough to subsist on. This includes not only menial arts, but all the others too, the learned ones and the semi-learned ones alike, except for that of true wisdom. By ‘learned’ arts I mean those of poetry, music, astronomy, oratory, and public speaking except of the forensic kind, and by ‘semi-learned’ those of painting, sculpture, of statue makers, of pilots, of farmers as long as they follow the seasons, since these arts too are not far removed from learning.”36 Philostratus also questioned the ancient tradition of mimesis by suggesting that imagination is essential for painters and sculptors, not just for poets. He said that imitation presents only what has been seen, whereas imagination also presents what has not yet been seen. Augustine (354–430), after converting to Christianity, associated theology and aesthetics by proposing that beauty exists at two levels: the spiritual realm, whose harmonious order is evident to the intellect, and the earthly realm, whose rhythms of nature are observed by the senses as pleasant and even beautiful. He regarded the earthly realm as a means for meditating on the spiritual realm. In a similar way he recognized two levels of arts: not only the eternal liberal arts but also a wide variety of earthly arts. But not only do we have this capacity to live well and to achieve immortal happiness by means of those arts which are called virtues … In addition, there are the many great arts invented and exercised by human ingenuity, some for necessary purposes and others for pleasure. The mind and reason of mind shows great excellence in contriving such things, even though they may be superfluous, or even perilous and hurtful … How wonderful, how astonishing, are the achievements of human industry in devising clothing and shelter! … With what variety are his achievements in pottery, painting and sculpture conceived and executed! … What of the many and various means of communication and persuasion? … What of the delight which the mind finds in … musical instruments and the various kinds of melody which have been devised?37 Augustine recognized the value of human inventions but believed that their potential for virtue and beauty is limited. He questioned the ancient premise that beauty exists solely in the object, proposing that it relies also on the

52

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

capacity of an observer to recognize it. He believed that a harmony must exist between the beautiful thing and the soul. Augustine also distinguished between utility and beauty, saying that if we regard something merely as useful, we will be unable to recognize its beauty. Augustine’s writings introduced parallels between spiritual creation and earthly creation. He developed a philosophical framework for the earlier Christian notion of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) that arose in the second century ce when theologians first suggested that physical matter did not exist before God created the world.38 He also referred to God as an architect, metaphorically applying a term from a familiar domain to make an unfamiliar domain more intelligible.39 Isidore of Seville (560–636), like Boëthius and Cassiodorus, attempted to preserve various elements of ancient culture. He recognized the primacy of Boëthius’s four quadrivium subjects, “to free souls entangled by secular wisdom from earthly matters and set them at meditation upon the things on high.”40 As a Christian philosopher, he attributed the origin of the liberal arts to earlier Hebrew sources, rather than to the Greeks.41 Not content with the four arts of the quadrivium, Isidore elected to add three more to raise the total once again to seven.42 Rather than reinstituting grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric, he opted for astrology, mechanics, and medicine. He acknowledged that these subjects deal with physical matters but declared that their reliance on number qualified them to be included, although not fully as liberal arts. This new two-level classification set the stage for similar developments during the next few centuries.

Eriugena’s Mechanical Arts Johannes Scotus Eriugena (ca. 810–77) was the first philosopher to use the term “mechanical arts” (artes mechanicae). Eriugena was an Irish scholar and a teacher in the court of Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, during the latter years of the Carolingian dynasty.43 Believing that the liberal arts could be used to achieve Christian wisdom, Charlemagne had instructed every cathedral and monastery to open a school to teach the quadrivium subjects. Eriugena was recognized as a master of the liberal arts and an expert on Isidore of Seville and Augustine. From his education in Ireland

Architecture as a Mechanical Art

53

he knew Greek texts: not Homer or the classical philosophers but writers from the Byzantine Empire who combined ancient and Christian ideas.44 At the request of Charles the Bald, he also translated the mystical writings of Dionysius the Areopagite into Latin. One of Eriugena’s early writings was a commentary on Martianus Capella’s Marriage of Philology and Mercury. It provided a line-by-line gloss on the text but also extended the allegory of the wedding party by adding a new scene. This time, after Mercury gave the seven liberal arts to his bride Philology, she responded by giving him seven mechanical arts (artes mechanicas).45 “Mechanical arts” was a new term devised by Eriugena. He differentiated the two categories by saying that the liberal arts come from divine sources and are “understood naturally in the soul” whereas the mechanical arts arise from “some imitation or human devising.” Architecture (architectoria) was the only subject he named as a mechanical art.46 It seems that his priorities were to establish the category, reserve seven matching places in it, and present architecture as the most obvious art to be included. This new mechanical arts category established a recognizable domain into which other subjects could follow, without being demeaned as vulgar. Eriugena does not define architecture or say why he selected it as a mechanical art, except that it fits his criterion: “some imitation or human devising.” As it appears in his commentary on Martianus Capella, Eriugena’s reference to architecture probably came from this earlier textual source, rather than from a fresh consideration of an entire set of arts that would suit this new category. In turn, it invoked a series of Roman writers, including Martianus Capella, Varro, and Vitruvius. Medicine, Martianus’s other excluded maiden, is not mentioned, so architecture is left alone, waiting to be joined by six other mechanical arts. Eriugena believed that the liberal arts have an important role to play in religion because they can assist one’s salvation. A knowledge of the arts, especially grammar, helps one understand the scriptures, which in turn help one understand Christian wisdom. He regarded the liberal arts as gifts from God rather than as discoveries or inventions by the Greeks.47 At one time they were innate in humans but had been forgotten after the Fall. By regarding the immanent liberal arts as necessary steps in an ascent to a transcendent realm, Eriugena applied a Neoplatonic idea to a Christian purpose.48 The mechanical arts, on the other hand, contribute nothing to personal

54

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Liberal arts and mechanical arts, after Eriugena (ninth century).

salvation. They are human inventions, not divine creations, so contemplating them would be pointless. According to Eriugena, “Arts that are learned are said to be liberal, if they are acquired and learned for their own sake … They are not taken from elsewhere, but they are understood naturally in the soul. It is not so with the other arts which are achieved by some imitation or human calculation, such as architecture and the others.”49 Eriugena’s hierarchical distinction between liberal arts and mechanical arts was repeated by others in the ninth century but not developed in a significant way. Remigius of Auxerre (ca. 841–908), a school master, wrote a pedagogical commentary on Martianus Capella’s allegory that cited architecture and medicine as two of the seven mechanical arts, reinstating both maidens that Martianus had rejected.50 He declined to fill in the five remaining arts but did suggest that mechanical arts “consist more in experience than in reason.”51 Modern publications that examine the medieval history of the mechanical arts tend to trace the origin of the term to mechanics, the mathematical science of force and motion that utilizes physical machines and mechanisms. Mechanics in antiquity included various types of levers, machines for lifting water,52 the magical automata made by Hero of Alexandria,53 etc. These applications are consistent with the singular Roman term ars mechanica (mechanical art) and the definition of the Latin adjective mechanicus ‘of or belonging to mechanics’.54

Architecture as a Mechanical Art

55

The Greek etymology of “mechanical,” however, provides additional meanings that are not necessarily associated with either motion or machines. They come from the adjective µηχανικο´ ς (me¯chanikos) ‘resourceful’, ‘inventive’, which in turn derives from the verb µηχανη´ (me¯chane¯), ‘make by art or cunning’, ‘contrive’, ‘devise’.55 These meanings refer not to physical machines but to human actions. Based on this definition, one could act “mechanically” in situations that do not involve mechanics or machines. This etymology of “mechanical” does not anticipate the modern pejorative associations that the word has acquired, in which certain attributes of machines (regulated, systematic, etc.) are opposed to certain attributes of humans (expressive, thoughtful, etc.). When Eriugena coined the term “mechanical arts” (artes mechanicae), he probably had the Greek etymology of me¯chanikos in mind. He was fluent in Greek and familiar with Neoplatonic writings. His criterion for a mechanical art, “some imitation or human devising,” is consistent with the Greek etymology and does not refer directly to the Roman art of mechanics. As a definition for an entire category and its eventual contents, associating “mechanical” with “human invention” is appropriately general. It leaves plenty of room for particular examples to be included. Limiting the contents to various types of mechanics would be too restrictive for a whole category. The Greek noun me¯chanikos also appears in Byzantine architecture, where it is distinguished from architekton. A treatise by Procopius (500–65), De aedificiis (On buildings), praised the emperor Justinian as the patron responsible for the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and for other notable buildings.56 Procopius admired this building not only for its structural achievement but also for its magical effect: the dome “seems somehow to float in the air on no firm basis.”57 The design of this large, innovative building was devised by Anthemius of Tralles, an expert in geometry, and Isidorus of Miletus, an expert in physics. Procopius complimented their ingenuity by calling them me¯chanikos, suggesting an emphasis on innovation through theoretical activity.58 Elsewhere in his book, Procopius also uses the term architekton, but only to refer to physical acts of building in which the architekton is a foreman who directs other workers (tektonai). This is consistent with the earlier Greek notion that the work of the architekton is a techne¯. His distinction between me¯chanikos and architekton draws a line between designing and building – a distinction that has become familiar to us – but places the architect on the side that we would not expect.59 This position for 56

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

the Byzantine architect is also evident in a Byzantine lexicon: “α´ ρχιτε´κτων: supervisor of construction work; chief of carpenters (or builders); one who fashions something with painstaking care.”60 The same distinction is evident in the preface to an earlier text on mechanics by Pappus of Alexandria in the late third century.61 Pappus cites five types of mechanics, some of which perform deeds that seem magical and contrary to nature, such as lifting great weights and hurling objects great distances using only a small amount of force. He describes the ideal education for a me¯chanikos (mechanician) that includes theoretical knowledge (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and physics) and practical skills (metals, house construction, carpentry, and painting). However, if one cannot learn all of these subjects, he advises narrowing one’s ambition to practical tasks, to become either an architekton or an inventor of mechanical devices.62 This situates the architekton as a smaller, practical subset of me¯chanikos. The same relationship is evident in Eriugena’s classification of the arts, in which the “mechanical art” category includes architecture as one of its seven components. The distinction between me¯chanikos and architekton has been traced also in Carolingian architecture, contemporary with Eriugena.63 Because Eriugena did not explain the origin or meaning of his term “mechanical,” others who followed may have been puzzled by its apparent reference to mechanics. This ambiguity led subsequent writers in the ninth century to speculate on its origin and make their own interpretations. One line of thought devised an etymology that associated the mechanical arts with adultery. This may have been prompted by the similar sounds of two words: mechanikos and moichos (µοιχο´ς; Latin moechus) ‘adulterer.’64 During the next three centuries other writers struggled to make sense of this association between adultery and the mechanical arts. One explanation suggested that the mechanical arts emphasize secrecy and hiding “like a man who secretly pollutes the marriage bed of another. From ‘moechus’ we call ‘mechanical art’ any object which is clever and most delicate and which, in its making or operation, is beyond detection, so that beholders find their power of vision stolen from them when they cannot penetrate the ingenuity of the thing.”65 This interpretation may have been reinforced by an additional, metaphorical meaning of moichos as ‘unfaithfulness to God’,66 referring to the “corrupt” earthly realm and the dissociation of the mechanical arts from the liberal arts leading to Christian wisdom. In the twelfth century, Hugh Architecture as a Mechanical Art

57

of St Victor introduced several other variations to explain why the mechanical arts are “adulterate”: because they pursue merely human works; because they are not nature but only imitative of nature; because they are concerned with the works of human labour; and because their concern is with the artificer’s product, which borrows its form from nature.67

58

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

4 Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

Hugh of St Victor (ca. 1096–1141) was born in Saxony and was educated to become a religious cleric. Unrest in his home province led him to seek a position at the Abbey of St Victor in 1115, when the population of Paris was no more than three thousand. The abbey, located on the Left Bank, had been inaugurated in 1108 and already had a reputation for learning. Later it would become associated with the University of Paris. Hugh remained at the abbey for the rest of his life, not as a monk but as a canon regular whose responsibilities combined ascetic scholarship and community service. An accomplished scholar and respected teacher, eventually he became head of the school.

Hugh of St Victor’s Christian Ladders Hugh wrote Didascalicon in the late 1120s, when the first European universities were being formed.1 He was not yet aware of the many writings by Aristotle and Arabic scholars that would arrive in Europe during the twelfth century. His setting was still monastic and his primary reference was Augustine. The title, Didascalicon, derives from διδασκαλικο´ς (didaskalikos) ‘fit for teaching’.2 It was intended as a comprehensive manual for readers, an epistemological map with many details and directions. It instructed people on what they should read, in which order, and in which manner. The first three books of Didascalicon discuss the various arts and how they are related. The second book includes a substantial discussion of the mechanical arts, placing seven subjects into the seven containers that Eriugena had

Hugh of St Victor writing the Didascalicon. Drawing from Hugonis de S. Victore Eruditionis didascalicae (Fulda manuscript, ca. 1176); Vulcanius collection (Leiden University Library, ms vul 46, fol. 130r).

established but not yet filled. The next three books of Didascalicon discuss the Bible and how one should read it. Like Eriugena’s commentary on Martianus, Hugh’s Didascalicon was written for the benefit of Christians. His aim was both philosophical and theological. Hugh regarded reading as a methodical way to help recover the primordial knowledge that humans had lost after the Fall. He believed that a latent imprint of this knowledge remains in the mind, waiting to be filled in again when one encounters it. Although it may be prompted externally by reading, the light it generates is essentially internal, restoring light that once was present in the person rather than providing illumination to a person who previously was in darkness. One does not look outside for what can be found within.3 As Ivan Illich notes, “Enlightenment in Hugh’s world and what is understood as enlightenment now are two different things … The light, which in Hugh’s metaphoric usage illuminates, is the counterfoil of the eighteenth-century light of reason. The light of which Hugh speaks here brings man to a glow. Approaching wisdom makes the reader radiant. The studious striving that Hugh teaches is a commitment to engage in an activity by which the reader’s own ‘self ’ will be kindled and brought to sparkle.”4 In Hugh’s time, reading was a bodily activity. The words on the page were recited aloud or mouthed silently.5 Words possessed the reader’s body and filled the room, along with any listeners who were present. They were written not only for their meaning but also for their sound and rhythm, unlike modern texts for individuals who read silently through the words to conjure an idea or an author beyond the surface of the paper. From medieval reading it is only a short step to medieval music. Plainchant also relied heavily on the sound and rhythm of words. In the simplest form of plainchant, a separate note was assigned to each syllable in the text. The words guided the formation of the music; conversely, the music reinforced the words and made them more memorable.6 The act of reading also might prompt one to add a written commentary in the blank spaces of a document. As Illich notes, “Nothing which went through the mind of the reader was deemed inappropriate as a commentary to such a text. Texts then grew out of tangents appended to older texts, which were slowly absorbed by them.”7 When the annotated document was copied by another scribe, parts of the commentary might be incorporated into it. This process presumed that wisdom is collective and cumulative. Recording this wisdom was more important than preserving the document Architecture as a Mechanical Art

61

“The Fall of Man and Expulsion from the Garden of Eden,” from Limbourg brothers, Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry (ca. 1412–16). Musée Condé, Chantilly.

in its original state. Scribes, mumbling the words aloud as they wrote, also might paraphrase or omit phrases from a document, resulting in a long historical series of manuscript copies with cascading differences. The notion of an ideal original, reproduced in copies that are completely faithful, did not exist in Hugh’s time.8 Only the Bible was truly authoritative and not subject to revision. Hugh’s primary frame of reference was the Bible. He believed that humans once existed in a perfect Eden (described in Genesis), where they 62

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Ascension through the arts, as a preparation for reading the scriptures, after Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon (late 1120s).

could contemplate God directly. After the Fall, God banished humanity to a world of linear time and mortality that would end only at the Apocalypse (described in Revelation), when each human would be judged for readmission to God’s perfect world. Because this temporal world was divinely created it had certain merits, but was wretched compared to the Garden of Eden. God provided all creatures with the means to survive – except for humans, who are born naked and helpless, and therefore must use their ingenuity. Following Augustine, Hugh believed that humanity was now in the sixth and final age of the temporal world, so the glorious Apocalypse was bound to arrive soon.9 In the meantime, individuals could prepare for Judgment Day by seeking salvation on their own: by studying the scriptures and contemplating God’s workings from afar. Hugh warned that simply diving into the Bible would lead to failure because a reader would not be prepared to understand what was written. Instead, he recommended a methodical process by which one first develops Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

63

abilities in the various arts. “It is in the seven liberal arts … that the foundation of all learning is to be found … These, indeed, so hang together and so depend upon one another in their ideas that if only one of the arts be lacking, all the rest cannot make a man into a philosopher.”10 Using the liberal arts of the trivium and quadrivium as a starting point, Hugh formulated a revised hierarchical scheme with a four-part classification that reorganized and supplemented the liberal arts, incorporated seven mechanical arts, and situated all of them in the domain of philosophy.11 At the bottom of the hierarchy are the mechanical arts to deal with the necessities of life. In the middle are the practical arts (politics, ethics, and economics) to understand morals. In the upper part are the theoretical arts (theology, mathematics, and physics) to acquire knowledge.12 The language arts (grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric) are situated alongside the three other classes to assist all of them with communication and argumentation. To remind the reader of the need to proceed methodically from bottom to top, Hugh occasionally uses the incremental process of house construction as an analogy: the mechanical arts provide the foundation; the superstructure is added later. “It is not without value to call to mind what we see happen in the construction of buildings, where first the foundation is laid, then the structure is raised upon it, and finally, when the work is all finished, the house is decorated by the laying on of color.”13 Like Eriugena, Hugh also used the analogy of a ladder to illustrate how one can climb the arts, step by step, to ascend from the earthly world toward the divine. Didascalicon is the benchmark document for the mechanical arts in medieval Europe. It not only provides the first comprehensive description of the mechanical arts but also defines the principles on which they are based and situates them in a larger philosophical and theological context. Other medieval philosophers followed in Hugh’s footsteps. In the absence of any medieval treatises on architecture, Didascalicon offers some glimpses of how architecture was conceived – not on its own, but as part of a larger philosophical scheme. Didascalicon is neither a manual that provides instruction in the mechanical arts nor a promotional document that attempts to raise their standing in relation to other types of knowledge or activities.14 It is more like an epistemological map to guide Christians. Hugh recognizes that one can approach the mechanical arts through either philosophy or execution.

64

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

His approach is largely philosophical, although some of his remarks suggest that he did observe artisans in action. Hugh begins by referring to Eriugena’s ninth-century commentary on the liberal and mechanical arts, which in turn was based on Martianus Capella’s fifth-century allegory of the liberal arts, which in turn was a response to Varro’s first-century bce recognition of architecture and medicine as liberal arts. Once again, Mercury gives seven liberal arts to his bride Philology, then she presents him with seven handmaids who represent the seven mechanical arts. Eriugena had mentioned only one mechanical art (architecture), but Hugh formulates a list of seven: fabric making, armament, commerce, agriculture, hunting, medicine, and theatrics.15 Architecture itself is not listed, but it will appear soon. Medicine has returned, after being included as a liberal art by Varro, evicted by Martianus, and not mentioned by Eriugena. Hugh relies on ancient authority to define the liberal arts, and to characterize the mechanical arts in a mildly pejorative way that recalls the low social standing of the banausic crafts in Greece. “These sciences are called mechanical, that is, adulterate, because their concern is with the artificer’s product, which borrows its form from nature. Similarly, the other seven are called liberal either because they require minds which are liberal, that is, liberated and practiced (for these sciences pursue subtle inquiries into the causes of things), or because in antiquity only free and noble men were accustomed to study them, while the populace and the sons of men not free sought operative skill in things mechanical.”16 Departing from ancient precedent, Hugh develops a new set of principles that defines the mechanical arts in a Christian way. He notes that nature provides most living things with coverings for their protection: “Bark encircles the tree, feathers cover the bird, scales encase the fish, fleece clothes the sheep, hair garbs cattle and wild beasts, a shell protects the tortoise, and ivory makes the elephant unafraid of spears … It is fitting that nature should provide a plan for those beings which do not know how to care for themselves.”17 Unfortunately, nature does not do the same for humans: “Man alone is brought forth naked and unarmed.” Consequently, humans developed the mechanical arts to provide remedies for their inherent weakness – but beyond mere survival, these inventions prompted them to set their sights higher: “From nature’s example, a better chance for trying things should be

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

65

provided to man when he comes to devise for himself by his own reasoning those things naturally given to all animals. Indeed, man’s reason shines forth much more brilliantly in inventing these very things than ever it would have had man naturally possessed them.”18 Unlike Eriugena, who formulated the mechanical arts category but denied that it makes any contribution toward salvation, Hugh regarded it as a necessary first level of philosophy: the foundation on which a superstructure can be built.19 As a series, these levels (mechanical, ethical, theoretical, then scriptural) enable one to ascend toward that lost state of perfection. He believed that a knowledge of the mechanical arts is not simply left behind. It remains implicit and may be invoked as one acquires a knowledge of the liberal arts and an understanding of the scriptures. Consequently, the mechanical arts are not merely instrumental but are linked indirectly to a mystical pursuit of the divine. Ironically, after carefully filling in the seven mechanical arts and noting that they correspond to the seven liberal arts,20 Hugh formulates a revised scheme that supplements the liberal arts and reorganizes them vertically into groups rather than leaving them as “horizontal” equivalents. He expands the number of liberal arts from seven to nine by adding five subjects (theology, physics, politics, ethics, and economics) and combining the four quadrivium subjects (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music theory) under the single heading “mathematics.”21 Both schemes, vertical and horizontal, are mentioned in Didascalicon without explanation, so it seems that he does not consider them contradictory. Although Hugh is obsessed with numerical correspondences elsewhere in his treatise, here it appears that he cared more about establishing a new hierarchical ascension of arts from the temporal world to the spiritual world than maintaining numerical correspondence. Hugh’s description of music as a mathematical liberal art follows the conventional concept of Pythagorean ratios. Following Boëthius, he also distinguishes three types of music: universal, human, and instrumental.22 Universal music is primary, of course, but he has good things to say about human and instrumental music, which normally were excluded from the liberal arts. He associates music generally with water and moisture, suggesting an emphasis on the temporal flow of melody and rhythm, rather than just the timeless ratios of harmony.23 He also notes that music imparts

66

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Liberal and mechanical arts, after Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon.

motion and sensation to both the body and the soul, which are related through a natural sympathetic friendship.24 After Hugh lists the seven mechanical arts, he divides them into two groups. The first group includes three mechanical arts (fabric making, armament, and commerce) that provide humans with external protection from harm. As a series, they move outward from the body. He suggests that this group mirrors the “external” nature of the three trivium subjects (grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric) that are concerned with language, because words also act externally beyond the body. The second group includes four mechanical arts (agriculture, hunting, medicine, and theatrics) that provide internal nourishment for the body. He says they are similar to the four quadrivium subjects (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music theory) that provide internal nourishment of a different kind. Fabric making (lanificium) is the first mechanical art. It is used to produce clothing and blankets (providing protection from cold), but also carpets, curtains, nets, saddles, baskets, and other woven articles. Starting with various materials (flax, fleece, hides, etc.), fabric making employs a range of tools (hand, needle, loom, etc.) and a variety of actions (weaving, sewing, and twisting).25

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

67

Armament (armatura) is the second mechanical art. During times of war, breastplates, shields, and helmets provide an additional layer of protection for the body. Like fabrics, they are made from certain materials (primarily metal), using certain tools. Within this category, Hugh includes both armour for protection and weapons for striking and firing. Following his definition of the mechanical arts as remedies for human weakness, he regards military arms as a strengthening of the bodily arms that one holds up to fend off external threats. They are not offensive but defensive, intended to neutralize an intruder or at least keep it at a safe distance. He mentions weapons that one holds firm (sword, two-faced axe, and lance) and weapons that are projected a long distance to create a zone of safety around the body (arrows, spears, and missiles). To support this second notion, he mentions the etymology of “protect”: protelare, ‘make long’. Commerce (navigatio) is the third mechanical art.26 Along with fabric making and armament, Hugh regards domestic and foreign commerce as a form of external protection. To reinforce its association with the trivium, he notes that commerce requires fluent skills in rhetoric and suggests an etymological link between Mercury and “merchant,” each being fluent in its own way. Hugh cares less about the monetary benefits of buying, selling, and trading, and more about the ambassadorial potential for making friends and avoiding future conflict. “Commerce penetrates the secret places of the world, approaches shores unseen, explores fearful wildernesses, and in tongues unknown and with barbaric peoples carries on the trade of mankind. The pursuit of commerce reconciles nations, calms wars, strengthens peace, and commutes the private good of individuals into the common benefit of all.”27 Agriculture (agricultura) is the fourth mechanical art, and the first art in the second group that attends to the nourishment of the body. Hugh is concerned mainly with different types of land (arable, plantational, pastoral, and floral) and the different uses to which they are suited. By starting from the earth, he is focusing on the farmer. Nourishment from food remains implicit here, but appears explicitly in the next subject. Agriculture is the least developed of Hugh’s descriptions, suggesting that he did not research it to the same extent as the others. Hunting (venatio) is the fifth mechanical art. Hugh describes in detail how creatures are caught on land and at sea, using various tools and techniques: traps, spears, nets, encircling the game, etc. Within this subject he 68

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

also includes food preparation (frying, boiling, baking, salting, etc.) and lists products of various kinds: bread, side dishes (meats, vegetables, fruits), seasonings, and drinks (water, wine, beer, mead). When considering the needs of the individual, he points out that certain liquids (such as water) moisten without nourishing, whereas others (such as wine) do both. Hugh acknowledges that many of the foods he has mentioned are not associated with hunting, but decided to retain this name to recognize that humans long ago obtained all their food by hunting. “Hunting, therefore, includes all the duties of bakers, butchers, cooks, and tavern keepers.”28 Medicine (medicina) is the sixth mechanical art. Hugh notes how the body benefits from common “occasions” that preserve health: air, motion, quiet, food, sleep, etc. He notes that certain emotions (wrath, pleasure) raise the temperature of the body by different degrees, while others (worry, terror) lower it by different degrees. He then discusses interior operations that attempt to return a body to health by introducing medicine (potions, emetics, powders) through one of the body’s openings. He recognizes that food and drink also can be regarded as materials for internal medicine, not just as products of agriculture and hunting. In addition to internal medicine, he notes that external operations can apply medicine to the skin and can conduct surgery on the flesh or the bone. Theatrics (theatrica) is the seventh and final mechanical art. Here Hugh refers not to contemporary examples but to Greek and Roman precedents: drama in the theatre, sports in the gymnasium, chariot races in the arena, banquets with songs and instruments, dice games, etc. He emphasizes entertainment and amusement rather than ritual. As examples of a mechanical art, each activity follows rules in its performance. He does not regard entertainment as a frivolous pastime, but as a form of medicine that maintains the well-being of individuals and groups: “They numbered these entertainments among legitimate activities because by temperate motion natural heat is stimulated in the body and by enjoyment the mind is refreshed; or, as is more likely, seeing that people necessarily gathered together for occasional amusement, they desired that places for such amusement might be established to forestall the people’s coming together at public houses, where they might commit lewd or criminal acts.”29 To recast these ancient activities as forms of entertainment, Hugh had to disregard their ritual meaning, assemble them under a single heading, and interpret them as remedies for human weakness. In Hugh’s discussions of Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

69

the seven mechanical arts, theatrics is the only one that refers solely to another place and time. Invoking ancient authority may have been a defensive tactic, anticipating that his contemporaries would question entertainment as a basic human need. His six other mechanical arts were less controversial. They sit comfortably in a medieval context but are described in a general way that could apply to all human civilizations since the Fall. Armament, Hugh’s second mechanical art, includes not only military devices but also walls and carpentry, including wood framing for roofs. This is where Eriugena’s original “architecture” category reappears in Hugh’s mechanical arts: as a subset of armament. Armament is of two types, the constructional [architectonicam] and the craftly [fabrilem]. The constructional [architectonica] is divided into the building of walls [caementariam], which is the business of the [mason (latomos et caementarios),] and [carpentry (carpentariam), which is the business of the] carpenter [and framer (carpentarios et tignarios)], and of other craftsmen of both these sorts, who work with mattocks and hatchets, the file and beam, the saw and auger, planes, vises, the trowel and the level, smoothing, hewing, cutting, filing, carving, joining, daubing in every sort of material – clay, stone, wood, bone, gravel, lime, gypsum, and other materials that may exist of this kind.30 Both types of armament transform natural materials into durable items for human use. “Constructional” armament is associated largely with masonry and wood, and it involves actions that would be performed on site, whereas “craftly” armament is associated with metal that is either forged or cast, presumably in a separate workshop filled with heat, fumes, and noise – the same conditions that had prompted the Greeks to regard metalworking as the lowliest, most banausic of the crafts. “Craftly armament is divided into the malleable branch, which forges material into shape by beating upon it, and the foundry branch, which reduces material into shape by casting it – so that ‘founders’ is the name for those who know how to cast a shapeless mass into the form of an implement.”31 All of the military armour and weapons that Hugh mentioned earlier would be made primarily of metal, so they would fall within his “craftly” division. Some of the tools for building walls and doing carpentry also would 70

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Architecture’s position in the mechanical arts, after Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon.

be made by metalworkers, but the remaining materials – clay, stone, wood, bone, gravel, and lime – would be brought to a “constructional” building site for assembly. Although Hugh’s comments on architecture are brief, they clearly associate architecture with the incremental process of construction. His lists of materials, tools, and actions suggest that he had observed artisans at work and inquired into what they were doing. His earlier “craftly” references to shields, breastplates, helmets, swords, axes, lances, spears, and arrows provide the reader with some mental images of these products, along with a few descriptions of how they would be used. His “constructional” references, however, focus almost entirely on individual details, without explicitly mentioning larger building elements (other than walls and beams), building assemblies, products of carpentry, or their particular uses when completed. Hugh’s scheme emphasizes protection over anything else that architecture may offer. This is consistent with the primary intent of his mechanical arts: to compensate for human weakness. As part of armatura, the building of walls and roofs provides external protection for the body at an intermediate scale between clothing (lanificium) and negotiated commerce with foreign lands (navigatio). In the early twelfth century, when castles and fortified towns were prevalent, and not long before the first city wall would be built around Paris, Hugh’s association of walls and military defenses would have been poignant. Perhaps architecture would have been allocated its own Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

71

category, between armament and commerce on Hugh’s graduated scale, if the scheme he had inherited from Eriugena provided not seven but eight containers for mechanical arts, and not three but four mechanical arts for external protection. Although Hugh’s entire set of epistemological and theological categories (mechanical, ethical, theoretical, and scriptural) is organized hierarchically, there is no suggestion of a hierarchy within the mechanical arts. Armament, including architecture, is comparable to the others. Fabric makers, theatrical actors, medical physicians, metalworkers, carpenters, builders, farmers, hunters, and merchants are all equal. There is no vestige of the ancient distinction between free and banausic crafts, in which some artisans enjoy a higher social standing because their work involves less physical labour, better working conditions, or greater intellectual demands. The mechanical arts would fit comfortably into the ancient category of techne¯, with two exceptions: agriculture and theatrics. In ancient Greece, farming was excluded from techne¯ because farmers release the earth’s natural fertility, whereas artisans shape natural substance into a different form. There is no such distinction in the mechanical arts, which regard farming and hunting (along with food preparation) as arts of invention that respond to the human need for food. The particular source of that food is secondary. The emphasis on human need and invention takes precedence over any consideration for nature as a living force in its own right. In ancient Greece, Hugh’s concept of “theatrics” would have seemed incongruous. Ancient instrumental music was a techne¯ that requires skill and relies on convention, but drama, vocal music, and poetry were inspired forms of mousike¯, overseen by the Muses. Sports were not just forms of entertainment but also rituals with political and religious significance. The way Hugh describes theatrics suggests that he was unaware of their ritual dimension, perhaps because the relevant ancient sources had not yet reached him in the early twelfth century. Alternately, associating theatrics with health may have promoted a different understanding of sport: as curative entertainments for individual bodies rather than as social rituals that bond individuals to their culture and ancestors. In Hugh’s scheme, the needs for clothing, shelter, food, health, and safety are essentially individual but could be addressed collectively in a social situation: buildings for families, food for groups, etc. Commerce and theatrics are less obvious as individual needs, but Hugh includes them as 72

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

mechanical arts by defining them in larger circumstances. Commerce operates in a broader context that encompasses people in distant places who might become enemies if commercial negotiation did not promote friendly relations. Theatrics operates in a longer time frame that encompasses troubles in a person’s life that might threaten one’s well-being if occasional entertainment did not restore emotional balance. Together, commerce and theatrics begin to define a social setting in which individuals rely on others to remedy weakness. Although Hugh’s mechanical arts suggest some social situations, they are not involved directly in the constitution of a public order, as in the Greek polis. Hugh recognizes that one needs to know about politics to operate intelligently in the temporal world but, unlike the ancient Greeks, he does not regard politics as an especially important practice because it is not associated directly with the spiritual realm. He includes it in the realm of ethics, the lower level of his liberal arts, and makes no explicit connection between politics and an architectural setting that would support it. There is no agora in sight.

Elements of Practice in the Mechanical Arts Eriugena, Hugh of St Victor, and subsequent medieval philosophers placed architecture firmly in the mechanical arts. In turn, the mechanical arts were situated within a hierarchical Christian framework, along with the liberal arts and the scriptures. Together, they followed a teleological arc that began historically with the Fall, continued in the temporal world, and was expected to end soon with the arrival of the Apocalypse. In the meantime, humans were encouraged to seek salvation by studying the arts and, more importantly, the scriptures. In this philosophical and theological context, architecture and the other mechanical arts were conceived as arts of utility that provide remedies for inherent human weakness, but also support those more elevated pursuits. The medieval era left us no comprehensive treatise on architecture, only residual documents (contracts, employment records, law suits), a few brief texts (Villard de Honnecourt, Gervase), and features of the buildings that still exist. There was also no comprehensive manual that presented architecture as a mechanical art. Based on the six books in Hugh of St Victor’s Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

73

Didascalicon, the following interpretation sketches some practical implications of conceiving architecture as a mechanical art. It does not assume that Hugh’s principles should be congruent with existing medieval buildings, nor with medieval architectural practices. It is simply an interpretation that reads the lines and, in some ways, between the lines to extend Hugh’s philosophical text into architectural territory. As in the earlier chapter on ancient techne¯, this interpretive sketch of architecture as a mechanical art imports the template of terms from Chapter 1 and lays it gently onto the terrain of the mechanical arts. 1 Armament The mechanical arts are human inventions that compensate for intrinsic human weaknesses. Hugh observed that animals are self-reliant in their natural habitat but humans (and therefore humanity) would not survive without the mechanical arts. With its emphasis on armament and protection to strengthen the human body, and its reference to the building of walls and roofs, architecture would include walled fortifications to keep out enemies. At a smaller scale, it would also include houses and other types of buildings with solid, impenetrable walls to repel potential intruders. Regarding architecture as a form of military armament emphasizes protection from human enemies and perhaps predatory animals. In the earlier section on fabric making Hugh refers to clothing and blankets, so he is also concerned with protection from inclement weather. A full building enclosure would offer additional protection from rain, snow, direct sun, and cold air. Hugh’s primary emphasis on the individual body suggests that domestic buildings are the basic component of architecture. There is nothing in the six books to indicate that architecture refers to buildings of a particular size or a particular use. There is no suggestion that architecture is limited to large buildings, public buildings, or religious buildings.32 As defense is his main criterion, a large building or a fortification also could provide protection and shelter – perhaps for everyone living in a local area; however, Hugh does not place much emphasis on collective activities and does not explicitly mention towns as an urban formation. With architecture being placed on par with the other mechanical arts that respond to basic human needs, it might provide shelter and support for individuals who are active in fabric making, armament, agriculture, hunting, and medicine, and who require 74

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

a few constructed items: workshops for metalworking and carpentry, buildings for storing agricultural products that will be used for food and fabrics, mills for processing grain, etc.33 With Hugh defining commerce and theatrics as basic human needs, the carpentry division of architecture would be called on to build ships and barges to carry people to distant places to develop friendly relations with foreigners who otherwise might become enemies. In turn, the ships and barges would bring back goods and perhaps transfer them to land vehicles (also built by carpenters), which then would transport the goods to additional buildings (built by masons and carpenters) for safe storage and sale by merchants. Hugh’s commerce idea thus develops into a story with architectural implications. Although Hugh mentions arenas for sporting events and theatres for theatrical events, he consistently uses the past tense to place them in an earlier era. The grand spectacles suggested by his ancient examples – boxing matches, chariot races, etc. – are quickly subdued by his subsequent comments about avoiding excess and maintaining an even temperature in the body. His muted description of people “gathered together for occasional amusement” and the need to provide “places for such amusement” suggests that masons and carpenters in the mechanical arts would not need to construct large Roman arenas and Greek amphitheatres in the medieval world. Although Hugh’s epistemological scheme was developed in a Christian context, there is no mention of food, clothing, or any special artifacts being used for religious purposes. Similarly, the mechanical arts category makes no distinction between sacred and secular buildings. In the six books of Didascalicon there are no references to churches, cathedrals, or monasteries. It seems that the mechanical arts already have an important role to play in Christian culture: to enable humanity to survive until the arrival of the Apocalypse. The highest level in Hugh’s epistemological hierarchy, the reading of the scriptures, is described as a private activity that would require no more than a quiet place to read: “Quiet of life – whether interior, so that the mind is not distracted with illicit desires, or exterior, so that leisure and opportunity are provided for creditable and useful studies – is in both senses important to discipline.”34 Consequently, Hugh’s mechanical arts would not need a social place for sermons or other religious rituals. Likewise, there is no suggestion that the scriptures should be accompanied by certain human artifacts or views of nature to complement one’s reading. Based on what Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

75

Hugh has written, his architectural requirements to support the reading of the Bible would be even more minimal than what is portrayed in images of St Jerome in his study. Hugh may need nothing but an enclosure to defend against noise that would disturb the reader’s concentration. 2 Inventor As a background for his expanded set of liberal arts, Hugh lists the historical figures who were responsible for inventing an art or for writing the first treatise on it.35 In theology he mentions three different people – Linus from ancient Greece, Varro from ancient Rome, and Eriugena as a Christian from his own time – presumably because their religions are different. Thales of Miletus is credited with inventing natural physics. Pythagoras invented arithmetic. Geometry was discovered in Egypt, and Euclid was the first Greek to write about it. Moses designated Tubal as the biblical inventor of music but the Greeks credited Pythagoras. Mercury, Linus, Zetus, and Amphio also contributed to music. Cham, son of Noah, invented astronomy, and Ptolemy later revived it. Socrates originated ethics, purportedly by writing twenty-four books on the subject. The language arts are traced to Moses, who transcribed the first written law. Grammar originated in Egypt at the time of Osiris but the particular inventor is not known. Parmenides invented dialectic (logic); Plato and Aristotle developed it further. Demosthenes devised rhetoric for the Greeks. In the mechanical arts Hugh presents a similar roster of inventors and authors. Minerva introduced the Greeks to fabric making and designed the first loom. She also taught Daedalus (Daidalos) about handicrafts. In the art of armament, Tubal again gets the biblical credit but Vulcan was the first metalsmith. No one is credited with inventing architecture but Vitruvius wrote the first treatise, De architectura (On Architecture). In commerce (navigatio) the discovery of the boat is credited collectively to the Pelasgians. Ceres in Greece and Isis in Egypt both discovered the use of grain, and others discovered how to cultivate corn, spelt, grapes, etc. Hesiod Ascraeus was the first Greek to write about farming but the treatise by Palladius, De agricultura (On Agriculture), is also noteworthy. No one is mentioned as an inventor of hunting techniques but hunting’s food preparation division is represented by Apicius, who devised an apparatus for cooking and later died willingly from consuming delicacies. Daedalus contributed to the art of food 76

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

preparation by making the first table and stool. Apollo discovered medicine but it lapsed for a while and was revived later by Hippocrates. Theatrics is credited generally to the men of Lydia who devised games and spectacles. Later they were copied by the Romans, who acknowledged their predecessors by referring to games as ludi. From a modern standpoint, supported by abundant documents and historical research, Hugh’s roster from the twelfth century includes some figures and remarks that may seem odd and even amusing, but his general intent is clear. He moves methodically through the lists of liberal and mechanical arts to ensure that each one has a history. Most of his references are from the Bible or from Egypt or Greece. Everyone is equally historical. Although his list includes a few gods and a few borderline cases (Daedalus, for example), most of the inventors and all of the authors are human. Whenever possible, he highlights two significant events in the history of an art: its invention and the recording of its principles or conventions in a treatise. Hugh typically uses the word “invention” for the mechanical arts: “Indeed, man’s reason shines forth much more brilliantly in inventing these very things than ever it would have had man naturally possessed them.”36 In Christian time, one can imagine the art being invented soon after the Fall, when human needs in the temporal world suddenly became evident. “He who first invented the use of clothes had considered how each of the growing things one by one has its proper covering by which to protect its nature from offense.”37 This points to a single, momentous occasion, before which the art did not exist.38 The invention of a mechanical art is attributed to a single person, unlike the ancient techne¯ tradition, where a series of ancestral artisans gradually perfected their craft. Each mechanical art emerged long ago, all at once, so present practices are merely applications of the original invention. The temporal world does not change in any essential way, so there is no need for additional inventions or innovation. When it becomes clear that this art must be passed down to subsequent generations so that humanity will survive, the principles or conventions are written down, formalizing human activities into an art. “Before there was an art of music, they sang; before there was geometry, they measured fields … but then came the arts, which, though they took their rise in usage, nonetheless excel it.”39 Each art then remains relatively stable. Having been recorded and preserved in a treatise, the art will not be lost, so humans are protected from that prospect. There is no need for subsequent treatises Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

77

because authoritative facts, unlike opinions and interpretations, are not open to debate or renewal. Apart from Hugh’s reference to “theatrics” in ancient Greece and Rome, his liberal and mechanical arts are described in an almost timeless way, responding to human weaknesses that are intrinsic and continuing. He emphasizes original inventors and authors, but not subsequent inventors. In Didascalicon, Christian time has an overall teleological trajectory but it is progressive only in a spiritual sense (attempting to restore what was lost), not in a material sense, so meaningful benefits cannot be gained by developing new material things.40 Conversely, because the mechanical arts are not understood as the epitome of craftsmanship, they are not bound to convention, unlike in the techne¯ tradition.41 Although Hugh refers to Vitruvius as the person who recorded the principles of architecture, he does not elaborate on the contents of De architectura.42 In fact, Vitruvius probably would contradict some of the premises of the mechanical arts that are described or implied in Didascalicon. As a philosopher and theologian, Hugh seems content to let others take responsibility for their own subjects, assuming that the inventions in those arts are universal and have proven over time to be effective remedies. Assuming that the arts can sustain humanity until the Apocalypse, they will have fulfilled their primary purpose. 3 Nature In defining most of the mechanical arts, Hugh focuses first on the material from which it is made: “[An] art … takes shape in some material medium and is brought out in it through manipulation of that material, as is the case in architecture [architectura].”43 As with techne¯, which could result in either a material product or a changed condition, most of the mechanical arts work primarily with natural materials: fabric making, armament, agriculture, hunting (including food preparation), and medicine. Two of the mechanical arts – commerce and theatrics – are associated more with actions than with materials. Unlike with techne¯, products of the mechanical arts are not regarded essentially as independent things for human use. In each case, they are conceived primarily as external or internal remedies, and therefore are bound to the body. It may be more appropriate to refer to the results of the

78

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

mechanical arts as supplementary changes to the original state of the body: “body with fabric”; “body with armament”; “body with food”; “body with medicine”; etc. Because nature left the body in a state that is insufficient for survival, the mechanical arts supplement or modify what nature provided. They also must attend to the body throughout its lifetime. One cannot eat just once. Similarly, medicine has to monitor the changing temperature of the body and make adjustments if it is too warm or too cold. Hugh identifies three operative realms – God, nature, and the mechanical arts – and declares that they are essentially independent and separate: “Now there are three works – the work of God, the work of nature, and the work of the artificer … The earth cannot create the heaven, nor can man, who is powerless to add a mere span to his stature, bring forth the green herb.”44 Humans can use nature but cannot change how it operates. Nature was created by God for humans to use while they are in the temporal world.45 Meanwhile, nature has its own work to do: “The work of nature is to bring forth into actuality that which lay hidden, whence we read, ‘Let the earth bring forth the green herb.’”46 Although Hugh believes that nature continues to be active, he does not follow the Greek tradition in which nature has its own life force, with which humans must negotiate to encourage natural growth or to harvest natural material.47 He does not suggest that a carpenter must perform a sacrificial ritual of some kind before felling a tree. Stone, wood, and other materials are valued mainly for their potential application in the mechanical arts. A medieval artisan is neither a transformer of nature (in the techne¯ tradition) nor a creator (in the divine sense, creating something from nothing). An artisan turns natural materials into remedial supplements for the body. There are two basic types of action in the mechanical arts: “The work of the artificer is to put together things disjoined or to disjoin those put together, whence we read, ‘They sewed themselves aprons.’”48 Hugh also says: “The products of artificers, while not nature, imitate nature, and, in the design by which they imitate, they express the form of their exemplar, which is nature.”49 His main example is an architectural one, in which a house builder (perhaps long ago, right after the Fall) recognized that the slope of a mountain could be imitated in the pitched roof of a house so that it too would shed rainwater: “The builder who has constructed a house has taken into consideration a mountain, for, as the Prophet declares, ‘Thou sendest forth springs in the

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

79

vales; between the midst of the hills the waters shall pass’; as the ridges of mountains retain no water, even so does a house require to be framed into a high peak that it may safely discharge the weight of pouring rains.”50 This introduces an exception to Hugh’s earlier remark that the three realms (God, nature, and the mechanical arts) are independent. Formal imitation does not affect nature – the mountain does not care if it is imitated by a roof – but practitioners of the mechanical arts may wonder if other lessons can be learned from the nature that God created. In Hugh’s larger scheme of things, this rainwater example is rather elementary. It is limited to a consideration of utility, without touching on any of the higher levels in his hierarchy: ethical practice, theoretical understanding, or spiritual contemplation. He briefly considers giving a fuller description of how the various mechanical arts can imitate natural models but is daunted by the prospect and declines to pursue it further: “How the work of the artificer in each case imitates nature is a long and difficult matter to pursue in detail.”51 4 Body Unlike the many different crafts in the ancient techne¯ tradition, the seven mechanical arts are not defined by their material (e.g., leather), their techniques (e.g., tanning), their products (e.g., shoes), or their maker (e.g., leatherworker). Instead, they are defined primarily by intrinsic human weakness. Nature did not provide an obvious solution, so human ingenuity supplements what nature provided. As Hugh remarks, “The proverb says: ‘Ingenious want hath mothered all the arts.’”52 Both of these traditions, techne¯ and the mechanical arts, make products that respond to desires or needs of the user (e.g., foot protection), but there is no indication that a practitioner of the mechanical arts aims to respond perfectly to the needs of an individual or to extend the individual’s normal worldly limits in a strategic way, as in ancient Greece. The mechanical arts address general weaknesses of humanity, not particular weaknesses of an individual in relation to a standard of some kind. Simplicity and frugality are valued more than complexity and abundance. The mechanical arts provide only enough for a person to rise to the next level. Anything more would be superfluous and distracting. Hugh was proud of his own frugality, and he recommends it to other teachers: “The

80

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

inexpensiveness of your dress and the simplicity expressed in your countenance, the innocence of your life and the holiness of your behavior ought to teach men … You teach better by fleeing the world than by following after it … Be content with slender means, that is, not to hanker after superfluities … ‘A fat belly,’ as the saying goes, ‘does not produce a fine perception’ … I know with what grief sometimes the mind takes leave of the narrow hearth of a peasant’s hut, and I know, too, how frankly it afterwards disdains marble firesides and panelled halls.”53 According to Hugh, the remedies provided by the mechanical arts will be needed no longer when the temporal world ends. In the meantime, they enable humanity to survive from generation to generation. Consequently, the utility of the mechanical arts is not “utilitarian” in the narrow modern sense. It also carries a religious significance. Therefore, artifacts in the mechanical arts should be well crafted but need not be perfect or clever. Making artifacts and addressing human needs are not ends in themselves but means that enable an individual to survive and focus one’s attention higher. “There are two things which restore the divine likeness in man, namely the contemplation of truth and the practice of virtue.”54 The mechanical arts, including architecture, are situated below these two upper levels, so the mechanical arts by themselves have no restorative power for salvation. They perform a supporting role. One cannot use them to gain an understanding (intelligentia) of truth or a knowledge (scientia) of virtue. 5 Artisan Words with the root “architect-” appear five times in Didascalicon. Three are the noun architectura (architecture). One of these is a reference to De architectura, where Hugh credits Vitruvius with writing the treatise that records the principles of architecture.55 Two other references are to the activity of construction: “which is deployed with tools, like building [architectura] and farming and other activities of this kind”56; “[an] art which takes shape in some material medium and is brought out in it through manipulation of that material, as is the case in architecture [architectura].”57 The adjective architectonica also refers to the activity of construction: “Armament is of two types: the constructional [architectonicam] and the craftly [fabrilem]. The constructional [architectonica] is divided into the

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

81

building of walls [caementariam], which is the business of the [quarryman and mason (latomos et caementarios),] and [carpentry (carpentariam), which is the business of the] carpenter [and the framer (carpentarios et tignarios)], and of other craftsmen of both these sorts.”58Although the adjective that describes the activity is architectonica, Hugh associates it not with an architect in the modern sense but with various artisans: quarryman, mason, carpenter, and framer (of beams). The word architectus (architect) was available in medieval Latin but the figure of the architect is absent from Didascalicon. Hugh recognizes a wide domain for architecture, spanning from Vitruvius’s record of timeless principles to the building of walls and roofs in the present, but he implies that there is no significant work to be done between these two events. Consequently, the role of the architect is embedded in the activities of the artisans.59 Hugh refers to four different types of artisans but to only one of each, perhaps indicating that they are constructing only a small building. Of course, the definite article (the mason, the carpenter) also could stand metonymically for a larger group. Still, the implied size of the building remains small because there is no mention of a chief artisan who directs the work of many others in the manner of the Greek architekton.60 Although Didascalicon is a didactic document, Hugh does not describe how one learns the principles and techniques to perform a mechanical art. His main ambition is to teach people how to read the scriptures, so the first three books on the arts are a foundation for this activity. He refers to many original treatises in the mechanical and liberal arts, but suggests that they should be read only by philosophers, not by practitioners. He draws a clear line between theory and practice: “For the same action is able to belong to philosophy as concerns its ideas and to be excluded from it as concerns its actual performance. For example, the theory of agriculture belongs to the philosopher, but the execution of it to the farmer.”61 It appears that those who practise the mechanical arts will acquire their knowledge empirically through apprenticeship.62 As a general guide for a well-rounded education, Didascalicon sets out a sequential curriculum: First, one should study the language arts for eloquence and logic; second, the practical arts (politics, ethics, economics) for virtue; third, the theoretical arts (theology, mathematics, physics) for truth; and fourth, the mechanical arts (but Hugh does not say why).63 Given the recurring “ladder” format in his hierarchy, by which one ascends step by 82

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

step from the earthly realm (including the mechanical arts) to a spiritual realm (the scriptures), this appearance of the mechanical arts as a final stage of education comes as a surprise. Hugh adds that a knowledge of the mechanical arts would be ineffective unless it is supported by a knowledge of the previous subjects. This suggests that one can learn how to perform the mechanical arts at the level of an artisan, responding to temporal need, or one can study their principles at an elevated level in a context of logic, virtue, and truth – similar to that Vitruvius laid out as a prerequisite for an architect. This is Hugh’s only reference to a potentially elevated status for the mechanical arts and it appears in an appendix he added later, perhaps to be incorporated into a subsequent copy of the manuscript.64 6 Shelter Hugh’s brief analysis of construction activities provides a rough sketch of his exemplary building: “The constructional is divided into the building of walls, which is the business of the [quarryman and mason,] and [carpentry, which is the business of the] carpenter [and framer], and of other craftsmen of both these sorts.”65 The building has walls made of stone and a roof structure made of wood. The stone has been extracted from a quarry (not gathered as fieldstone), then carved into blocks that are assembled by a mason. The wooden beams and rafters probably are framed into a pitched roof, judging from Hugh’s earlier comment about imitating mountain slopes to repel rainwater. The tools he mentions are all hand tools for one person: “mattocks and hatchets, the file and beam, the saw and auger, planes, vises, the trowel and the level.” The tools are mainly for woodworking and are used from the beginning to the end of construction: from harvesting timber to planing it smooth and setting it into place. These tools also could be used to make a boat or a piece of furniture. His tools for stone masonry are less complete: the absence of the hammer and the chisel is notable – perhaps the stones were shaped back at the quarry – but Hugh does mention the trowel, which might be used for filling gaps. A list of actions and additional materials suggests that the building is completed in an expedient way, using whatever is available to meet the basic needs: “smoothing, hewing, cutting, filing, carving, joining, daubing in every sort of material – clay, stone, wood, bone, gravel, lime, gypsum, and other materials that may exist of this kind.”66 Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

83

For walls, the use of stone – rather than a lighter wooden frame with woven panels and layers of daub – emulates the solidity of military fortifications and is consistent with Hugh’s priority that the weak human body be sheltered. Because stone is durable, the building also would last as long as it is needed. Although the stone and wood construction he describes could be used to make a very large building – a church or a cathedral, for example – there are no references to additional equipment that would be needed: scaffolding, hoists, winches, centring, etc. He also makes no reference to water-powered equipment such as a sawmill for turning timber into lumber, which was common in his day. The methods of construction he describes could have existed when Noah built the ark. In contrast to techne¯, Hugh does not suggest that any product of the mechanical arts should be perfect. Seeking perfection in the temporal world would introduce impertinent criteria and standards, beyond the basic levels of health and utility that enable humanity to survive. There is also no indication that cleverness or cunning is needed to deal with challenging situations. Basic skills are sufficient. In Hugh’s discussion of the mechanical arts there are no references to beauty, nor references to the liberal arts of the quadrivium being applied to the mechanical arts. In Didascalicon, geometry is presented as an ideal set of

Building the ark; detail from Hartmann Schedel, Registrum huius operis libri cronicarum cum figuris et ÿmagibus ab inicio mundi (Nuremberg: Anton Koberger, 1493).

84

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

principles and as a way to measure the nature that God has provided: ground planes, heights of trees, and areas of spherical objects from an egg to the universe67 – but not as a basis for the mechanical arts, which are human inventions.68 Likewise, there is no suggestion that the scriptures should be represented or symbolized in products of the mechanical arts. The only reference to anything beyond the immediate realm of the mechanical arts (or the bodies for which they provide remedies) is a general imitation of nature: “The products of artificers, while not nature, imitate nature, and, in the design by which they imitate, they express the form of their exemplar, which is nature.”69 Of course, if one were to step outside the six books of Didascalicon and consult the historical treatises that are included on Hugh’s list, some rather different practices would be evident. 7 Model A practitioner of the mechanical arts would rely on previous artifacts as precedents. Because they are liable to be typical, drawings would not be needed to develop a design from scratch or to show a design to a patron.70 As with techne¯, a diagram of some kind might help one calculate quantities of materials. In building construction a paradeigma or an anagrapheus would not be needed to ensure that certain formal details are consistent, as Hugh’s description of the mechanical arts does not promote formal properties such as uniformity, symmetry, or proportion. Again, his references to earlier treatises on individual mechanical arts (Vitruvius, for example) could introduce different ideas involving representation, but there is no indication that Hugh studied these treatises or developed a position on any of their principles. He merely lists the authors and titles. Because the mechanical arts do not separate the roles of designer and builder, there would be no prescriptive design to which a builder must show fidelity. At his highest philosophical level, Hugh seeks “that Wisdom which is the sole primordial Idea or Pattern of things,”71 but standard models are sufficient in the mechanical arts. Artifacts with a typical form and use are conveyed through recognizable names: for example, in fabric making: “clothes, coverings, drapery, blankets, saddles, carpets, curtains, napkins, felts, strings, nets, ropes.”72 Like the wheel, these artifacts were invented long ago and there is no need for them to be reinvented or replaced.

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

85

8 Ark In Hugh’s philosophical theology, the concept of the mechanical arts – especially architecture – might be symbolized best by the biblical ark. The ark is the centrepiece of a story that includes many of the same elements: the banishment of humanity from paradise, a hard-working artisan, materials gathered from nature, the construction of a protective vessel for creatures in the temporal world, a period of stormy weather, and the anticipation of an eventual return to paradise. Hugh was fascinated by Noah’s ark and he wrote a treatise on the subject, De arca Noe morali (On the moral interpretation of the ark of Noah).73 He also made a large coloured image of the ark that incorporated diagrams of the earthly world, the zodiac, the months, the seasons, and various biblical figures. This drawing did not survive but it is described in another manuscript, De arca Noe mystica (On the mystic interpretation of the ark of Noah).74 Hugh suggested that the ark can be interpreted in four ways, but is essentially one ark: “The first is that which Noah made, with hatchets and axes, using wood and pitch as his materials. The second is that which Christ made through His preachers, by gathering the nations into a single confession of faith. The third is that which wisdom builds daily in our hearts through continual meditation on the law of God. The fourth is that which mother grace effects in us by joining together many virtues in a single charity … Let us call the first Noah’s ark, the second the ark of the Church, the third the ark of wisdom, and the fourth the ark of mother grace.”75 Noah’s ark is described first as a physical object, made from natural materials and constructed with hand tools. Although the second ark refers to the Church, Hugh does not mean a large church building but a community of faithful humans: the same humans who receive support and protection from the mechanical arts. He adds that these first two arks are visible and the two others are invisible. Hugh’s interest in the biblical ark was not strictly allegorical. He believed that the story also had to be interpreted as a historical event, so the ark must function as a real vessel. At the same time, it had to follow the specifications in the Bible because they are authoritative: “The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou

86

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.”76 This description is rather basic and leaves plenty of room for interpretation. Earlier commentators had visualized the ark as a stepped pyramidal structure with a flat base, perhaps emulating other biblical structures such as the Temple of Solomon. Hugh could not accept that Noah’s ark was built in this shape because it would have had insufficient ballast below the waterline to remain upright in stormy seas. “For it is indisputable that so massive a structure, laden with so many and such large animals, and also with provisions, could not possibly keep afloat when the waters came, unless the greater portion of its bulk were at the bottom; this fact we can put to the proof today with ships that carry heavy loads.”77 Earlier writers such as Augustine had been content to let God deal with the ark’s seaworthiness78 but Hugh felt obliged to apply lessons he had acquired empirically from the mechanical arts of armatura and navigatio, perhaps by observing ships and shipbuilders in action. After rejecting that flat, pyramidal shape, he devised an alternative: a “house on a hull,”79 with a lower half shaped like a directional hull and an upper half consisting of three stepped levels with vertical walls on four sides and a pitched roof on top. Interpreting the story of the ark as a historical event also prompted him to imagine how Noah must have dealt with other practical questions, including where to place the ark’s window and door, where to store food supplies and animal dung, and how to keep the tame animals safe from the wild animals.80 He believed that the ark he visualized was faithful to the biblical description and would have enabled Noah and his colleagues to survive – not only in the spiritual world of the scriptures but also in the temporal world of sea voyages. His concept of the flood also departed from earlier tradition. As Grover A. Zinn notes, “The Ark and Flood had generally been interpreted in terms of ecclesiological and sacramental typology, with the Ark signifying the hierarchic, sacramental Church, outside of which there is no salvation. [Hugh’s] Ark treatises made use of the allegory of the Ark as the Church, but it is not the abstract, static, hierarchical Church which is symbolized. Rather it is a dynamic, historical conception of the Christian community in transit between the creation and consummation of all things … In contrast to the traditional interpretation, the Flood has no saving quality. It represents chaos and destruction only.”81

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

87

Hugh’s graphic image of the ark, described in De arca Noe mystica, was oriented along an axis from east to west.82 This route, from the primordial paradise to the eventual Apocalypse, was the ark’s horizontal trajectory. Its hull, including two levels below the waterline, provided a stable foundation for its superstructure. The upper half of the ark included three stepped platforms, each with four ladders to ascend to the next level.83 This was the ark’s vertical trajectory. The dual role of the hull, with its horizontal and vertical trajectories, corresponds to the dual role of the mechanical arts in Hugh’s epistemological hierarchy.

Contemplation on the Seventh Day Hugh’s six-book Didascalicon does not discuss sensible beauty nor any other aesthetic issues. It does not dismiss beauty as inconsequential or evil but implies that the mechanical arts have more urgent work to do. Beauty could be an incidental quality in products of necessity but not an ambition in its own right. Didascalicon also does not suggest that liberal arts such as geometry and music theory should guide the mechanical arts. Because the four mathematical subjects ultimately come from a divine source, they would be foreign in a lower realm that is concerned with bodily need. Importing them would blur the separate levels in Hugh’s epistemological hierarchy. Likewise, Didascalicon does not suggest that figures or events from the scriptures should be portrayed in any of the mechanical arts. There are no references to biblical emblems on clothing, armour, or buildings. The only departure from the basic arts that Hugh acknowledges is what he calls “appendages of the arts”: writings that are tangential to philosophy and of no real consequence: “songs of the poets – tragedies, comedies, satires, heroic verse and lyric, iambics, certain didactic poems, fables and histories,” as well as “small matters” that philosophers discuss “in confused discourses.”84 Painting and statuary are not mentioned in Didascalicon. They are not forms of divine knowledge, so they would not qualify as liberal arts. They are also not human inventions that compensate for weaknesses of the human body, so they would not qualify as mechanical arts either. Musical performance fares a little better. Because music (as Pythagorean theory) has a firm 88

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

place in the liberal arts, and because its harmonic-numerical proportions were recognized empirically through perceived sound, Hugh acknowledges that two other types of music – human and instrumental – have a natural affinity to universal music, but he quickly reminds the reader that it is fine to love one’s flesh, but one should love one’s spirit more.85 Clearly, Hugh established firm boundaries for the mechanical arts and the hierarchical Christian model to which they belong. One can imagine a world in which this is the sole operative model. It may even resemble certain religious communities that once existed or perhaps still exist. However, it does not align fully with the medieval world, where concerns with sensory pleasure and beauty were prevalent.86 When Hugh was writing Didascalicon in Paris in the late 1120s, he would have been familiar with Romanesque churches, their geometric proportions, carved statuary, and colourful murals, but would not have experienced Gothic churches. Hugh of St Victor (ca. 1096–1141) was contemporary with Pierre Abélard (1079–1142), Abbot Suger (1081–1151), and Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153). The sixth book of Didascalicon concludes in a definitive way: “And now those things which pertain to reading have been explained as lucidly and briefly as we know how. But as for the remaining part of learning, namely meditation, I omit saying anything about it in the present work because so great a matter requires a special treatise, and it is more worthy to be altogether silent about a matter of this sort than to say anything about it imperfectly.”87 The six-book Didascalicon clearly defines architecture as a mechanical art. Like the other mechanical arts (and like the hull of the ark), it has a dual role in the Christian world: to help humanity survive until the impending Apocalypse and to provide a solid foundation for individual salvation through a knowledge of the liberal arts and an understanding of scripture. Architecture does its part in the restoration of perfection, from the bottom up. The entire six-book Didascalicon is organized as a philosophical and spiritual ladder to be climbed methodically. It presents a particular model of the Christian world.88 However, this model would not generate a church or a cathedral. Those other Christian constructions would transcend the limits of the mechanical arts and belong to a different model. The six-book Didascalicon is not a comprehensive representation of Hugh of St Victor. Hugh wrote many treatises on a variety of subjects. One of them, De tribus diebus [invisibilis lucis] (On the three days of invisible Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

89

light), discusses contemplation and has acquired a somewhat ambiguous status in his bibliography. In the earliest manuscript of Didascalicon and in several subsequent editions it was incorporated as a seventh book.89 However, it was omitted from most other Didascalicon manuscripts and from the two most recent modern editions, instead standing as a separate treatise.90 Although this may seem to be a minor debate, of interest only to theological scholars and librarians, it has important implications for the definition of architecture as a mechanical art. Wanda Cizewski, a professor of theology, is one who favours including De tribus diebus as a seventh book of Didascalicon.91 However, rather than simply incorporating it into a new, larger Didascalicon, she advises keeping the first six books distinct from the seventh. Noting that Hugh was obsessed with numerical symbolism, she suggests that the first six books in Didascalicon parallel the six days of creation. After creation is complete, the seventh day shifts to a completely different mode: contemplation. De tribus diebus, the “seventh book,” is organized not from the bottom up but from the top down. Hugh notes that God cannot be observed directly by humans in the temporal world but can be contemplated indirectly through created nature, including human nature. In nature (and implicitly in God) Hugh recognizes three complementary attributes: power, wisdom, and goodness.92 These three attributes are evident in an elaborate nested hierarchy of additional characteristics: immensity (multitude (similarity, difference, mixture), magnitude (bulk (mass, weight), space (length, breadth, depth, height))); elegance (situation (composition, order (place, time, property)), motion (local (forward, backward), natural (growth, decay), animal (senses, appetites), rational (deeds, counsels)), species (colour, shape), quality (sound, flavour, odour, smoothness)); usefulness (gratuitous, agreeable, convenient, necessary).93 Hugh recognizes these characteristics in the universe, the earth, wind, rivers, the seasons, mountains, gems, flowers, fish, birds, animals, and especially the human body, with its various parts and senses. Hugh also believed that humans once contemplated God directly when they dwelled in the primordial paradise. He regards both the scriptures and nature as texts from God; one is manifested in words, the other is manifested in things. Hugh reminds us to contemplate nature only as a means for contemplating God. Treating it as an end in itself would lead to idolatry. He also believed that one cannot contemplate nature as a whole, all at once. Instead, he recommends using his categories as a guide to focus on one sub90

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

ject or characteristic at a time; however, he does not prescribe a particular route. At these higher levels of contemplation, one must find one’s own way through the many characteristics of nature to recognize the three primary attributes of God.94 This is evident also in the three upper levels of his biblical ark, which he imagined as steps of a contemplative ascent.95 The ladders that are situated at their four corners enable these characteristics to be contemplated along a variety of paths: upward, downward, and lateral. Hugh regards humans as key figures on the “road of contemplation” because of their dual nature: unlike other creatures, they have both a visible, corporeal body and an invisible, incorporeal soul. He distinguishes between the flesh and the spirit, but notes that these two properties are integrated in each human. He also suggests that they have different origins: the flesh is a transformation of preexisting matter, whereas the spirit is created by God from nothing. One comes from the earth, the other comes from heaven. Humans thus occupy a privileged position in the middle. Using a similar but more complex argument, Hugh invokes Jesus as another figure poised between earth and heaven. He suggests that readers can contemplate Jesus as a step on the way to God and also as a model to imitate. In all of these examples – nature, the upper levels of the ark, humans, and Jesus – the aim of contemplation is to ascend toward divine wisdom. In a complementary move, the final part of De tribus diebus reverses this trajectory by considering how one might benefit from contemplation: “For what does it profit us, if we recognize in God the loftiness of majesty, and gather thence no usefulness for ourselves?”96 According to Hugh, after one has seen the light, one brings back invisible light. He identifies this invisible light with the first three days of creation, before there was a sun, a moon, or stars in the sky – hence the title of the treatise, De tribus diebus [invisibilis lucis] (On the three days of invisible light).97 With several additional arguments, he associates this endeavour with the death, entombment, and resurrection of Jesus.“So also Christ died on the sixth day, rested in the sepulchre on the seventh, and on the eighth was raised up from the dead. In similar fashion, power, in its day, first kills us to strong carnal desires; then wisdom in its day buries us within the hiddenness of contemplation; finally goodness in its day makes us rise again, revived by the desire for divine love. Hence the sixth day pertains to work, the seventh to rest, but the eighth to resurrection.”98 His analogy with contemplation is even more direct when describing what happens on the seventh day: “Christ is buried in the sepulchre and the Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

91

reader in contemplation. Only on the octave, or the new day beyond both work and contemplation, does Christ rise from the dead. With him, the reader comes to life in a resurrection that is the work of the spirit.”99 Beyond contemplation on the seventh day is a promise of salvation and paradise. The eighth day, invoking an octave metaphor from music, elevates humans to a higher realm, where they can begin a new “scale.” The distinction between Didascalicon and De tribus diebus is significant. One is about study; the other is about contemplation. They presume two different models: if the six-book Didascalicon is the bottom of a rigid ladder standing on the earth, De tribus diebus is a rope ladder suspended from heaven. Both enable humans to ascend, but their anchor points are in different locations and each requires a certain way of climbing. Hugh articulates several additional levels between study and contemplation. As he noted at the end of Didascalicon, study (the first step) and then meditation are the two activities involved in learning – but these two steps are just the beginning. The second step is joined by a third and a fourth. In turn, they may be followed by a fifth: There are four things in which the life of just men is now practiced and raised, as it were by certain steps, to its future perfection – namely, study [lectio] or instruction [doctrina], meditation [meditatio], prayer [oratio], and performance [operatio]. Then follows a fifth, contemplation [contemplatio], in which, as by a sort of fruit of the preceding steps, one has a foretaste, even in this life, of what the future reward of good work is … Of these five steps, the first, that is, study, belongs to the beginners; the highest, that is, contemplation, to those who are perfect. As to the middle steps, the more of these one ascends, the more perfect he will be. For example, the first, study, gives understanding; the second, meditation, provides counsel; the third, prayer, makes petition; the fourth, performance, goes seeking; the fifth, contemplation, finds.100 Hugh’s five-level, two-part scheme expects humans to be conscious of their actions and rigorous in their engagement with the world. He defines each level clearly and indicates what can be expected from it. This degree of articulation attempts to avoid confusion and to rule out inappropriate techniques and expectations at each particular level. 92

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

In Hugh’s scheme, meditation is an intellectual and discursive activity in which one thinks carefully about what one has studied: analyzing it, resolving apparent contradictions, comparing it externally, discerning its meaning, etc. Meditation (his second step) and contemplation (his fifth and highest step) are different types of activities, based on two completely different models. Although we tend to conflate them, they have different etymological roots.101 Hugh distinguished them explicitly: Contemplation is the keen and free gazing of the soul at things scattered in time and space. The difference between meditation and contemplation seems to be that meditation always deals with things hidden from our mind, while contemplation, by virtue of its nature or our ability, deals with evident things; in addition, meditation always concerns itself with one thing that is lacking, while contemplation extends to many or even to all things. It is the liveliness of the mind, which, having everything plainly before it, also embraces everything with its clear gaze. Because of this, contemplation possesses to a certain extent what is sought by meditation … In meditation, there is care, in consideration admiration, and in contemplation sweetness.102 Meditation belongs to the “bottom up” model, along with study, prayer, and performance. This model requires considerable effort to ascend its rigid ladder. Contemplation, on the other hand, belongs to the “top down” model. It participates in the restoration of perfection by engaging in communion with God through the temporal world of nature. However, contemplation is an option only for those who have prepared for it by completing the four lower steps. Because God created nature, it is a subject worthy of contemplation, even though it pales in comparison to paradise. “The shapes of things arouse admiration in many ways: by their greatness or smallness, sometimes because they are rare, again because they are beautiful, on another occasion because they are suitably ugly, and occasionally because they are one shape in many or diverse shapes in one.”103 Nature offers much to contemplate, using all of the senses: “The kinds of harmony are so many that the mind can neither run through them nor speech explain them easily, and they all serve the hearing and are created for its delight. And it is similar with the sense of Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

93

smell: incense, ointments, rose-gardens, flowering meadows, woods, groves, and flowers have their fragrance, and all these things, in providing pleasant smells and exuding sweet odours, serve the smell and have been created for its delight.”104 Similarly, in describing various creatures, Hugh admires the visible beauty of their shapes, colours, and features.105 He regards light as the most beautiful part of nature because it illuminates all other natural things and brings out their visible colours.106 Products of the mechanical arts, however, are not appropriate subjects for contemplation. Hugh does not state this explicitly but implies it in the levels and the properties he distinguishes in Didascalicon. One could study products of the mechanical arts and perhaps analyze them through meditation, but they offer nothing divine to contemplate. The only elevated status he permits in the mechanical arts is their capacity to imitate forms and functions of nature: for example, when pitched roofs shed water by imitating mountain slopes. However, this imitation is one more step removed from God, so the mountains themselves would be a better subject for contemplation. As described in Didascalicon, these are the limits for products of the mechanical arts. In De tribus diebus, however, Hugh introduces a completely different model by stating that some products made by humans do not belong to the mechanical arts. He does this in a circuitous way: by inverting the concept of utility that he presented in Book 2 of Didascalicon. Referring to food and clothing (from the mechanical arts of agriculture, hunting, and fabric making), he now distinguishes four ascending levels of usefulness: “necessary” items for survival (bread and water; wool or skins); “convenient” items for pleasure (wine and meat; linen and silk); “agreeable” items that can be used but are no more convenient for their users (precious stones and fabric with colourful dyes); and “gratuitous” items that are not suitable for use but are delightful to behold.107 From the vantage point of the mechanical arts, the useless “gratuitous” level (and perhaps also the superfluous “agreeable” level) would seem absurd but Hugh recognizes them by shifting the reference point from the earthly realm to the heavenly realm. He explains that gratuitous items that are beautiful can direct humans not to earthly concerns but to the Creator, a source of “superabundant riches.” The uselessness of these items makes their divine reference clearer. Of course, uselessness in itself does not make an item worthy of contemplation; beauty

94

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

is the primary criterion. As with nature, beauty in human products is not valued for its own sake, as this would lead to idolatry. Instead, one must use it to contemplate the divine realm: “Through the beauty of created things, we seek this most beautiful of all beauty, which is so wondrous and ineffable that no temporal beauty, however true, can bear comparison with it.”108 Beauty is a concern not only for contemplation, but also for production. According to Hugh’s principles, one could not make a product that is worthy of contemplation without having prepared properly. One would have to complete the lower steps (study and meditation), then contemplate the “invisible light” of the divine realm and bring back some of that invisible light to the temporal world, where it would “illuminate” the making of a new artificial item. The production of artificial beauty thus would rely on an individual possessing considerable knowledge, understanding, and experience, from the earthly realm to the divine realm. This source of authority differs greatly from the tradition of techne¯, in which authority was accumulated gradually by one’s ancestors, and an artisan who followed the traditional craft would be assured of making a successful product. Making a beautiful object in a medieval situation would be a daunting task for an individual. First, one would have to know how to work with materials. Then one would have to study the liberal arts, followed by the scriptures, and then contemplate nature using Hugh’s divine characteristics to recognize the three attributes of God. Although this would be a daunting challenge for one person, it would be easier for a partnership in which one figure focuses on the material realm and the other focuses on the divine realm, assuming that they share enough knowledge at an intermediate level to achieve continuity.109 An individual who spans the entire range might be recognized as a master craftsman but could not be elevated to a quasi-divine status, as this would be a form of idolatry. The emphasis would have to remain on the object’s anagogical capacity to draw one’s attention above the material realm. Although Hugh used two different models to establish the two ends of his scale, he did not simply polarize human products as being either “necessary” (belonging to the mechanical arts) or beautiful and “gratuitous” (for divine contemplation). His intermediate categories, “convenient” and “agreeable,” suggest a graduated scale on which an item can be both useful and beautiful. If one focused only on the object, this might suggest a messy blurring of the two categories, mechanical arts and “contemplative arts,” but

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

95

if one maintains Hugh’s emphasis on the beholder, these categories would remain distinct. When engaging an object, one cannot use it, study it, and contemplate it at the same time. Hugh was faced with an even more extreme conflation of his categories in the popular analogy of God as an artisan (or architect) who had made the temporal world.110 This direct link between the lowly mechanical arts and the divine realm threatened to bypass the hierarchical levels and the steps for ascension that he had established so carefully. This analogy came originally from Timaeus, in which Plato describes the role of the Demiurge (the god who made the universe) by invoking the archaic concept of demiourgos (a human worker who helped to materialize the public realm). For Plato, the analogy between the Demiurge and the demiourgos relied on several parallels: The Demiurge manifested the universe from preexisting matter and form; the demiourgos manifested the public realm from preexisting matter and form. However, the relation between the Demiurge and the demiourgos was not entirely equivalent to the relation between the Christian God and the medieval artisan. Hugh of St Victor and his contemporaries generally were sympathetic to the Neoplatonic mystical tradition and its roots in Plato. They accepted that Plato’s Demiurge was another name for the Christian God, but despite their efforts to reconcile Christian and pagan traditions, they could not accept that God merely shaped preexisting matter into preexisting forms, like a medieval artisan. Citing Genesis, Hugh declared God to be a creator, not just a maker. “On this point our authors differ from the philosophers … namely, the philosophers claim that God is only an opifex, a shaping agent, and that there are three ultimate principles – God, matter, and archetypal ideas; our authors, on the other hand, claim that there is but one ultimate principle, and that this is God alone.”111 Hugh believed that creation and making are fundamentally different, but his analogies among three different types of work – the work of God, the work of nature, and the work of humans – invited confusion.112 Artisans’ products are durable things with matter and form; nature also has durable things with matter and form. An artisan’s product might remind one of the artisan who made it; nature might remind one of God who created it. The logic is clear, but while some analogies work in both directions, the notion of God as an artisan is unidirectional. It applies the familiar, material domain of the artisan to interpret the unfamiliar, immaterial domain of God. The

96

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

reciprocal notion, “an artisan (or architect) as God,” would not have arisen during the Middle Ages, except perhaps in jest. Robert Grosseteste (1175–1253), a Scholastic philosopher at Oxford, later wrote vividly about how God gave form to the natural world. To illustrate his description, he introduced a familiar scene involving house construction, but to align it with God’s actions, he divided the builder into separate figures: architect and craftsman. One is associated exclusively with form, the other with matter. Imagine in the artist’s mind the design of the work to be made, as in the mind of the architect the design and likeness of the house to be built; to this pattern and model he looks only that he may make the house in imitation of it … And imagine, even though it be impossible, that the will of the same architect wishing to build the house were so powerful that this will alone need be applied to shape the material into the house of the design in the architect’s mind, so that by this application it will be fashioned into the house. Imagine also that the material of the house is fluid, and cannot retain the form which it has received if it is separated from the design in the architect’s mind, as water stamped with a silver seal, when the seal is removed, immediately loses the form which is received. So imagine the will of the craftsman applying the material of the house to the form in the architect’s mind, not only that by this application he may fashion it into the house, but also applying the material to the design that, as long as the house remains in being, the house may be kept in being in that form. In such a manner then in which its design, in the mind of such an architect, is the design of the house, so is art, or wisdom or the word of Almighty God the pattern of all creatures. For it is at the same time both the model and the producer, and what forms, and what keeps in the form given, while creatures are applied to it and removed from it.113 This analogy was unidirectional, as it was intended to direct one’s attention toward God, not toward architects and craftsmen, but one can imagine how such an analogy might seep back into the temporal world and influence how the role of the human architect (or master-builder) is understood. However,

Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

97

the word “architect” (Latin architectus, architector) was used rarely during this thousand-year period.114 Instead, builders were designated by terms such as caementarius, mason, magister operis, magister fabricae, maitre des oeuvres, and Werkmeister.115 On at least one occasion Hugh may have been involved directly in the making of a “contemplative art.” Conrad Rudolph has suggested that Hugh was the principal advisor to Abbot Suger on the art program for the twelfthcentury renovations to the Church of St-Denis, near Paris.116 This would place Hugh at a key moment in the history of medieval art and architecture: “the birth of the Gothic.” Otto von Simson already had identified Hugh as a close friend of Suger.117 Rudolph notes that the art program of sculptures in St-Denis is “most original and highly organized,” but these qualities are not evident in Suger’s own background, nor in his three documents on the renovations to St-Denis.118 Suger attempted to justify these renovations by making traditional arguments – that art should honour God and the saints, and that art should develop a benevolent reciprocal relationship with God119 – but he does not discuss the qualities of St-Denis that historians consider most significant. As Conrad Rudolph notes, “The writings of Suger are marked by a lack of originality, by the virtual absence of a readily identifiable system of organization, of any discussion of geometry, of any substantial theological argument, and of any comprehensive presentation of Pseudo-Dionysian thought. It is no coincidence that it is on precisely these points that Hugh of St-Victor, the contemporary Parisian theologian, excelled.”120 To present the case that Hugh is the missing link between Suger and the art program at St-Denis, Rudolph offers several pieces of evidence: Hugh’s body of writing includes discussions of symbolism in art; Hugh made his own intricate drawing to illustrate his thesis about Noah’s ark as a multivalent symbol; Hugh’s theology of creation and restoration is evident in the imagery on the bronze doors of St-Denis; and the imagery throughout StDenis relies on a literal use of scriptural sources and a structured, literate approach to interpretation and contemplation, for which Hugh was known.121 The art program at St-Denis does not simply present beautiful images to be admired nor biblical figures to be revered. Instead, it uses images as a complement to the scriptures.122 Contemplation is possible only if the two are combined. This aligns with Hugh’s recommended approach to contemplation, described in De tribus diebus: One must have the prerequisite knowl98

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

edge and then gradually contemplate various characteristics of material things to reach the three primary attributes of God.123 In De tribus diebus, the (spiritual) light that Hugh describes as the ultimate aim of contemplation is (physically) present in abundance in the new choir of St-Denis. Symbolizing the glorious Apocalypse in light would become a new ambition for architecture.124 Although Hugh does not discuss architecture explicitly in this way, one can imagine how architecture and scripture could play complementary roles in theological contemplation.125 Relying on a “top down” model, “architecture as a contemplative art” would be quite distinct from “architecture as a mechanical art.” Both models are manifest in matter and form, but their intentions and their circumstances of production and reception are completely different. In a contemplative mode, a religious building would not be understood as a product of the mechanical arts that has been increased in size, with geometry and ornament added as upgrades. Instead, it would be approached as a material complement to the scriptures, to assist individuals in a gradual contemplation of the divine.126 However, the difference between contemplative art and mechanical art cannot be polarized as “sacred vs. secular,” as both are Christian models. Judging from Hugh’s discussion in Didascalicon and De tribus diebus, both play an important role in the medieval world and must be recognized.

Mechanical Arts After Hugh Hugh’s Didascalicon was copied “in nearly a hundred manuscripts of the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries, preserved in some forty-five libraries stretching across Europe from Ireland to Italy, from Poland to Portugal.”127 As Elspeth Whitney notes, it also influenced subsequent writers in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. By the end of the twelfth century … Hugh of St Victor’s idea of the mechanical arts had been absorbed into the mainstream of medieval thought … The view of crafts as necessary aids to salvation developed by Hugh and his twelfth-century followers continued to be influential … Hugh’s classification of the mechanical arts appeared over the last half of the thirteenth century in the works of BonavenHugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

99

ture (1221–74), Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264), Robert Kilwardby (d. 1279), Albertus Magnus (1206–80), John of Dacia (fl. 1280), Nicholas of Paris (fl. mid-thirteenth century), John Duns Scotus (ca. 1265–1308) and Raymond Lull (ca. 1235–1315).128 Bonaventure (1221–74), a theologian writing a century later, was content to repeat Hugh’s seven mechanical arts and provide similar criteria: “Every mechanical art is intended for man’s consolation or for his comfort; its purpose, therefore, is to banish either sorrow or want.”129 Out of respect for Hugh, he keeps theatrica on the list but distinguishes it from the others because it is for consolation and amusement rather than for the comfort and betterment of humans. In discussing the armatura category, Bonaventura focuses on its military features and lets Hugh’s secondary reference to architecture fade away: “In the matter of covering, if it provides a soft and light material, it is weaving; if a strong and hard material, it is armourmaking or metal-working, an art which extends to every tool or implement fashioned either of iron or of any metal whatsoever, or of stone, or of wood.”130 Bonaventura’s primary aim was to show that the various arts are included in theology, rather than to think again about the mechanical arts. Robert Kilwardby (ca. 1215–79) was a more active respondent. He was a master of arts in Paris with access to all of Aristotle’s writings, and eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury. Kilwardby revisited Hugh’s mechanical arts and their criteria as part of a larger review of the arts within the new universities.131 Like others, he singles out theatrica as different from the rest, even declaring that it is detestable. The only part of theatrica he retains is instrumental music because it has curative qualities and therefore can be included in medicine. With theatrica gone and a spare category now available, Kilwardby promotes architectonica from its secondary position as a subset of armatura to a mechanical art in its own right, no longer associated with military equipment. Like Hugh, he conceives architecture as construction, in both stone and wood. Kilwardby also refines some of the names that Hugh had used to designate the mechanical arts.132 He changes lanificium (fabric making) to vestitiva (garment making). This brings the cloth closer to the body and emphasizes its use rather than its first stage of production. In a similar way, he changes venatio (hunting) to cibativa (food preparation). He also changes navigatio (navigation, shipping) to mercatura (commerce), emphasizing the 100

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

negotiation between individuals that Hugh had intended, rather than the incidental activities of navigating ships and shipping foreign goods. Kilwardby’s systematic revisions suggest attention to Aristotle’s distinction among the four different causes. Like Hugh, Kilwardby indicates that some mechanical arts operate inside the body while the rest provide the body with external protection. Despite these name changes and their associated changes in emphasis, Kilwardby’s modifications remain faithful to Hugh’s definition of the mechanical arts as remedies for human weakness. However, unlike Hugh, he did not consider them as a first step toward salvation but as practical sciences of the body, alongside ethics as the practical sciences of the soul.133 As an aside, Kilwardby wonders why the mechanical arts should be limited to seven, as their numerical correspondence to the seven liberal arts is superficial, and because many more could be included. He also notes that the mechanical arts could be distinguished in many different ways, but he is reluctant to “wander uselessly among those subjects which modern philosophers consider of little importance.”134 In Kilwardby’s hierarchy, the mechanical arts are situated at the very bottom (the realm of the contingent, which requires only a knowledge of the particular), with ethics placed slightly higher. Metaphysics and mathematics are situated at the top (the realm of abstract and universal knowledge), with physics slightly lower.135 Despite the lowly position of the mechanical arts, he raises their status by noting that the carpenter and the stonecutter work with the liberal art of geometry. “We see, therefore, that the speculative sciences are practical and the practical sciences are speculative.”136 This merging of hierarchical levels was a new development for the mechanical arts. In his classification, Hugh had identified various levels of arts but kept each level distinct. Kilwardby still believed the mechanical arts are only productive and not theoretical, whereas the speculative sciences could be both theoretical and productive. He ranked the various arts according to their degree of abstraction and their scope, without assigning them to a fixed place in a hierarchy leading to salvation.137 Consequently their status might vary, depending on how they were being used at a particular time. In other situations the scriptural-liberal-mechanical arts model was taken seriously. Medicine – which had sat alongside architecture when Varro included both in the liberal arts and when Martianus Capella subsequently excluded them from the wedding party – was considered again in Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

101

the twelfth century, when universities were opening. Classifications of sciences distinguished between practical medicine and speculative medicine.138 Regarding the body as a subject for human invention (including surgery) was a mechanical art, whereas contemplating it as a divine natural subject was a liberal art. Geometry had a similar dual status. As a liberal art in the quadrivium, it included only the theoretical principles and methods of Euclidean geometry. Geometry also might be recognized as the formal armature that God used to create nature, as shown in some of Villard de Honnecourt’s drawings. Alongside this divine geometry was a long tradition of practical geometry for measuring land and other natural features that dates back to ancient Egypt and was developed and applied across Europe by the Romans.139 Surveying was not included in the curriculum when geometry was taught as a quadrivium subject.

Mechanical Arts versus Liberal Arts Throughout this long period, the liberal arts provided a benchmark for classifying disciplines; however, the definition of the liberal arts was not fixed. In ancient Rome they were understood as arts that a free man should know, so that he could participate intelligently in the public realm. This meaning survives in the modern concept of the liberal arts as components of a broad education.140 After Boëthius designated four arts (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music theory) as the quadrivium, they became the core of the liberal arts, associated with divine knowledge. The three other liberal arts (grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric) that were associated with human discourse remained important, but after the Roman emphasis on oratory subsided they were considered preparatory or secondary subjects. Throughout this period the word “art” did not mean what it means now. It was understood as a field of knowledge or a set of skills with principles or conventions that could be taught. It did not connote exemplary quality or personal expression. In historical classifications of knowledge, architecture was designated as a liberal art by only one philosopher, Varro, in a treatise that is now lost.141 Vitruvius did not refer to architecture as a liberal art, but some have assumed that his recommendation to study liberal arts before studying architecture 102

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

implied that architecture is part of the set.142 The fact that Vitruvius had assembled architectural principles in a treatise did not qualify architecture automatically as a liberal art. Other non-liberal arts such as agriculture also had treatises, as Hugh of St Victor had noted. During the centuries when the liberal arts were the only significant disciplinary category, architecture always was excluded. It found a stable home only when a second category was established: the mechanical arts. Although the mechanical arts paralleled the liberal arts in number, they were defined in a different way: as arts of human invention. Throughout this time the definition of architecture was relatively constant: it referred mainly to the act of building. The Romans, represented by Vitruvius, had adopted the Greek term architekton but blurred its original meaning when they transformed it into architectura. Eventually this would lead to confusion about the definition of architecture and the role of the architect, but throughout the ancient and medieval eras, architecture remained grounded in material substance and physical labour. The liberal art of geometry was invoked when a building had to serve as a subject for contemplation, but this did not turn architecture into a liberal art. Instead, architecture formed a partnership with geometry. Through the intermediaries of geometry and arithmetic, architecture also developed an indirect association with music theory. Throughout this period, music theory maintained its undeniable status as a liberal art, based on the numerical ratios of pitch intervals that had been identified much earlier by Pythagoras or his followers. The consonant sounds of octaves, fifths, and fourths on the monochord seemed to demonstrate the universality of simple ratios to the senses, providing empirical proof of Pythagorean principles and universal order in the world.143 As a liberal art, “music“ was strictly music theory. A medieval musician was not concerned essentially with sound. “The music taught as one of the subjects of the Quadrivium was exclusively theoretical. Studied as a purely speculative science it was entirely mathematical in its character … In fact throughout the middle ages the singer or the performer on an instrument was not a musician within the strict meaning of the term … It was only with the Renaissance that the term ‘musician’ began to mean one who possessed a knowledge both of the science and of the art.”144 In the practice of religious music, plainchant was based on Pythagorean principles of the scale. It was sung in unison, with the human voice developing a quasi-divine status when it brought music to the words of the Hugh of St Victor and the Mechanical Arts

103

scriptures. The monophonic melody of plainchant followed the rhythm of the words, while pitches were restricted to particular intervals. Certain musical modes were considered appropriate for particular types of religious expression, enabling music to develop a minor association with rhetoric as part of the trivium.145 On the other hand, popular songs and instrumental music had no higher ambitions and were free to experiment with more complex melodies and rhythms. Such patterns were deemed inappropriate for religious music because they would “stir lascivious sensations in the loins.”146

104

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

5 Architecture as an Art of Disegno

Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture The term arti del disegno (arts of design) appears in Le vite de’ più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani (Lives of the most excellent Italian architects, painters, and sculptors), published in 1550, the first edition of the biographies of Tuscan artists by Giorgio Vasari (1511–74).1 It is mentioned in the dedication to Cosimo I de’ Medici, Duke of Florence: “Seeing that your Excellency, following in this the footsteps of your most Illustrious ancestors, and incited and urged by your own natural magnanimity, ceases not to favour and to exalt every kind of talent, wheresoever it may be found, and shows particular favour to the arts of design [arti del disegno], fondness for their craftsmen, and understanding and delight in their beautiful and rare works.”2 As the title of Vasari’s book indicates, there were three arts of design: painting, sculpture, and architecture. Vasari was not the first to write about these three arts as a set, but his survey of practitioners is a benchmark from which one can look back on earlier developments during the previous 250 years.3 Vasari also was largely responsible for establishing the Accademia del Disegno in Florence, the first academy for the amalgamation and advancement of these three arts.4 As described by Vasari, painting, sculpture, and architecture have a common foundation: disegno. Seeing that Design [disegno], the parent of our three arts, Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting, having its origin in the intellect, draws out from many single things a general judgement, it is like a form or

idea of all the objects in nature, most marvellous in what it compasses, for not only in the bodies of men and of animals but also in plants, in buildings, in sculpture and in painting, design is cognizant of the proportion of the whole to the parts and of the parts to each other and to the whole. Seeing too that from this knowledge there arises a certain conception and judgement, so that there is formed in the mind that something which afterwards, when expressed by the hands, is called design, we may conclude that design is not other than a visible expression and declaration of our inner conception and of that which others have imagined and given form to in their idea.5 The various thoughts that Vasari strings together in this passage centre on the concept of disegno. Vasari’s disegno has been translated as both “drawing” and “design.” Disegno is an Italian word that had acquired various meanings by 1600: “1. (a) Intention, purpose; (b) plan, scheme; (c) proposal of plan or scheme. 2. A graphic representation, typically by means of (a) lines or (b) lines and tones. 3. A graphic scheme, model, ideation, diagram of something. 4. (a) The activity of doing (2) (graphis) and/or (3); (b) drawing or composition as a part of painting, as opposed to, say, colour; (c) the quality of (2) and/or (3), a virtus of the visual arts and crafts.”6 This set of definitions includes both nouns and verbs, products and actions. It also suggests that there are two domains for disegno: first, a “drawing” domain that focuses only on the drawing; and second, a larger “design” domain that includes three components: an artist, a productive drawing, and an eventual product. The same pair of domains is evident in other languages that translated disegno into “design” or an equivalent.7 The second domain suggests that the role of an artist is to prepare a design for a product, using drawings in a productive way. These two domains can be represented diagrammatically as “disegno 1” and “disegno 2”:

106

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Although these two domains are evident in Renaissance writings on disegno, when taken out of context and viewed from a modern standpoint, they distort the historical meaning of disegno. At face value, they are indistinguishable from modern industrial production. In Renaissance Italy, however, drawing and design were understood differently. They relied on an equally important earlier phase in which the artist uses drawings to study natural forms and recognize natural laws. This phase is evident in the quotation above from Vasari. Its three components present a different sequence:

Here, the role of drawing is not productive but imitative. Instead of “pushing” a design toward production, it “pulls” a design out of nature. This aligns with a secondary meaning of “drawing” that involves a pulling action, as in “drawing blood.” When this earlier phase is linked to “disegno 2,” the five components present a broader domain, “disegno 3,” that characterizes Renaissance practice more fully:

It also presents a different role for the artist: not as the creator of a product, but as a mediator who faces in two directions and uses drawing in complementary ways to “imitate” nature. The artist observes nature, recognizes its laws and its ideals, and makes new compositions based on them. This follows the Renaissance premise that human artists imitate the nature that God has created. This dual orientation of disegno is also supported by its Latin etymology, in which there is no particular directionality or productivity in the verbs signare ‘to indicate’ and designare ‘to mark out, trace out, describe, designate, define, delineate, design, depict’, etc.8 The roots of Vasari’s arti del disegno are not obvious. The Lives does not present a philosophical framework in which the arts of disegno are situated. During the Renaissance no theoretical or philosophical treatise focused on this set of three arts – painting, sculpture, and architecture – or placed it in a comprehensive epistemological context.9 Therefore, the next best option is to consider how this concept played a role in other theoretical writings Architecture as an Art of Disegno

107

and how it played out in practice. Although the concept of arti del disegno is associated with Vasari and the sixteenth century,10 this chapter and the next two trace various properties of disegno that were already evident in the fifteenth century – especially in Alberti’s treatises – as well as in the late fourteenth century. This period coincides with the 250-year span of subjects in Vasari’s Lives. The extended history of the arti del disegno is more evident when the broader domain, “disegno 3,” serves as a framework. The history of disegno is large and complex – especially in painting and sculpture – so these chapters focus mainly on two issues that are relevant to architecture: its alliance with painting and sculpture; and the presuppositions and implications of conceiving architecture as an art of disegno. To us, it may seem self-evident that painting, sculpture, and architecture constitute a set, but this notion did not arise until the Renaissance.11 In the ancient and medieval eras, these three arts were pursued separately and belonged to different epistemological classifications. As noted in Chapter 2, ancient Greece did not conceive “sculpture” as a form-based category that encompasses different materials: stone, wood, metal, clay, wax, etc. To the Greeks, the material and the artisan were primary. Each material required a different set of tools and techniques, so its techne¯ was distinct from the others. Painting, as another techne¯, relied on a completely different set of skills. Ancient Rome, on the other hand, did conceive sculpture as a formal category but regarded it as a manual art that requires labour. Painting was considered a manual art when it was practised by artisans to earn a living, but was regarded more highly as a recreational pastime for gentlemen to appreciate its principles. The ornamental products of both painting and sculpture were associated with human pleasure. Unlike the liberal arts, they were neither forms of divine knowledge (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music theory) nor universal components of human language (grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric). Writers in ancient Rome, such as Pliny and Cicero, offered mild praise for lifelike paintings by Parrhasius, Zeuxis, Apelles, and others.12 In medieval philosophical treatises that categorized many endeavours within a context that included God, nature, and humans, architecture had been classified as a mechanical art and was not associated with ornamentation or pleasure. Painting and sculpture, on the other hand, were neither liberal arts nor mechanical arts. Although paintings and statues might be incorporated into religious buildings and might represent liberal art con108

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

cepts or scriptural figures, this did not affect the epistemological position of these two arts. They were not liberal arts because they were not forms of divine or universal knowledge. They were also not mechanical arts because they were not remedies for human weakness. Instead, they were two of many arts that remained unclassified. Today there is a common belief that medieval philosophy operated according to a simple, two-part “high/low” dichotomy between liberal and mechanical arts, as if all arts that did not merit liberal status must have been classified as mechanical, but in medieval philosophy, with its roots in the Bible and theology, the social status of practitioners of the various arts was not a concern. Some historians have stated that painting and sculpture in the Middle Ages were classified as mechanical arts and were associated with architecture. They cite Hugh of St Victor erroneously or make a general statement without substantiating it.13 In fact, as defined philosophically by Hugh and others, the mechanical arts was not simply a category for non-liberal leftovers. Its criterion for membership was more specific: a mechanical art must provide a remedy for intrinsic human weakness. Hugh does not include painting and sculpture in this category, nor does he mention them in his description of theatrica as forms of entertainment that help maintain emotional equilibrium. Philosophers after Hugh also did not include them in the mechanical arts. From the various epistemological classifications in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle Ages, it is evident that painting and sculpture were never classified philosophically as liberal arts – not even by Varro, who had included architecture. Even the highly accomplished stone sculptures in ancient Greece were produced within the techne¯ tradition. Painting and sculpture were regarded as pleasant diversions, as representations of human virtue, or as imitations of God’s creations. Their makers were artisans, comparable to those in the other productive arts. These artisans could rise to a level of excellence but would not be considered independent creators.

Humanist Poetry and Painting The first signs of the broader domain of disegno appear in the fourteenth century, when humanist scholars devised a new relation to their ancestors. Humanism in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was a scholarly Architecture as an Art of Disegno

109

effort to cultivate knowledge in support of culture and literary expression.14 It presumed that humans are essentially the same at all times, so one can learn from earlier eras and bring this knowledge to one’s own place and time. Led by Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca, 1304–74), the humanists regarded the nine centuries since the fall of Rome as a dark age and sought to recover ancient texts that would offer guidance on how to live virtuously and gloriously in their own time. As Christians, they did not attempt to revive pagan culture or religion but rather to understand the concepts and forms of expression in classical literature and, when appropriate, to apply them to their own situation. Although humanism was pursued through language-based studies, the topics discussed in classical texts introduced the humanists to many different subjects that had been unavailable to medieval scholars. The humanists’ influence was most evident in their role as teachers, especially in the trivium subjects of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric, along with moral philosophy and history. All these subjects were derived from ancient Greek and Roman sources.15 The basic language subjects were taught in grammar schools and private schools, as well as in some churches and monasteries. Two more advanced subjects, poetry and eloquence, were taught in the universities, with ancient models guiding the composition of new poems and speeches. Some humanists served as secretaries and speechwriters for powerful religious and political figures, and were well placed to offer advice to their patrons on educational, architectural, and artistic programs. Because fourteenth-century humanists emphasized language-based subjects, they had only an indirect influence on painting and other non-literary arts. For example, Petrarch’s writings on ancient Rome prompted some painters to represent ancient scenes.16 The major impact of humanism was the intellectual framework it established: an integration of classical knowledge and Christian beliefs. In turn, this intellectual framework could be brought to disciplines that did not rely on written or spoken language. This enabled humanist subjects, scholastic philosophy, and other fields of knowledge to exist side by side throughout the Renaissance because they did not compete for the same territory.17 Humanism eventually would become one of the preconditions for the establishment of the arti del disegno. Humanist subjects were taught primarily in classical Latin, which was being revived from ancient Roman literature. Classical Latin was free of the baggage of medieval Latin, did not promote Christian theology, and did not 110

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

have to deal with the practicalities of daily life in Italy.18 The humanists demeaned medieval Latin as a corruption of classical Latin, but they valued the vernacular Italian language because it complemented what classical Latin offered. Their bilingual options enabled them to discuss a wide variety of subjects and to develop complementary relationships between theory and practice, ideal and real. Humanist studies were not limited to a small, elite ruling class. They introduced classical thinking to members of a larger middle class who sought a virtuous life and were destined for intellectual occupations: “princes and statesmen, churchmen and businessmen, and even artists, poets, philosophers, theologians, jurists, and physicians.”19 Meanwhile, other schools in Italy relied on the local vernacular and were attended by students with fewer academic needs who would become artisans, businessmen, etc. Public speaking and poetry remained the core of humanism. Although the humanists and their patrons did not enjoy a political context that would merit Cicero’s oratory skills, they showed off their knowledge of ancient models, their speechwriting abilities, and their eloquent public speaking at weddings, funerals, commencements, political events, and institutional gatherings. They made similar tributes in writing: histories of cities and ruling families; biographies of princes, saints, and statesmen; etc. They also made public eulogies to praise a particular government and disparage its enemies. Similar eulogies were made on behalf of particular arts: to glorify them and to demean their rivals. These tributes typically were commissioned by those who sought public favour. Both eloquence and poetry grew out of the three liberal arts of the trivium: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. As an art in the traditional sense, humanist poetry was based on rules that could be taught and learned: a set of skills for writing standard sentiments in Latin verse. It did not embody the modern Romantic notion of the creative poet.20 Due to its association with the long-standing heritage of the trivium, as well as its new position as a scholarly subject in the Italian universities, poetry in the fourteenth century became recognized popularly as a liberal art. This was only a small extension of the standard seven liberal arts of the trivium and the quadrivium, but it opened the door to subsequent changes to the concepts of both liberal and mechanical arts. Humanist poetry also retained a legacy from medieval theology. Petrarch suggested that the words of the poet are like a translucent veil that is expeArchitecture as an Art of Disegno

111

Liberal arts, expanded by humanists to include poetry and eloquence (fourteenth century).

rienced by the senses. Hidden truths can exist beyond this veil of words. Those who know how to recognize these truths are privileged. This distinguishes two classes of observers, according to whether they can “see through” the sensory features and recognize deeper intellectual truths beyond. This reconception of poetry established several new principles for a human art: a poet has access to divine truth (recalling the ancient Greek belief that the poet is inspired directly by the Muses); a poet is able to manifest this truth in a hidden way; a first class of observers can distinguish sensory features from intellectual truths; a second class of observers recognizes only the sensory features; and a poet should hide intellectual truths from the second class by providing embellishments for the senses. The veil metaphor suggests that everyone can touch that foreground layer but not everyone can see through it. Consequently, sight is privileged over touch. Petrarch’s promotion of the esoteric may seem consistent with Hugh of St Victor’s expectation that one should be properly prepared before attempting to read the Bible. However, Hugh encouraged all people to become prepared, whereas Petrarch disregarded the masses in favour of those who were inherently discriminating: “The task of the poet is to embellish the truth with beautiful veils that it might be hidden from the undiscriminating crowd.”21 Hugh’s ladder metaphor was for climbing; Petrarch’s veil metaphor was for filtering. Although humanist poetry imitated ancient models, it also inspired new 112

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

work. From the standpoint of the traditional liberal arts, poetry was an extension of the trivium, but from the standpoint of the productive arts, poetry had managed to acquire legitimacy in a realm previously unavailable to it. As writing poetry became a respectable activity through which an individual could achieve praise, the liberal arts gradually became associated with public recognition and social status. This began to shift the responsibility for defining the liberal arts from philosophers to the educated public. Poetry’s dual context, as both a liberal art and a productive art, eventually would lead practitioners of other productive arts to argue for their own membership in the liberal arts. Referring back to Horace’s Ars poetica (The Art of Poetry), which included the dictum ut pictura poesis (“a poem is like a picture”22), Petrarch began to consider similarities between poetry and painting. Of the three principal parts of rhetoric (inventio, dispositio, and elocutio), he recognized the first two in painting.23 Plutarch had provided another ancient precedent: “Simonides calls painting wordless poetry and poetry verbal painting … Artists with colours and lines, and writers with words and phrases, represent the same subjects, yet they differ in the material and manner of their imitation; but the underlying aim of both is the same.”24 Of all the arts, painting was in a prime position to be compared to poetry. Random sounds in the air and random pigments on a surface do not say much in themselves, but when arranged in a certain way they can evoke small worlds elsewhere. Painting relies on the eye, while poetry relies on the ear and the mind’s eye.25 Sculpture, on the other hand, is more material and tangible than painting, so comparing it to poetry would have been a mismatched exercise. In the exchange of praises during the fourteenth century, painters were described positively as poets, while poets were described positively as painters.26 This analogy between poetry and painting enabled the humanists to praise Giotto (ca. 1266–1337). They regarded him as the first “modern” painter because he departed from the traditional iconic representation of figures and moved toward a more lifelike depiction. Two centuries later, Vasari told a story about Giotto’s ability to depict nature: “It is said that Giotto, while working in his boyhood under Cimabue, once painted a fly on the nose of a figure that Cimabue himself had made, so true to nature that his master, returning to continue the work, set himself more than once to drive it away with his hand, thinking that it was real, before he perceived his mistake.”27 Architecture as an Art of Disegno

113

Just as Petrarch’s veil metaphor distinguished two different depths that poetry can present, his references to painting suggested that it can do the same. Lifelike subjects depicted in a painting would appeal to everyone’s senses, but an educated person would regard the painting merely as an attractive veil through which deeper truths can be recognized. In a rather onesided dialogue, Petrarch responds to a character who says that he is delighted by paintings: “You take delight in the pencil strokes and colors which please because of price and skillfulness – their variety and artistic composition. And you are fascinated by the lifelike gestures, the movement in these inanimate and immobile pictures, the faces jutting out of posts, and the portraits that seem about to breathe and make you think that they might utter words … Great minds, in particular, are captivated by these things – and what a peasant will pass off with brief enjoyment, a man of intellect may continue to venerate with sighs of admiration.”28 Petrarch’s reference to veneration recalls earlier religious settings in which paintings were an anagogical means of contemplation and spiritual ascension, but his intention here may have another side. Although Giotto represented wondrous religious stories from the scriptures, the “sighs of admiration” that Petrarch describes may have been prompted also by a new cultural awareness in which the lifelike nature of the paintings resonates with the humanist ambition of the observers. From ancient Rome through the Middle Ages, “art” (ars in both classical and medieval Latin) had referred neutrally to all human endeavours that relied on skills or rules that could be taught. Some were defined further as either liberal or mechanical, but they still remained within the arts category. During the fourteenth century the word ars developed a mildly pejorative connotation and a qualitative distinction began to open up. As Michael Baxandall notes, Ars was a word that had very crisply defined relationships with certain other categories. One of these was ingenium … As ars was the skill or competence that was learnt by rule and imitation, so ingenium was the innate talent that could not be learnt … By 1400 to praise a man for his ars, simply, was not much short of suggesting that he had no ingenium, and so the binary ars et ingenium or some subsuming word like scientia is almost always the thing that is praised … Ars had become by antithesis more exact in its reference: 114

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

skill capable of teaching and learning from rules and models. Ingenium brought with it a powerful set of associations which presented themselves in the form of issues about the genius and imagination of the artist.29 The demotion of ars to a lower level may seem odd, as we now associate “art” with a higher level in opposition to “craft,” but the more important point here is the very distinction between two qualitative levels. In the same way that elite observers were distinguished from ordinary observers by their ability to recognize the deeper meanings of poetry and painting, artists with innate ingenium began to be distinguished from ordinary artisans by their ability to present deeper meanings behind that sensory veil. Filippo Villani (1325–1407), a Florentine humanist and historian, wrote in 1382: “Many people judge – and not foolishly indeed – that painters are of a talent no lower than those whom the liberal arts have rendered magistri, since these latter may learn by means of study and instruction written rules of their arts while the painters derive such rules as they find in their art only from a profound natural talent and a tenacious memory.”30 Villani’s comment was included in a chapter on painting in his biographies of thirty-five noteworthy Florentines, including poets, scholars, and painters. Following Petrarch, he draws a parallel between the revival of painting and the revival of poetry, both recovering from many centuries of ignorance and neglect during the Middle Ages. In poetry he credits Dante. Anticipating Ghiberti in the fifteenth century and Vasari in the sixteenth, he credits Cimabue and Giotto for inaugurating the new naturalistic art of painting, in which pictures achieve a lifelike resemblance to their subjects.31 In praising the achievement of a particular painter, Villani added, “Stefano, nature’s ape, imitated nature so effectively that in human bodies represented by him the arteries, veins, sinews, and every most minute lineament are accurately disposed as by physicians: so much so that, as Giotto himself said, his pictures seem only to lack breath and respiration.”32 By associating lifelike representations with painting’s claim to liberal art status, Villani anticipated arguments by Alberti and Leonardo da Vinci, among others. The concept of “art as imitation” has a long history dating back to discussions of mimesis by Socrates, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle.33 By the fourth century bce, “mimesis” referred to reproductions of the appearance Architecture as an Art of Disegno

115

or operation of the visible world. Socrates is reported to have said that imitation is the basic function of painting and sculpture. Plato extended mimesis to include poetry but subsequently demeaned all imitative arts as distractions from truth. Aristotle extended mimesis even further to include music and theatre. He also opened a new avenue by suggesting that an imitator can represent the world not as it is, but as it should be. The theory of imitation went through several other variations in ancient Rome and the Middle Ages, then became a central concept in the arts of the Renaissance.34 Along the way, different subjects for imitation were recognized. In the third century, Plotinus had encouraged artists to imitate not just the visible forms of nature but the ideas that underlie them. This expanded the potential range of subjects that could be drawn from nature. In the early Renaissance, ancient products by artisans were recognized as excellent examples of earlier imitations of nature, thus adding to the range of possible subjects. Renaissance artists eventually believed they were imitating nature when drawing from a variety of sources: forms of nature, underlying principles of nature, numerical principles in theoretical treatises, forms of ancient artifacts, and underlying principles of ancient artifacts.35 When an artist adjusted worldly examples to discern their latent ideal and/or to make a new composition, this added further complexity.36 Still, these different tactics in the Renaissance shared the premise that imitation was a conscious decision by the artist, unlike the ancient tradition of techne¯, in which following in the footsteps of one’s ancestors was an intrinsic part of the craft. In the mid-fourteenth century, two hundred years before Vasari used the term arti del disegno, Petrarch recognized similarities in the arts of painting and sculpture. He also identified drawing as the foundation of these two arts.37 “Painting and sculpture are really one art or, as I said, if different from each other, so spring from a single source, namely the art of drawing, and without any doubt are equal in age and flourished at the same time.”38 Petrarch’s comment was based on an earlier account by Pliny that refers to the mythical act of tracing the outline of a man’s shadow as the first stage in the origin of painting.39 Pliny extends this story to describe how the potter Butades shaped clay inside the drawn outline of a shadow to make a relief of an absent man, suggesting that the act of drawing was also the mythical origin of modeling and, by extension, sculpture.40 Consequently, several roots of Vasari’s arti del disegno can be traced back to ancient Rome.

116

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Still, Petrarch was apprehensive about sculpture and other productive arts due to the banausic conditions in which their materials are prepared and their products are made. “I do not understand how in gold, even if Phidias had shaped it, there could be any true pleasure or true nobility – gold, yes, bright yellow but a metal deposit of the earth, worked with anvil and hammer, [tongs], coals, and the wits and dirty hands of an artisan.”41 Despite certain resemblances, Vasari’s arti del disegno do not map fully onto Petrarch’s humanist concepts. One important difference is that Petrarch does not mention architecture. In discussing poetry, painting, and sculpture, he emphasized their mandate to produce a recognizable likeness of a subject. Architecture did not belong to this set of representational arts and was not part of the humanist intellectual framework during the fourteenth century. However, some of the categories that Petrarch used to analyze and discuss painting and sculpture would be applied later by others to architecture. These categories focused on various distinctions: between the ancient era and the present; between a discriminating observer and a non-discriminating observer; between pleasure gained through the senses and pleasure gained through the intellect; between form and matter; and between art and nature.42 Meanwhile, alongside the development of humanism and the theoretical discussions of the humanists, the practical realms of painting, sculpture, architecture, and other arts in fourteenth-century Florence were governed by an articulated set of twenty-one guilds.43 Since at least the late sixth century, many artisans who worked on buildings throughout Italy belonged to the Guild of Comacine Masters, which in turn was part of the international Order of Freemasons. This guild included master masons, master carpenters, stone cutters, bricklayers, wood carvers, carpenters, joiners, painters, goldsmiths, and mosaic-makers.44 It was one early venue in which architects (as master masons), sculptors (as stone cutters and wood carvers), and painters had been associated, although not as an exclusive set of three. In the late thirteenth century, Florence established a new guild structure that assigned these occupations to different civic guilds. If an artisan had expertise in different arts, he could belong to more than one guild.45 The painters joined a guild that had been established originally for doctors and apothecaries, the Arte dei Medici e Speziali e Merciai. The painters obtained their pigments from apothecaries, then each group ground its respective

Architecture as an Art of Disegno

117

substances into powder for either medicinal or ornamental purposes. Although this bond was based on material, the same guild presided over the activities of a wide variety of other artisans, including barbers, beretmakers, glass-blowers, rope-makers, paper-makers, booksellers, maskmakers, potters, and makers of catgut for musical instruments,46 so there was no single common ground that distinguished the artists in this guild from those in other guilds. Sculptors and architects belonged to the Arte di Maestri di Pietra e Legname, the Guild of Masters of Stone and Wood. Again, their association was based on materials and techniques. They also worked alongside one another on building sites. This guild included five types of masters: capo maestro (senior master-builder), maestro di pietra (master sculptor in virgin stone), maestro di legname (master scaffold- and roof-builder), maestro d’intaglio (master carver or inlayer of wood), and maestro del disegno (master of design).47 The guilds presided over a full range of practical activities, including education for novices, apprenticeship, examination of prospective masters, assignment of jobs, inspection of materials, payment of workers, and inspection of workmanship. A branch of the guild, the compagnia, had a charitable mandate to support disabled workers and their families and, if necessary, to pay for its members’ funerals. The individual guilds were not entirely independent. They were governed by a single court, the Università della Mercanzia, that regarded all these activities as forms of civic commerce.48

Cennino Cennini’s Apprenticeship Theory in the arts did not advance during the first few decades of the fifteenth century, but achievements in practice were quite noticeable. Citizens of Florence witnessed new sculptures by Ghiberti and Donatello, along with the completion of the cathedral dome by Brunelleschi. Although Vitruvius’s De architectura had been known to scholars since the ninth century, its rediscovery in 1414 in the library of Monte Cassino was a momentous event. As the only surviving ancient treatise on architecture, it was regarded much more highly now that humanism was in the air. Vitruvius’s characterization of the ancient Roman architect as a broadly 118

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

educated man who knows about both theory and practice also would become influential. This distinction between the hand and the mind was reinforced by the 1421 discovery of Cicero’s Orator, which suggested that accomplishments in art can be ranked, and that only some artists can attain the highest level.49 This notion that different standards exist within an art eventually would lead to tensions within the guilds, which until then had presumed that its members occupied a single, common ground. Cennino Cennini (ca. 1370–ca. 1440) wrote Il libro dell’arte (The Craftsman’s Handbook) for painters. Various dates between 1390 and 1437 have been suggested for the writing of his book. General consensus has placed it around 1435, the same year as Alberti’s De pictura (On Painting). Cennini’s book consists largely of practical advice on materials and techniques: pigments, fresco painting, oil painting, glues, varnishes, etc. Some of his comments suggest an awareness of humanism, but he was primarily a painter writing for other painters. The first section, mainly on drawing, includes some opening remarks about the role of painting in human knowledge. Cennini begins with the Bible, describing how Adam and Eve had to find ways to survive in the temporal world – perhaps invoking Hugh of St Victor’s mechanical arts – but he quickly shifts his attention to human occupations in the present that emphasize not survival but theory. “Man afterward pursued many useful occupations, differing from each other; and some were, and are, more theoretical than others; they could not all be alike, since theory is the most worthy.”50 To suggest that painting has a theoretical dimension, he says that its purpose is not only to represent visible nature but also to reveal what is hidden, following Petrarch’s earlier description. “[Painting] calls for imagination, and skill of hand, in order to discover things not seen, hiding themselves under the shadow of natural objects, and to fix them with the hand, presenting to plain sight what does not actually exist. And it justly deserves to be enthroned next to theory, and to be crowned with poetry.”51 The premise that painting can present not only appearances but also natural principles placed it alongside poetry as a productive art based on universal rules. This was the first argument that had been used earlier to recognize poetry as a liberal art. To promote painting as a liberal art, Cennini also uses poetry’s second argument about invention, but he disregards Horace’s advice that imagination should remain within natural limits. “The poet, with his theory … is free to compose and bind together, Architecture as an Art of Disegno

119

or not, as he pleases, according to his inclination. In the same way, the painter is given freedom to compose a figure, standing, seated, half-man, half-horse, as he pleases, according to his imagination.”52 Following this brief theoretical presentation, the rest of Cennini’s book is a discussion of materials and techniques. He remains silent on other issues, such as geometry, composition (figures, groups, settings), ancient precedents, and conduct (working with a patron). Consequently, his book provides only a partial theory of painting.53 Although Cennini’s book could be regarded merely as an incomplete presentation of theory or as a collection of practical tips for painting, it deserves to be considered in another way: as a thoughtful discussion of the broader domain of disegno. In fact, Cennini was the first writer to mention disegno.54 Although painting is the primary subject of his book, drawing is described as the “entrance and gateway” to painting. He regarded drawing as the primary means for understanding nature and as the basis for all subsequent work in painting. Therefore, drawing (disegno) has a dual meaning and a larger role to play. Cennini discusses drawing by describing an extended apprenticeship during which a novice studies with a single master for as long as possible. At first the novice learns how to prepare materials for drawing, then gradually learns to draw from nature by copying something every day. He must proceed methodically through several stages, starting with a silverpoint stylus on a small wooden panel that has been primed with powder from ground bones. After a year he may be ready to draw with a quill pen and ink on paper. Later, he may learn how to draw on tinted paper. After a long period of copying nature and copying the masters, he will be “capable of much drawing out of [his] own head.”55 Cennini’s description of apprenticeship indicates that one must become proficient in recognizing and imitating nature before exercising one’s imagination in drawing. He thus conceives disegno as having two different trajectories: the first is associated with discovery; the second (which comes later) is associated with invention. Although Cennini’s book tends to be dismissed as a residual product of medieval sensibilities due to its emphasis on materials and techniques and its sketchy presentation of theory, his description of apprenticeship provides a structure for the concept of disegno that seems clearer, more complete, and more balanced than what others would present later. He recognizes that drawing can perform two roles: the recording of one’s observations of 120

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

nature, and the projection of one’s inventiveness in a new composition. The person who makes the drawings is the hinge between nature and art. The artist assembles and internalizes many observations of nature, using induction to understand the ideal that underlies their particularities. In turn, that ideal is invoked when the artist is faced with a new task that requires inventiveness. Cennini’s aim in studying nature for so long is to develop an authentic understanding (through drawing) that can be directed later (through drawing) toward the making of something inventive. In each case, drawing is what joins nature and artist, then artist and art. His series of five components (nature … imitative-drawing … artist … productive-drawing … art) constitutes the broader domain of disegno. Therefore, Cennini’s presentation of disegno may serve as a benchmark when encountering subsequent writings that define disegno as simply a drawing or a design.

Architecture as an Art of Disegno

121

6 Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

Lorenzo Valla (ca. 1406–57) was a humanist scholar who made a small but significant contribution to the prehistory of the arti del disegno. In 1435–44 he wrote Elegantiarum linguae latinae (Of the elegance of the Latin language), which argued that Latin should be purged of its medieval corruptions and returned to its classical origins. In the preface, he notes that a similar return to classical excellence is now occurring in several arts: “No more do I know why those arts that most closely resemble the liberal arts – painting, carving, modelling, architecture [pingendi, scalpendi, fingendi, architectandi] – became so degenerate for so long and were along with literature nearly dead, or why at the present time they are raised up and come to life again: so great a growth now springs up both of good craftsmen and of good writers.”1

Leon Battista Alberti and the winged eye; medal by Matteo de’ Pasti (1450–55). © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Although his primary concern was the humanist restoration of classical standards, his incidental comment that painting, sculpture, and architecture are close to liberal art status is significant in several ways: it recognizes the traditional liberal arts; it identifies painting, sculpture, and architecture as a set of arts; and it places these three arts not within the liberal arts but just alongside them. In the fourteenth century, Petrarch associated poetry and painting but was reticent to include sculpture. Having witnessed the practical achievements of artists in the early fifteenth century, Valla decided it was time to include painting, sculpture, and architecture.

Three Treatises by Alberti Like his contemporary Lorenzo Valla, Leon Battista Alberti (1404–74) was a humanist with a moral commitment to raising the standard of his fellow citizens toward that of the ancients.2 The treatises he wrote on a variety of subjects, including the family, surveying, painting, sculpture, and architecture, indicate the breadth of his ambition for the entire culture, not just individual components. His treatises were written mainly in Latin for an audience educated in humanist subjects. Some of these treatises praised a particular art for its importance to society but did not follow the earlier humanist practice of demeaning other arts. Alberti did not argue explicitly that certain arts should be recognized as liberal arts, but this ambition is implicit in the prologues to his treatises on the three arts. Lorenzo Valla mentioned painting, sculpture, and architecture in the same sentence, but Alberti wrote a separate treatise on each. These three treatises provide benchmarks for the arti del disegno in the sixteenth century.3 The following discussion focuses on two complementary topics: a comparison of the three treatises, and the concept of disegno in Alberti’s treatise on architecture. On Painting usually is considered the first of the three treatises. The Latin version, De pictura (1435), was followed shortly by an Italian version, Della pittura (1436). The content of the two versions is almost the same.4 Both versions include three books in which the main topics are perspective geometry, the composition of figures, and the role of the painter. The first section is noted for being the first theoretical account of perspective.

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

123

On Sculpture (De statua) is very short and is not divided into separate books. It focuses on a single topic: how to record the measurements and gestures of the human body. This treatise probably was written between 1443 and 1452.5 The earliest surviving manuscript is dated 1466 (which might place it third in the series), but some have suggested that it predates On Painting (which would place it first). Placing it second in the series would enable certain issues in On Painting to provide a background for the narrower focus of On Sculpture and would compensate for their absence from the second treatise. As Cecil Grayson notes, “[The] range and treatment [of De statua] appear to suppose principles it was unnecessary to explain … It is difficult to imagine Alberti approaching the arts for the first time with De statua; it is far easier to see him later on, in the context of other technical works, applying his practical mathematical talents to a particular aspect of sculpture.”6 On the Art of Building (De re aedificatoria) is much longer than the others. It was written between 1447 and 1452 but not published until 1485.7 It includes ten books: on lineaments, materials, construction, public works, the works of individuals (i.e., programs for people of different classes, occupations, and needs), ornament, ornament for sacred buildings, ornament for public secular buildings, ornament for private buildings, and the restoration of buildings (mainly about how to deal with water). Alberti did not state explicitly that painting, sculpture, and architecture constitute a set of three arts, as Vasari would do a century later, but he makes connections among them and discusses them in similar ways. Sculpture and Architecture in On Painting In a single sentence, Alberti establishes a direct relationship between painting and sculpture: “Painting and sculpture are cognate arts, nurtured by the same genius … The ancient writer Trismegistus believes that sculpture and painting originated together with religion.”8 They are like siblings or even fraternal twins who belong to the same family and share a family resemblance; however, Alberti makes a qualitative distinction between them: “I shall always prefer the genius of the painter, as it attempts by far the most difficult task.”9 This comparison recognizes that sculpture normally does not involve a change in mode; an original subject in the round is represented

124

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

as a sculpture in the round. Painting, on the other hand, typically requires a change in mode from volumetric to flat. A painter also may have to represent the figures in a spatial setting and render light and colour in a convincing way. Each of these actions requires intellectual judgement. When discussing reliefs, which exist in a mode that is somewhere between the flatness of a painting and the roundness of a sculpture, Alberti admits that they are rendered with more certainty in sculpture than in painting, as sculpture deals explicitly with depth.10 He advises painters to study the relief of their subject so that it may be painted well and not in a ridiculous manner. This hint of tactility and depth is a departure from his earlier emphasis on linear outlines and measurements that indicate the edges of forms and their locations in perspective. Recognizing that linear outlines alone are not sufficient for painters to produce a convincing likeness, he advises them also to consider subtle features in relief: “For many inexpert painters the outlines of surfaces are vague and uncertain, as for example in faces, because they cannot determine at what point more particularly the temples are distinguished from the forehead.”11 As an alternative to measuring depth directly, Alberti suggests introducing an oblique source of light to render the complex surface of a subject as faceted areas of light and shade. Together, the visual rays from the observer and the light rays from the light source generate a recognizable relief with different tonal areas that are precise enough to be defined with additional outlines. Using tonal values to measure depth enables the artist to rely solely on vision and to maintain his distance from the subject. In On Painting there are several explicit references to architecture. The Italian edition, Della pittura, is dedicated to architect Filippo Brunelleschi, whose dome for the cathedral in Florence was being completed in the same year, 1436. Alberti does not mention another notable achievement by Brunelleschi: that he already had demonstrated the basic principles of perspective in a practical experiment, using a painted panel, a mirror, and a view of the baptistry.12 Dedicating this first theoretical treatise on perspective to Brunelleschi may have been an implicit acknowledgment of his achievement and a silent credit for what Alberti was about to present. Alberti cites Vitruvius twice in On Painting: once to criticize his use of the foot as the proportional unit for measuring human height – Alberti favours the head but admits that it is roughly the same dimension – and once for his

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

125

reference to geographical sources of various pigments for painting, which are not relevant to the topics in Alberti’s treatise.13 Both references are incidental and could have been omitted, so it seems that Vitruvius was on Alberti’s mind for other reasons. A further reference to architecture is more significant. It proposes that painting was the historical source for the ornamentation of buildings. “Is it not true that painting is the mistress of all the arts or their principal ornament? If I am not mistaken, the architect took from the painter architraves, capitals, bases, columns and pediments, and all the other fine features of buildings … Painting is the flower of all the arts.”14 This allegory assigns painting an ornamental role. Because painting is a mistress for all the arts, her bond with architecture is not exclusive. Conversely, Alberti’s comment presupposes a mythical time when architecture was devoid of ornament, before it had met painting. This threshold, before and after the arrival of ornament, also invites us to conceive architecture in two states: without and with ornament. The notion that architecture “took” ornament from painting suggests direction and volition, perhaps in response to a perceived need to be dressed appropriately in the classical orders for civic functions. Ornament is the only substantial link between painting and architecture in On Painting. Alberti also makes a general statement that painting is the foundation of most arts: “The stonemason, the sculptor and all the workshops and crafts of artificers are guided by the rule and art of the painter. Indeed, hardly any art, except the very meanest, can be found that does not somehow pertain to painting. So I would venture to assert that whatever beauty there is in things has been derived from painting.”15 This is a reminder that painting was the first art that the early humanists compared to poetry and considered for membership in the liberal arts. In On Painting, Alberti observes subjects in a way that recurs in his later treatises on sculpture and architecture.16 He emphasizes the exterior outline of a figure (in Latin circumscriptio; in Italian circonscrizione or circonscriptione)17 and takes great pains to distinguish this outline from everything inside it, which he considers subordinate. In the perspective portion of the treatise on painting (Book 1) he refers to visual rays that connect the eye to the surface of a figure: “These rays, stretching between the eye and the surface seen, move rapidly with great power and remarkable subtlety, penetrating the air and rare and transparent bodies until they encounter

126

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

something dense or opaque where their points strike and they instantly stick.”18 He then stresses that the rays striking the visible edge of a figure (extrinsic rays) are fundamentally different from those that strike the inside of the figure (median rays). He consistently downplays not only the internal folds of a figure (where one surface meets another surface), but also the physical qualities of those surfaces (colour, texture, etc.). But there is a difference between these rays which I think it essential to understand. They differ in strength and function, for some reach to the outlines of surfaces and measure all their dimensions. Let us call these extrinsic rays, since they fly out to touch the outer parts of the surface. Other rays, whether received by or flowing from the whole extent of the surface, have their particular function within the pyramid of which we shall presently speak, for they are imbued with the same colours and lights with which the surface itself shines. Let us, therefore, call these median rays … Quantities are measured by the extrinsic rays. A quantity is the space across the surface between two different points on the outline, which the eye measures with the extrinsic rays rather like a pair of dividers. We use these extrinsic rays whenever we apprehend by sight the height from top to bottom, or width from left to right, or depth from near to far, or any other dimensions … It is perfectly true that no quantity can be seen without such a triangle [defined by two extrinsic points and the eye] … Furthermore, the extrinsic rays, which hold on like teeth to the whole of the outline, form an enclosure around the entire surface like a cage.19 However, in practical painting, Alberti advises painters to render these circumscribed edges as lightly as possible: “I believe one should take care that circumscription is done with the finest possible, almost invisible lines … Circumscription is simply the recording of the outlines, and if it is done with a very visible line, they will look in the painting not like the margins of surfaces, but like cracks. I want only the external outlines to be set down in circumscription.”20 These outlines should be conceptually strong but graphically weak. The outlines “designate” an object (and its position relative to other objects) without actually depicting it. In Pliny’s account of the origin of painting,21 the residual outline of a shadow on a wall reminds the lover of

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

127

the absent figure, but someone else who walks by later and sees this line would be unable to fill in the blanks. The difference is memory: one person has it but another may not. Memory of another kind is implicit in Alberti’s concept of perspective. When one looks at a perspective that represents a gridded pavement with orthogonal objects, then imagines walking around in this virtual space, one is importing memories of walking at a uniform pace with one’s feet and tracing horizontal lines with one’s hand.22 These bodily memories “correct” the irregular features on the surface of a perspective drawing: the grid that is not orthogonal or uniform, and the receding lines that are not horizontal. If a completely amorphous subject (without repetition, orthogonality, or familiarity) were represented in perspective, it would invoke no bodily recognition by the observer and therefore no virtual space. This points to a difference between two meanings of disegno: ‘designation’ and ‘drawing’. Alberti’s approach in On Painting emphasizes disegno as designation. The drawing has no presence of its own. It relies on memory and can represent only what has been experienced before. Painting and Architecture in On Sculpture Alberti addresses On Sculpture to both painters and sculptors, reinforcing his earlier statement in On Painting that these two arts have a cognate relationship. “I wish this work of mine to be familiar to my painter and sculptor friends, who will applaud my advice, if they take heed.”23 The first few paragraphs of On Sculpture declare that painting and sculpture share a common origin: the diligent observation of nature. He then declares that they also share a common goal: “Those whom I have mentioned all aim, though by different skills, at the same goal, namely that as nearly as possible the work they have undertaken shall appear to the observer to be similar to the real objects of Nature.”24 Bonded by a shared origin and a shared goal, the only differences are their modes of working and the skills involved. At the very end of On Sculpture, following a long series of body measurements, Alberti presents a curious exercise that associates sculpture and painting through the body. He imagines enclosing a figure in a cylinder, then dividing it into two halves: a front surface that is visible to an observer, and a back surface that is invisible. This divided figure is described first as a frontal relief for sculptors. Then a light from the observer’s eye is projected 128

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Finitorium device, from Leon Battista Alberti, Della statua, ed. Rafaelle Du Fresne (Paris: Giacomo Langlois, 1651).

toward this half-figure so that its silhouette is cast as a shadow onto a wall behind it. This flat shape is intended for painters. The painter and the sculptor share one linear element in this odd scenario: the outline of the half-figure, the “vertical horizon” between what is visible to the observer and what is invisible. In On Sculpture, the only explicit reference to architecture occurs in the opening dedication: “I hope that you will read with pleasure this third work, which concerns the painter as well as in many ways also the skill of the architect, for it enquires into and shows how one may construct a colossus from certain known measurements.”25 For sculpture, Alberti measures lengths and thicknesses of the elements of a body; similar measurements can be recorded in buildings. The apparatus and technique that he uses to map the surface of a sculpture are similar to those he uses in another treatise, Descriptio urbis Romae (Delineation of the city of Rome), to survey the surface of the earth. Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

129

One other feature of On Sculpture seems to be carried over into architecture: Alberti advises sculptors to study bodily gestures. He introduces a pair of theoretical terms to indicate the body’s static and dynamic states: dimensio and finitio. For the dynamic state, his awkward finitorium device is intended to measure these expressive gestures by meticulously recording the positions of the limbs and the torso.26 In Alberti’s treatise on architecture a similar distinction might be made between the first half of the treatise, which presents an intrinsic “static state” of architecture, and the last half of the treatise, where ornament enables the building to participate dynamically in civic situations. Painting and Sculpture in On the Art of Building In the first half of On the Art of Building there is just one passing reference to painting and sculpture, in a section on various types of openings: “There is one particular type of opening [a niche] that adopts the same positioning and form as doors and windows; it does not cut right through the whole thickness of the wall, however, but is carved out like a shell, and provides a dignified and appropriate setting for statues and paintings.”27 Painting and sculpture are not discussed as arts, but simply mentioned as sources of ornamentation. Painting has a much greater role in the second half of On the Art of Building, where Alberti discusses how ornamentation is used in various situations. He says that these books may give great delight to painters.28 Indeed, painting is described frequently in Books 7-9 as an intrinsic part of the architectural setting. “It is surely most appropriate for a portico or a dining hall to be painted or sculpted with scenes of bravery by the citizens, portraits and events worthy of recollection … but I would not have a wall overwhelmed with statues and reliefs, nor overcrowded with historiae.”29 Like earlier humanists, Alberti also associates painting and poetry, noting that painting is not merely for pleasure but also has a moral purpose: “I look at a good painting … with as much pleasure as I take in reading a good story. Both are the work of painters: one paints with words, the other tells the story with his brush … [Paintings] should instruct us on how to make ourselves more just, modest, and frugal, and to equip ourselves with every virtue and make ourselves more acceptable to the gods above.”30 On the Art of Building mentions sculpture less frequently, usually along-

130

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

side painting. Discussing dignity and decorum, Alberti states that a sculpture should not be simply an autonomous object but part of a larger setting that engages the observer. “I myself am undecided as to which material is best for statues of the gods. It might well be said that they ought to be made of the most dignified material, and that scarcity is the closest thing to dignity … You will find that if any statue, once the object of considerable veneration, is moved elsewhere, people will treat it as bankrupt, withdraw their credit, and no longer invest their votive offerings there. Each statue, then, should be allotted its own dignified position, and should remain there.”31 In On the Art of Building, Alberti discusses painting, sculpture, and architectural ornamentation in similar ways, offering similar advice: “Within the temple I favor detached painted panels rather than pictures applied directly to the walls, although I would prefer reliefs to paintings … I feel that those absurd garden statues of scarecrow gods would hardly be appropriate … I do not approve of turrets and crenellations on the houses of private citizens; such elements are foreign to peaceful citizens and the wellordered state: they belong rather to the tyrant.”32 To Alberti, ornament is a necessary part of architecture but, like painting and sculpture, it remains somewhat separate from the rest of architecture, including utilitas and firmitas, the subjects of the first half of his treatise. Indeed, he seems to have regarded the first five books as a distinct and separate project. At the beginning of Book 6, the first book on ornament, he looks back at the first five: “We have dealt with all this in the five preceding books … As heaven is my witness, it was a more demanding task than I could have imagined when I embarked on it … Of the three conditions that apply to every form of construction – that what we construct should be appropriate to its use, lasting in structure, and graceful and pleasing in appearance – the first two have been dealt with, and there remains the third, the noblest and most necessary of all.”33 Throughout all three of these treatises by Alberti – on painting, sculpture, and architecture – the explicit references among the three disciplines indicate a consistent pattern: Painting and sculpture are closely related and share a further alliance with architectural ornamentation; however, they are distinct from the rest of architecture. These relationships suggest that Alberti did not believe that all three arts are bound together as closely as Vasari’s arti del disegno.

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

131

From Lineamentum to Disegno Vasari declared that disegno is the common foundation of painting, sculpture, and architecture, so any references to disegno in Alberti’s treatises could be instructive. As an Italian word, it did not appear in his Latin treatises, but it does appear three times in Della pittura, the Italian edition of On Painting, along with several derivatives of disegno.34 Alberti does not define disegno but does use it in apposition: “No composition and no reception of light can be praised where there is not also a good circumscription – that is, a good drawing [disegno] – which is most pleasant in itself.”35 The second appearance of disegno characterizes it again as a linear outline, as opposed to a relief representation that shows subtle variations in depth: “I say the learned and the unlearned praise those faces which, as though carved, appear to issue out of the panel, and they criticize those faces in which is seen no other art than perhaps that of drawing [disegno] … I prefer a good drawing [disegno] with a good composition to be well coloured.”36 The third appearance of disegno again distinguishes it from relief: “Perhaps it will be more useful to practise relief than drawing [disegno]. If I am not mistaken, sculpture is more certain than painting. He who does not understand the relief of the thing he paints will rarely paint it well.”37 Tracing these three passages back to their equivalent passages in Alberti’s earlier Latin edition, De pictura, provides mixed results. For the first passage there is no equivalent Latin phrase, indicating that Alberti added the disegno phrase later to the Italian edition. In the second passage, he uses lineamentis and conscriptam as synonyms for disegno. In the third passage, he uses pictura where disegno would appear in the Italian edition. Della pittura uses the word disegno in a limited way that refers only to line drawing. As Alberti’s treatise focuses mainly on perspective geometry and composition, this is appropriate. He does not use it like Cennini, who stresses the use of drawing to understand nature and then to generate new compositions. Elsewhere in On Painting, Alberti indicates that an understanding of the outlines and properties of surfaces is “the first foundation of the art for unlearned painters.”38 Although this statement does not mention disegno explicitly, it aligns with Vasari’s premise that drawing is the foundation of painting. In fact, Alberti’s treatise on painting is concerned primarily with drawing: in particular, line drawing for establishing perspective and for

132

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

composing figures and scenes. It does not discuss materials or techniques of painting, and it mentions colour only briefly. To pursue the concept of architecture as an art of disegno, the following section focuses on Book 1 of De re aedificatoria.39 Book 1 in this original edition is entitled “De lineamentis” (On the lineaments). As the treatise was written in Latin and not Italian, the word disegno does not appear in the original Latin text.40 In the first Italian edition (1546), translated by Pietro Lauro, Book 1 is entitled “De i lineamenti, e de la loro forza e ragione.”41 Lauro imports the word lineamenti from Latin into Italian.42 In a subsequent Italian edition (1550), translated by Cosimo Bartoli, Book 1 is entitled “De disegni & della possanza, & regola loro.”43 The imported Latin word lineamenti is replaced by the Italian word disegni. This smooth transition from Latin to Latin-Italian to Italian suggests a close equivalence between lineamentum and disegno – an equivalence that is reinforced by Alberti’s own translation from lineamentis to disegni in the second passage from Della pittura quoted above. Coincidentally, the 1550 Bartoli edition was published in the same year as Vasari’s first edition of the Lives, which presented the three arti del disegno. Subsequent Italian editions relied on Bartoli’s translation and retained disegni in the title of Book 1.44 The word disegno would not have been out of place in architectural discussions in Alberti’s time. It had been used in architecture as early as the fourteenth century.45 The verb disegnàre also appears in the late thirteenth century,46 and derivatives of the related Latin word designo (but not designo itself) appear frequently in Vitruvius.47 Therefore, the general equivalence of lineamentum and disegno enables the roots of Vasari’s arti del disegno to be pursued in the first book of Alberti’s De re aedificatoria. Of all Renaissance treatises on architecture, De re aedificatoria is perhaps the most comprehensive and the most deliberately organized. The first three books of the treatise constitute a subset of the treatise that is organized in a particular way: “The hand of the skilled workman … fashion[s] the material according to lineaments.”48 In this single sentence, Alberti makes several clear distinctions among the first three books: Book 1 is on lineaments (disegni), the realm of the designer; Book 2 is on material, the realm of nature; and Book 3 is on construction, the realm of the builder. Taking Alberti at his word, Book 1 alone should provide a carefully framed presentation of his understanding of disegno. As Book 1 is only one of ten books, his under-

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

133

standing of architecture certainly is broader than disegno, but the limits of Book 1 should indicate where he draws the line between disegno and the rest of architecture. As this is the best theoretical discussion of architecture as an art of disegno in the Renaissance, the following section considers it more closely and reintroduces the template of terms from Chapter 1 as a rough interpretive guide.

Elements of Practice in the Arts of Disegno 1 Edification Alberti avoided the Latin word architectura (architecture) in the title of his treatise, preferring re [res] aedificatoria (the subject of building). Although he does not explain his decision, a subsequent complaint about Vitruvius’s hybrid Greek and Latin terms may apply also to the hybrid word architectura.49 “For I grieved that so many works of such brilliant writers had been destroyed by the hostility of time and of man, and that almost the sole survivor from this vast shipwreck is Vitruvius, an author of unquestioned experience, though one whose writings have been so corrupted by time that there are many omissions and many shortcomings. What he handed down was in any case not refined, and his speech such that the Latins might think that he wanted to appear a Greek, while the Greeks would think that he babbled Latin … As far as we are concerned he might just as well not have written at all, rather than write something that we cannot understand.”50 As a humanist, Alberti may have been troubled by the awkward etymology of the word architectura. He maintains his resistance to Vitruvius’s linguistic impropriety, frequently using the term architectus (architect, derived from the Greek architekton) but using architectura (architecture) only three times in the entire treatise.51 Instead, he relies on the indigenous Latin term aedificatio ‘act of building’, referring to a physical object, aedificium ‘edifice or building’.52 An alternate title for the treatise, De aedificiis (On Building), could have established a symmetry with De pictura and De statua, but it seems that he preferred to recognize the larger realm suggested by De re aedificatoria. However, others did not follow in his linguistic footsteps, instead using Vitruvius’s architectura and the Italian equivalent architettura to title their later editions of Alberti’s treatise.53

134

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Book 1 frames architecture within a humanist agenda. Although Alberti is providing recommendations in the present, he presumes continuity between ancient Rome and his own time. He writes as if Rome had not fallen and the thousand-year medieval period had not happened. Because the writings of the ancients have survived, he is able to converse with them. He implicitly endorses much of their advice and simply passes it along to the reader; however, many of their statements are accompanied by phrases that subtly question their reliability: “or so it is said”; “whether this theory we report is correct”; “according to the naturalists”; “Pliny tells us that”; “it is an ancient poetic legend that”; “Plato believed that.”54 Some of the statements he forwards from the ancients are contradictory but he does not attempt to reconcile them. For example, “Cicero says that Syracuse was sited so that there was not a single day in the whole year on which the inhabitants could not see the sun … If there are no strong reasons or grounds for avoiding it, it is the location to be sought in preference to any other”55; and “Consider the quality and angle of the sun to which a locality is exposed, so that there is no excess of sunlight or shade; the Garamantes cursed the sun at its rising and setting, so scorched were they by the excessive persistence of its rays.”56 Occasionally, however, he confronts ancient sources with his own experience: Caligula wanted to build a city on a ridge of the Alps; Alberti himself would not do this. Varro and Caesar describe wilderness; Alberti would not build there. Aristotle was pleased by a site with difficult access; Alberti would not criticize him, but would look for public benefit first.57 Sometimes he steps out of this transhistorical discussion by commenting on ancient buildings he has seen with his own eyes: “I cannot recall having come across any building of the ancients that has a polygonal area.”58 Elsewhere in his treatise, Alberti blurs the historical context of his audience by interspersing ancient and modern concepts: Sacred buildings are temples, not churches. There are many gods, not just one.59 He mentions youths riding chariots in circuses and hunters pursuing beasts in amphitheatres – all in the present tense.60 Meanwhile, modern Christian rituals are projected back into ancient Rome.61 He frequently cites ancient writers but almost never introduces biblical references.62 These literary tactics situate the reader in a temporality that is ahistorical and ideal. The epistemological standing of architecture in Alberti’s time was uncertain because the authority for defining the liberal arts was no longer

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

135

held exclusively by a small number of philosophers and theologians. The humanists were becoming a second authority to whom one could make rhetorical arguments.63 Alberti does not state explicitly that architecture is a liberal art or should be recognized as a liberal art. He would have known that philosophers still regarded architecture as a mechanical art. Instead, he appeals to a general audience when he glorifies the role of the architect: nor does [architecture] rank last among the most honorable of the arts … The security, dignity, and honor of the republic depend greatly on the architect: it is he who is responsible for our delight, entertainment, and health while at leisure, and our profit and advantage while at work, and in short, that we live in a dignified manner, free from any danger. In view then of the delight and wonderful grace of his works, and of how indispensable they have proved, and in view of the benefit and convenience of his inventions, and their service to posterity, he should no doubt be accorded praise and respect, and be counted among those most deserving of mankind’s honor and recognition.64 In Book 1, Alberti indicates that architecture involves several of the liberal arts, so its status would be elevated by association. For example, in several chapters he emphasizes that architecture uses geometry: “Every outline is made up of lines and angles … The curved line, which we called a part of a circle, will be known as an arc or bow (because it resembles one) to us architects.”65 He also invokes music theory when discussing harmonic relations among the components of a building: “Just as in music, where deep voices answer high ones, and intermediate ones are pitched between them, so they ring out in harmony, a wonderfully sonorous balance of proportions results, which increases the pleasure of the audience and captivates them.”66 The humanists already had recognized the nobility of their own poetry as an extension of rhetoric. Alberti’s brief discussion of ornamentation in Book 1 provides an obvious parallel: “Although other famous architects seem to recommend by their work either the Doric, or the Ionic, or the Corinthian, or the Tuscan division as being the most convenient, there is no reason why we should follow their design in our work, as though legally obliged; but rather, inspired by their example, we should strive to produce our own inventions, to rival, or, if possible, to surpass the glory of theirs.”67 At a time 136

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

when Scholasticism had identified moral philosophy as a branch of theology and had installed it as a university subject even higher than the traditional liberal arts, Alberti’s description of architecture as providing a healthy environment for the benefit of humanity supported his argument that architecture is a noble art, if not a fully-fledged liberal art.68 2 Imitator Alberti refers to the first (mythical) builders as men, not as architects: “In the beginning, men sought a place of rest in some region safe from danger … After this, men began to consider how to build a roof, as a shelter from the sun and the rain.”69 The immediacy of the needs and the immediacy of the response suggest a life lived solely in the present. The role of the architect begins to emerge when additional knowledge is needed to address different uses for buildings (public, private, sacred, profane; for practical necessity, civic adornment, and temporary pleasure) and a broader geographical awareness of natural forces that are benevolent or malevolent.70 He must draw lessons from his predecessors, judge their relative merits, and devise an appropriate plan for the benefit of his people. Consequently, the architect is poised between the past and the future. Framing the architect’s responsibility in this way avoids the first (mythical) builder’s focus on the present. It also avoids treating the architect primarily as a creator. Instead, the architect is an imitator, situated between the ancients and the moderns. This role parallels that of the prince, who is expected to govern his people with both wisdom and foresight. The prince also would be in a prime position to act on the architect’s judgement by founding a new city in a favourable locality discerned by the architect. In current usage the words “design” and “designer” emphasize innovation, but Alberti frames disegno (lineaments) differently in Book 1. In the first chapter he says, “All the intent and purpose of lineaments lies in finding the correct, infallible way of joining and fitting together those lines and angles.”71 The notion of “finding” suggests that the answer already exists and that the architect’s task is to search a broad range of existing options to discern which one is “correct” and “infallible” for a future set of circumstances. These two adjectives presume a standard of absoluteness that is foreign to our current understanding of design, but it aligns with ancient techne¯, in which an artisan sought to respond perfectly to a given situation. Alberti Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

137

warns that personal innovation is risky: “Follow the methods sanctioned by those who are experienced: to contravene established customs often detracts from the general elegance.”72 In his three treatises Alberti emphasizes that the painter, the sculptor, and the architect must devote considerable attention to studying existing things that are exemplary for their art. All three must go to their source. In painting and sculpture, this means the nature that God created, especially the human body. In architecture, this means the buildings of the ancients, as an architect does not create visual likenesses of nature.73

All three must study the “lineaments” of these sources until they become internalized and idealized in the artist’s mind. Only then can these lineaments guide the artist in the design of new compositions for the benefit of future citizens.

Unfortunately, Alberti provides no details or concrete examples to guide the reader in studying ancient buildings and recording lessons from them. Later in the treatise he provides only a general description of his own efforts to draw lessons from the ancients. “No building of the ancients that had attracted praise, wherever it might be, but I immediately examined it carefully, to see what I could learn from it. Therefore I never stopped exploring, considering, and measuring everything, and comparing the information through line drawings, until I had grasped and understood fully what each had to contribute in terms of ingenuity or skill.”74 From this description, one can imagine a designer situated in the middle, between drawings of ancient buildings and drawings of a future building: noting differences among earlier examples, discerning ideals, judging which lessons are pertinent, and deciding how the future building can express this ideal in its design. The ancient lessons would moderate any tendency toward eccentricity. “Moreover, in fashioning the members, the moderation shown by nature ought to be followed; and here, as elsewhere, we should not so much 138

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

praise sobriety as condemn unruly passion for building; each part should be appropriate and suit its purpose. For every aspect of building, if you think of it rightly, is born of necessity, nourished by convenience, dignified by use; and only in the end is pleasure provided for, while pleasure itself never fails to shun every excess.”75 Alberti encourages the architect to solicit opinions from others, but he does not indicate that collaboration is an option. The designer’s mind is the centre point of disegno. If the ancients are sitting on one shoulder, potential critics – those who know the work of the ancients and can make informed judgements – are sitting on the other. The ultimate aim of design is to avoid error: “Ensure that even the most insignificant parts appear to have been formed according to the rules of art … Let the building then be such that its members want no more than they already have, and what they have can in no way be faulted … Here it is worth mentioning a few building defects to heighten our own awareness of the matter. For to have no defect is the greatest honor.”76 Although Alberti is acutely aware of architectural critics, this book on disegno never mentions the eventual occupants of the new building. His primary concern remains the larger culture. The particular occupants are addressed only later in the treatise, when ornamentation is discussed in relation to their civic role. 3 Natural Forces Reinforcing the division between Book 1 and Book 2, Alberti declares that lineaments and material are completely separate: “The whole matter of building is composed of lineaments and structure … Nor do lineaments have anything to do with material … It is quite possible to project whole forms in the mind without any recourse to the material, by designating and determining a fixed orientation for the various lines and angles.”77 Disegno is associated with the ideal realm of geometry, not with the physical realm. Lineaments come first and are developed independently. Materials, discussed in Book 2, come later. This is a major change from the mechanical arts, which shaped natural substance into a different form. Although building materials are excluded from disegno, Alberti describes many climatic and earthly substances that play a vital role in preserving life. He indicates that the human body is affected directly by natural substances: Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

139

vapours from the earth’s bowels, personified winds from different directions, etc. They can be either benevolent or malevolent. His description of nature relies on Greek and Roman concepts, occasionally reinforced by his own observations. “I know of [a] town in Italy where there are so many born either with tumors, squints, and limps, or who are crippled, that there is scarcely a family that does not contain someone deformed or handicapped in some way; and it is a sure indication, when many marked discrepancies are to be seen in bodies or their members, that the climate is at fault or that some other latent deficiency is responsible.”78 Recognizing that not all places are equally healthy, the first responsibility of a designer is to find an auspicious locality for building. This is not a search for an ideal Garden of Eden but a practical search for favourable conditions. Some natural properties are obvious, whereas others require certain knowledge to recognize them. Clues are evident in the limbs of cattle, the angle of trees, the erosion of rocks, etc. Sometimes the advice of the ancients is sufficient; sometimes it must be supplemented by divination. For example, water on a site should have no flavour, smell, or colour. It should also be tested to see if it leaves stains or sediment. Alberti mentions the ancient Roman practice of inspecting the livers of cattle who have been grazing on a site, but his prefaces to such references – “it is an ancient custom”; “Plato believed that”; “It is said to be” – suggest that he respects their sources but cannot vouch for their efficacy. Along with air, water, and other substances that are consumed, the designer must consider the ground. The earth is understood metaphorically as a body that receives substances from the atmosphere and emits vapours.79 The slope and orientation of the ground determine its exposure to the sun, which in turn will affect those who live there. The soil of a locality also must be tested for compactness to ensure that it will support the weight of a building. When beginning to consider lineaments for a building, the designer should imagine natural forces, including catastrophic forces from an anticipated direction. “The angles [of the exterior wall] ought to be positioned counter to the pressure of rocks or the likely direction of violent water and winds, so as to divide and dissipate the destructive blows as they strike, by facing the trouble with the strongest part of the wall rather than the weakness of a side. But if the other lineaments of the building prevent you from using a corner there, as you might wish, a curved wall must be used in140

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

stead.”80 This is an evocative meeting of geometric lines and forceful natural substances. Although the lineaments of the building are still only lines, they can dissipate nature’s destructive power. Alberti is imagining geometry as dynamic properties in a temporal world. The lineaments do not combat nature but merely neutralize its detrimental effects. He describes the corner of a building like the bow of a ship, providing strength and deflecting waves. There is no indication that strength comes from building materials; it is all in the lineaments. To illustrate the point, he cites an example in which insufficient stone was available to withstand the thrust of a mountain, so an architect used geometry in a clever way to compensate for the physical deficiency.81 He also advises using the lineaments of the site and the building to avoid the destructive potential of normal rain over an extended period of time. In both situations, short-term and long-term, the use of lineaments in nature resembles the basic strategy of ancient techne¯, in which a clever use of minimal force can overcome much larger forces with apparent ease. 4 Citizen Alberti places the health of citizens above all else and declares that a direct connection exists between a locality and its people: “The best locality of all, however, is a moderately warm and moist one, for it will produce men tall and elegant in stature and cheerful in character.”82 He associates clear air with clear sight and a clear mind.83 He also warns that locating a city in a hidden valley would cause its citizens to lose their strength, stamina, and spirit.84 Therefore, an architect should find a locality that is restful, safe from danger, and free of unhealthy climatic and natural conditions. It should be elevated, with good prospects for food, water, sunlight, and transportation. The same criteria should be used to select an area for a building. Alberti notes that the location of a city or a building will affect what is available to eat. One should not have to import food. He criticizes Polycrates’ desire to build a city on Mount Athos: Although it would have been an impressive sight, it would have been unhealthy due to the lack of available food. Similarly, he favours a locality where transportation can acquire what is not available locally. To consider what nature does not provide, Alberti suggests that the first (mythical) builders recognized some basic human desires in their buildings: different spaces for sleeping, for the hearth, and for other uses. So far, these Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

141

are just spaces, slightly articulated and identified according to their use. He does not pause to consider why they were differentiated. Alberti then departs the mythical world to discuss types of programs for buildings in the present (which, to him, includes the ancient era). He establishes three categories: public or private; sacred or profane; practical necessity, civic adornment, or temporary pleasure.85 Defining programs in this way continues to emphasize the needs of the dwellers rather than the buildings themselves. He avoids mentioning particular types of buildings, such as houses, shops, and temples. The only exceptions are the forum and the theatre, whose programs and lineaments are large enough to require a particular area with a certain size and shape. He also does not suggest that a building should be designed for a particular patron. His advice pertains to citizens in general. To begin discussing the relation between lineaments and the program to which they are responding, he says simply that they should be well suited to their task and very commodious. The noblest parts of the interior should be located prominently, while the most private parts should be hidden from view.86 These are basic principles, all inward-looking. The lineaments of a building begin with the roof, which provides shelter from sun and rain.87 When perimeter walls are added to the roof, they complete the enclosure to provide shelter from cold and to “keep out the night.”88 Openings then are made in the perimeter walls: first, doors to admit people, then windows to admit sunlight and breezes when appropriate. The doors and windows also let out moisture and vapour. The movement of people and objects is integrated with the movement of air, light, humidity, smoke, water, and effluent, as well as views – all of which Alberti imagines in a dynamic way. The exterior of the building is presented as a perforated shell. Stairs, pipes, and wells are also considered openings, as they too are dedicated to movement. So far, these are the lineaments of a generic building, still defined simply as a dwelling. Additional interior walls should provide internal privacy, acknowledging social divisions among the dwellers. The location and sequence of certain rooms should maintain comfort in both winter and summer, avoiding abrupt changes in temperature that would be detrimental to the body as one moves through the building. As presented in Book 1, disegno is not concerned with the external appearance of a building. Alberti says merely that one should not make the building look monstrous, with uneven shoulders and sides.89 The building promotes human health and comfort; it is not a subject for observation. The 142

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

only reference to visual elements is a brief note that the individual parts should be groomed, ordered, and garlanded for grace and elegance.90 Alberti reserves his discussion of ornamentation for the second half of the treatise. 5 Builder The builder is almost entirely absent from Book 1. Consequently, the designer works alone. Alberti carefully maintains the distinction between the geometric lineaments (disegno) in Book 1 and the actions of the builder in Book 3. The only exceptions are several passing references to construction: He indicates that skill (and ingenuity) can remedy defects of land or water; a plumb line is used to centre all the parts of a column; and the layout and construction of a stairway is a demanding task that requires experience.91 In the last example, the architect delineates a two-storey room and the builder later constructs a stairway inside it. In the prologue to the treatise, Alberti describes a particular relationship between architect and builder: “The carpenter is but an instrument in the hands of the architect.”92 The practical separation of architect and builder would have seemed odd to ancestors working in the tradition of techne¯ or the mechanical arts. Clearly, Alberti wanted to emphasize the intellectual and moral domain of the architect and chose to do so by relegating the builder to a subordinate position. However, this does not mean that the designer composes abstract forms; Alberti expects the architect to have acquired a thorough understanding of materials and construction by studying what ancient architects achieved. He provides examples such as Vitruvius, who used buttresses to strengthen a wall, and an unnamed architect from Alatri who leveled a hilltop site effectively by using cut and fill.93 In disegno, such examples are conceived as compositions of lineaments, not as acts of construction. 6 Composition Not only the builder is absent from disegno in Book 1, the physical building is also absent. Alberti’s building examples come from ancient texts or from his own memory. One cannot imagine visiting them and walking around; they are described in an idealized way that has turned them into principles or general characteristics. Similarly, there are no descriptions of projected Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

143

buildings. Although he presents many building principles, there are no particularities of site, material, or program to make them tangible. Instead, Alberti provides a compositional framework with which one can study ancient buildings and plan new ones.94 It consists of six elements: locality, area, compartition; wall, roof, and opening.95 The first three elements conceive the site in a nested way, from large to small;96 the last three elements are interrelated building components. The first element, the locality (regio), is the regional setting for the building or city. Its priority is to provide a healthy venue for humans. It is imagined broadly enough to include surrounding hills that offer protection from malevolent winds. Within that locality, the area is a plot of land selected for the platform of a building. It should provide similar benefits. The perimeter of the area is composed of lines and angles. It is described strictly as a geometric construction, accompanied by Euclidean axioms: for example, a straight line being the shortest possible line between two points. The outline of this area will divide the undulating and variable ground outside from a flat, artificial platform inside. The emphasis here is on establishing the exterior limits of the enclosure. Defining this single line seems to be the designer’s primary task. This outline is not just a geometric pattern; various forces are implicit in it. For example, he says that the ancients never allowed the side of an area to be long and straight, suggesting that internal or external forces would cause distortion or even failure. Although the lines and angles of the area are presented simply as a geometric outline, the mind of the designer is also aware of forces and elements on both sides of this line. The third element, compartition (partitio) is nested within the area. Unlike its predecessors, it is not a singular form but a process that divides the area into smaller units that are joined organically. The outline of the area remains fixed; compartition is subordinate.97 The design proceeds sequentially from large to small. There is no suggestion that the outline of the area can be modified in size or shape in response to compartition. The building is not conceived as a set of rooms around which a perimeter wall is wrapped. Like the area, compartition is described as lines, not walls. It outlines units, not rooms. These first three elements – locality, area, and compartition – are conceived as lines inscribed on the ground. Although they are just lines, Alberti notes that they implicitly embody forces of

144

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

nature and dwelling. Once the first three elements have been composed, the remaining three elements – wall (paries), roof (tectum), and opening (apertio) – fall into place. Alberti’s ideal building has only one storey. To describe other buildings with more than one storey, he introduces some odd notions: “as if one building has been built on another”; “roofs not exposed to the sky are intermediate floors.” Alberti’s ideal building is also distinct from its surroundings. This is reinforced by the emphasis on its perimeter. There are no theoretical terms that enable it to be discussed in relation to other buildings. It is set in nature but not yet in a settlement. Later in the treatise he mentions various types of buildings that a city might include, but they are also described in a singular way. 7 Mind’s Eye Alberti does not discuss drawings – at least, not in Book 1.98 This may seem odd in a book that is entitled (in Italian translations) “De disegni,” as ‘drawing’ is a standard meaning that disegno has acquired. For now, Alberti keeps the lineamenti away from paper.99 Instead, they remain in the mind of the architect, as abstract and ideal as Euclidean lines.100 With neither construction nor the builder being discussed until Book 3, it is understandable that Book 1 would not mention drawings for construction. Book 1 also does not mention patrons, so there is no need to prepare drawings for discussion. Interestingly, Alberti does not even mention drawings that an architect might make when studying an ancient building or developing a new design. His description suggests that disegno remains within the architect’s mind. This is consistent with his distinction between lineaments and matter, thought and nature: “The building is a form of body, which like any other consists of lineaments and matter, the one the product of thought, the other of Nature; the one requiring the mind and the power of reason, the other dependent on preparation and selection.”101 The lineamenti that Alberti observed in ancient buildings have been retained in his memory. Those that responded to natural forces – for example, the corner of the building that deflected the force of flood waters – suggest not just a visual memory but also a bodily memory that invokes one’s muscles, ligaments, and bones.

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

145

8 Lineaments In Book 1, Alberti does not visualize a building as a whole, as a singular object in a landscape. Instead, both ancient buildings and projected buildings are conceived and composed as an assembly of separate elements with different orientations at different scales, strung together in a quasi-tactile, paratactic composition. They are described like a series of memories that, if recorded graphically, would resemble medieval images more than Renaissance perspectives.102 As suggested by the Latin title of Book 1, the key notion here is “lineament” (lineamentum). This word sometimes is used to refer to the lineaments of a face: the memorable features of which it is composed. Alberti’s discussion of architectural lineamenti does not indicate whether they are strictly planar (on a horizontal or vertical plane) or also can be multiplanar. The first two domains, locality and area, suggest an emphasis on horizontality because they concern the location of a city or the outline of a building on the face of the earth. Occasional references to elevated sites and valley locations indicate that Alberti is also thinking vertically.103 A dense paragraph at the beginning of Book 1 introduces Alberti’s concept of lineaments. By moving gradually through the paragraph, this concept may be unpacked. “Let us therefore begin thus: the whole matter of building is composed of lineaments and structure.”104 This opening sentence reduces everything to two parts: lineaments and construction.105 Their separation reappears later in distinctions between the mind and nature, the architect and the builder, Book 1 and Books 2-3. “All the intent and purpose of lineaments lies in finding the correct, infallible way of joining and fitting together those lines and angles which define and enclose the surfaces of the building.”106 Here Alberti suggests that lineaments already exist and are found by searching; they are not created from scratch. One must know generally what to look for. The smallest unit is the line, which Euclidean geometry indicates has length but no thickness. A line exists only in the mind; it is not physical. The angle is the next larger unit, consisting of two lines, a point of intersection, and a rotational relation between the lines that forms a V.107 The lineament is the next larger unit. Although it is not defined in a clear geometric way, it seems more complex than an angle, but less complex than the outline of an entire surface that is enclosed by many lineaments.

146

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Lineaments emphasize the perimeter rather than the area it encloses. Like lines, lineaments are linear, but their eventual aim to enclose a figure implies that the two sides of the line (or angle) are different, as inside and outside. Lineaments are invisible and have no intrinsic colour or weight. They are evaluated in an absolute way as correct or incorrect, rather than on a graduated scale. “It is in the function and duty of lineaments, then, to prescribe an appropriate place, exact numbers, a proper scale, and a graceful order for whole buildings and for each of their constituent parts, so that the whole form and appearance of the building may depend on the lineaments alone.”108 Lineaments thus have many duties, for which they alone are responsible. When correct lineaments have been established, they address four criteria: locality, proportion, scale, and composition. Lineaments affect a building’s appearance (for vision) and its form (not necessarily for vision). “Nor do lineaments have anything to do with material, but they are of such a nature that we may recognize the same lineaments in several different buildings that share one and the same form, that is, when the parts, as well as the siting and order, correspond with one another in their every line and angle.”109 Here Alberti distinguishes lineaments from material even more decisively. He also differentiates between a form (an overall composite property) and lineaments (a more particular component of a form). Lineaments enable classes of buildings to be identified. Lineaments are also transferable: for example, from ancient buildings to modern buildings. “It is quite possible to project whole forms in the mind without any recourse to the material, by designating and determining a fixed orientation and conjunction for the various lines and angles.”110 The mind can use lineaments to compose entire forms from lines and angles. Again, materiality is not required. The lineaments are also oriented externally toward an unspecified reference or perhaps a direction. “Since that is the case, let lineaments be the precise and correct outline, conceived in the mind, made up of lines and angles, and perfected in the learned intellect and imagination.” This last sentence is a condensed definition, similar to a definition in a geometry text. It reinforces Alberti’s earlier point that lineaments are outlines. It also indicates that perfection occurs in the mind, implying that lineaments in existing buildings can be recognized but are not quite perfect. Perfection requires not just any mind but a learned mind.

Alberti and the Arts of Disegno

147

Lineaments are not simply abstract geometric outlines floating in mental ether. In several places, Alberti describes lineaments that respond to various kinds of worldly forces: “The angles ought to be positioned counter to the pressure of rocks or the likely direction of violent water and winds, so as to divide and dissipate the destructive blows as they strike.”111 “The ancients … never allowed any one side of an area to be drawn too far in a straight line without being broken by being bent into some curve or cut by an angle … They wanted to reinforce the wall by offering support.”112 Lineaments can respond to internal programmatic forces: “The circular area is said to have the largest capacity.”113 Lineaments can recognize legal forces by “respecting the rights regarding ancient lights and party walls.”114 And lineaments can respond to the influence of other lineaments: “But if the other lineaments of the building prevent you from using a corner there, as you might wish, a curved wall must be used instead.”115 Lineaments thus suggest a particular ontological status for disegno: somewhere between presence and absence, the past and the future, with the designer as the central hinge. Although Alberti does not mention drawings explicitly, his entire description of lineamenti suggests the fragmentary sketches of architects who are observing ancient buildings or planning new ones.

148

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

7 Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

Renegotiating the Liberal Arts Alberti was not the first to promote painting, sculpture, and architecture as liberal arts, nor would he be the last. This effort extended over several centuries, from the fourteenth to the sixteenth – and beyond. Since the ancient era, the liberal arts had been overseen by philosophers who situated subjects authoritatively within a comprehensive epistemological framework, based on specific criteria. The mathematical subjects of the quadrivium – geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music theory – were understood as discoveries of the divine order of the world. The language subjects of the trivium – grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric – described how humans communicate. After Robert Kilwardby asked why there should be only seven mechanical arts, and after Thomas Aquinas announced that “the seven liberal arts do not adequately divide theoretical philosophy,”1 the traditional premises of the liberal arts were open to question and ready to be superseded. The recognition of poetry and eloquence as liberal arts in the fourteenth century was reached gradually and collectively by humanists, not with new principles but with deduction: Given that the three trivium subjects are liberal arts, given that poetry and eloquence are advanced extensions of rhetoric, and given that these two arts were noble activities in the ancient era, therefore poetry and eloquence must be liberal arts. This change in their epistemological status led to a popular belief that membership in the liberal arts could be negotiated. With epistemology now open to debate, many different arguments were made to classify a particular art as a liberal art: that this art is a more

advanced form of one of the traditional liberal arts; that its practice requires a knowledge of arithmetic or geometry;2 that it is based on a body of theory;3 that it was praised by ancient royalty and philosophers;4 that it was practised in the ancient era by free men and not by slaves;5 that its practice requires intellectual judgement; that its practice is similar to that of poetry or eloquence;6 that it requires intrinsic talent (ingenium) and not just manual art (ars);7 and that it is a subject about which rulers require authoritative advice.8 With these diverse criteria blurring the previously clear definition of a liberal art, and with no single authority to make a final decision, the liberal arts became associated generally with higher status. In turn, the concept of a mechanical art also lost its previously clear definition and became associated generally with lower status.9 In the various claims for liberal art status, promotion was sought for a whole art, not for its individual practitioners. In most of the arts there was no attempt to change the basis of practice. Painters and sculptors would continue to work with their hands, using the same materials and skills. The practical floor of their art would remain the same but their theoretical ceiling would rise. Increasing their “headroom” would introduce new theoretical possibilities and would enable their art to associate theoretically with others in a humanist milieu. Interestingly, the only exception seems to have been in architecture, where Alberti distinguished sharply between intellectual practice and manual practice by declaring that architects are not carpenters.10 Some modern writers have suggested that painters, sculptors, and architects promoted their art mainly to raise their social status: to rise from the working class to the middle class, or from the middle class to the ruling class.11 The guilds in Florence were organized along class lines;12 however, social status probably was incidental. Appeals for liberal art status sound pathetic to modern ears, especially when they seem to have been spoken into the void. The recurrence of appeals throughout several centuries indicates that recognition as a liberal art was elusive, prompting some to lower their sights by seeking recognition instead as a “noble art” – an undefined category with a much shorter tradition that originated from Scholastic writers such as Thomas Aquinas, who referred to noble substances as having a likeness or connection to God.13 Although many significant paintings, sculptures, and buildings were produced between the completion of Alberti’s architectural treatise (1452) and 150

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Vasari’s first edition of the Lives (1550), there is not a continuous theoretical path along which the concept of “architecture as an art of disegno” proceeds from Alberti to Vasari. Instead, writers pursued different facets of disegno.14 Some referred to architecture, some did not. The main stepping stones were set by Andrea Poliziano, Leonardo da Vinci, and Benedetto Varchi.

Angelo Poliziano’s Practical Arts Angelo Poliziano (1454–94) was a humanist scholar and poet, known in architectural circles for adding the dedication to Lorenzo de’ Medici when Alberti’s De re aedificatoria was published posthumously in 1485. David Summers describes Poliziano’s short book Panepistemon (1490) as an important theoretical document due to its influence on Michelangelo.15 For present purposes, it is relevant as a reference for disegno and its relation to architecture. Panepistemon outlines a comprehensive epistemological hierarchy: All knowledge is divided into three parts: inspired (theology), invented (philosophy) and mixed (divination). The arts are listed under philosophy, which is further divided into “spectativa” (speculative), “actualis” (practical) and “rationalis” (rational). Poetry, it might be noted, falls under the third, rational category, together with grammar, history, dialectic and rhetoric, as a kind of discourse aimed at delight. Music, to continue a review of the “fine arts,” comes under the heading of the spectativa, under arithmetic. Poliziano puts the arts of design (as they would come to be called) under the second category of practical arts. They fall into two divisions, architectura and graphike. Graphike included both painting and sculpture in all their various forms.16 In fact, Poliziano indicates that the practical arts include not just two but seven divisions: agriculture, pasturing, hunting, architecture (architectura), drawing (graphice), cooking, and theatre – similar to Hugh of St Victor’s seven mechanical arts.17 Summers adds a note about graphike, a division that clearly is rooted in drawing: “Poliziano’s graphike is a humanist translation of disegno, essential both to the theory and practice of Italian and especially Florentine painting.”18 In the graphike-disegno division Poliziano includes Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

151

Diagram of Angelo Poliziano’s practical arts, after Panepistemon (1490).

painting, statuary, bas-relief carving, sculpting in wood or stone, modeling in clay or wax, and encaustic painting with molten wax.19 Additional forms of painting and sculpture could have been included, but it is clear that the division is intended to cover representational arts. The architectura division is separate from graphike-disegno, indicating that its roots are not in drawing.20 Looking forward, this contradicts one of Vasari’s premises of the arti del disegno. Looking backward, the resemblance between Poliziano’s practical arts and Hugh of St Victor’s mechanical arts suggests a historical precedent in which architecture was part of armatura, as an invention that compensates for intrinsic human weakness. The inclusion of drawing in Poliziano’s seven practical arts casts a new light onto the six others, suggesting that they do not share a common purpose as a bodily remedy. The order in which Poliziano presents his seven practical arts is a graduated series from nature and necessity (agriculture) to artifice and pleasure (theatre). Alongside drawing, cooking is no longer just for human survival; taste now can be recognized. Theatre, which Hugh had presented as a medical remedy, now shares the representational and pleasurable mandate of drawing. In the middle of this series of seven practical arts, architecture sits alongside disegno and leans toward nature, while disegno leans toward artifice. Unlike Alberti, who identified painting (starting from perspective) as the root subject of the arts, Poliziano instead regards sculpture as the root subject because it deals most directly with the human body. According to Summers, 152

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Although graphike (or disegno) and pictura are closely related, Poliziano chose sculpture as the basis of symmetria; his intention was not simply to outline Alberti’s treatises on the arts, and in fact an extraordinary change was made in the theoretical foundation of Alberti’s theory of painting [as inherited by Poliziano]. Not only is perspective omitted from the definition of painting … but its constructive geometry is no longer the basis for the rationality of painting, “distances and places” now being merely secondary, among the pictorial embellishments of a world of forms defined in length, breadth and depth, but undefined in their mutual relations. In Alberti’s system as set out in Della pittura the proportions of the figures were continuous with the geometry of the ambient space; now everything is centered in the human body and three-dimensional definition ends at the surfaces of the body.21 This emphasis on the attributes of sculpture would inform subsequent concepts of disegno in the sixteenth century. Vitruvius’s reference to the body also established a lateral link between sculpture and architecture, despite being located in separate divisions of Poliziano’s practical arts.

Leonardo’s Argument for Painting Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) pursued disegno in several related ways: as drawing; as design; and as the artist’s imitation of nature.22 When Leonardo speaks of disegno as drawing, he also invokes the two broader domains: “Painting is divided into two principal parts; that is, outline, which surrounds the forms of the objects depicted – and which are termed disegno – and the second which is called shadow. But this disegno is of such excellence that it not only investigates the works of nature, but infinitely more than those that nature produces … And for this reason we concluded that disegno is not only a science but [a] deity whose name should be duly commemorated, a deity which repeats all the visible works of God the highest.”23 Nature was Leonardo’s constant reference. He believed that sight is the most reliable sense for understanding nature, and that painting should represent accurately what the eye sees. However, instead of a raw encounter between the eye and the world, he recommends using theory to guide one’s Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

153

observations and representations. “Those who become enamoured of the practice of the art, without having previously applied to the diligent study of the scientific part of it, may be compared to mariners, who put to sea in a ship without rudder or compass, and therefore cannot be certain of arriving at the wished-for port.”24 Painting starts with drawing (disegno) to describe the outlines of figures.25 Following Alberti, he advises the painter to use perspective geometry to locate these outlines correctly, as “perspective is to painting what the bridle is to a horse, and the rudder to a ship.”26 Again following Alberti, he advises the painter to represent relief correctly by observing light and shade, as the major cause of wonder in painting is to turn the flat surface of a canvas or wall into a scene with relief and depth.27 To render depth correctly, he introduces a new pair of optical principles for “aerial perspective”: the gradual reduction of sharpness and colour saturation as figures recede into the thickness of air. By carefully following these principles, one can make a painting that appears as natural as what the eye sees in a mirror. The replication of visual appearance is Leonardo’s prime objective for drawing and painting. Still, he recognizes that painting cannot be fully equivalent to vision: “Objects in paintings can never detach, as natural objects do … It is impossible that objects in painting should appear with the same relief as those in the looking-glass, unless we look at them with only one eye.”28 To Leonardo, drawing is not just for replicating visual appearance but also for understanding particular features of nature. Alberti’s attention to the lineaments of buildings reappears in Leonardo’s attention to the lineaments of faces: “You must observe and remember well the variations of the four principal features in the profile: the nose, mouth, chin, and forehead. And first of the nose, of which there are three different sorts, straight, concave, and convex. Of the straight there are but four variations, short or long, high at the end, or low. Of the concave there are three sorts.”29 Again following Alberti, Leonardo records various types of expression in the postures and movements of the body, then commits them to memory.30 These natural features will provide references when making new compositions in either painting or sculpture: “His mind will by this method be like a mirror, reflecting truly every object placed before it, and become, as it were, a second Nature.”31 He recommends studying many different exam-

154

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

ples to recognize typical features in different types of people. The diverse proportions and expressions he observes in nature remain evident. Unlike Alberti, he does not attempt to reduce them to a single, beautiful ideal. “Painting is most praiseworthy that has the most similarity to the thing reproduced, and I say this to refute such painters as want to improve on nature.”32 Although Leonardo reinforces observation through memory, he notes that memory is not entirely reliable or complete, so one should always return to natural observations.33 In the same way that Alberti internalized architectural lineamenti and did not mention actual drawings in the first book of On the Art of Building, Leonardo takes disegno back to a primordial state that does not require paper: “I have experienced no small benefit, when in the dark and in bed, by retracing in my mind the outlines of those forms which I had previously studied, particularly such as had appeared the most difficult to comprehend and retain; by this method they will be confirmed and treasured up in the memory.”34 Consequently, disegno for Leonardo is not just about drawings but is also a deeper mental and/or bodily understanding that relies on one’s memory. After diligently studying nature and developing skill by copying exemplary drawings by the masters, a student can attempt new compositions. “In order to acquire a true notion of the form of things, he must begin by studying the parts which compose them, and not pass to a second till he has well stored his memory, and sufficiently practised the first; otherwise he loses his time, and will most certainly protract his studies. And let him remember to acquire accuracy before he attempts quickness … The young painter must, in the first instance, accustom his hand to copying the drawings of good masters; and when his hand is thus formed and ready, he should, with the advice of his director, use himself also to draw from relievos.”35 Leonardo says that a painter who decides to compose a creature that never existed before must rely on observations of parts of existing creatures; otherwise, the new creature will not look convincing. Disegno as design thus relies on nature. Nature also establishes limits within which the imagination can operate. Like Leonardo’s achievements in painting, his imaginative mechanical inventions also are generated from observations and hypotheses about nature. To Leonardo, design is a form of discovery that starts from a natural

Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

155

observation, draws parallels from other situations, generates a hypothesis, is pursued through drawing, and may lead to an insight about nature. As nature is Leonardo’s primary reference, products of design are not mainly for human utility. Nature is God’s creation, so human inventions that involve nature (painting, mechanics, etc.) are engaging that creation. This places the artist in a subordinate but integral role as a secondary creator, which “requires the mind of the painter to transmute itself into nature’s own mind and to become the interpreter between nature and art.”36 Although Leonardo advises students to develop skill by copying exemplary work by the masters, he tells everyone else not to emulate the work of others: “One painter ought never to imitate the manner of any other; because in that case he cannot be called the child of Nature, but the grandchild. It is always best to have recourse to Nature, which is replete with such abundance of objects, than to the production of other masters, who learnt everything from her.”37 To Leonardo, nature is the sole authority, so insulating oneself from that primary source would be detrimental. Unlike Alberti, he was not inclined to invoke the ancients. Although most of Leonardo’s notes on seeing, drawing, and painting are directed to fellow practitioners, he also makes a series of arguments to the general public in an effort to have painting recognized as a liberal art. Instead of just praising painting on its own, he makes comparisons that demean three other arts: sculpture, poetry, and music.38 The arguments he introduces are not philosophically rigorous, but they do shed some light on his own position and cast some shadows on the subsequent history of the arti del disegno. Alberti had regarded painting and sculpture as cognate arts that share a common objective: the diligent representation of nature. Leonardo does not question that objective, but identifies qualitative differences that raise the status of painting and lower the status of sculpture.39 To avoid charges of bias in this comparison, he points out that he is experienced in both sculpture and painting.40 He starts with the old banausic argument: To carve stone, a sculptor must expend considerable physical effort that produces fatigue, sweat, and dust that covers one’s face and clothes. A painter, on the other hand, sits comfortably and well dressed in a clean house, applying colours with a light brush.41 A sculpture remains in the same volumetric mode as all other physical objects (including the superior objects of nature),

156

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

so it elicits no intrinsic sense of wonder in the observer. A painting, on the other hand, elicits wonder by representing figures in relief and landscapes in depth, despite being rendered on a flat surface. Painting can represent anything that is visible: colour, transparency, distant figures, mists, rain, dust, stars, light, etc.; a sculpture cannot. A painter needs to understand nature and its optical laws; this requires more mental deliberation than a sculptor who merely reproduces the form of a physical object. Poetry is his second target.42 Leonardo indicates that both painting and poetry seek to represent the world, but painting does this more effectively. As a “universal language” it communicates to everyone, whereas poetry is based on human conventions and is understood only by those who share its language. The works of nature are represented more precisely by the visual images of painting than by the spoken words of poetry. Painting is perceived instantaneously as a whole and remains present to be contemplated, whereas poetry becomes present only in small parts and then disappears, leaving behind nothing to contemplate. “Something made by the poet may be likened to a beautiful face which is shown to you feature by feature, and, being made in this way, cannot ever satisfactorily convince you of its beauty.”43 Because the humanists already had recognized poetry (and literature generally) as a liberal art, Leonardo charges them with a conflict of interest and argues that painting is more deserving of this status: You have placed painting amongst the mechanical arts. Certainly if painters were capable of praising their works in writing, as poets have done, I do not believe that painting would have been given such a bad name. Painting does not speak, but is self-evident through its finished product, while poetry ends in words, with which it vigorously praises itself. If you call painting mechanical because it is primarily manual, in that the hands depict what is found in the imagination, you writers draft with your hand what is found in your mind. With justified complaints, painting laments that it has been excluded from the number of the liberal arts, since she is the true daughter of nature and acts through the noble sense. Therefore it was wrong, O writers, to have left her outside the number of the liberal arts, since she embraces not only the works of nature but also an infinite number that nature never created.44

Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

157

Music is Leonardo’s third target; however, he criticizes music less than sculpture and poetry, and even describes it as the sister of painting.45 He merely asks that these two sisters be treated equally. “Therefore, seeing that you have placed music amongst the liberal arts, either you should place painting there or remove music.”46 Although Leonardo’s comments about music seem to address the same audience that recognized poetry as a liberal art, music (as music theory) had been included in the liberal arts since the ancient era, based on its numerical properties. Leonardo does not question these properties directly but instead makes an argument based on differences among the human senses and the impact of losing a particular sense: “He who loses sight loses the spectacle and beauty of the universe, and comes to resemble someone who has been buried alive in a tomb in which he can move and survive.”47 Believing that it would be preferable to lose one’s hearing than one’s sight, he concludes that music is lower in status than painting.48 He also states that music is concerned only with pitch, so it does not present a broad range of qualities comparable to what painting presents.49 Despite taking a strong stand on painting, sculpture, poetry, and music, Leonardo says nothing about architecture, suggesting that it is not part of this debate. Leonardo’s notebooks include written notes about architecture that focus on issues of structure (foundations, arches, beams) and construction defects (fissures in walls and arches).50 He did not study or emulate the ornamental properties of ancient buildings, suggesting that following in the footsteps of the ancients would be a distraction from nature. The issues of ornamentation that occupy the last half of Alberti’s treatise would have seemed arbitrary to him, like the rhetoric of poetry.51 Leonardo’s own architectural designs are generated from thoughts about building structure or plan geometry.52 Each can be associated with nature. His structural designs respond to the force of gravity in the same way that his mechanical designs respond to physical forces.53 Both are aligned with his anatomical studies that show how God made the human body operate. Leonardo’s centralized temple plans are “geometric mechanisms” composed of solids and voids, subsequently projected into exterior perspective sketches to see how these exercises might return to nature.54 In each case, architecture is engaging nature through mechanical invention. When Leonardo’s comments about architecture depart from this natural frame of reference, they seem remote. Alberti had advised architects to 158

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

learn principles of painting, but Leonardo does the reverse: “A painter, therefore, ought to be well instructed in perspective, and acquire a perfect knowledge of the dimensions of the human body; he should also be a good architect, at least as far as concerns the outward shape of buildings, with their different parts.”55 His reference to “the outward shape of buildings” is not supported by any theoretical discussion and is not explored with any intensity in his architectural designs, beyond a general attention to massing and relief. Elsewhere he mentions architecture in a list of disciplines that receive insights from the science of painting: “Through … draughtsmanship [the science of painting] teaches the architect how to make his buildings convey pleasure to the eye.”56 Another reference to architecture and optics remains undeveloped: “[The eye] has generated architecture, perspective, and divine painting … The eye is the window of the human body.”57 Leonardo’s theoretical attention to perspective and optics provided him with plenty of insights for painting but not for architecture. Instead, his architectural designs were informed by geometry and mechanics. Vasari, in the Lives, referred to Leonardo as a painter and sculptor, praising his painting and his mechanical inventions. His only references to Leonardo’s architectural work concern his apprenticeship period, when “he practised not one branch of art only, but all those in which drawing played a part.”58

Benedetto Varchi’s Rhetorical Question Benedetto Varchi (1503–65) was a notable Florentine scholar, historian, and lecturer. In 1536, after being exiled from Florence for political reasons, he moved to Padua to participate in scholarly life around the university, known for its Aristotelian emphasis. In 1540, during a period when academies proliferated,59 Varchi helped found the Accademia degli Infiammati (Academy of the Burning Ones).60 In this group he was an associate of Daniele Barbaro, who later would translate and comment on Vitruvius. In Florence, Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici (1519–74) had come to power in 1537 and began to revitalize the city after many years of decline. He recognized potential in the Accademia degli Umidi (Academy of the Wet Ones), a group founded in 1540 to enrich the Tuscan language, and in 1541 gave it a more civic name, Accademia Fiorentina. This was Cosimo’s first major step in promoting Tuscan culture as part of his larger ambition for the city Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

159

and its region.61 To bolster the ranks of the academy, Cosimo pardoned Florentine scholars in exile and invited them to return. Varchi returned in 1543 and Cosimo appointed him to a leadership role at the academy. Cosimo later assigned Varchi the task of writing a history of Florence.62 Although the focus of this academy was mainly literary and philosophical, its membership included notable artists. In 1547, Benedetto Varchi delivered a pair of lectures to the academy on the moral function of art and on relations among painting, sculpture, and disegno. These lectures were published in 1550, prefaced by two politically inspired dedications.63 His first lecture used a familiar humanist subject, the art of poetry, to introduce four philosophical issues for arts: imagination vs. product, intellectual vs. manual skill, form vs. matter, and preconception vs. discovery.64 These issues were developed around a sonnet by Michelangelo and provided an Aristotelian frame of reference for the subsequent lecture.65 Varchi’s second lecture presented several principles for categorizing arts. He distinguished performing arts (e.g., dancing and singing) from productive arts such as painting, sculpture, and architecture. Productive arts are nobler because their products last longer. Arts that are useful, such as medicine and architecture, are even nobler.66 He also distinguished arts that imitate nature’s appearance (e.g., painting and sculpture) from arts that imitate nature’s methods (e.g., architecture).67 This categorization of the arts regarded painting and sculpture as lower forms of human knowledge that involve both reason and manual skill. It granted them a certain degree of nobility without attaching them to either mathematics or language, on which the seven traditional liberal arts were based. Following this general introduction, Varchi compared the arts of painting and sculpture. In preparing for the lecture he had invited four painters (Vasari, Bronzino, Pontormo, and Tasso) and four sculptors (San Gallo, Tribolo, Cellini, Michelangelo) – all members of the Accademia Fiorentina – to submit a letter responding to the question, “Which is more noble, sculpture or painting?” Not surprisingly, the painters voted for painting; the sculptors voted for sculpture. Their reasons included no major points that Varchi had not considered, so their responses provided only a background for his lecture. Still, their letters were included as an appendix when Varchi’s lectures were published. In the fifteenth century, Alberti and Leonardo had argued for the nobility of certain arts by favouring geometry over substance, intention over 160

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

execution, and theory over practice. Varchi took that strategy a step further by presenting both painting and sculpture as moral arts, based on their capacity to promote moral virtues in the contemplative observer and to point the way to salvation.68 By the 1540s, the faithful representation of natural appearances was no longer enough. The artist still imitates (divine) nature, but now relies on moral ideas as well as natural appearance. The artist also has a more self-conscious role: to recognize a divine idea in himself and then in unformed matter.69 Unlike Leonardo, who had compared painting and sculpture so that painting could be promoted, Varchi compared them to raise a larger issue about the ultimate goal of art: “Both arts seek to imitate nature and that one will be the nobler which does this better and approaches the truth more closely.”70 To consider their differences, Varchi introduced eight criteria: universality, simultaneity, difficulty, multi-sidedness, technique, magnificence and ornament, convenience and utility, and beauty and pleasure. Sometimes painting prevailed; sometimes sculpture did. In the end, sculpture pulled ahead, perhaps to compensate for its loss during the previous century and to recognize what Michelangelo had accomplished since then.71 Returning to all four issues he had introduced in the previous lecture, he praised the ability of the sculptor to take a partially formed image from his soul, bring it to a hard block of marble, then gradually extract a beautiful form from the marble, as if it had been latent all along.72 Painting, however, he considered less revelatory because a painter merely applies pigments and conjures things that do not exist.73 “Painting is … sophistry, that is [it is] apparent and not true, not unlike figures which appear in a mirror; one is conscious that those things that appear in the picture do not exist in reality. This does not happen in sculpture.”74 Although this may seem like an entertaining horse race between two arts, Varchi had a higher aim: to show that their differences are in fact dualities of a greater whole. To do this, he portrayed painting and sculpture as Platonic opposites: respectively, body and soul, earthly and divine, matter and mind, external vision and internal vision, etc.75 This was an interim step, prior to reconciliation. Although Varchi was leaning more toward sculpture, he finally resolves the dualities by introducing a third element: disegno. Extending a line of thought through Petrarch, Alberti, and Leonardo, Varchi describes disegno as the origin, source, and mother of both arts.76 As the key element of the arts, disegno also defines their common purpose: Both Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

161

painting and sculpture are artificial imitations of nature that promote the moral virtues of humans. Within Varchi’s dualistic framework, painting and sculpture are complementary; each provides what the other does not.77 To Varchi, the theoretical battle is now over and the sibling rivalry has become more like a marriage performed by the (female) priest disegno. To conclude the exercise, Varchi brings the two newly united arts of disegno to meet poetry for a final comparison, as poetry was still a humanist standard, being a liberal art with a moral purpose. In the previous century disegno had been a common denominator for painting and sculpture, but Varchi associates disegno instead with moral virtues, as the pivotal element in a theoretical domain that includes God, the artist, matter, human observers, subjects for representation, and ancient authorities. The earlier emphasis on disegno as drawing has faded into the background while the two other domains – disegno as design and especially disegno as imitation – have moved to the foreground. Because Varchi’s scheme for reconciling opposites was based on a duality, there was no room for architecture as a third art.78 However, his primary aim was not to develop a comprehensive hierarchy of arts but to recognize a larger ambition for the arts and to develop a theoretical scheme in which disegno could reconcile differences. Later, Vasari would have to abandon Varchi’s dualistic scheme so that architecture could be included. Varchi’s concepts have been criticized as “not unique” and “not fully worked out,”79 but in the history of the arti del disegno his lectures provide a notable stepping stone just before Vasari, whose first edition of the Lives would appear three years later. It was also Varchi, and not Vasari, who coined the term arte del disegno.80

Giorgio Vasari and the Accademia del Disegno The Lives After tracing various roots of the arti del disegno through the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, we now return to Vasari in the mid-sixteenth century. Giorgio Vasari (1511–74), educated as a humanist and a painter, was employed by the Medici in Florence and Rome. He associated for a while with Michelangelo, who inspired him to become an architect. He is known for painting frescoes in the Palazzo Vecchio and the dome of the cathedral in Florence. In his later years he designed the Uffizi, originally an office build162

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

ing for magistrates and guilds that gradually became the gallery for the Medici collection.81 Despite these practical achievements, Vasari is best known for the Lives (1550, 1568), two editions of the biographies that place Florentine painters, sculptors, and architects at the heart of Renaissance art. The Lives is not a manual of practical information on painting, sculpting, and building, as skills. It is not a theoretical treatise that defines principles of painting, sculpture, and architecture, as disciplines. It is not a philosophical treatise that situates painting, sculpture, and architecture within a larger epistemological framework, as domains of knowledge. Instead, it is largely a survey of the achievements of painters, sculptors, and architects, as individual practitioners, accompanied by narrative descriptions of their most notable products. The first edition, Lives of the Most Excellent Italian Architects, Painters, and Sculptors (1550), focused on certain individuals in Florence during the previous two centuries, starting with Cimabue and Giotto. The structure was roughly chronological, culminating in Michelangelo as the perfect painter, sculptor, and architect, and the only figure in the book who was still alive. Most of the artists were painters. The book was dedicated to Cosimo and was intended to support his cultural and political ambitions for Florence. The second edition had a modified title, Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1568), and was expanded to include practitioners in the regional territories that Florence controlled.82 It also included more sculptors and architects, for a more equitable distribution among the three arts. Michelangelo continued to be a major player, but this edition included (and promoted) current painters and sculptors. Cosimo’s court historian, Vincenzo Borghini, helped Vasari prepare the second edition. In both editions, Vasari situated practitioners in a historical sequence that reached a high standard in the ancient world, declined after the fall of Rome, and rose again during the previous 250 years, mainly in Florence. By glorifying the ancients and demeaning the medievals, Vasari followed other humanists, especially Petrarch.83 Both editions presented artists from only the current age, which Vasari described as a rebirth. The current age was divided into three chronological periods to show its gradual perfection of disegno, culminating in Michelangelo. In the second edition, approximately half of Vasari’s subjects are described singly as a painter, a sculptor, or an architect. Others are described Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

163

Title page from Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani (Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550).

doubly as a painter and sculptor, as a painter and architect, or as a sculptor and architect. Five figures, including Michelangelo, achieve triple status by engaging in all three occupations. Judging from Vasari’s headings, each occupation remains distinct. For example, one can be a painter and an architect, but not a “painter-architect” who does hybrid work that combines these two occupations in a novel way. Reinforced internally by all possible single, double, and triple permutations, these three occupations are presented as a finite set, as three siblings in a single family. Their father is disegno and their mother is inventiveness (invenzione), “design and invention being father and mother of all these arts and not of one alone.”84 Like others from Pliny to Varchi, he describes the close bond between painting and sculpture: “I say, then, that sculpture and painting are in truth sisters, born from one father, that is, design, at one and the same birth.”85 The role of disegno, as father, is to be a patriarch. Vasari does not present disegno as an occupation in itself. Instead, it is a higher category to which the three arts belong. As children who carry their father’s surname, the three arts are identified as “arts of design” (arti del disegno).86 Following Varchi, he stresses that painting and sculpture are equal in status: “Sculpture and painting … have no precedence one over the other … Those do evil who strive to disunite and to separate the one from the other.”87 His preface follows Varchi by replaying the debate about which is nobler, sculpture or painting.88 Again like Varchi, he neutralizes the debate through opposition and then reconciliation, pointing out that these two arts are really twin sisters, the offspring of disegno, so neither has precedence.89 He says that both painting and sculpture originated in Egypt but were preceded by disegno.90 To neutralize their sibling rivalry, he subordinates them to architecture, which is portrayed as an older, more mature character with different priorities.91 He also differentiates between architecture and the twins by considering how they responded to challenges at the end of the ancient era: “And the first to fall into decay were painting and sculpture, as being arts that served more for pleasure than for use, while the other – namely, architecture – as being necessary and useful for bodily weal, continued to exist, but no longer in its perfection and excellence.”92 These statements effectively shame the two siblings into silence, at least temporarily – perhaps a rhetorical move rather than a candid assessment of their relative merits, given the praise he lavishes on them elsewhere in the book.

Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

165

Vasari includes architecture as a third member of the arti del disegno, departing from the duality that Varchi had established. By stating that there are different criteria for architecture (universality and utility) than for painting and sculpture (adornment), he acknowledges that architecture cannot simply join the twins to form a set of triplets. Vasari could have brought the three arts closer by declaring that all of them promote moral virtue in the observer, but he declines to follow Varchi down that path. Instead, his focus remains on the products of the respective artists. In Vasari’s time the word “art” (arte) was still associated with craft and skill. Vasari refers to painters, sculptors, and architects as “craftsmen” (artefici) while referring to their occupations as the “three most excellent arts.”93 He continued to define art as the imitation of nature: “I know that our art is all imitation, of nature for the most part, and then, because a man cannot by himself rise so high, of those works that are executed by those whom he judges to be better masters than himself.”94 However, now that Michelangelo had reached perfection in all three arts, nothing more can be accomplished in disegno. “Art has done everything that it is possible for her, as an imitator of nature, to do.”95 Artists in all three arts now can imitate not only nature but also Michelangelo, as he had perfected disegno. This concept of design sounds foreign to modern ears: as a domain that is finite and can be mastered. Inventiveness (invenzione), on the other hand, is open-ended and provides opportunities for those who come after Michelangelo. Before Michelangelo had reached perfection, both disegno and invenzione were open-ended, but now that the limit of disegno has become apparent, the conditions must change for everyone who follows. Vasari had named two properties, disegno and invenzione, as the two parents of the three arts. The distinction between them now seems significant: The limits of the father are known, whereas the mother’s potential is openended and forward-looking. Knowing that disegno as drawing, disegno as design, and disegno as imitation are all finite would cast a new light on painting, sculpture, and architecture. Accademia del Disegno Alongside his Lives, Vasari was able to pursue his concept of the arti del disegno in an institution for the three arts: the Accademia del Disegno. In 1562, the friar and sculptor Giovanni Montorsoli (1507–63) offered to donate 166

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

a chapel and crypt for painters and sculptors who could not afford a proper burial. It had been used by the Compagnia di San Luca, a social and charitable confraternity for painters in Florence that was founded in the midfourteenth century but dissolved in the mid-sixteenth.96 He discussed his proposal with Vasari and others. A week later they met again to discuss a further idea to develop an academy for artists.97 It would be separate from the literary and philosophical Accademia Fiorentina.98 Cosimo I, Duke of Tuscany, supported the initial idea, so the group, guided by Cosimo’s representative Vincenzo Borghini, prepared a set of forty-seven statutes.99 The institution would have two parts: a confraternity and an academy. Like the earlier Compagnia di San Luca, the confraternity would have a charitable role: to provide support to members who had become sick or disabled, and to provide communal burial for members who could not pay for anything more. The academy’s basic mandate was to advance the three arts, and implicitly to strengthen Florence’s cultural and political standing. It included an educational objective: to provide guidance to beginners and to encourage proficiency in older artists through emulation and competition.100 The statutes for the Compagnia e Accademia del Disegno were approved by Cosimo in early 1563. Cosimo, as the patron of the institution, was named protector and honorary president. Michelangelo also was named an honorary president, although he was eighty-seven years old and living in Rome. Recognized throughout Italy as the perfect painter, sculptor, and architect, as well as a master of disegno, Michelangelo was a living example of the academy’s ambition to bring together the three arts. Vincenzo Borghini, Cosimo’s representative, was named the academy’s lieutenant (luogotenente) to oversee its operations.101 During the academy’s first few months it became clear that Cosimo was in control. The members had voted to admit certain additional members but Cosimo overturned their decision.102 The Accademia del Disegno was the first art academy.103 As the name suggests, it was defined not by subjects (painting, sculpture, architecture) but by the disegno they shared. The academy was not a school with a comprehensive curriculum. It was intended to complement, not replace, the workshops where apprentices still learned their art. The academy’s statutes prescribed instruction in Euclidean geometry and other mathematical sciences (e.g., perspective): subjects that might not be learned properly in workshop practice.104 Each year the academy also would conduct a dissection at a nearby hospital so that artists could observe the internal parts of a human body. Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

167

During its first few years, the presence of the academy was most evident in special events that promoted its new civic status. The first event, in 1563, was a second funeral for the painter Pontormo, whose remains were unearthed, paraded by members of the academy through the streets of Florence, and redeposited in the academy’s communal crypt. The second major event, in 1564, was an esequie, a memorial tribute for Michelangelo, who had died five months earlier. The painters and sculptors – despite an internal feud over the primacy of painting or sculpture – made elaborate decorations in the church of San Lorenzo to honour Michelangelo, to glorify the three arts, and to promote the academy as the custodian of Michelangelo’s legacy in painting, sculpture, and architecture. Vincenzo Borghini organized the program for the event, Giorgio Vasari developed the general decoration scheme, and Benedetto Varchi delivered the funeral oration.105 The church was filled to capacity and tributes were submitted by Florentine citizens. An official pamphlet, Esequie del divino Michelagnolo Buonarroti (Funeral rites for the divine Michelagnolo Buonarroti), was published later to commemorate the event and disseminate the interests of the academy. To promote the standing of painting and sculpture, it included a few historical distortions, including a retroactive statement about their liberal art status: “And though it may appear to be a manual occupation – is there anyone who would yet not acknowledge that intellect and talent play the major part in it? Therefore it has always and in every nation, but especially in ours, taken a most distinguished place among the other liberal arts, and its practitioners have been much revered and beloved and have been held in the highest esteem.”106 Apart from the chapel and crypt, the academy did not have a permanent home, and would not have one for decades. Instead, Cosimo provided a series of temporary accommodations that citizens had donated to him. Nevertheless, the academy developed a reputation at home and abroad. In 1567, King Philip II of Spain sought the academy’s opinion on proposed architectural designs for the Escorial.107 Although the initial statutes specified that only accomplished painters, sculptors, and architects were eligible for membership in the academy, its growing status prompted ambitious non-artists to seek membership in other ways.108 Before the eighteenth century, only one woman (with Medici support) was admitted to the academy.109 Until 1571, the painters in Florence continued to belong to the Guild of Doctors and Apothecaries, while the sculptors and architects belonged to 168

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

the Guild of Builders (Arte dei Fabbricanti).110 In 1571, after Cosimo had been elevated to Grand Duke of Tuscany, he released the Florentine painters, sculptors, and architects from their obligation for membership in their respective guilds.111 He transferred the various guild functions to a new università component of the academy, and the revised institution was renamed the Accademia, Compagnia ed Università del Disegno. This brought together the institutional functions for all three arts. It also brought their commercial operations under the direct control of Cosimo rather than the guilds.112 However, two years later, the academy decided that commercial administration was detrimental to its artistic ambitions, and took steps to separate these two activities once again.113 For centuries the guilds had defined the three arts according to their materials (pigments, stone, and wood) and their eventual products. Bringing them together under the collective but ambiguous heading disegno shifted attention to three interim activities of artists: drawing, designing, and imitating. At that time, drawing still was understood only as a preliminary step to guide the artist in making the final product. Most drawings were discarded after serving their immediate use. This began to change after Vasari collected drawings from artists, framed them, and displayed them for members of the academy.114 Like Alberti and Leonardo, he distinguished between the initial disegno stage of painting (in which contour lines indicate the edges of forms) and the subsequent colore stage (when colours are added within the outlines to represent surfaces, light, and shade).115 Focusing on drawings enabled Vasari and the academy to pause at the preliminary stage – disegno as drawing – then consider how the artist deals with the larger domains: disegno as design and disegno as imitation. Design and imitation required the artist to study (and draw) particular examples to discern the perfect attributes of a subject through a gradual process of induction. Associating drawing and cognition enabled the three related domains of disegno to be discussed separately from issues of material and production. Although Vasari brought new emphasis to the drawing stage and the cognitive issues it raised, he was a prolific painter who was committed to carrying projects to completion. Not much information about the academy’s day-to-day activities has been recorded, but the thinness of its educational curriculum during the early years was suggested by a public letter written in the late 1570s by one of its members, Federico Zuccaro, who called for “figure-drawing classes, instruction in the handling of tools and the manipulation of materials, Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

169

advice in composition, critiques of the work of younger members by those most skilled in their fields, and lectures in mathematics at least once a month.”116 Still, one cannot apply educational expectations from later academies retroactively to the first academy in Florence. Education was only part of the mandate of the Accademia del Disegno. Academies in Italy had been intended mainly for study and discussion. The workshops still were responsible for training apprentices. Architecture in the Accademia del Disegno From the initial establishment of the academy, efforts were made to treat painters, sculptors, and architects equally, as this would reinforce the premise that disegno is their singular source, medium, and purpose. Benedetto Varchi had presented painting and sculpture as a duality, invoking symbols of twinness in a plot involving opposition and reconciliation. Vasari, on the other hand, presented the three arts as a triad, invoking a different set of symbols, including the Three Graces in Greek and Roman mythology and the Holy Trinity in Christianity.117 This triad format, along with its symbolic precedents, implied a different plot based on equality and complementarity. In the preface to the second edition of the Lives, written while the academy was in its early years, Vasari declares: “I will begin, then, with architecture, as the most universal and the most necessary and useful to men, and as that for the service and adornment of which the two others [painting and sculpture] exist.”118 This shifts the balance away from painting and sculpture and toward architecture, just as Varchi’s earlier lecture had privileged sculpture and shifted the balance away from painting. The tricky task of balancing the three arts was facilitated by the honorary appointment of Michelangelo, who served as a single role model for practitioners in all three arts, under the banner of disegno. The initial statutes of the academy referred equally to painters, sculptors, and architects.119 They specified that the nominating committee would include one of each. The committee’s role was to identify artists who might be qualified for academy membership and to comment on the work of young apprentices in the academy or in the workshops of practitioners.120 Any internal disputes within the academy were to be resolved by representatives from all three arts. A similar group of three would serve as auditors.121 Regular meetings of the academy would be held on two festival days: one for St 170

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Luke, the patron saint of painters, and one for i Santi Quattro Incoronati (the four crowned saints), the patron saints of sculptors and architects.122 When members died and were buried in the academy’s crypt, they were organized by age, experience, and rank, not by their particular occupation.123 Despite the academy’s intention to maintain equality and complementarity, the dispute over the relative status of painting and sculpture continued. These tensions were most evident in the dispute over which art would be represented most prominently in the symbolic decorations for Michelangelo’s memorial event.124 Although drawing was the most elementary meaning of disegno and the most obvious common ground for the three arts, it became evident in the academy that drawing favoured the painters over the sculptors. When work by aspiring artists was presented at academy-wide events, the young painters made drawings while the young sculptors and architects made reliefs in wax or clay.125 Making lines on a flat surface is not an intrinsic activity for a sculptor, so the academy permitted young sculptors to model figures directly in clay, without drawing first.126 In the introduction to the Lives, Vasari also says that sculptors often skip the drawing stage and develop a design by making a sketch model in wax or clay, then a full-sized clay model, and finally a full-sized sculpture in stone.127 “And seeing that there are certain sculptors who have not much practice in strokes and outlines, and consequently cannot draw on paper, these work instead in clay or wax, fashioning men, animals, and other things in relief, with beautiful proportion and balance. Thus they effect the same thing as does he who draws well on paper or other flat surface.”128 However, disegno still should be evident in the volumetric outlines of the sculpture: “In Sculpture, drawing is of service in the case of all the profiles, because in going round from view to view the sculptor uses it when he wishes to delineate the forms which please him best, or which he intends to bring out in every dimension, whether in wax, or clay, or marble, or wood, or other material.”129 Vasari’s notion of “drawing-in-the-round” using wax or clay might be preceded by hand gestures in the air that describe outlines of an eventual sculpture. This is similar to Alberti’s recognition that certain architectural lineamenti are understood through a bodily awareness of natural forces, without actually drawing them on paper. Amidst the academy’s minor skirmishes between painters and sculptors, a more significant development would question the very concept of archi171

tecture as an art of disegno. When the academy’s statutes were prepared in November 1562 and approved by Cosimo in January 1563, they included a provision for a committee to make amendments after the academy had been operating for a while, so that any institutional problems could be ironed out. The committee dutifully prepared a set of amendments in July 1563.130 Most of the revisions were minor, but the sixth item had far-reaching implications: It specified that membership in the academy was only for qualified painters or sculptors.131 This implied that architects would be excluded unless they had an additional qualification.132 As the basic premise of the academy was to bring together painting, sculpture, and architecture under the single banner of disegno, this was a major departure. No explanation was given and no additional paperwork on the subject has been preserved. The academy’s records confirm that this amendment was carried out: During the sixteenth century, only three members were identified even jointly as architects, and one of those was Vasari, a painter and architect. 133 Of the 246 members who joined the academy between 1576 and 1595, there were “198 painters, thirty-one sculptors, thirteen gilders, one architect, one miniaturist, one stuccoist, [and] one gold-beater.”134 Other signs suggest that architecture had marginal status at the academy. The official pamphlet produced after the memorial event for Michelangelo in 1564 includes many tributes from citizens referring to Michelangelo’s divine status in all three arts: painting, sculpture, and architecture – and sometimes poetry. The pamphlet’s description of the event refers many times to the academy, its members, and its relation to Michelangelo; however, architecture is often omitted: “the learned Academy of Florentine Painters and Sculptors … the success of the Academy which was composed of the best painters and sculptors of the city … the Academy and Company of Painters and Sculptors … The art of painting and sculpture evokes love and reverence in the beholder.”135 Eight years after the amendments, when Cosimo transferred the responsibilities for architectural practice from the guild to the Università del Disegno, architects in Florence once again became eligible for membership in the Accademia del Disegno.136 However, the membership records indicate that they were not admitted to the academy. Despite its lopsided membership, the academy continued to proclaim the principle of disegno and the equality of its triad of arts. For several 172

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Detail of Michelangelo’s tomb, designed by Giorgio Vasari (1570). Basilica of Santa Croce, Florence.

decades the academy considered designs for a graphic emblem to symbolize the institution. Finally, in 1597, it approved a design that consisted of three circular laurel wreaths in an intertwined triangular arrangement.137 This was a variation on Michelangelo’s personal emblem, three intertwined circles, which he adopted after Pope Paul III recognized him as a master of all three arts.138 “Michelangelo used as his … seal three intersecting circles … intertwined in such a way that the circumference of one touched the centre of the two others, and vice versa, so that they were equally joined and separated. This may have meant that Michelangelo understood the three professions of sculpture, painting and architecture as being interwoven and tied together in such a way that each gives to, and receives from, the others benefit and embellishment, and that they neither can, nor ought to, be separated.”139 The academy later added its emblem to Michelangelo’s tomb, using its laurel wreaths rather than his circles. The dismal fate of architecture at the academy must have come as a surprise to Vasari, but the second edition of the Lives makes no reference to Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

173

it in the prefaces, the introductions to the three arts of design, or the biographies of architects. In a lengthy section on the accomplishments of current members of the academy he surveys the painters and sculptors, but architects are conspicuously absent.140 It is tempting to blame this outcome on an ill-informed, intransigent group of painters and sculptors, or perhaps an unknown motive on the part of Cosimo, but another option also must be considered: a fatal flaw in Vasari’s concept of the three arti del disegno and/or its application to the academy. Sculptors and architects had belonged to the same guild in Florence for several centuries, based on the materials in which their final products were made: mainly stone and wood. The expulsion of architects from the academy suggests that guild history and materials were no longer primary. The typical products of sculptors (statues in the round, carved in stone141) differed from the typical products of architects, which Vasari says exist only in lines and remain remote from materials: “[The] chief use [of profiles] is in Architecture, because its designs are composed only of lines, which so far as the architect is concerned, are nothing else than the beginning and the end of his art, for all the rest, which is carried out with the aid of models of wood formed from the said lines, is merely the work of carvers and masons.”142 Painters and architects had belonged to different guilds but they shared drawing as a preliminary step toward either a painting or a building. With the emergence of perspective in the fifteenth century, they also shared a growing emphasis on geometry and spatial representations. However, this concept of disegno as drawing was not strong enough to hold them together at the academy. Like painters and sculptors, architects can design ornamentation, as described in Books 6-9 of Alberti’s On the Art of Building. All three arts can contribute to a suitable decorum for civic life (a fifteenth-century ambition), as well as encouraging moral virtue (a sixteenth-century ambition). But here too, the academy’s dissociation of architecture from the two other arts suggests that issues of ornamentation were not strong enough to hold them together. Painters and sculptors use different materials and techniques, their products exist in different modes, and they belonged to different guilds for several centuries. Despite these differences, painting and sculpture had been associated since classical times. According to Pliny, Petrarch, Alberti, Varchi, 174

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

and even Vasari, they were cognate arts: fraternal twins dedicated to ornamentation and pleasure. Both imitated visible nature – especially the human body, which remained the primary subject for both painters and sculptors in the Renaissance. Architects, on the other hand, paid attention to human figures only metaphorically. Vasari tried to apply the human body to architecture too literally, using similes rather than metaphors: “[An ideal palace] must represent the body of a man in the whole and similarly in the parts … In its first aspect the facade demands beauty and grandeur, and should be divided as is the face of a man. The door must be low down and in the middle, as in the head the mouth of the man, through which passes every sort of food; the windows for the eyes, one on this side, one on that … It may be said that [staircases] are the arms and legs of the body.”143 Painting and sculpture, as twins, had such a strong bond that architecture was bound to remain peripheral. Several writers had suggested that their relation to architecture is based not on equality but on complementarity. Painters and sculptors adorn the work of architects, while architects provide settings for the work of painters and sculptors. The line that divided the academy coincided with the traditional distinction between the different ends of these arts: painting and sculpture were for pleasure and memory; architecture was for utility and comfort (although it too could offer some pleasure and invoke memory). Both Varchi and Vasari had acknowledged this distinction, but Vasari may have minimized its significance when he and Cosimo imagined the Accademia del Disegno as an institution that would amalgamate the three arts as equals. Varchi had stopped at two when he coined the term arti del disegno. When Vasari first describes the twins in the Lives, he also stops at two: “I say, then, that sculpture and painting are in truth sisters, born from one father, that is, design, at one and the same birth, and have no precedence one over the other.”144 Later, he attempts to turn the twins into triplets: “Design, the parent of our three arts, Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting.”145 Vasari and others may have anticipated equality among painting, sculpture, and architecture by emphasizing the observer rather than the designer-maker. To a connoisseur (or a reader of the Lives), products of painting, sculpture, and architecture can sit side by side and be apprehended in similar ways. When Vasari describes paintings and buildings, he tends to gloss over their differences by portraying both as narratives.146 He describes paintings not as products of skill or as formal compositions, but as events Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

175

with motion, sound, etc. For example, his description of a drawing of the War of Pisa by Michelangelo includes a series of transitive verbs: “bathing … alarm sound[ing] … announcing … attacking … springing out … dressing … hastening … giv[ing] assistance … buckling … fastening … hearing … struggling … straining … running.”147 To describe architectural projects, Vasari employs two narrative techniques, both using transitive verbs. Referring to Michelangelo’s tribune model for St Peter’s, he describes the actions with which an observer would move through it: “You enter … are led … walk … climb … walk all the way round … ascend.” He also describes implicit actions of the tribune’s formal elements, turning a stationary composition into a short story: “rests … rise[s] … is accompanied by … spring[s] … commences … curves … is divided … leads to … project[s] … ascends … point[s] toward … merge[s] into … fill[s] … go[es] right round … slope[s] away … give[s] light … turn[s] … pass[es] into … reach[es].”148 To observers who focus on forms and their implicit narrative, a painting is not much different from a building. However, to artists who make those paintings or buildings, their practical actions – imitating, designing, and making – are quite different. As the academy was intended for practitioners and not observers, these differences would reinforce the line that divided the academy. Although the Accademia del Disegno failed to unify the three arts of disegno institutionally, this does not necessarily mean that the concept of arti del disegno was fatally flawed nor that the individual arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture were not arts of disegno. It simply means that the basic premise of the institution was not completely viable, and that the concept of the arti del disegno had certain limits. The concept of disegno was developed from humanism in the fourteenth century and reached its theoretical peak in the sixteenth century. Vasari’s Lives covers the same period and provides a historical parallel to the structural intentions of the academy. The association of the three arts developed gradually from an initial analogy between painting and poetry. Although the three arts were supposed to be equal, painting retained its leadership role. Disegno relied on three properties: the imitation of (ancient) nature, ambitions for modern design, and an emphasis on formal outlines and drawing. These three characteristics of disegno were evident in all three arts, each in its own way. Therefore, each of the three arts was a legitimate art 176

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

of disegno. Vasari’s Lives also notes that many artists moved laterally from one art to another, suggesting that properties associated with disegno were transferable. However, the historical and epistemological roots of painting, sculpture, and architecture go much deeper than the fourteenth century. Although they shared certain attributes of disegno, disegno was not their collective foundation. The fraternal twins, painting and sculpture, may have shared a single father in disegno but they also shared ancestors in the ancient era, as Pliny had noted in the story about tracing the outline of a figure. Architecture, on the other hand, came from a different family tree and was grafted into the disegno family only recently. Consequently, architecture resembled painting and sculpture only in certain ways. In other ways it remained an outsider and could have become an adjunct member of other academies with different properties than the arts of disegno.

Vasari and the Arts of Disegno

177

8 Architecture as a Fine Art

Paul Oskar Kristeller’s essay “The Modern System of the Arts” reminds us that modern concepts of art and aesthetics did not exist before the eighteenth century.1 Around 1750, five diverse arts – painting, sculpture, poetry, music, and architecture – became classified as the fine arts (beaux-arts). They were guided by principles of taste, sentiment, genius, originality, and creative imagination that emphasized the imaginative artist and the amateur observer, rather than the skilled maker. These principles were sufficiently general to be manifested in different modes (images, materials, words, and sounds) and perceived with different senses (but mainly sight and hearing). Peter Kivy, in Philosophies of Arts, extends the span of Kristeller’s essay to the end of the eighteenth century by considering the exceptional case of instrumental music as a member of the fine arts. Assuming that the imitation of nature was still a basic premise of the fine arts, he suggests that the status of both music and architecture was uncertain. “Of what Kristeller characterizes as ‘all the five major arts of painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry’, only music and architecture would have been problematic. Architecture is, of course, a very special case, being both a fine and a useful art … In any case, it is my impression that architecture was not at the center of the enterprise, and I will have nothing more to say about it.”2 Kivy, a scholar in the history of art, aesthetics, and music, adds that the place of architecture in the fine arts is not generally known among his peers. “It is much to be regretted that philosophers of art, in general, know little about the ‘philosophy of architecture’ in the eighteenth century. I am certainly no exception, and so offer my estimate of the role of architecture in the early fine arts discussion with caution and only very tentative conviction.”3

Although architectural historians have written about eighteenth-century architecture in various ways, architecture’s place in the larger category of the fine arts has received little attention. With Kivy’s comments in mind, the present chapter traces the changing relation between architecture and the fine arts. It focuses on the eighteenth century but also extends back into the seventeenth. Although the terms “fine arts” and “beaux-arts” now sound somewhat dated and genteel, Kristeller, Kivy, and others suggest that these five arts still constitute a set and still rely on most of those eighteenth-century principles, so resonances with our own time may be evident. The French term les beaux-arts began to appear in print in 1640.4 “Beau” refers to beauty experienced by the senses but also retains an ethical association with the good, following its Latin etymology.5 The singular variant, le beau art, was rare. Although we associate the term beaux-arts mainly with the École des Beaux-Arts in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, this was a later phase that departed from some of the central premises of the eighteenth-century beaux-arts. The English language did not translate beaux-arts directly into “beautiful arts” but used its own indigenous terms instead. The first equivalent English term was “polite arts.” The adjective “polite” dates from 1500, when it referred to a polished and tasteful use of language. During the seventeenth and eighteenth century it referred also to non-linguistic arts.6 The term “fine arts” appeared in 1767 and gradually superseded the older term “polite arts.” The adjective “fine” had been used since the fifteenth century as an expression of admiration for the attributes of a subject or the perceptual abilities of a beholder: purity, delicacy, subtlety, polish, taste, and discrimination.7 The “fine arts” are “those in which the mind and imagination are chiefly concerned.”8 The English finally settled on the term “fine arts” after considering variants such as “elegant arts,” “ingenious arts,” “imitative arts,” and “poetic arts,” each with a different overtone.9 The fine arts (beaux-arts) category was a somewhat loose collection that included several core arts and various marginal arts. At the core of every fine arts group were painting, sculpture, poetry, and music. This attention to images and words indicates that the fine arts category was not rooted in a single mode of representation. This distinguishes the fine arts from the earlier arti del disegno, which had proclaimed drawing as their common ground. Theoretical writings on the fine arts came mainly from France and England. They developed from seventeenth-century thinking on the arts and Architecture as a Fine Art

179

sciences, starting with Francis Bacon’s The Advancement of Learning (1605), as well as from the various royal academies established in France: for the French language and literature in 1635, for painting and sculpture in 1648, for music in 1669, and for architecture in 1671. Debates over the merits of the ancients and the moderns started around 1620 and reached a peak with the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns around 1690, raising questions to which the fine arts were a response. The fine arts became associated generally with the moderns rather than the ancients.

Charles Perrault’s Modern Office The royal academies in Paris were supervised by Louis XIV’s building and finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, for whom Charles Perrault served as secretary from 1663 to 1683. In 1690 Charles Perrault (1628–1703) wrote Le Cabinet des beaux Arts (Office of the fine arts), the first book to refer explicitly to the beaux-arts.10 It includes fourteen engravings of a set of paintings on the ceiling of an office. The book also includes a long commentary on the eight arts represented in the paintings. Kristeller briefly mentions the book and says that the office belonged to Louis Boucherat, to whom the book is dedicated.11 Boucherat was Chancellor of France from 1685 to 1699. However, Perrault’s dedication does not state that this was Boucherat’s office, and the rest of the book remains oddly silent on who conceived and executed the paintings. Scholars have linked certain items in the paintings to Perrault and suggest that this was Perrault’s office in his house in Paris.12 If so, this book can be recognized as Perrault’s own thoughts on the fine arts, rather than as a report on someone else’s paintings in someone else’s house. Le Cabinet des beaux Arts begins with an engraving of the entrance to the office. Above the doorway is the inscription “CABINET DES BEAUX ARTS” and on either side is a pair of statues symbolizing genius (le génie) and work (le travail), two preconditions for the beaux-arts. Proceeding into the office, Perrault shifts his attention to the paintings on the ceiling and discusses their allegorical figures and scenes. In the middle are three panels portraying Apollo, Mercury, and Minerva, the mythological figures who preside over the arts. Around them are eight allegorical scenes portraying eight arts: on one side, eloquence, poetry, and music; on the other, architecture, painting, and sculpture; at the ends, optics and mechanics. The paintings 180

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Entrance to the office, from Charles Perrault, Le Cabinet des beaux Arts (Paris: G. Edelinck, 1690).

use classical imagery but feature exemplary objects and buildings from the seventeenth century. In his introduction, Perrault rejects the traditional set of seven liberal arts.13 He also rejects the division between the liberal arts and the mechanical arts that designated their respective practitioners as either free or servile. He argues that painting, sculpture, and architecture should not be demeaned for their circumstances of production. Instead, he focuses on the dignity of what they produce. He declares that eloquence, poetry, and music are related to the spirit and produced with the voice, while architecture, painting, and sculpture are related to the body and produced with the hand. Optics and mechanics acknowledge recent human inventions such as the telescope that extend our natural abilities. Perrault’s comments on the art of music are significant. He does not mention Pythagorean music theory, the long-standing mathematical centrepiece of the liberal arts. Instead, he suggests that eloquence, poetry, and music form an ascending series of rhetorical arts, with music at the highest level. Eloquence makes words persuasive, poetry makes them agreeable, and music gives them charm and even ecstasy.14 Architecture as a Fine Art

181

Paintings on the ceiling of the office, from Perrault, Le Cabinet des beaux Arts.

Titles of the paintings, after Perrault, Le Cabinet des beaux Arts.

On the opposite side of the ceiling Perrault presents architecture as an “encyclopaedic” art that consults other arts (astronomy, mathematics, jurisprudence, and music) to help site buildings, make calculations, and test sounds in theatres. Architecture also relies on paintings and sculptures to provide appropriate ornamentation in buildings. After his earlier comments about the body and the hand, he makes no further analogies among painting, sculpture, and architecture to reinforce them as a set. He acknowledges contributions by the ancient Greeks and Romans but says that they neither invented nor perfected architecture. Instead, he favours the work of his own century, referring to three buildings illustrated in the allegorical painting of architecture: the east colonnade of the Louvre, the triumphal arch of the Faubourg Saint-Antoine (both designed by his brother Claude), and the palace at Versailles. It is significant that mechanics is included as one of the eight fine arts, given the longstanding distinction between liberal and mechanical arts. Perrault mentions ancient machines such as the lever but also praises inventions of his own century, including the thermometer, the pendulum, and a pump that produces tall fountains. The emphasis here is on inventions and accomplishments in mechanics, rather than on the banausic conditions of labourers. Architecture as a Fine Art

183

Architecture, from Perrault, Le Cabinet des beaux Arts.

The divine mathematical arts of the quadrivium (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music theory) are nowhere to be seen in this office – at least, not on the ceiling. Instead, Perrault presents a new set of arts designated by the term beaux-arts, promotes the accomplishments of the moderns, and suggests that these arts are progressive, like the sciences that were being developed throughout his century. However, Perrault is not committed to these eight arts as a fixed or finite set. He says that eight were included simply because eight places were available in the composition on the ceiling. His set includes different types of arts. Some rely on words and sound and involve hearing; some rely on substances and light and involve sight; some invent devices that produce marvelous effects. Despite using the term beauxarts, Perrault does not emphasize beauty as a common attribute for either the object, the beholder, or social customs. The inclusion of optics and mechanics in his beaux-arts ensures an emphasis on human accomplishments, rather than on beauty or revealed knowledge. Although Perrault’s book does not situate the beaux-arts within a comprehensive epistemological system that includes the sciences, philosophy, history, etc., this larger context is evident elsewhere. Le Cabinet des beaux Arts was published only three years after Perrault’s controversial poem “Le Siècle de Louis le Grand” was recited to the Académie Française, raising the temperature of the ongoing Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns.15 Le 184

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Cabinet also was published only two years after the first volume of Perrault’s Parallèle des anciens et des modernes, which included a dialogue on architecture, painting, and sculpture, and reinforced the position on modernity that his earlier poem had introduced.16 Together, these three publications suggest that Perrault regarded the beaux-arts not as a separate aesthetic domain, but as part of a larger project to replace the divinely inspired liberal arts and the servile mechanical arts.

Joseph Addison’s Good Taste Joseph Addison (1672–1719) wrote many articles for the English readers of The Spectator at a time when changes in patterns of wealth and work enabled leisurely pursuits to spread from the seventeenth-century upper class to the eighteenth-century middle class.17 His series of eleven articles in 1712 describes how to develop good taste and recognize arbitrary beauty.18 Despite warnings from aristocrats that good taste is an inherited sensibility for connoisseurs and is not for the vulgar, Addison believed that customs of the polite arts can be learned by anyone. He focused on five arts – painting, sculpture, poetry, music, and architecture – and emphasized the beholder, rather than products or skills. “Musick, Architecture and Painting, as well as Poetry and Oratory, are to deduce their laws and rules from the general sense and taste of mankind, and not from the principles of those Arts themselves; or in other words, the Taste is not to conform to the Art, but the Art to the Taste.”19 Addison’s lessons summarized concepts of taste and connoisseurship from the seventeenth century. M.H. Abrams traces the concept of taste to the Italian gusto, defined as “socially desirable ‘good taste’ … a capacity to respond to the beauty or harmonious order of objects, whether natural or artificial … an innate sensibility, inherited … yet capable of being trained.”20 Abrams also associates taste with another Italian term, virtuoso: a person who can appraise different types of artifacts, such as curiosities of nature, paintings, and statuary. Both terms referred to gentlemen of the leisure class who might assemble private collections to appreciate their intellectual and sensual pleasures. These notions also were expressed in the word connoisseur, ‘one who knows’. As the word “taste” suggests, the emphasis is on experiencing a finished thing rather than making it. Architecture as a Fine Art

185

Since the sixteenth century, many sons of the upper class in northern Europe had embarked on a Grand Tour of Italy after finishing their formal schooling and before starting a career at home.21 Their sponsors believed that Italy’s heritage would provide cultural and moral lessons and help them develop good taste; however, travel accounts from these Grand Tours typically recorded the visitors’ English preoccupations rather than Italy’s cultural attributes.22 They were encouraged to study paintings and sculptures, and many such objects were taken home for private collections. Buildings could not be collected, but formal features of Palladian architecture were exported to England. Addison’s articles on good taste privilege sight over the other senses because “[it] spreads itself over an infinite multitude of bodies, comprehends the largest figures, and brings into our reach some of the most remote parts of the universe … It is this sense which furnishes the Imagination with its Ideas … By the pleasures of the Imagination I mean only such pleasures as arise originally from sight.”23 To Addison, imagination is a leisurely form of perception. It is more refined than basic sensory impression, but does not require knowledge or thinking. It divides people into two groups: those who can recognize certain qualities and those who cannot. “A man of a polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving … He discovers a multitude of charms that conceal themselves from the generality of mankind.”24 Addison’s imagination seeks scenes that are vast, novel, and/or beauti25 ful. Vast scenes are pleasing because the imagination breaks one’s normal restraints and is free to roam. Novel scenes are a refreshing diversion from the regularity and repetition that normally surround us. Beautiful scenes are pleasing because, with experience, we can distinguish ordinary things from things that are special due to their colour, form, or composition. Addison distinguishes between the ordinary world and the world of the fine arts: “A Man of a Polite Imagination … looks upon the World, as it were, in another Light.”26 It is still the same world, but illuminating it differently enables it to be perceived in a different way. Addison indicates that human imagination is not an end in itself. For everything that is vast, novel, and/or beautiful, he considers the Supreme Author to be its final cause.27 He acknowledges that works of nature are inherently greater and more varied than works of art, but suggests that nature is even more pleasing when it subtly resembles works of art. Con186

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

versely, the best works of art imitate not just the visual appearance of nature but also its special qualities, such as motion.28 In The Spectator 415, Addison discusses architecture according to his principles of taste and imagination. By focusing on the beholder rather than the designer or maker, he advocates a quick, effortless approach that emphasizes qualities that can be tasted in a glance, “without entring into those rules and maxims which the great masters of Architecture have laid down, and explained at large in numberless Treatises upon that subject.”29 As examples of architecture, he cites buildings that are vast, distant, and perhaps fabulous: the great temples of Babylon, the pyramids in Egypt, the Great Wall of China, and the Tower of Babel. In architecture, Addison appreciates not only greatness in size but also greatness in manner, referring to smaller buildings such as the Pantheon that have a bold, simple form that the eye can take in at a glance. To illustrate this point, he quotes Roland Fréart de Chambray: “To introduce into Architecture this grandeur of Manner, we ought so to proceed, that the division of the principal members of the Order may consist but of few parts, that they be all great and of a bold and ample Relievo, and Swelling; and that the eye, beholding nothing little and mean, the imagination may be more vigorously touched and affected with the work that stands before it.”30 Addison prefers buildings with a single concave or convex form because the stationary eye can easily grasp the whole, relying on the imagination to fill in any parts that are not visible. “Look upon the outside of a Dome, your eye half surrounds it; look up into the inside, and at one glance you have all the prospect of it; the entire concavity falls into your eye at once, the sight being as the center that collects and gathers into it the lines of the whole circumference.”31 Addison’s lesson about architecture as a fine art thus establishes certain components: a stationary eye, an uneducated mind, a momentary glance, a bold form, a memorable image, and exemplary references from distant cultures. He adds that novelty and beauty are also important in architecture, but declines to discuss them because they are more obvious than the qualities of greatness he has presented here. Addison distinguishes “primary pleasures” from “secondary pleasures.” Primary pleasures arise from visible objects that are present (in nature and architecture). Secondary pleasures arise either from memories of objects that are absent or from representations of objects that are absent or fictitious (in statuary, paintings, words, and music). He says we appreciate new Architecture as a Fine Art

187

representations by invoking earlier experiences. This is especially evident in literature, where words do not provide images but instead rely on the reader’s memory.32 Addison includes music as one of his secondary pleasures but admits that only great composers can conjure scenes in the minds of their listeners. The discipline of music sits awkwardly in Addison’s scheme because it does not rely on sight and because he classifies it as a secondary pleasure of representation rather than a primary pleasure of presence, alongside architecture. In Addison’s five arts, only architecture is distinguished from the others: not because it is useful, but because it is present (like nature) rather than representational. Contrasting presence and representation, he also distinguishes between the physical presence of something dangerous and a representation of it that distances us from the danger and enables us to perceive it with pleasure.33 This recalls Aristotle’s discussion of mimesis and anticipates Burke’s discussion of the sublime. Although Addison did not develop a comprehensive theory of either aesthetics or the fine arts, he assembled all five arts that would appear later in the Encyclopédie (as well as in Kristeller’s essay) and he considered them from a beholder’s point of view, which later would be analyzed philosophically by Alexander Baumgarten. He also introduced a practical method for appreciating these polite arts. Painting, sculpture, poetry, and music gradually became the core disciplines of the fine arts. Some writers in the early eighteenth century also included engraving, dance, eloquence, prose literature, and gardening. Architecture sometimes was included, sometimes was excluded, and sometimes was placed in an intermediate category. Its status depended on how closely it was analyzed, which of its attributes were highlighted, and whether its use or its taste was emphasized. Some noteworthy theories of the fine arts relegated architecture to the margins. Architecture was excluded from the fine arts by Abbé Guillaume Massieu (1666–1722) in Deffense de la Poësie (Defense of Poetry, ca. 1710). In fact, he echoes Hugh of St Victor by including architecture alongside agriculture and navigation, as arts that are necessary for survival rather than for the benefit of the spirit or for pleasure.34 Architecture was included in a casual way by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713), who wrote Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (1711) as a treatise on religion, morals, and what later would be called aesthetics. In a Platonic vein, he states that beauty exists 188

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

at three ascending levels: forms of physical things, forms in the human mind, and forms created by God.35 He notes that critics cultivate a refined taste to judge human products but suggests that philosophers are superior because they seek a higher beauty.36 Shaftesbury contemplates beautiful forms to recognize higher qualities of harmony, proportion, and concord: “When we have thorowly search’d into the nature of this contemplative Delight, we shall find it of a kind which relates not in the least to any private Interest of the Creature, nor has for Object any Self-Good or Advantage of the private System. The Admiration, Joy, or Love turns wholly upon what is exteriour, and foreign to our-selves.”37 By focusing primarily on a higher beauty, Shaftesbury is not concerned with the satisfaction of human desire or need. His regard for the arts is based solely on their capacity to embody beauty. Consequently, he does not distinguish architecture from other arts. He also does not introduce criteria to divide the arts into subsets, nor does he present a definitive set of arts. Throughout the treatise he refers to two or three arts at a time, in groups that vary according to the point he makes. Architecture is associated variously with music, sculpture, painting, or gardens, but all of them are important only as steps toward that higher beauty. Abbé Jean-Baptiste Dubos (1670–1742), in Réflexions critiques sur la poësie et sur la peinture (Critical Reflections on Poetry and Painting, 1719), echoes fourteenth-century humanists by citing Horace and comparing poetry and painting. He regards these two fine arts as essentially imitative and pleasurable. Following Aristotle, he also notes that pleasure arises when painful subjects are contemplated from a distance. Consequently, subjects of contemplation reside in a somewhat separate world: “The pleasure we feel in contemplating the imitations made by painters and poets, of objects which would have raised in us passions attended with real pain, is a pleasure free from all impurity of mixture. It is never attended with those disagreeable consequences, which arise from the serious emotions caused by the object itself.”38 Although painting and poetry are his primary topics, Dubos discusses music but mentions architecture only in passing. His references imply simply that architecture is comparable to the other beaux-arts. He does not consider architecture as a subject in itself, referring to it only in brief analogies that illustrate points about painting or poetry.

Architecture as a Fine Art

189

Alexander Baumgarten’s Aesthetic Fictions Alexander Baumgarten (1714–62) does not discuss architecture directly, but several topics in his philosophical analysis of the perception of poetry eventually would have major implications for the prospects of architecture. Baumgarten coined the word “aesthetic” at the end of his master’s thesis, presented at the University of Halle in 1735.39 It was based on a Greek root: “We have no doubt that there could be available a science which might direct the lower cognitive faculty in knowing things sensately … The Greek philosophers and the Church fathers have already carefully distinguished between things perceived [aisthete] and things known [noete] … Therefore, things known are to be known by the superior faculty as the object of logic; things perceived [are to be known by the inferior faculty, as the object] of the science of perception, or aesthetic.”40 Although Baumgarten invented the word “aesthetic,” Shaftesbury and Addison had considered aesthetic issues several decades earlier. Baumgarten’s contribution was to establish a philosophical framework for this concept. Starting from a few axioms and relying heavily on Horace’s Ars poetica, he uses deductive reasoning to formulate principles that explain the composition and perception of written poetry. Assuming that poetry’s diverse manifestations are based on several principles, he attempts to establish a simple framework that is comparable to what Newton achieved with his laws of physical motion. Like his predecessors, Baumgarten distinguishes two types of cognition: Thought is a higher, more ideal form, whereas perception is a lower, more worldly form. He does not discuss qualitative issues of beauty or good taste, and the only ideal he discusses is clarity. Baumgarten focuses mainly on the composer of a poem. He avoids complicating his analysis by considering also the reader who may misunderstand the poem or develop an unintended interpretation.41 He says that a poet relies on the senses but does not merely represent a sensory perception, as this would not qualify as poetry. A poet also does not represent a clear and distinct (logical) idea, as this would not qualify as poetry either. Instead, he says that a poet fuses together a sensory perception and a concept. Without this fusion, a poet’s representation would not be poetic and its meaning would not be clear. By drawing attention to poetry’s fusion of the sensory and the conceptual, Baumgarten shows that its structure and intentions are different than in disciplines that are based on 190

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

logic. Logical ideas aim to be clear and distinct, whereas poetic representations aim to be clear and confused (i.e., fused together).42 In both cases, clarity is the aim, but they rely on thoughts with different structures: one is simple, the other is complex. Baumgarten still invoked the mimetic tradition: “Nature … and the poet create resemblances. Hence, the poem is an imitation of nature and of the actions depending on it.”43 He thus sees an analogy to nature, not only in the completed poem but also in the poet’s creative action. In considering what poems can represent, Baumgarten distinguishes three types of fictions. Things that are possible in the real world are “true fictions”; they are poetic. Things that are mutually inconsistent and therefore impossible, either in the real world or in all possible worlds, are “utopian”; they are not poetic. A third type, “heterocosmic,” is impossible in the real world but possible in another world; it is the second poetic option. The heterocosmic is a mingling of the familiar and the unfamiliar; it does not exist here and now but can be imagined.44 Baumgarten’s thesis focuses exclusively on written poetry. Apart from a few passing remarks about painting, he does not discuss architecture or any other art, nor does he develop a general theory of the fine arts. However, the philosophical framework he developed could be applied easily to arts other than poetry. By the time he began to do this, in Aesthetica (1750), others had built on his ideas.

Charles Batteux’s Hybrid Arts Abbé Charles Batteux (1713–80) wrote Les beaux arts réduits à un même principe (The fine arts reduced to a single principle, 1746). It is cited by Kristeller and others as the first treatise to provide a comprehensive system of the fine arts.45 Batteux distinguishes arts according to their end. The fine arts of painting, sculpture, dance, music, and poetry are strictly for pleasure and should not attempt to be useful. On the other hand, arts that respond to basic human needs are strictly for use and should not attempt to provide pleasure. In the middle is a third category that is for both use and pleasure. It includes two arts: eloquence and architecture.46 Batteux indicates that nature is common to all three of his categories of arts. Mechanical arts employ nature as it is, strictly for use. Eloquence and Architecture as a Fine Art

191

architecture employ nature for use, but they also embellish nature. His five fine arts do not employ nature; instead, they imitate nature in their different attributes: painting in its colours, sculpture in its reliefs, dance in its movements and gestures, music in its sounds, and poetry in its measured words.47 Painting and sculpture imitate visible objects; poetry imitates human actions; music and dance imitate human sentiments and passions.48 Invoking Aristotle and Horace as classical precedents, Batteux regards the imitation of nature as the single principle to which all fine arts can be reduced. However, he advises against imitating nature in a servile way that merely copies its found condition. Instead, the fine arts should choose suitable objects to imitate and then seek their ideal beauty by imagining how they can be perfected. Batteux regards sight and hearing as the only senses suited to the fine arts.49 Touch, smell, and taste are “sterile” for the fine arts, despite taste (le goût) being the prime metaphor for distinguishing good from bad. The line that Batteux draws through the senses suggests a particular relation between the beholder and a product of the fine arts: sight and hearing require distance from the object of one’s attention, whereas the other senses require direct contact. Consequently, distance is preferred. Although sculpture and poetry can represent real historical and social situations, Batteux says these arts should not be judged on the truthfulness of what they represent. Products that are true may be bad from a fine art standpoint. Batteux does not expect truth from them, only beauty.50 Like Charles Perrault, Batteux considers music a fine art, not a liberal art. He regards music as an imitation of human passions, not as an empirical proof of universal mathematical order. “I do not pretend to calculate sounds or the relation between them … I do not speak of the vibration of cords or of mathematical proportion. I leave these speculations to the theorists … Music speaks to me in tones; its language seems natural to me … One must judge music in the same way as a painting.”51 He adds that the ear is more discerning than the eye; therefore we can judge a piece of music more easily than a painting.52 The fact that eloquence and architecture share a separate category invites comparison. Batteux’s myth of the origin of eloquence begins with the basic human need to communicate thoughts and sentiments to one another.53 Later, those who embellished their speech with intonations and bodily gestures became orators and historians. Batteux’s myth of the origin of 192

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

architecture begins with the cave as a response to the basic human need for shelter.54 Later, shelters became embellished and more commodious. In each case, a basic art of necessity became elevated through embellishment. Batteux notes that eloquence and poetry share the same medium: spoken words. However, their ends are different because eloquence remains grounded in useful communication whereas poetry’s measured words are recited purely for pleasure. He does not develop an equivalent relation between architecture and sculpture, in which sculpture relies on the same medium (materials) but has a different end (pleasure). Their formal differences seem to prevent this analogy. Unlike the other fine arts, sculpture is mentioned only occasionally as a figurative representation alongside painting, so its potential relation to architecture is more remote. Batteux warns that eloquence and architecture cannot leave behind their utilitarian roots to become fully fledged fine arts. They must remain hybrid arts. He says that whenever we discover that eloquence or architecture has abandoned utility to become purely ornamental, it should be reproached and then it will “blush” in response.55 However, despite being grounded in utility, there are occasions when both eloquence and architecture can “take flight” (prendre l’essor) by imitating the grandeur of certain subjects: heroes (for eloquence) and temples (for architecture).56 Their rhetorical gestures can promote popular admiration for these subjects. This hybrid image of eloquence and architecture, with their feet on the ground and their wings in the air, pauses at a significant moment of departure from one realm to another.

Architectures in the Encyclopédie In 1751 the publication of the first volume of the Encyclopédie, edited by Denis Diderot (1713–84) and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert (1717–83), was a notable development in the recognition of architecture as a fine art.57 However, it came with ambivalence and some mixed messages. The French encyclopedia was commissioned initially as a translation of Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia (1728). In his preface, Chambers includes a diagram to illustrate his hierarchic organization of knowledge, divided first into “natural” and “artificial.”58 He locates the five (eventual) fine arts in various parts of his “artificial” category, mostly under the headings Architecture as a Fine Art

193

Epistemological diagram from Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia; or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, vol. 1 (London: J.F. and C. Rivington, 1786).

“quantities of bodies” and “mixed mathematics.” Architecture and sculpture are included in mechanics; painting is part of optics; and music is part of phonics. Poetry, on the other hand, is classified as “symbolic” rather than “real,” and is associated with fables. This scattered distribution shows that Chambers did not regard these five arts as a set. In the 1750 Prospectus that announced the Encyclopédie project, Diderot distanced this new venture from Chambers’s earlier encyclopedia. He complained that Chambers “broke the chains” that connect first principles to their remotest consequences because his descriptions of the sciences, the liberal arts, and especially the mechanical arts were so incomplete.59 Later d’Alembert would note that the “genealogical tree” of their new Encyclopédie is different because it originates from human faculties rather than from established knowledge: from memory comes history; from reason comes 194

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

philosophy; and from imagination comes poetry.60 For this set of premises, he credits Francis Bacon (1561–1626), who had classified human knowledge into three categories – history, philosophy, and poetry (poësy) – that are attributed not to divine revelation but to three human faculties: memory, reason, and imagination.61 Diderot’s Prospectus includes an initial diagram for the Encyclopédie, entitled “Systême figuré des connoissances humaines” (Illustrated system of human knowledge). This tree diagram includes only bifurcating branches, with no lateral connections from branch to branch that would form topological loops. Each item appears only once in the diagram and is linked to the other items by moving up or down through the hierarchy. D’Alembert later noted that many different diagrams could have been made, so there is no absolute pattern for mapping human understanding. He also acknowledges the intrinsic limitations of a tree diagram: “We note in these individual things common properties by which we compare them and dissimilar properties by which we differentiate them. And these properties, designated by abstract names, have led us to form different classes in which these objects have been placed. But often such an object, which because of one or several of its properties has been placed in one class, belongs to another class by virtue of other properties and might have been placed accordingly. Thus, the general division remains of necessity somewhat arbitrary.”62 Architecture is included in the 1750 Prospectus diagram as four separate disciplines, each qualified by an adjective: practical architecture, military architecture, naval architecture, and civil architecture. They appear in separate locations, eight to ten levels down in the hierarchy. The first is placed on its own under “Memory,” while the three others are clustered together under “Reason”: 1

Understanding > Memory > History > Natural > Uses of nature > Arts, trades, manufactures > Working and uses of stone, plaster, slate, etc. > Practical architecture 2 Understanding > Reason > Philosophy > Science of man > Ethics > Particular > Science of laws or jurisprudence > Economic > Naval architecture 3 Understanding > Reason > Philosophy > Science of man > Ethics > Particular > Science of laws or jurisprudence > Political > Military art > Military architecture Architecture as a Fine Art

195

Tree diagram (1750), From Denis Diderot, Prospectus de l’Encyclopédie (Paris: Briasson, 1751). 1: Practical architecture. 2: Naval architecture. 3: Military architecture. 4: Civil architecture.

4 Understanding > Reason > Philosophy > Science of man > Ethics > Particular > Science of laws or jurisprudence > Natural > Civil architecture The first of these entries, “practical architecture,” is a technical art that was invented by humans to fabricate things from materials. The others, “naval architecture,” “military architecture,” and “civil architecture,” are universal sciences that have been discovered by humans. They are ethical human sciences rather than natural sciences. Although the term “civil” typically is distinguished from “military” or “ecclesiastical,”63 the different architectures in this diagram suggest another contrast: between “civil architecture” (ethics) and “practical architecture” (building). In this diagram from the 1750 Prospectus, architecture is absent from Imagination, the third major branch of understanding, which includes the fine arts of poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and engraving. D’Alembert’s subsequent “Preliminary Discourse by the Editors,” placed at the beginning of the first volume of the Encyclopédie (1751), is followed by a revised tree diagram in which the same four architectural terms appear; however, three of them are now situated under different headings. Only the first entry, practical architecture,64 remains unchanged: 1

Understanding > Memory > History > Natural > Uses of nature > Arts, trades, manufactures > Working and uses of stone, plaster, slate, etc. > Practical architecture 2 Understanding > Reason > Philosophy > Science of nature > Mathematics > Mixed > Mechanics > Dynamics > Hydrodynamics > Naval architecture 3 Understanding > Reason > Philosophy > Science of nature > Mathematics > Pure > Geometry > Elementary: Military architecture 4 Understanding > Imagination > [Poetry > Sacred, profane > Narrative > Novel, etc. >] Civil architecture65 The second and third entries, naval and military, remain within the “Reason” division but move from the human sciences to the natural sciences and are categorized as applied mathematics. The major change is in the fourth entry, which moves “civil architecture” from “Memory” across to “Imagination.” This now indicates that civil architecture is not a universal science discovered by humans but a human product of imaginary fiction. Architecture as a Fine Art

197

Tree diagram (1751), From Encyclopédie, vol. 1, ed. Diderot and d’Alembert (Paris: Briasson, 1751). 1: Practical architecture. 2: Naval architecture. 3: Military architecture. 4: Civil architecture.

Detail of tree diagram (1751). From Encyclopédie, vol. 1, ed. Diderot and d’Alembert.

D’Alembert states that imagination is the human faculty from which poetry originates, and that imagination builds on history. Surprisingly, he associates all of the beaux-arts with fiction rather than with beauty or pleasure: “History has for its object individual beings, which exist at present or which have existed in the past; and poetry has for its object imaginary individual beings, which are the imitation of historical beings … We mean here by poetry only that which is fiction … We will relate architecture, music, painting, sculpture, engraving, etc., to poetry.”66 Civil architecture now accompanies poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and engraving to constitute the five fine arts (plus one) that Kristeller identifies as the core set of modern arts. In the transition from the 1750 Prospectus to the 1751 “Preliminary Discourse,” civil architecture became recognized as a fully fledged fine art. However, some graphic irregularities in the organization of the Imagination category were carried over from the 1750 diagram to the 1751 diagram without being resolved. The various categories of poetry are separated from the non-verbal fine arts.67 This disrupts the hierarchy of the diagram and leaves the non-verbal fine arts floating on their own, with no connection to a higher branch. This odd arrangement suggests that Diderot and d’Alembert could not link their descending Architecture as a Fine Art

199

categories of verbal poetry to the non-verbal fine arts nor devise a credible hierarchic alternative for the whole Imagination division. The text of d’Alembert’s “Preliminary Discourse” parallels the 1751 diagram but tells two different fine art stories about architecture. It places architecture among the fine arts as both a component of painting and a component of poetry-as-making: “Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Poetry, Music, and their different divisions make up the third general distribution, which is born of imagination and whose parts are comprised under the name of Fine Arts. We can also include them under the general title of Painting, because all the Fine Arts can be reduced to that and differ only by the means which they use. Finally, we could relate them all to Poetry by taking this word in its natural signification, which is simply invention or creation.”68 D’Alembert was comfortable placing painting and sculpture in the mimetic tradition, but relied on symmetry for a rather thin analogy to include architecture: Painting and sculpture ought to be placed at the head of that knowledge which consists of imitation, because it is in those arts above all that imitation best approximates the objects represented and speaks most directly to the senses. Architecture, that art which is born of necessity and perfected by luxury, can be added to those two … The imitation of la belle Nature in Architecture is less striking and more restricted than in Painting or Sculpture. The latter express all the parts of la belle Nature indifferently and without restriction, portraying it as it is, uniform or varied; while Architecture, combining and uniting the different bodies it uses, is confined to imitating the symmetrical arrangement that Nature observes more or less obviously in each individual thing.69 Like Batteux, d’Alembert defines architecture as an imitative art that is born of necessity and improved by luxury. He also states that symmetry is what enables architecture to imitate nature, as creatures tend to be symmetrical, both axially and in their general distribution of parts. However, he did not retain Batteux’s distinction between fine arts for pleasure (painting, sculpture, poetry, music, and dance) and hybrid arts for both use and pleasure (eloquence and architecture). Rather than considering the ends 200

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

of the various arts, d’Alembert focuses on the faculties with which they are understood – memory, reason, and imagination – as the “three different manners in which our soul operates on the objects of its thoughts.”70 By framing understanding in this way, the usefulness of architecture is no longer a significant issue, so civil architecture can be included – a move that Batteux was not willing to make because it would place architecture in a compromising situation and cause it to “blush.” Consequently, civil architecture is now situated mainly in the eye (or soul) of the beholder. As an art that can be viewed through the new lens of aesthetics, it is separated categorically from the “practical architecture” with which it may be built. Although the Prospectus and the “Preliminary Discourse” established the epistemological framework and general intentions of the Encyclopédie, their premises were not necessarily maintained in the subsequent articles written by others. Jacques-François Blondel (1705–74) was chosen to write most of the articles on architectural subjects for the Encyclopédie. Contrary to the tree diagram, his opening article on “Architecture” indicates that there are only three types of architecture: military, naval, and civil. He combines “practical architecture” and “civil architecture” into just “architecture,” dismissing Diderot and d’Alembert’s higher-level distinction between “reason” and “imagination” in favour of his own integrated professional approach. Kevin Harrington, in his study of the architectural articles in the Encyclopédie, states that Blondel was inclined to present architecture as the useful art of building, not as a fine art with relations to other fine arts. He maintains that Blondel’s concern with architecture was professional and productive, whereas others’ theories about the fine arts emphasized their aesthetic effect on amateur beholders.71 This statement about the Encyclopédie articles is valid but should be qualified by Blondel’s discussion of architecture and other arts in his own Cours d’architecture (1771–77). Although he regards painting, sculpture, and gardening as integral supports for the practice of architecture,72 he encourages students to develop a love for all the fine arts. He refers to activities by five types of artists, corresponding exactly to the core set of fine arts presented by Kristeller: the architect, the painter, the sculptor, the man of letters, and the musician.73 In England, fifty years before the Encyclopédie, Henry Curson had published a book of lessons for those in the lower class who had not received a liberal arts education. The seven chapters of his book correspond to the seven liberal arts, although he defines them not as forms of universal Architecture as a Fine Art

201

knowledge but as theoretical foundations for applied sciences: “I was induced to Compose this Theory of the Sciences, wherein is briefly demonstrated the Solid Grounds and Principles of the Seven Liberal Arts, which are the foundation of all Sciences and Professions.”74 As students typically were educated in the liberal arts before pursuing other vocations, Curson’s concept of the liberal arts follows a pedagogical model for education rather than an epistemological model of knowledge.75 His liberal arts included topics that extended into territory normally occupied by the mechanical arts. For example, in his chapters on arithmetic and geometry, Curson includes general information on practical techniques such as how to measure land, how carpenters and bricklayers make measurements, and how to navigate a ship. “[This information] may be advantageous to all Gentlemen who will not only find the instructive part of Science, but also be informed without any mechanick Operation in the Mensuration of Land, Timber, Stone, Solids, &c. [and in the operation] of all Bricklayers, Carpenters, Plaisterers, Joyners and Masons work, to prevent their being defrauded by Architects and others who build for them.”76 Although the seven traditional liberal arts remained intact in Curson’s book, their limits and their premises were changing. In the Prospectus de l’Encyclopédie, Diderot appears to follow the traditional divisions, saying, “All of the materials of the Encyclopedia can be reduced to three categories: the sciences, the liberal arts, and the mechanical arts.”77 Despite repeating these conventional categories, he introduces a different ambition: to elevate the status of the mechanical arts. Unlike Leonardo da Vinci and others who had recognized the liberal arts as the single preeminent classification and had promoted a particular art for membership, Diderot wants to elevate the status of the entire mechanical arts classification. “Let us return to the [mechanical] artists the justice that is owed to them. The liberal arts have sung about themselves long enough; they should now use their voices to celebrate the mechanical arts. It is up to the liberal arts to pull the mechanical arts out of the depreciation where prejudice has kept them for so long.”78 This scenario is portrayed as a rivalry between equals who share a common ground – a notion that would have made no sense in previous centuries, when the liberal arts belonged to a completely different realm that was attributed ultimately to God. Diderot’s two larger categories of “sciences” and “arts” remain consistent with their traditional meanings: “Some which are purely practical in nature 202

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

[arts] have as their aim the execution of something. Others of a purely speculative nature [sciences] are limited to the examination of their subject and the contemplation of its properties.”79 It is only within the “arts” category that Diderot and d’Alembert are redefining boundaries – not in a direct, confrontational way but surreptitiously, through duplication and ambiguity. The subtitle for the entire Encyclopédie introduced a different set of categories: Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts, et des métiers (Systematic dictionary of sciences, arts, and trades). Only the science category remains intact. “Liberal arts” (arts libéraux) is replaced by the more general category “arts” (les arts). “Mechanical arts” (les arts méchaniques) is replaced by “trades” (les métiers). In fact, the old mechanical arts category could have been accommodated by either of the new categories – les arts or les métiers – so not only the names but also the boundaries between categories are in flux. Meanwhile, the title pages for the collection of plates, Recueil de planches, sur les sciences, les arts libéraux & les arts méchaniques, revert to the earlier categories.80 The traditional distinction between liberal arts and mechanical arts is disappearing, along with the distinction between divine revelation and human invention. In the article on “Art,” Diderot includes a paragraph on the distribution of arts into liberal and mechanical.81 He says that the liberal arts are more the work of the spirit (l’esprit) than the hand, whereas the mechanical arts are more the work of the hand than the spirit. Both involve the same human faculties, so their only difference is the ratio of spirit to hand. He does not mention the traditional meaning of the liberal arts. In fact, it appears that the traditional set of seven liberal arts and the historical meaning of their assembly are not mentioned anywhere in the Encyclopédie – a surprising omission, as this was intended as an authoritative compilation of all human knowledge.82 By associating the liberal arts with the human spirit rather than with universal language or divine mathematics, Diderot not only demotes them to a level closer to the mechanical arts but also opens a door between the liberal arts and the developing category of the fine arts. In fact, in the 1750 Prospectus de l’Encyclopédie, Diderot used the terms “liberal arts” (les arts libéraux) and “fine arts” (les beaux-arts) interchangeably.83 Each appears frequently in a compound phrase: “the sciences and the liberal arts” or “the sciences and the fine arts.”84 These two phrases are synonymous; there is no discernible difference in their meanings nor the situations to which they refer. Diderot the writer and philosophe used language carefully, Architecture as a Fine Art

203

so this would not have been a slip of the pen or the mind. Indeed, other parts of the Prospectus were modified slightly before being republished in the “Preliminary Discourse,” so the continued use of this pair of terms suggests a deliberate move by Diderot and d’Alembert. This smooth exchange marks a historic transition from the legacy of the liberal arts to the ambition of the fine arts. Similar ambiguities are evident elsewhere in the Encyclopédie. In the “Preliminary Discourse,” the fine arts are described as a subset of the liberal arts: “Among the liberal arts that have been reduced to principles, those that undertake the imitation of nature have been called the fine arts [les beaux arts].”85 The article on “Elements of the sciences” refers to the liberal arts as being “based on the fine and delicate study of our sensations”86 – a description that normally would be associated with the fine arts. The article on “Imagination” – the domain of the fine arts – refers to imagination as a gift from God: “Perhaps this gift of God, imagination, is the only instrument with which we compose ideas, and even metaphysics.”87 In earlier periods, the liberal arts were the gifts from God, while the mechanical arts were human inventions. Ever since Michelangelo was dubbed “divine” for channeling divinity into his paintings and sculptures, exceptional practitioners of the arti del disegno could reach beyond the temporal world. Although Michelangelo had crossed the line between mortality and divinity, this conceptual line remained intact. In the mid-eighteenth century, Diderot and d’Alembert blurred this line and redefined the epistemological categories on either side. To the extent that the Enlightenment was “an age of faith as well as of reason,”88 this is reflected in the ambition for the fine arts to progress and reach perfection. D’Alembert states that the human faculties of memory and reason are the foundation for the more advanced human faculty of imagination. Of the three faculties on which the Encyclopédie was based – memory, reason, and imagination – only imagination (i.e., the fine arts) relied on genius.89 At mid-century, the Encyclopédie indicates uncertain times for architecture. It could be categorized as multiple disciplines or as just one; it could be associated with three different human faculties; and it could be situated in larger categories of arts with their own ambiguities and variable status. Consequently, architecture’s own status could range from servile to divine. It could be allied with other inventive trades that use stone, plaster, slate, 204

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

etc., or with the imaginative fine arts of painting, sculpture, poetry, and music. Its mechanical art status is relatively stable; its fine art prospects are less stable but potentially stellar.

Abbé Laugier’s Primitive Hut Seven years after Batteux’s book and two years after the first volume of the Encyclopédie, Abbé Marc-Antoine Laugier (1713–69) wrote Essai sur l’architecture (Essay on Architecture, 1753). Although Laugier’s book was presented as advice for architects, he himself was not an architect and he wrote for a general audience. Compared to Blondel’s comprehensive, professional discussions of architecture in the Encyclopédie, Laugier’s argument is narrower and more idealistic. Believing that architecture is solely a fine art, he gave it a new theoretical context by projecting it back to a mythical origin and then forward to a mythical state of perfection.90 Laugier also projected the term beaux-arts back into recorded history, applying it anachronistically to earlier eras. He regarded ancient Greece and Rome as high points. “The barbarism of succeeding centuries … buried the fine arts under the ruins of the only empire that had preserved taste and principles.”91 Happily, the fine arts made a comeback in fifteenth-century Italy and sixteenth-century France: “Since the rebirth of the fine arts our architects have the noble ambition to immortalize the French name through some new architectural invention. It was Philibert de l’Orme who made the greatest effort to go beyond the bound which, up to his time, had brought architects constantly to a halt. He wanted to give us a new French Order.”92 Like Batteux, Laugier believed that the imitation of nature is the basis of all fine arts – but his fine arts now include architecture.93 In relying on imitation theory, he used an ancient premise to promote a modern concept: “It is the same in architecture as in all other arts: its principles are founded on simple nature, and nature’s process clearly indicates its rules. Let us look at man in his primitive state without any aid or guidance other than his natural instincts.”94 Knowing that the authority of the ancients had been eroded after discrepancies between Vitruvius and surviving ancient buildings had been noticed, Laugier dug even deeper to find first principles in nature.95 The primitive hut he imagined was a first act of building by a first human, using elements taken directly from nature. “He wants to make Architecture as a Fine Art

205

himself a dwelling that protects but does not bury him. Some fallen branches in the forest are the right material for his purpose; he chooses four of the strongest, raises them upright and arranges them in a square; across their top he lays four other branches; on these he hoists from two sides yet another row of branches which, inclining towards each other, meet at their highest point.”96 The hut consists of only a few linear elements that anticipate columns, an entablature, and a pediment. It is simply an outline of a building, with no roof, walls, or floor. Although the material for the primitive hut came from the forest, its form came from the Maison Carrée in Nîmes, an ancient temple that Laugier admired greatly.97 By revealing this earlier and simpler version of the Maison Carrée, he borrows ancient authority retroactively, as if the ancients had imitated the perfect form of his primitive hut. Laugier then projects this primitive hut forward through history. He imagines a series of good buildings that imitated the primitive hut properly; however, he is acutely aware of poor buildings whose architects did not look back and thus strayed from the path to perfection. “It is by approaching the simplicity of this first model that fundamental mistakes are avoided and true perfection is achieved … Let us never lose sight of our little rustic hut.”98 To keep architects on track, he devises a set of practical rules for criticizing contemporary buildings and designing future buildings: One must use freestanding columns rather than pilasters; one must use an entablature rather than arches; one must place a pediment across the width of a building rather than across its length; etc.99 Departures from these rules would be faults that diminish the status of architecture and distract others from pursuing architecture’s true potential. Laugier’s two-stage process – retrogression to a mythical origin, then progression toward future perfection – was a common Enlightenment approach. As Peter Gay notes, “This experience – which marked each of the philosophes with greater or lesser intensity, but which marked them all – was the dialectical interplay of their appeal to antiquity, their tension with Christianity, and their pursuit of modernity … They used their classical learning to free themselves from their Christian heritage, and then, having done with the ancients, turned their face toward a modern world view.”100 Laugier often mentions progress and perfection as achievable goals. Like a racer, he jettisons all extraneous material and avoids complications, distractions, and fantasies. “Let us keep to the simple and natural; it is the only 206

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Primitive hut, from Marc-Antoine Laugier, Essai sur l’architecture, 2d ed. (Paris: Duchesne, 1755). Blackader-Lauterman Collection, Rare Books and Special Collections, McGill University Library.

road to beauty.”101 Laugier regards the primitive hut not as a fixed model to be copied but as a set of first principles to be imitated. He wishes to leave room for innovation by future architects: “I leave to the architect ample resources. If he is gifted and has a slight knowledge of geometry he will, with what little I place in his hands, find the secret of varying his plans ad infinitum and of regaining through the diversity of forms what he loses on superfluous parts which I have taken away from him.”102 Similarly, he recognizes a need for novelty in the fine arts: “The rectangle is the most common form of our buildings. However, this far too universal form has become hackneyed and is not interesting anymore. It is our nature to love novelty and variety; the fine arts must all be adapted to this inborn taste.”103 Only building elements that come directly from the primitive hut belong to architecture and the fine arts. If possible, everything else should be removed. “Another objection will perhaps be made, namely that I reduce architecture to almost nothing, since with the exception of columns, entablatures, pediments, doors, and windows I more or less cut out the rest. It is true that I take away from architecture much that is superfluous, that I strip it of a lot of trash of which its ornamentation commonly consists and only leave it its natural simplicity.”104 As shown in the frontispiece from the second edition of the Essai, the primitive hut consists of linear elements that are more formal than structural, and are so minimal that they provide no shelter. Although Laugier introduces the primitive hut with a story about a man seeking shelter, this practical purpose soon becomes subordinate to the pursuit of beauty. Laugier would prefer that the beauty of the linear elements not be compromised by adding walls or other building elements. However, if such elements are absolutely necessary, he will grant them a licence that avoids dismissing them as absolute faults. Capricious elements are the worst, as they are neither beautiful nor necessary. He distinguishes three sets of building elements and assigns them to three descending levels of value: “The parts that are essential are the cause of beauty, the parts introduced by necessity cause every license, the parts added by caprice cause every fault.”105 Laugier acknowledges that the fine arts often are not compatible with the needs of ordinary life: “I admit that circumstances frequently seem to rule out the use of free-standing columns. People want to live in closed spaces, not in open halls. Therefore, it becomes necessary to fill in the space

208

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

between the columns and consequently to engage them. In this case, an engaged column will not be regarded as a fault, but as a license sanctioned by necessity. It should, however, always be remembered that any license points to an imperfection and must be used cautiously and only when it is impossible to find a better way.”106 Laugier is especially critical of walls: “It is the wall again that deprives architecture of all its grace. The less it appears, the more beautiful the building will be; and when it does not appear at all, that building will be perfect.”107 When walls have to be included, windows and doors in those walls are also acceptable licences, but he warns that they too will prevent the architecture from reaching perfection. “A building of free-standing columns carrying an entablature needs no doors or windows; but, being open on all sides, it is uninhabitable. The need for protection from the inclemencies of the weather and other more engaging motives force us to fill in the intercolumnations and, consequently, doors and windows are needed.”108 His desire to remove utilitarian elements applies also to structural elements that depart from the simple column-and-entablature pattern: “Where buttresses are absolutely necessary, architecture would be rendered an outstanding service if they could be effaced.”109 Charles Batteux, who defined architecture as a hybrid art rather than as a fine art, described architecture as starting from need and then being embellished by beauty. Laugier reverses that order by saying that architecture is primarily for beauty and, if necessary, includes additional elements for shelter and structure. His approach is more critical and idealistic than that of Batteux. To promote architecture as a fine art, Laugier employs a strategy of separation: elements for beauty belong to architecture, whereas elements for utility belong to building. For architecture to soar, it must not be weighed down by utility – not even by basic provisions for shelter. These two sets of elements do not reside in separate ontological realms (e.g., ideal and real) that require reconciliation; instead, they are equally physical, so they compete for the same territory. This dichotomy leads to a confrontation between the architect who is pursuing fine art and the dweller and builder who also want shelter and structure. Laugier does not attempt to reconcile these different interests, so his fine arts remain separate and defensive, aiming for perfection but always being weighed down or eroded from below. Although Laugier projects the fine arts back into ancient

Architecture as a Fine Art

209

Greece, his concept of perfection is diametrically opposed to that of techne¯, in which an object or action is considered perfect if it fulfills the needs of its user perfectly.

The Five Fine Arts The Renaissance arti del disegno included three arts: painting, sculpture, and architecture. All three were associated with drawing, as a common skill on which they were believed to rely, and all three resulted in a visible, enduring, material product. These three arts also could be combined in an ornamented building. The arti del disegno thus emphasized their products, their mimetic source (nature and/or the ancients), and their moral destination. By the mid-eighteenth century, the modern system of the fine arts was developing a different set of premises; however, the various theories of the fine arts were inconsistent: some focused on the experience of the beholder; some focused on the attributes of the object; some focused on the imitation of nature or ancient sources; and some included arts that the others did not. As these theorists were immersed in the complex currents of the Enlightenment, such differences are not surprising. As the membership of the fine arts firmed up at mid-century, five arts were identified as the core group.110 This set could have enabled previous theories to be assessed for their validity; however, writings on the fine arts continued to present a blurry picture – not because of debates over membership but because of ongoing attempts to discern their basic principles, both individually and collectively. Meanwhile, they were acutely aware of a major plateau that had been reached in other disciplines: “By mid-century, the philosophes were trying to identify their procedures with the methods of the natural sciences.”111 Kristeller’s essay is notable for identifying the point at which the fine arts coalesced, as well as the key theoretical sources that defined them. His essay invites further questions: for example, how this set of fine arts compares to earlier classifications, which theories supported the set of five, and which theories turned out to be distractions. His essay also invites us to shift from history to philosophy: to distinguish the common ground of the fine arts from their individual attributes. We might also shift from theory to practice, to consider whether the new fine arts category had practical implica210

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

tions. The following analysis pauses at this historical plateau to consider implications of grouping these five arts: painting, sculpture, poetry, music, and architecture. To treat the fine arts seriously as a classification and to work toward an understanding of their basic premises, any common ground must be common to all five fine arts. Properties that exist in some of the arts but not others would be incidental. This rules out a return to the arti del disegno, which defined painting, sculpture, and architecture as a closed set of three. Although these three arts might continue to be allied in practice and in their own shared theories, their premises cannot be conflated with those of the fine arts. The inclusion of poetry and music in the fine arts would rule out several potential principles: that the fine arts involve drawing skill, that the fine arts lead to durable material products, and that the fine arts depend on vision. Conversely, principles associated with only music or poetry also would be ruled out: that the fine arts depend on hearing, that the fine arts rely on language or voice, and that the fine arts result in ephemeral products.112 The fine arts category, with its five core members, cannot be conflated with the subsequent Académie des beaux-arts (which excluded poetry)113 nor the subsequent École des beaux-arts (which excluded music and poetry).114 These institutions borrowed some of the premises of the fine arts, but the fine arts cannot be reduced to these institutions. Although we tend to think of the École when we hear the term beaux-arts, Kristeller’s epistemological principles draw our attention to the eighteenth century, not the nineteenth or early twentieth. This is also a reminder that the fine arts are not identical to the visual arts.115 Although Charles Batteux had pointed to imitation as the single principle shared by all fine arts, some of his contemporaries questioned this conclusion. In the Encyclopédie, Diderot repeats some of Batteux’s observations but criticizes him for reducing the fine arts to imitation.116 Mimetic theory continued throughout the eighteenth century but lost some of its authority and was framed in different ways. Rudolf Wittkower identifies four types of imitation employed by artists in the eighteenth century: imitating nature directly; selecting the most perfect parts from nature; selecting the most perfect parts from the ancients who had already imitated nature; and imitating images from one’s memory.117 Each type suggests visual representations and thus emphasizes two arts: painting and sculpture. The Architecture as a Fine Art

211

other arts had to be squeezed under the mimetic umbrella. Batteux suggested that music and poetry (as well as dance) imitate the human passions – a connection that was less obvious and less precise than visual representations in painting and sculpture. He does not mention Pythagorean music theory as a conceptual link between nature and music. Although Batteux marginalized architecture as a hybrid art rather than a fully fledged fine art, he pointed to symmetry in natural creatures as a source of imitation for symmetry in buildings. He does not mention arithmetic or proportions as a conceptual link between nature and architecture. In the intellectual war between the ancients and the moderns that continued through the seventeenth century and into the eighteenth, imitation was associated more with the side of the ancients. Beneath the various mimetic arguments, the deeper motivation was to maintain contact with a universal, authoritative source, whether God, nature, or the ancients. Led by Charles Perrault, the fine arts would be associated instead with the side of the moderns. Kristeller refers to the fine arts as the “modern system of the arts” and locates their watershed in the middle of the eighteenth century. Imitation continued to be included in theories of the fine arts but there was a growing need for additional principles. Although imitation requires a human artist, it tends to emphasize two other elements: the authoritative source and the subsequent product or action. This would imply that the beholder is incidental – a notion incompatible with the concepts of human reason and sensation that the new modern sciences and philosophies were developing. The belief that understanding arises through memory, reason, and imagination gave human faculties a more central role to play and reframed the field on which all disciplines were played out.118 In the fine arts, the focal point for beauty shifted gradually from the aesthetic object to the eye (and ear) of the beholder.119 Earlier theories of the arts had been written mainly to develop an artist’s skills and knowledge of the discipline, whereas eighteenth-century theories were written more with the spectator in mind. Joseph Addison’s essays in The Spectator emphasized qualities such as grandeur and novelty that would make an impression on a beholder. One can imagine artists adapting to this new frame of reference: A painter might make a few marks on a canvas, then step back to consider the impression they make, turning the artist himself into a spectator of sorts.

212

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Instrumental Music and the Second Wave Kristeller’s essay on the fine arts ends around 1750. Although the basic membership and principles had been established, the entire eighteenth century was a long transitional period during which their premises were debated, supplemented, and modified. During the next fifty years they experienced a second wave of ideas that had been building during the first half of the century due to several factors: a diminishing belief in the imitation of nature; an awareness that ancient artifacts were not uniform and timeless but historically variable; a recognition of diverse concepts of beauty; and a growing emphasis on aesthetic perception. This second wave crested around 1800, led by an enormous rise in the status of instrumental music, which became the leading fine art and a model for the others to emulate.120 This development did not undermine the basic premises of the fine arts or question their core membership, but did alter some of their internal relationships. Kristeller does not discuss this redefinition of the fine arts but others do: in particular, M.H. Abrams,121 Carl Dahlhaus,122 and Lydia Goehr.123 Throughout most of the eighteenth century, instrumental music had been excluded from the fine arts. Music was considered a fine art only when it embellished poetic words, as Charles Perrault had noted in 1690. When music was performed without words, it was regarded merely as entertaining sounds or as accompaniment for social events or worship.124 “Originating in antiquity and never doubted until the seventeenth century … music, as Plato put it, consisted of harmonia, rhythmos, and logos. Harmonia meant regular, rationally systematized relationships among tones; rhythmos, the system of musical time, which in ancient times included dance and organized motion; and logos, language as the expression of human reason. Music without language was therefore reduced … a mere shadow of what music actually is.”125 Because instrumental music has little capacity for direct imitation – apart from occasional bird sounds and cannon fire126 – it did not meet the basic criterion for a fine art. Batteux permitted another option for both music and dance by suggesting that they imitate the human passions.127 He still had vocal music in mind, but could distinguish the words from the musical sounds that embellish them. However, the notion that instrumental music imitates the human passions eventually lost favour because it was

Architecture as a Fine Art

213

an imprecise form of language.128 The rise of instrumental music in the late eighteenth century was not based on the usual criteria – the imitation of nature, the imitation of the passions, or Pythagorean mathematics – but by changing circumstances in musical performances. As early as 1675, public halls had been built in London for instrumental concerts but were used also for other social events: masquerades, balls, dancing classes, dinners, club meetings, political meetings, card parties, lectures, dramatic readings, and auctions.129 In a novel published in 1778, the heroine comments, “There was an exceedingly good concert [at the Pantheon in London], but too much talking to hear it well. Indeed I am quite astonished to find how little music is attended to in silence; for though everybody seems to admire, hardly anybody listens.”130 At concerts where listening was more intent, audiences responded actively to the performance, demanding immediate encores of their favourite parts. The same practice occurred in theatres. The audience did not sit quietly in the dark. The first exclusive concert hall was the Gewandhaus (Garment house), established in Leipzig in 1781.131 This largely Protestant city in northern Germany was interested more in instrumental music than in opera. The Leipzig Concert Society had been established in 1743 and gave its first performances in private dwellings. For the next thirty years it performed concerts in a tavern, in a small room “the size of a middling sitting room, with a wooden scaffolding on one side for the players and a high wooden gallery on the other for spectators and listeners in boots, and devoid of powdered wigs.”132 In 1781, the success of this long-running weekly concert series prompted the mayor of Leipzig to establish a larger venue by renovating the upper floors of a meeting hall for cloth merchants into a five-hundred-seat concert hall. Its rectangular form, a “shoebox hall,” had good acoustics. A central aisle led to a raised platform at the far end, where the musicians performed. Seats were located along the sides of the room, with two groups of audience members facing each other. A similar layout was used in German churches at that time,133 suggesting an emphasis on the social gathering and not just the music, the liturgy, or the performers. Unlike the earlier concert rooms in London, the seats at the Gewandhaus were fixed, so the room could not be used for other types of events. The design and etiquette of the concert hall reinforced a certain concept of music and certain relationships among

214

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Gewandhaus in Leipzig in 1781; Johann Friedrich Dauthe, architect. Watercolour by Gottlob Theuerkauf, View of the Concert Hall in the Old Gewandhaus, with Musicians and Concertgoers (1895). Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Leipzig.

the figures involved.134 When music was organized in this way, it was no longer subordinate to other events. Theories about instrumental music followed these practical developments. In 1810, E.T.A. Hoffmann’s famous review of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony gave a major boost to the status of instrumental music. Only deep immersion into instrumental music, such as Beethoven’s, will result in a high degree of insight that is inseparable from true genius and that is nourished by the study of art. What instrumental work of Beethoven confirms this to a higher degree than his magnificent and profound Symphony in C-Minor. Irresistibly, this wonderful composition leads its listeners in an increasing climax towards the realm of the spirits and the infinite … Instrumental music, wherever it wants to only work through itself and not perhaps for a certain dramatic purpose, has to avoid all unimportant punning, all

Architecture as a Fine Art

215

dallying. It seeks out the deep mind for premonitions of joy that, more beautiful and wonderful than those of this limited world, have come to us from an unknown country, and spark an inner, wonderful flame in our chests, a higher expression than mere words – that are only of this earth – can spark.135 Hoffmann’s review was a rhetorical high point that advanced the causes of both instrumental music and Beethoven. However, by placing the appreciation of Beethoven’s music beyond language and beyond the temporal world, he was also turning his back on the Enlightenment and advancing the cause of Romanticism. “Romantic taste is rare, and even more rare is the romantic talent; this is probably why there are so few who can play the lyre whose sound opens up the wonderful realm of romanticism … Beethoven’s music moves the levers of fear, of shudder, of horror, of pain and thus awakens that infinite longing that is the essence of romanticism.”136 As Mark Evan Bonds notes, Hoffmann’s review was preceded by other German writings on instrumental music that anticipate Romanticism but have roots in Platonic idealism.137 Immanuel Kant in 1790 still regarded instrumental music as nothing more than pleasant sounds because, without words, its capacity to convey particular ideas is limited and it appeals only to the senses, not to reason.138 However, as Bonds notes, others who followed him saw it differently.139 They shifted attention away from music’s mimetic references and rhetorical capacity, focusing instead on the listener’s aesthetic perception and imagination. “The musical work was perceived no longer as an oration, but rather as an object of contemplation, a potential catalyst of revelation accessible to those who actively engaged the work by listening with creative imagination … Within the idealistic aesthetic, the power of any given artwork lies in its ability to reflect a higher ideal and in the beholder’s ability to perceive that ideal.”140 More than any other fine art, instrumental music could reflect a higher ideal because it was not anchored to lower ideals that are expressible in language. As Carl Dahlhaus notes, “If instrumental music had been a ‘pleasant noise’ beneath language to the common-sense estheticians of the eighteenth century, then the romantic metaphysics of art [in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century] declared it a language above language.”141 Unlike poetry and vocal music, instrumental music could speak directly to the soul, without being held back by ordinary language. A performance of instrumental music also was 216

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

ephemeral, with no physical matter to weigh it down. This set it apart from painting, sculpture, and architecture. Of course, not all instrumental music could transport a listener to a higher realm, so the composer’s role became more challenging. The earlier theory that music imitates human passions developed into a new theory that music imitates the passions of the particular composer. Consequently, the principle of imitation transformed gradually into the principle of expression.142 At the same time, around 1800, a new philosophical premise emerged: the concept of “the musical work” (das musikalische Werk) and the allied concept of “fidelity to the work” (die Werktreue). As Carl Dahlhaus and Lydia Goehr have shown, this abstract concept established a new network of relationships that encompass various elements of practice, including the composer, the performer, the listener, the sound, the score, and the performance. Individual performances became merely instances of an ideal “musical work.” Once the musical work had been established, even the composer became somewhat distanced and could not change it. The listener was expected to seek the musical work through the performance. This required a certain type of listening, without distractions and with intense aesthetic attention. In fact, the physical location of the performance eventually would be reduced to almost nothing by removing ambient light, sound, movement, and the noticeable presence of other people. These various changes enabled a listener to focus on that ideal realm beyond the physical location and the particular musical event. This tension between one’s physical location and a separate realm of contemplation was not entirely new. It had been anticipated by earlier concepts in fine arts other than instrumental music. For example, in 1719, Abbé Dubos had invoked Aristotle by comparing the experience of a real dramatic event to witnessing an imitation of it in fine art. The fine art experience was one step removed from lived reality and provided some distance that enabled the event to be contemplated with a degree of detachment. In A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful (1759), Edmund Burke describes a similar relationship in the concept of the sublime, which he distinguishes from the beautiful. He associates the beautiful with things that are small, smooth, and soft: a feminine metaphor that is encountered directly, here and now. The sublime, on the other hand, typically is associated with grand, dangerous, and/or terrifying things, such as wild oceans and treacherous cliffs: again, not when they are Architecture as a Fine Art

217

Thomas Gainsborough, Study of a man sketching and holding a Claude glass (ca. 1750). © The Trustees of the British Museum.

encountered directly, but when they are contemplated safely from a distance.143 The sublime plays on the tension between these two locations. The beholder’s body is situated in one place while the imagination is in another. A framed painting of a sublime scene sets up this relationship clearly. So does a poem. Representational arts are well suited to the sublime, but it is more challenging to achieve a similar detachment when immersed in a worldly setting. Tourists and painters in late eighteenth-century England who searched the countryside for the sublime had to look far and wide for scenes with qualities that resembled the landscape paintings they admired. Even then, the 218

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

scene usually would provide only a partial match, so certain features had to be masked or modified before the scene could be painted or described. The qualities of the scene also might be fleeting, due to changing cloud formations and light conditions. A response to this predicament was the invention of an optical device: the Claude glass, a black convex mirror made of polished stone or coated glass that aesthetic tourists took along on their expeditions.144 After discovering a promising scene, one would turn one’s back to it and look at its reflection in the distorted mirror. The particular characteristics of the mirror modified reality in several ways: Its blackness reduced the tonal range of the scene and turned daylight into twilight.145 It also emphasized general masses over subtle details. The convexity of the mirror increased the scene’s apparent depth and made familiar forms somewhat strange. It also reduced the broad vista of nature to a much smaller scene that could be taken in with a glance and represented on paper or canvas. The frame of the mirror separated the composition from its natural surroundings. Because the Claude glass was used in nature, the setting already was somewhat separate from ordinary life; the mirror encouraged additional detachment. When the Claude glass was used during daylight hours, it could freeze an apparent period of twilight long enough to draw or paint the scene. With its various perceptual distortions, the mirror helped viewers distance themselves from nature and imagine nature as fine art. It provided a virtual opening into another little world that the viewer could contemplate in a disinterested way. The Claude glass was used not only by painters but also by poets who wished to interpret these modified scenes in words. Assisted by the Claude glass, beholders could experience the sublime by framing and transforming the natural world. Audiences of instrumental music could experience the sublime in a different way. Following their lead, architecture was poised to elevate its own standing in the fine arts. Like instrumental music, it was not dependent on imitation or language. Like nature, it was large and worldly, but could be reframed to highlight its aesthetic qualities while masking its utility and construction. Earlier in the eighteenth century, when painting and poetry had been the leading fine arts, architecture’s status had been questionable, but eventually was consolidated in the Encyclopédie and by Laugier. The aesthetics of the sublime offered stellar prospects to architecture.

Architecture as a Fine Art

219

9 Boullée and the Fine Arts

The early ambition of Étienne-Louis Boullée (1728–99) was to become a painter, but he followed the advice of his father (an architect) by pursuing architecture. As a student of Jacques-François Blondel, he was only one step removed from the architectural theory of the Encyclopédie.1 In 1762, Boullée joined the Académie d’architecture and became actively involved in its various interests, including education, construction, administration, and public building.2 Political and economic circumstances in France limited his commissions to a few large houses.3

Boullée’s Sublime Drawings Boullée’s major contribution is the Essai sur l’art (Essay on Art), which includes a series of architectural drawings done from 1778 to 1788, plus an accompanying manuscript that was still being written when he died in 1799. The treatise includes projects with different origins: some were for a program and site that had been specified by a public authority; some moved a given program to a different site; some were speculative responses to an earlier program; and some were imaginary. The text includes his theory of architecture, descriptions of the projects, and additional notes on education and other topics. The treatise was deposited in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris after his death and remained unpublished until 1953. Boullée believed that the fine art of architecture was still in its infancy, and that the principles he had discovered would guide its development.4 An

obituary for Boullée noted his excitement about the prospects for architecture.5 In Essai sur l’art, Boullée states that architecture is essentially a fine art, and he addresses his treatise “to men who cultivate the arts.”6 Because the Enlightenment was so diverse, and because the concept of the fine arts was still being developed, no single architectural document can stand for the whole period, but Boullée’s treatise is a significant benchmark. Boullée is a transitional figure. As Alberto Pérez-Gómez notes, “His work represents the last possibility of an architecture of imitation in the sense of the original Greek mimesis, that is, as a metaphor of the a priori order of the world.”7 At the same time, Boullée relies on expressive theory to evoke his own perceptions in the beholder. He seeks not the beautiful but the sublime. Like Laugier, but in a different way, he also attempts to redefine architecture as only a fine art. To pursue the definition of architecture as a fine art, the following section interprets Essai sur l’art according to the template of terms from Chapter 1.

Elements of Practice in the Fine Arts 1 Sensations Étienne-Louis Boullée regarded architecture as a fine art and referred to the eighteenth century as “the century of the fine arts.”8 To him, “art” meant “fine art.” It did not retain the more general meaning of “skillful action” from the past two millennia. Although he refers to art “in the true sense of the word,”9 his concept of art is more modern than timeless. Boullée compares architecture to the four other fine arts and assumes that it should operate with the same basic principles and should aim for the same perfection. However, he complains that architecture has fallen behind: “It is certain that … there are nowhere near as many masterpieces in architecture as in the other arts … If architecture had acquired the perfection attained by the other arts, and if there were as beautiful examples, we would not today be reduced to trying to establish whether architecture has its source in nature or whether it is pure invention.”10 Discussing painting, he declares that both Michelangelo and Raphael had reached perfection.11 Referring to his own Cenotaph for Newton, he suggests that its combination of architecture and nature is more effective

Boullée and the Fine Arts

221

than painting in representing the majestic experience of a starry sky.12 Boullée mentions sculpture only in passing, as one of the arts that arouse admiration.13 Like Alberti, he suggests that individual arts can be more effective when they are combined: music and poetry in the theatre; painting and sculpture in architecture.14 Like Claude Perrault a century earlier, he notes that dissonant pitches in music produce obvious discord in the ear, while irregular proportions in architecture produce less discord in the eye.15 However, he disagrees with Perrault’s conclusion that architectural beauty is based on arbitrary custom, arguing instead that humans perceived harmony in music and harmony in architecture long before they discovered the simple numerical ratios associated with pitch intervals. Avoiding this numerical analogy between music and architecture, he proposes a different analogy based on natural sensations, in which an irregular composition of facade elements (like a rearranged, asymmetrical face) would be as disturbing as dissonant pitches in music. These examples of transgressions suggested that both music and architecture normally follow natural laws. This discussion of music is a key part of his larger argument about principles of architecture and the role of the beholder in the fine arts. Discussing written poetry, Boullée declares that Corneille and Racine had reached perfection.16 He also uses the phrase “the poetry of architecture” (la poésie de l’architecture) in a way that does not invoke the three traditional meanings: poetry in verse, poetry in other literary forms, and poie¯sis as human making.17 Instead, he presents a fourth meaning that originated in the seventeenth century and uses the word “poetry” figuratively to transfer positive attributes of written poetry to other arts.18 Boullée stresses that architecture is not the art of building. At the very beginning of his treatise he declares, “What is architecture? Shall I join Vitruvius in defining it as the art of building [l’art de bâtir]? Indeed, no, for there is a flagrant error in this definition. Vitruvius mistakes the effect for the cause.”19 Later he elaborates on this remark: “When Vitruvius’s commentator [Claude Perrault] defines architecture as the art of building, he is speaking like a workman, not an Artist well versed in his calling; it is as if a player of music compared his talent with that of the composer of the music … It is obvious that Vitruvius was familiar only with the [mechanical art] of architecture.”20 Although Boullée sets up an opposition between architec-

222

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

ture and building, elsewhere he refers to the “technical side” [la partie scientifique] and the “artistic side” [la partie de l’art] of architecture, as if they were different sides of the same coin.21 Having separated architecture from building, Boullée further separates the architect’s theoretical studies from the architect’s practical involvement with clients. He assumes that the client and the architect are in competition, motivated by different ideals, objectives, and priorities. Each wants a different building. In this competition, the architect is bound to lose: “He cannot listen to the voice of his genius but must descend to the level of those he must please.”22 Practice thus is portrayed as an unrewarding series of obstacles that prevents the architect’s genius from being manifested in the physical world and prevents the art of architecture from attaining perfection. Of the four types of architecture included in the Encyclopédie tree diagram, Boullée refers to only two: military architecture is for protection; civil architecture is for arousing sensations.23 To illustrate the difference, he refers to two properties of his city entrance project. Its military architecture protects the inhabitants of the city by erecting fortifications, but more important is its civil architecture, which uses composition to make the fortifications appear invincible to potential attackers.24 This emphasis on civil architecture places him firmly in the Imagination division of the Encyclopédie tree diagram. He adds that the fine arts should avoid the Reason division, which focuses on causes and not effects. “The only way that artists should communicate among themselves is by recalling forcefully and vividly what has aroused their sensibility; it is this [trait], which belongs to them alone, that will permit them to stimulate the fire of their genius. They should beware of entering into explanations which belong [too much] to the realm of reason … The best reasoning in the fine arts will never help to form Artists.”25 Boullée suggests that architectural concepts can be applied at a range of scales, from a rustic cabin to a plan for a large empire;26 however, as with poetry and painting, certain subjects are more favourable. He clearly favours “threshold” programs with dramatic tensions: between sacred and profane (temple), life and death (cenotaph), theatricality and ordinary life (opera, theatre, coliseum), safety and danger (city wall), freedom and incarceration (palace of justice), past and present (library), knowledge and ignorance (library). Housing projects, on the other hand, are “sterile” because they

Boullée and the Fine Arts

223

offer no potential to introduce the poetry of architecture, unless they are opulent.27 In architecture, Boullée seeks the same sensation of majesty that he finds in nature. His concept of nature seems more secular than Christian. He never says that nature was created by God, and he does not presume that nature once existed in a perfect primordial state.28 Nonetheless, like Laugier, Boullée seeks original principles that are timeless and undeviating: a solid foundation from which architecture can progress toward perfection.29 “I flattered myself that if I went back to the source of all the fine arts I should find new ideas and thus establish principles that would be all the more certain for having their source in nature.”30 Unlike Laugier, his principles are based on innate human sensations rather than on a primordial building form.31 Although he has some respect for the ancient architectural orders, he criticizes the Greeks for not going back to the origins and for not expressing the characters of their different programs. Presuming that both the technical and artistic sides of architecture are progressive, he declares that the first has progressed but the second has not. He blames its lack of progress on architects not imitating nature properly and not being given sufficient opportunity to study and develop their art outside the constraints of practical commissions.32 2 Translator Boullée regards the architect as a translator rather than as an artisan, an inventor, or a creator. He believes that natural principles are innate but must be revealed and translated into projects to guide the fine arts. He often uses the word “find” but still wants credit for his discoveries, such as “buried architecture” (l’architecture ensevelie), “architecture of shadows” (l’architecture des ombres), the puncturing of a dome to represent starlight, and the appropriate character for a coliseum.33 He declares that these discoveries belong to him and assumes that others will want to make use of them.34 Boullée dismisses inventors who design things based on arbitrary principles because they deal in fantasy, not natural origins, and therefore distract us from truths that could have been revealed. He includes Piranesi in this set.35 Instead, he advises the architect to become a “slave of nature.”36 Echoing the empiricist philosophies of John Locke and Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, he argues that all our ideas are based initially on sensations 224

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

received from nature.37 “The art of expressing these sensations, which derives from our sensibility, is the purpose of the fine arts. The way to study the fine arts is to exercise one’s sensibility.”38 Sensation is the architect’s initial inspiration and the reference against which the subsequent translation will be measured. When Boullée refers to “inspiration,” it comes from nature, not the Muses. Nonetheless, he accepts classical orders as a secondary precedent, “to respect their designs when they are good, but not to follow them slavishly.”39 In some projects he uses classical orders as a platform for much larger geometric figures, reflecting their relative importance. The classical elements also provide a recognizable human scale, in relation to which the geometric figures appear immense.40 Following the Encyclopédie’s attention to imagination and Laugier’s attention to origins, Boullée indicates that the imagination is where architectural projects originate: “Our earliest ancestors built their huts only when they had a picture of them in their minds. It is this product of the mind, this process of creation, that constitutes architecture.”41 This cosmogonic myth for architecture describes a primal situation in which only a few things are required: a mind, a process of creation, and an image that the mind produces. In this domain, architecture as a fine art, one can reach a high level of practice without knowing theory: “Artists can produce excellent works of art guided only by their sensibility, without any studies to determine the basic principles of their art.”42 However, in the historical world Boullée reverses the order and places building first: “It was necessary to study safe building methods before attempting to build attractively. And since the technical side is of paramount importance and consequently is the most essential, it was natural that this aspect should be dealt with first.”43 Boullée envies artists who are free to choose their subjects, unlike architects who have to satisfy clients. “How preferable is the fate of Painters and men of letters! They are free and independent; they can choose their subjects and follow the bent of their genius. Their reputation depends on no one but themselves.”44 Although Boullée sought commissions and developed speculative proposals that might be accepted, he was unable to build anything but private residences. However, he clearly enjoyed the opportunity to develop major projects without limits imposed by clients, finances, sites, and perhaps gravity. He says it is important for genius to spread its wings freely – another variation on Charles Batteux’s “taking flight” metaphor for the fine arts.45 Boullée and the Fine Arts

225

3 Resource In his more comprehensive treatise, Leon Battista Alberti situated himself in nature and devoted considerable attention to matters of site and health. Boullée, on the other hand, deals with this issue in a few sentences: “purge the land … of all malignant influences and so preserve the life of each individual … ensure plenty by setting aside all arable land.”46 Fine art assumes that everyone is settled and is healthy enough to proceed to the next level. Boullée regards the substance of nature as a rich, open resource for making buildings that evoke majestic sensations. Nature is the means for realizing his art: “[My] profession will make [me] master of these resources … to avail myself of all that nature [has] to offer … It is these gifts of nature that enable me to raise art to the sublime … By using all the means that nature puts at our disposal, we can achieve the apotheosis of art.”47 Occasionally he imagines a building and its setting working together to evoke a certain sensation. A building may crown a mountain top. Conversely, a field of flowers or an avenue of trees may provide an accessory to a building.48 Although he indicates that nature is his ultimate reference, he rarely mentions particular natural features or his own experience. In one notable exception that recalls how the Claude glass captures the sublime, he says, “I was in the country, on the edge of a wood in the moonlight. My shadow produced by the light caught my eye … Because of my particular mood, the image seemed to me of an extreme melancholy. The shadows of the trees etched on the ground made a most profound impression on me. My imagination exaggerated the scene, and thus I had a glimpse of all that is most sombre in nature … The mass of objects stood out in black against the extreme wanness of the light. [I] immediately began to wonder how to apply this, especially to architecture.”49 To remain focused on his primary objective, Boullée never discusses building construction or particular materials.50 Whenever brick or rusticated stone is represented in one of his drawings, its main purpose is to register a recognizable scale within a larger composition. Boullée regards light as a substance for composition. His drawings represent light, shade, and shadow in several ways. Given his emphasis on simple geometric figures (cones, pyramids, spheres, cubes), he introduces light obliquely from the left to show part of the volume illuminated and the rest in shade. Consequently, his “architecture of shadows” is really an archi226

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Étienne-Louis Boullée, Project for a museum (1783). Département des Estampes et de la photographie, Bibliothèque nationale de France.

tecture of shade. Most of his drawings are either elevations or perspectives with a low vanishing point, so no shadows are visible on the ground. Shadows appear only in elevations with relief, where projecting volumes cast shadows onto recessed surfaces. In several drawings a shadow is cast by a hidden source51 – perhaps a cloud or a nearby pyramid – but this tactic seems contrived when compared to the drawings in which volumes and light are represented methodically. 4 Beholder Like other Enlightenment figures, Boullée employs religious concepts but tries to avoid direct references to Christianity.52 He refers to temples rather than churches or cathedrals.53 When he introduces a Christian program for its impact on the beholder, he distances himself by referring to Christians in the third person: “the feast of Corpus Christi, celebrated by the Christians.”54 Instead, he seeks something quasi-religious: “I was searching for a means of arousing in men’s souls feelings in keeping with religious ceremonies.”55 Boullée stresses that a building should arouse a particular sensation that the architect discovered in nature and now has translated into a design, “so that the onlooker [le spectateur] experiences only those feelings that the subject should arouse.”56 He believes that illuminated volumes are the most effective means of translating this sensation. The characters of different volumes are universal, and all humans have an innate ability to recognize Boullée and the Fine Arts

227

them in a glance. “Volumes that drag on the ground make us sad; those that surge up into the heavens delight us … We find gentle volumes pleasant whereas those that are angular and hard we find repugnant.”57 He regards this language of volumes as a type of positive beauty that does not rely on universal proportions or general symmetry. Although these volumes come with a legacy of Euclidean geometry and Neoplatonic symbolism, his interest in them is based mainly on their memorable visual quality and their innate effect on us: “the power they have on our senses, their similarities to the human organism.”58 Boullée’s interest in sensation links him directly to Condillac’s Treatise on Sensations (1754), with its emphasis on subjective experience through the individual senses.59 Although his designs employ forms from Rome and elsewhere, he has abandoned mimesis as the imitation of ancient sources. He is still imitating nature, but now through a language of sensation. Because he discovered these sensations in nature and is passing them along to the beholder, his intentions can be understood as both imitation and expression. The design points to something universal, but also expresses something from the architect. Focusing on the beholder’s perception places Boullée’s theories firmly in the eighteenth century. This emphasis on beholding makes the experience of architecture equivalent to the experience of the other fine arts; the differences in their modes are incidental. Throughout the treatise his descriptions are written with an individual beholder in mind, suggesting that fine art is essentially a private experience. From the standpoint of the traditional liberal arts, Boullée’s model has shifted from the mathematical arts of the quadrivium toward the language arts of the trivium. It also associates architecture with poetry and music, as fine arts that are linguistic and rhetorical. As a form of rhetoric, his projects no longer are understood as decorum that clothes a patron’s building appropriately to perform its function in the world. Instead, they are expressions that enable a beholder to experience a sensation that the architect has embodied in a design.60 The beholder of Boullée’s projects is neither a user nor a citizen. His only descriptions of the practical use of a building are for projects intended for commission.61 Although most of his projects are for major public institutions, they are not driven by a particular social or political agenda. Like other

228

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Étienne-Louis Boullée, Cenotaph for Newton (1784), section through interior, with night effect; detail. Département des Estampes et de la photographie, Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Enlightenment figures, he wants humanity to progress, but his approach is through imagination, not social subjects rooted in reason. Judging from his descriptions, these buildings are mainly for observation, to evoke a sensation in the beholder’s soul. They are experienced primarily through sight. “Temple of death! The sight of you chills our hearts.”62 The other senses rarely are invoked. His descriptions typically follow a ritualized route from outside to inside: a series of experiences that lead gradually to a final revelation. Once there, the beholder is free to observe and contemplate. In exceptional cases the beholder can have an out-of-body experience and imagine heterocosmic conditions in which “the onlooker finds himself, as if by magic, floating in the air.”63 Although most of Boullée’s designs are intended to transmit strong sensations in a glance, in at least one situation – the Cenotaph for Newton – he encourages a prolonged, contemplative response from the beholder. “We see only a continuous surface which has neither beginning nor end and the more we look at it, the larger it appears. The form … keeps him at a sufficient distance to contribute to the illusion … He stands alone and his eyes can behold nothing but the immensity of the sky.”64 The interior of the

Boullée and the Fine Arts

229

cenotaph is contemplated disinterestedly, dissociated from its worldly circumstances and its author. Boullée is anticipating a new, idealistic role for the beholder: to imagine another world. 5 Exhibitor Boullée does not mention builders, except to say that architecture is not building – and therefore an architect is not a builder. He considers construction a secondary art, merely the scientific side of architecture.65 Although Alberti privileged disegno, he recognized construction as a necessary component of the architect’s practice. Boullée does not. He draws an even more decisive line between the architect and the builder. To Boullée, the most important stages in a project are designing and observing: the times when sensation is involved. Therefore, the builder is only a means that enables the design to be exhibited and then experienced by others as the architect intended. Boullée’s comment that the architect is to the builder as the composer is to the performer seems slightly ahead of his time because this split was not yet entirely evident in music.66 6 Monument Virtually all of Boullée’s drawings present the building as an individual figure rather than as part of an urban continuum.67 This individual figure then can become a finite subject of contemplation for the individual beholder. The limits of the building are reinforced by the close cropping of the drawing. The perimeters of Boullée’s drawings typically are just wide enough to suggest a neutral background, rather than a particular urban or natural setting. Only the projects for potential commissions show a particular site. Boullée refers to his projects most often as monuments. “I have said that Architects should make a point of incorporating Poetry in their architecture, above all when they have been commissioned to build a public monument.”68 “Monument” has various meanings that were current in the late eighteenth century. Boullée’s projects align with some, but not all: They do include structures in memory of the dead; they do perpetuate the memory of a quality or attribute; they do endure; they are imposing; and one project (the Cenotaph for Newton) commemorates a notable person, event,

230

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

or achievement. However, they do not mark sites of particular historical importance.69 The projects are more universal than particular. Arguably, this also applies to the cenotaph for Newton, who is a universal figure due to what he stands for, rather than a historical person associated with a particular event. As a monument, each project points to something beyond itself. Both Laugier and Boullée imagined mythical origins for architecture. Laugier’s was an abstraction of an ancient building, using branches harvested directly from nature. Boullée’s was even simpler in form, but its components and construction would require much more effort and skill from the builder: “I said to myself that the basis of architecture is a totally bare, unadorned wall.”70 Laugier’s primitive hut had a fixed form and dimensional limits but Boullée’s wall could be extended indefinitely in size and transformed into cylinders, cones, and spheres. He enjoys the sphere more than any other form: not for its symbolic meaning but for its smooth, flowing lines and its graduated lighting effects.71 The composition of each of Boullée’s projects uses a juxtaposition of two very different scales: a macro scale of simple but immense building volumes; and a micro scale of stairs, windows, doorways, crenellations, bricks, stone blocks, trees, and people. The beholder perceives the grandeur of a project by registering its larger, visual volumes in relation to its smaller, more tactile elements. Boullée acknowledges this compositional technique indirectly, by criticizing St Peter’s for appearing not colossal and grand, but merely gigantic because it does not include any elements at the smaller scale.72 In Alexander Baumgarten’s terms, everything that is represented in Boullée’s drawings is either a “true fiction” or a “heterocosmic fiction”; nothing is mutually inconsistent and therefore an impossible “utopian fiction.” Boullée’s references to the pyramids in Egypt and buildings in ancient Rome remind us that large buildings are well within the realm of human possibility. They just require skill and willingness. The enormous spans represented in some of his projects may not have been possible in his world but certainly would be conceivable in another world (such as our own).73 The same applies to the bright artificial light in one of the sections through the Cenotaph for Newton. It was not technically feasible in his day, but was required by the poetic logic and composition of the project. In fact, following Baumgarten, the other-worldly properties in Boullée’s projects help them qualify as fine art.74

Boullée and the Fine Arts

231

7 Impression Boullée often blurs the boundary between drawing and building. He occasionally uses graphic terms when referring to building elements: “I should use only low, sunken lines for the cenotaph.”75 In the exterior elevation of the Cenotaph for Newton, the base of the building is cut back with two arcs to suggest that the outline of the sphere extends into the lower half and therefore is as complete and freestanding as the spherical form inside. This continuous outline is clear in the exterior elevation drawing but would not be evident in the volumetric building. He says, “The artist should be less concerned with the outline than the impression it makes.”76 For architecture as a fine art, the drawing is not a thing in itself, to be admired as an object. Conversely, it is also not a means for constructing a building. Instead, it plays a role in aesthetic perception, by manifesting a sensation and making the same impression on the beholder.77 Although the first impression would require only a glance, the drawing might be sufficiently challenging to engage the beholder in a longer period of disinterested contemplation. The drawings include elements that normally move or change: clouds, light, trees, and human figures. While most architectural drawings present a timeless permanence, Boullée’s tend to represent a moment: perhaps when something important is revealed or is about to happen. In this sense, they evoke the sublime. Sometimes this significant moment is described in the accompanying text rather than in the drawing.78 With Boullée distinguishing so decisively between architecture and building, the domain of the architect is the drawing. His remarks about building commissions indicate that he would like his projects to be built, but his architecture is not diminished if that is not possible, as it has been conceived primarily as a fine art. 8 Heterocosm As in other eighteenth-century works of fine art, concepts of sensation, taste, beauty, and imitation are evident throughout the Essai sur l’art. Their theories guide the architect in observing nature and making things. They also help the beholder perceive aesthetically. Still, they seem more like a means than an end. If there is a governing concept that organizes these 232

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

various features of Boullée‘s work, it may be Baumgarten’s concept of “heterocosmic fiction.” Some of Boullée’s projects are rhetorical efforts to obtain commissions, so they appeal to the self-interests of clients. Most of the projects, however, are not linked directly to the here-and-now but instead are subjects for disinterested contemplation: “stepping stones” to another world of some kind. Certain features of these projects are “true fictions” that could exist, but other features are “heterocosmic fictions” that can be imagined but cannot be mapped onto the existing world. They encounter resistance from one or more worldly circumstances: physical, material, structural, symbolic, visible, social, political, economic, or religious. By provoking the beholder with a strong volumetric sensation, the drawings illustrate Boullée’s approach to architecture as a fine art. The architect’s ambitions are not compromised by either the client’s demands or the builder’s practices. As works of fine art, they must be “inflated” by the disinterested beholder to enable this “other world” to exist.

Framing Architecture as Only a Fine Art Heterocosmic Fiction Alexander Baumgarten was the first to examine the cognitive relation between a poet and a poem. He said that a poem is generated from three sets of elements: sensate representations, their interrelationships, and words as their signs.79 The poem is made in a sequential way: the world provides material for the senses; the poet selects and separates sensory perceptions, then “confuses” a sensory perception and a concept by combining them in the imagination. He invokes the mimetic tradition by stating that poems imitate nature through their reference to the real world.80 Baumgarten declared that a poem can represent three types of situations: “true fictions” (things that are possible in the real world); heterocosmic fictions (things that are impossible in the real world but are still conceivable); and utopian fictions (things that are mutually inconsistent and therefore cannot be conceived in any possible world). The first two can be poetic; the third cannot.81 He draws a line at the limits of the heterocosmic. The poem later is apprehended by a listener or reader, who uses imagination to map it back onto the real world, which in turn is challenged by the poem’s unfamiliar heterocosmic fictions. “Since in the case of heterocosmic Boullée and the Fine Arts

233

fictions many things can be presumed to enter the stream of thought of many listeners or readers – things which are not sense impressions or images or fictions or true fictions – they can be presumed wonderful. Therefore, in this case, much confused recognition, if it occurs, represents in the most poetic way a mingling of the familiar with the unfamiliar … The tale of Troy is another example of a well-known heterocosmic fiction.”82 Baumgarten suggests that both true fictions and heterocosmic fictions are necessary in a poem.83 If a poem were limited to true fictions, it would not be poetic. When Baumgarten coins the word “aesthetic” at the end of his thesis, it is framed as the relation between a beholder and an object. He associates it with perception rather than an object.84 This is a reminder that the phrase “aesthetically perceived object” is more precise than “aesthetic object” because a beholder is needed. Baumgarten discusses only poetry, but other theorists in the mid-eighteenth century showed that his philosophical principles could apply equally to the other fine arts.85 With instrumental music now leading the fine arts in the late eighteenth century, it can serve as an additional test of Baumgarten’s heterocosmic model. Baumgarten’s main example was representational poetry, in which one’s imagination engages the world in a quasi-bodily way. Representational paintings, especially perspectives, provide a similar bodily invitation, as do Boullée’s drawings, many of which are quite large and enveloping.86 However, the issue of representation in instrumental music is problematic. Peter Kivy, for example, rejects the notion that absolute music represents anything: whether emotions, fictional worlds, or itself.87 His main example of a fictional world is the literary novel, which invites the reader to become an invisible spectator inside the world it represents. Instrumental music clearly does not offer the same type of bodily involvement; however, other theorists have shown that instrumental music indeed is understood through perceptual analogues that are bodily, spatial, and temporal.88 Even the familiar notion that music is moving, playing, or transforming suggests a domain next door where something is happening. Non-representational painting and poetry challenge Baumgarten’s heterocosmic model in similar ways. Kivy rescues the heterocosmic model philosophically by distinguishing between two types of heterocosm: “Absolute music gives us the world of the work without the world of the world. What I am suggesting is that in the contentful [representational] arts our thought processes work both in the world of the work and in the world of the world, whereas in absolute music 234

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

our thought processes, at least ideally, are at play in the world of the work alone.”89 Kivy’s distinction between these two types of worlds is a helpful addendum to Baumgarten’s concept of heterocosmic fiction. It shows that instrumental music is solidly present in at least one of those other worlds. It also suggests that Boullée’s architectural drawings are heterocosmic in both. Disinterested Contemplation M.H. Abrams refers to Baumgarten’s heterocosmic model in conjunction with a “contemplation model” evident in writings by Shaftesbury, Addison, and others. He suggests that these two models provide a pair of keys to understand aesthetic perception and therefore the fine arts since the eighteenth century. He says that they continued to develop through the nineteenth and early twentieth century, then became the dominant modes of fine art criticism in the 1920s and have remained steady since then.90 The contemplation model is characterized by an attitude of “disinterestedness,” in which the observer contemplates an object or performance purely as a thing in itself. The precedent here is a religious one: the Earl of Shaftesbury says that one should contemplate God disinterestedly, without self-interest, and that one should contemplate something beautiful in the same way.91 In disinterested contemplation, the object of one’s attention does not “improve” the observer by providing worldly information or a moral lesson. Conversely, the observer has no self-interest in understanding, analyzing, classifying, using, owning, or judging the object. Nevertheless, the aesthetic observer is intensely interested in the object for its own sake. The observer is disinterested, not uninterested. This contemplation model differs substantially from the medieval contemplation model (discussed in Chapter 4), in which the anagogical process of contemplating a series of religious texts or objects helps one ascend toward God. In the fine arts, an object or performance instead evokes an autonomous little world for its own sake: “Its nature is to be not a part, nor yet a copy, of the real world (as we commonly understand that phrase) but to be a world by itself, independent, complete, autonomous; and to possess it fully you must enter that world, conform to its laws, and ignore for the time the beliefs, aims, and particular conditions which belong to you in the other world of reality.”92 Jerome Stolnitz traces the history and theory of disinterested contemplation and regards it as the perceptual condition on which the fine arts are based.93 Boullée and the Fine Arts

235

He refers to a series of British theorists in the eighteenth century – Shaftesbury, Addison, Edmund Burke, and Archibald Alison – and a culminating presentation by Immanuel Kant. Shaftesbury describes disinterestedness in a religious way, saying that a virtuous man loves God without expecting anything in return; conversely, he also does not engage in altruism.94 Shaftesbury later shifts to natural subjects, such as the ocean, that one can contemplate without wishing to use or possess them. From there, he considers mathematics as an independent order with its own intrinsic beauty. He also recognizes that we receive pleasure from music, but suggests that this pleasure is secondary, and that we listen to music primarily to contemplate its intrinsic order, similar to mathematics. He regards things made by humans as the lowest type of beauty and does not delve deeply into the other fine arts. Shaftesbury’s philosophical frame of reference is Platonic, suggesting that his disinterested perception seeks an ideal realm and descends only as far as the mathematical liberal arts. He values truth in architecture, music, poetry, and painting – not as direct imitations of reality but as idealized versions with proportions and compositions that draw truth out of nature.95 He acknowledges that these arts provide pleasure, appeal to the passions, provide moral lessons, and enable one to exercise taste, but to him these attributes are less important than what can be recognized through disinterested contemplation.96 Because an object can be perceived in various self-interested ways (understanding, analyzing, classifying, using, owning, judging, etc.), contemplating it disinterestedly requires a suspension of those intentions. A product of any art can be used in some way, if only to decorate a setting or accompany an event, but its potential for utility does not preclude it being perceived aesthetically. Batteux, however, believed that utility does prevent architecture and eloquence from qualifying as fine arts, and therefore placed them in a hybrid classification. On the other hand, Diderot and d’Alembert treated civil architecture as a full member of the fine arts. To do this, they extracted building construction, called it “practical architecture,” and moved it into a separate epistemological division. However, issues of utility remained part of civil architecture in their fine arts division. Utility was not associated with the material categories in which practical architecture resides. Following Charles Perrault and Joseph Addison, Diderot and d’Alembert apparently believed that (civil) architecture qualifies as a full member of the 236

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

fine arts because a beholder can disregard utility and construction, then perceive a building in a purely aesthetic way. Of course, to contemplate a building disinterestedly, we cannot consider how it is organized or why. We cannot analyze the process with which it was built. We cannot compare it to other buildings. We cannot imagine furnishing it or living in it. We cannot imagine owning it and showing it off to others. We cannot criticize its design. Conversely, the building cannot present us with a moral lesson on what to build or how to live. When all of these familiar forms of self-interest are suspended, the beholder might perceive a building initially as a composition of illuminated volumes, as Boullée intended, or as some other type of composition that includes masses, spaces, planes, edges, openings, colours, motions, framed surroundings, light, etc. Room names and other labels would be removed. The building also would be disengaged from the reality of its location – climate, terrain, social networks, etc. – and perceived as if it were floating on a neutral background. As soon as this decontextualized state of perception has been reached, disinterested contemplation can begin. One premise of contemplation is that, unlike sensation, it cannot be done in a glance; an extended period of time is required. To Hugh of St Victor, contemplation required a methodical series of steps over time to appreciate a wide range of natural qualities – and potentially to ascend to a divine level. Aesthetic contemplation in the eighteenth century was not described so methodically and prescriptively. Aesthetic observers were largely on their own, guided by only a few precepts: Shaftesbury suggested that several levels of beauty exist; Addison provided some tips on how to use the senses and which general qualities to seek; Baumgarten distinguished different types of fiction; and Burke distinguished the beautiful from the sublime. However, these theories provided only some rough guidelines for navigation – and no ultimate destination. Therefore, the disinterested contemplation of the fine arts, including architecture, remained quite open. No one believed that it could be mapped as comprehensively as Hugh of St Victor’s contemplative ascent to the divine. In architecture there were a few aesthetic guidelines for beholders. In 1745, Germain Boffrand advised paying attention to the aesthetic impressions made by different classical orders and proportions, as well as the general character projected by a building, especially through its straight, concave, and convex lines.97 In 1753, Laugier suggested looking for good Boullée and the Fine Arts

237

building elements that recall his primitive hut, while disregarding bad building elements that do not. In 1780, Nicolas Le Camus de Mézières suggested paying attention to room proportions, ornamentation, and spatial sequence to consider the particular sensation they produce: agreeable, serious, mysterious, gloomy, etc.98 In the 1790s, Boullée offered tips on aesthetic perception and advised against focusing too much on numerical proportions.99 Some of these recommendations suggest self-interest in the building’s patrons, use, or setting, but most of them focus on features that promote aesthetic perception and disinterested contemplation. Suppressing the facts of the building – where and when it was built, who designed it, for whom, for what purpose, how it was built, and what makes it stand up – would help an aesthetic beholder focus instead on the building’s “true fictions”: its elements, forms, spaces, and materials. To pursue Baumgarten’s heterocosmic fictions, however, would require a more imaginative approach in which the beholder is free to recognize different properties of those elements, forms, spaces, and materials: alternate interpretations of where they came from, what they are doing, and what they want to be. Bricks may spring into arches, planes may speak to other planes, walls may turn corners, cladding may wrap, stairways may ascend, floor slabs may float, openings may puncture, colours may jump out, roofs may soar, and landscapes may be borrowed.100 The building may defy gravity or laws of physics, appearing to be suspended from the sky or supported by elements that are impossibly thin. In this other world, where the design makes perfect sense, these alternate physical actions and forces could be reinforced by alternate circumstances: different furnishings, different inhabitants, different rituals, and a different location and climate, all of which would suit the design perfectly. As a set, these alternate readings of the building would constitute a “world of the work”: a convincing heterocosmic fiction generated through disinterested contemplation.101 Institutions for the Fine Arts To contemplate architecture disinterestedly requires that many real circumstances be masked. The other fine arts – painting, sculpture, poetry, and music – can be contemplated in similar ways but require less masking. In the late eighteenth century, various mechanisms and institutions were

238

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

developed to mask real-world surroundings and highlight works of art for appreciation by beholders. They did for the fine arts what the Claude glass did for nature. A painting already has a boundary between its internal realm and its physical location. This edge may be reinforced by a suitable frame.102 A painting that utilizes perspective or some other geometry of depth opens up a virtual space beyond its surface, distinguishing the painting even further from its surroundings. Until the late eighteenth century, paintings and sculptures generally were installed in particular social settings.103 The first art museums then began to place paintings and sculptures in a more exclusive context, where they became the primary focus.104 Later, museum etiquette introduced silence and slow motion to avoid distracting the beholder. In music, a composition already has a beginning and an end that establish its limits amidst the ambient sounds of its surroundings. These edges may be reinforced by applause, which is not only a sign of appreciation but also a collective entry and exit rite that reinforces those limits. Until the late eighteenth century, musical performances contributed to social events of various kinds and their performers were associated with the mechanical arts: “Public performances of music by instrumentalists … originated as part of tavern life, and the performers were accorded a status parallel to that of a barmaid.”105 In the Leipzig Gewandhaus and subsequent concert halls, music was dissociated from its ordinary surroundings and became a primary focus in its own right. Again, concert hall etiquette promoted disinterested contemplation. Book covers establish obvious physical limits for poetry and literature. In the early eighteenth century a new type of literature, the novel, appeared in England and France and became extremely popular. It was a self-contained fiction that one could read privately as a pleasant diversion, rather than for moral or technical instruction. According to M.H. Abrams,“In 1710 the term belles lettres was imported from France to signify those literary works that were not doctrinal or utilitarian or instructional, but simply appealed to taste, as writings to be read for pleasure. In the course of time belles lettres became simply ‘literature’ and replaced the earlier generic term poetry.”106 However, the popular novel was not yet fine art. In the late eighteenth century Friedrich Schiller established the first journal of literary criticism, Die Horen (The hours).107 As editor, Schiller authorized certain works as fine art,

Boullée and the Fine Arts

239

worthy of being contemplated aesthetically. Literary criticism not only directed readers toward significant literary works but also provided guidance on how they should be read.108 The fifth fine art, architecture, is a more challenging case, especially because built architecture is immersed in ordinary life and is expected to provide appropriate decorum for individuals and institutions. As museums for paintings and sculptures were prime examples of a fine art institution, museums for architecture are an obvious place to start.109 Werner Szambien traces their roots to the 1770s, motivated by an interest in archeology and ruins. In France, building fragments, models, plaster casts, and drawings were assembled into small collections within larger institutions such as the Louvre and the Académie d’architecture.110 However, these diverse collections promoted self-interested agendas – didactic displays for reference and imitation; historical or national classifications; narratives of cultural development; etc. – rather than disinterested contemplation.111 M.H. Abrams takes a different approach, suggesting that architectural tourism was the institution that reinforced the fine art status of architecture.112 He refers specifically to the thousands of eighteenth-century tourists who visited country houses in England each year. However, historical studies of country house visiting in England indicate that visitors were not really contemplating architecture in a disinterested way. They might admire the house briefly, but then focus on the house’s contents.113 They were intensely interested in the lives and possessions of the people who lived there. Without an architectural Claude glass to abstract this domestic landscape, a beholder would have to suppress curiosity and suspend critical judgment to be able to contemplate its architecture disinterestedly. With neither the architectural museum nor architectural tourism framing architecture convincingly as a fine art, an alternative is to consider a wider range of more subtle devices, including some that developed after the eighteenth century. One approach to architectural framing was borrowed from literary criticism, by authorizing certain architectural works as fine art and distinguishing them from all other buildings.114 Unfortunately, because built architectural works remain in their worldly settings rather than being brought to a central location and designated formally as fine art, someone who is unaware of the esoteric canon would be hard pressed to identify which buildings are worthy of aesthetic contemplation.115

240

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

A second approach has used a dual strategy of separation and masking to present architecture as a fine art.116 Laugier’s theory distinguished architectural elements from non-architectural elements in the same building, then encouraged the beholder to focus only on the architectural set. Boullée highlighted certain characteristics as architectural and dismissed the rest. All architectural presentation drawings do the same. A guided tour of a building can use words and gestures selectively to highlight certain features and suppress everything else, as can a carefully written guidebook.117 Later, photography would apply principles of the Claude glass to select, isolate, and distort architectural features.118 The photograph, as an architectural surrogate, then could be contemplated separately from the building. Architectural publications, exhibitions, and lectures have continued in this vein. In each case, the building is separated into two parts: the architecture “takes flight” while the rest of the building remains grounded. A third approach uses a strategy of association to present architecture as a fine art. Carefully selected furnishings, figures, clothing, and activities are brought to a building to reinforce its design and present a more complete fiction. Such items might be added temporarily for photography or might remain in place. In an architectural Gesamtkunstwerk, a comprehensive set of elements tends to promote an ethic on how to live, rather than just an aesthetic for contemplation.119 A similar approach can be used in renovations and additions, where certain fine art features of an existing building are emulated so that the amended version is consistent with the original design.120 Like the principle of die Werktreue in music, this is an example of “fidelity to the work.”121 Although there has been no principal institution for framing architecture as a fine art, the strategies mentioned above show how this was accomplished in various ways. However, it should be noted that all of these presentations of architecture are susceptible to the self-interested agenda of an external authority – a designer, a curator, a critic, etc. – rather than simply clearing a space for disinterested contemplation by a beholder. The conceptual and physical devices for perceiving architecture as only a fine art required competing concepts to be suppressed. This is illustrated by the different divisions in the tree diagrams of the Encyclopédie, where four types of architecture were located. Clearly, architecture in the eighteenth century was understood not only as a fine art in the Imagination division,

Boullée and the Fine Arts

241

alongside painting, sculpture, poetry, and music.122 When conceived in other ways, it would be allied with different disciplines. When emphasis was placed on the divisions of Memory and Reason rather than Imagination, the aesthetic beholder would be far less important. One such example is Jacques-François Blondel, whose Encyclopédie articles (1751–57) and Cours d’architecture (1771–77) present architecture as a comprehensive, ethical practice. He did not adhere to the divisions that Diderot and d’Alembert had set up.123 In practice, he recommended that paintings and sculptures be integrated with a building project, and that gardening be added to make the set even more comprehensive.124 However, Blondel did not regard painting, sculpture, architecture, and gardening as theoretically analogous; they simply worked well together.

Faith in the Fine Arts The fine arts in the early eighteenth century had been associated with the Moderns, whose efforts had consolidated the fine arts by mid-century. The second wave altered this Enlightenment trajectory and would lead to the more diverse, more complex, and less progressive dynamics of Romanticism in the nineteenth century. Along the way, architecture and the other fine arts – especially instrumental music – would become understood as expressions of quasi-religious faith that communicate directly to the soul of an individual beholder. Isaiah Berlin traces Romanticism back to a religious movement, called Pietism by its detractors, that developed in Prussia in 1675 around the writings of a Lutheran preacher, Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705).125 Although Pietism remained a marginal movement, some significant eighteenthcentury figures were raised in a Pietist community, including Georg Friedrich Händel, Alexander Baumgarten, and Immanuel Kant.126 In Pia desideria (Pious desires), Spener points out defects in the Lutheran church, declares that there is still hope, and proposes six practical remedies.127 He promotes solitary, family, and lay readings of the Bible, to savour the word of God as directly as possible. “Our whole Christian religion consists of the inner man or the new man, whose soul is faith and whose expressions are the fruits of life, and all sermons should be aimed at this … It is not enough that we hear the Word with our outward ear, but we must let it penetrate to our heart.”128 242

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

The inner man must not be distracted by external trappings, including buildings: “Nor, again, is it enough to worship God in an external temple, but the inner man worships God best in his own temple.”129 Spener advocates removing institutional formalities that separate the inner man from the scriptures. He is wary of preachers, whose reputation and rhetoric can distract a listener: “The pulpit is not the place for an ostentatious display of one’s skill. It is rather the place to preach the Word of the Lord plainly but powerfully.”130 Instead, he recommends distributing the spiritual functions of the church among its parishioners.131 To confirm that the scriptures are being understood, he focuses not on the speaker but on what the listener perceives. Spener’s successor, August Hermann Francke (1663–1727), went even further: “Alas I say to you, all erudition is vanity and folly … No people are more subject to the fetters of Satan than those who study.”132 Although one of Pietism’s core principles was to address its opponents sympathetically, Pietists at the University of Halle in the 1720s campaigned against Christian Wolff, a former student of Leibniz and a professor of mathematics, physics, and philosophy at the university. They succeeded in convincing the king to ban him from Prussia.133 Pietists carried their beliefs about the Bible and personal communication to other non-religious situations. Friedrich Christoph Oetinger (1702–82) opposed Enlightenment science in favour of a Christian approach that relied strictly on the senses, unaided by telescopes and microscopes, which he called the phenomenological method.134 Johann Georg Hamann, a lifelong friend of Kant, proposed that God is a poet who speaks not only through nature but also through human creations.135 Therefore, human creations are both finite and infinite. As unique, personal acts, they are situated in a particular place and time but also invoke the divine. They cannot be understood using principles that are valid only in the natural sciences. By declaring that some things in the world are unknowable to humans, Hamann rejected a basic principle of the Enlightenment.136 Like Hamann and Giambattista Vico, Johann Gottfried von Herder believed that a work of art is an expression by a particular person, addressed to other particular persons. “When we appreciate a work of art, we are put in some kind of contact with the man who made it, and it speaks to us.”137 To understand the work, one must interpret the intention of the maker, the object’s effect on the soul of the receiver, and the bond that exists between them. Each Boullée and the Fine Arts

243

created object thus is a form of communication. Herder believed that one can understand a work of art made by someone in another culture, but only through an enormous effort of the imagination that reconstructs all of the circumstances and ideals of that other life.138 Isaiah Berlin regards Hamann, Herder, and Vico as the three most influential opponents of the Enlightenment.139 All three distinguished the humanities from the natural sciences and showed that these two epistemological domains rely on different principles and seek different goals. The confrontation between Pietism and the Enlightenment during the Christian Wolff episode in the 1720s could be interpreted simply as a case of “religion vs. science” or “sacred vs. secular,” but this would oversimplify the conflict. The Pietists’ reaction recalls their earlier opposition to the institutionalized practices of the Lutheran church, which was a “religion vs. religion” dispute. In each case, the Pietists opposed a practice they believed would privilege the intellect over the spirit, reason over revelation, the universal over the individual, or institutional authority over introspective faith. Conversely, the Enlightenment should not be oversimplified as a progressive, rational movement. According to Peter Gay, the Enlightenment was characterized more by criticism than by reason: “It was a political demand for the right to question everything, rather than the assertion that all could be known or mastered by rationality.”140 He also notes that the Enlightenment was populated by diverse characters whose efforts formed a loose harmony rather than a tight unison. In general, it was driven not by a single aim but by a duality: “As the Enlightenment saw it, the world was, and had always been divided between ascetic, superstitious enemies of the flesh, and men who affirmed life, the body, knowledge, and generosity; between mythmakers and realists, priests and philosophers … Hebrews and Hellenes … This dualist view of history, rather than the celebrated theory of progress, characterizes the mind of the Enlightenment. The theory of progress was a special case of this dualism; it gave formal expression to the hope that the alternations between Ages of Philosophy and Ages of Belief were not inescapable, that man was not forever trapped on the treadmill of historical cycles.”141 Most Enlightenment figures shared an intense opposition to Christian dogma and what they regarded as the rigid and repressive structure of the Catholic church, but this may be interpreted less as an opposition to reli-

244

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

gion itself than to institutions that restrict human freedom (liberté). In fact, they retained God under various pseudonyms: Supreme Being, Author of the Universe, Great Contriver, Prime Mover, and First Cause.142 They also retained Christian rituals in modified forms. As Peter Gay notes, “The most militant battle cry of the Enlightenment, écrasez l’infâme [crush the infamous] was directed against Christianity itself, against Christian dogma in all its forms, Christian institutions, Christian ethics, and the Christian view of man, but the philosophes had been born into a Christian world and kept many of their Christian friends … Far from wholly discarding their Christian inheritance, they repressed, and retained, more than they knew.”143 Carl Becker is even more explicit, pointing to distant resemblances between the actions of Enlightenment figures in the eighteenth century and the actions of medieval Christians in the thirteenth century: If we examine the foundations of their faith, we find that at every turn the Philosophes betray their debt to medieval thought without being aware of it … They had put off the fear of God, but maintained a respectful attitude toward the Deity. They ridiculed the idea that the universe had been created in six days, but still believed it to be a beautifully articulated machine designed by the Supreme Being according to a rational plan as an abiding place for mankind … They renounced the authority of church and Bible, but exhibited a naive faith in the authority of nature and reason. They scorned metaphysics, but were proud to be called philosophers. They dismantled heaven, somewhat prematurely it seems, since they retained their faith in the immortality of the soul … They denied that miracles ever happened, but believed in the perfectibility of the human race.144 Instead of characterizing the Enlightenment attitude as a loss of faith in Christianity that leads to non-religious secularism, Becker favours a different model that retains the notion of religion but frames it differently: “The essential articles of the religion of the Enlightenment may be stated thus: (1) man is not natively depraved [no original sin]; (2) the end of life is life itself, the good life on earth instead of the beatific life after death; (3) man is capable, guided solely by the light of reason and experience, of perfecting the good life on earth; and (4) the first and essential condition of the good life

Boullée and the Fine Arts

245

on earth is the freeing of men’s minds from the bonds of ignorance and superstition, and of their bodies from the arbitrary oppression of the constituted social authorities.”145 This “religion of humanity” bears striking similarities to Christianity: “The new religion had its dogmas, the sacred principles of the Revolution – Liberté et sainte égalité. It had its form of worship, an adaptation of Catholic ceremonial, which was elaborated in connection with the civic fêtes. It had its saints, the heroes and martyrs of liberty. It was sustained by an emotional impulse, a mystical faith in humanity, in the ultimate regeneration of the human race.”146 Still, some differences should be acknowledged. The Enlightenment’s attention to origins and progress aligns in a general way with the Christian trajectory from paradise to apocalypse; however, Christian dogma points to a single, fixed origin whereas the Enlightenment points to multiple origins that are still speculative. In architecture, Batteux’s cave, Laugier’s primitive hut, and Boullée’s innate volumes are three options that were still in play. Christian dogma anticipates a transcendent destination, whereas the Enlightenment pursues progress without an endpoint. Laugier and Boullée stated that perfection should be sought, but they provided only rough guidelines for a trajectory. The transcendent Christian model offers abundant rewards in the next world, whereas the immanent Enlightenment model expects fewer rewards – but they are tangible and they arrive sooner. In The Roots of Romanticism, Isaiah Berlin develops a convincing argument that Pietism contributed to the development of nineteenth-century Romanticism. The intervening period, what Boullée called “the century of the fine arts,” displayed various amalgamations of art and religion. Floating with Beethoven on the second wave in the year 1800, we can look back at the development of the fine arts (including architecture) during the previous century and identify concepts that are implicitly or explicitly religious. Shaftesbury’s three-level hierarchy of beautiful forms links God’s creations to mathematically ordered human inventions. Addison considers the Supreme Author to be the final cause of everything that is vast, novel, or beautiful. His examples of architecture include some that are mentioned in the Bible and some that are not. Baumgarten coined the term “aesthetic” and associated it with the contemplation of heterocosmic fictions: perhaps a fine art equivalent to the Pietist act of reading the Bible to oneself. In the Encyclopédie, the liberal arts, which were attributed originally to divine revelation, are replaced surreptitiously by the fine arts. Diderot describes 246

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Imagination, the division where the fine arts are situated, as a gift from God. Laugier, a Jesuit with a passion for architecture as a fine art, imagines the first building in a primordial Eden. Boullée refers to Newton as a Divine Being and describes his cenotaph as a heaven that can magically elevate architectural observers. Toward the end of the century, various institutions remove the fine arts from their utilitarian domains and place them in contemplative domains where their heterocosmic fictions can be experienced. Together, these examples illustrate Becker’s general observation about the presence of religious faith in the Enlightenment: “In a very real sense it may be said of the eighteenth century that it was an age of faith as well as of reason, and of the thirteenth century that it was an age of reason as well as of faith.”147 Diderot and d’Alembert reserved an entire division for Imagination, separate from other disciplines. Here it could pursue its own initiatives, relying on the others for support but not being constrained by them. Conversely, the other disciplines could rely on memory and pursue reason, without interference from faith. “Hence it became the task of the critical philosopher to keep poetry from contaminating philosophy, to enjoy pleasing fictions without taking them for truths.”148 Compared to other disciplines that developed incrementally, the fine arts in the eighteenth century were speculative ventures based on faith. They relied less on ancient authority. Both Laugier and Boullée believed that architecture was just beginning and they had high expectations for it. Heterocosmic fictions in the fine arts could fall flat, but also could open up new horizons for humanity. Batteux’s comment that eloquence and architecture can “take flight” led to a recurring aviation metaphor that associated architecture with birds, skies, and heavens – and well-designed sails that accelerate the entire epistemological vessel.149 But Laugier and Boullée were not content with pleasant aesthetic diversions. To help architecture “take flight,” they separated it into earthbound and airborne parts, then referred to only the airborne part as “architecture.”

Boullée and the Fine Arts

247

10 Conclusion

Having completed our journey through these four historical definitions of architecture, we can reflect on some of their benchmarks and draw some comparisons before returning to the present. The elements of practice in ancient Greek techne¯ were quite different from our current conventions, despite the etymological trail that links techne¯ to modern technique and technology. Techne¯ relied on a chain of human ancestors and was largely conservative. Artisans did not seek innovation or self-expression; instead, they transformed natural substance into well crafted objects and actions that would extend the normal limits of a patron’s abilities. The role of an architekton (chief builder) was comparable to that of a tekton (builder in wood or stone). Both worked on-site, drawing from ancestral experience to make things that would be perfect and “deathless.” Practitioners of techne¯ in archaic and early classical Greece were not involved directly in theory; that was someone else’s job. Philological clues in ancient Greece point to a watershed in the fourth century bce, when Plato conceived a new role for techne¯ within a larger epistemological framework. Techne- became subordinate to a higher realm of forms that retroactively installed ideal models for artisans to imitate. When the Romans, including Vitruvius, brought this way of thinking to building, they devised an ideal realm of first principles. They also coined a new word: architectura. Recognizing that the Western concept of architecture has an identifiable beginning and is associated with first principles, theoretical knowledge, individual authorship, and ideal forms – but not the techne¯ properties they supplant – suggests that the discipline of “architecture” is historically finite and is but one phase in a longer, more universal history.

In the techne¯ tradition, ancient Greece regarded certain crafts more highly for their intellectual virtues and their potential to contribute to the common good. Seven subjects – arithmetic, astronomy, dialectic, geometry, grammar, music theory, and rhetoric – were identified in Hellenistic Greece and ancient Rome as “liberal arts” that an educated citizen should know. At the opposite end of the scale were “vulgar arts” that included building. For two thousand years the liberal arts would become the primary epistemological framework for philosophers, theologians, and educators. Occasionally someone dared to propose different criteria or to nominate a certain art for inclusion or exclusion, but with one brief exception – Varro, in ancient Rome – architecture was never included in the liberal arts. In the ninth century, Eriugena augmented the finite set of liberal arts by proposing a second classification: the mechanical arts. He named architecture as the first member of the group and reserved six places for other arts. In the twelfth century, Hugh of St Victor methodically filled in the seven mechanical arts, with architecture included as a subset of armament. Hugh’s Didascalicon described a Christian ambition for the mechanical arts: to compensate for the intrinsic weakness of humans in the temporal world and to help restore the primordial knowledge that humans had lost after the Fall. Hugh’s writings also suggest that a clear philosophical distinction can be made between two realms of medieval architecture: mechanical art and contemplative art. Italian humanists in the fourteenth century believed that their revival of ancient poetry and eloquence raised these subjects to the level of the three language-based liberal arts: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. By presenting their arguments to an educated public rather than to philosophers and theologians, they circumvented traditional channels of authority and opened the door to popular negotiation. Analogies between poetry and painting invited further arguments that painting should be added to the liberal arts, but only if a painter’s innate talent (ingenium) enabled a divine truth to become evident behind a painting’s sensory veil. Petrarch argued that sculpture should be added for the same reason, declaring that these two imitative arts arise from a single source: drawing. Cennini described drawing (disegno) in a more comprehensive way that encompassed both the imitation of nature and the invention of a new composition. To help raise his fellow citizens toward the standards of the ancients, Alberti presented comprehensive principles for several arts, including paintConclusion

249

ing, sculpture, and architecture. Without stating explicitly that these arts should be reclassified as liberal arts, he glorified the abilities of their practitioners to draw lineaments from nature or ancient precedents, to internalize these lineaments in the mind, and to use these lineaments responsibly in new compositions. Although disegno can be linked etymologically to our current word “design,” Alberti’s theoretical framework employed different elements and relationships. In the sixteenth century, Giorgio Vasari presented painting, sculpture, and architecture as siblings, fathered by disegno. All three were “arts of design” (arti del disegno) that continued to rely on the imitation of nature and ancient precedents. He glorified Michelangelo as a master who had reached perfection in all three arts, leaving nothing more to be accomplished in disegno. Fortunately, inventiveness (invenzione) was open-ended, so others still had something to do. The Accademia del Disegno in Florence was a practical test of Vasari’s theory that these three arts are equal members of the disegno family, but its architects eventually were marginalized and ousted. The concept of disegno was not strong enough to hold together the three arts in this academy of practitioners. Architecture’s separation from painting and sculpture indicated that it is not essentially a visual art. The fine arts (beaux-arts) classification originated in seventeenthcentury France and England, and developed throughout the eighteenth century as a quasi-religious project. To Charles Perrault in 1690, the fine arts were part of a larger epistemological effort to supplant the divinely inspired liberal arts and the servile mechanical arts. He described the fine arts as modern products of human work and genius. At the core of the fine arts were painting, sculpture, poetry, and music: no longer with drawing (disegno) as their common ground. The fine arts were formulated not for designers or makers but for aesthetic beholders who could taste things in a glance. As eighteenth-century writers weighed different criteria for defining the fine arts, marginal arts such as engraving, dance, eloquence, prose literature, architecture, and gardening were considered for membership. Around 1750, architecture was recognized decisively as the fifth fine art. Because a fine art had to privilege pleasure over utility, architecture was placed in an awkward position. This required an exceptional response, illustrated in the Encyclopédie: the discipline of architecture was divided into separate parts so that one part, powered by the human faculty of imagination, would be free to “take flight.” Laugier and Boullée carried this strategy a step further by 250

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

declaring that only this part is really architecture. Framing architecture as only a fine art required the facts of its location, its history, its construction, and its utility to be disregarded, so that its aesthetic qualities could be contemplated disinterestedly in a fictional, “heterocosmic” world where its design would make perfect sense. In the mid-twentieth century, Paul Oskar Kristeller noted that fine art concepts have continued to define the framework within which architecture and other arts are being pursued. This observation has been echoed by other theorists and philosophers. Although writings from the eighteenth century may sound somewhat foreign or remote to us, we still share an epistemological structure, despite occasional attempts to supplant parts of it.

Historical Elements of Practice The empty matrix in Chapter 1 included a template of current terms that was extended through the historical chapters. The corresponding historical terms were designated in Chapters 2, 4, 6, and 9 by numbered subheadings. When all of them are assembled, they fill in the matrix below. Because this matrix has been devised empirically in words rather than statistically in numbers, it can provide no hard scientific data; any comparisons would be metaphoric at best. However, it does illustrate a general architectural terrain in which major historical changes are evident in the discipline (row 1), its elements of practice (rows 2–7), and its governing concept (row 8).

Eight current terms and their historical counterparts.

Epistemological Classifications By themselves, classifications are artificial constructs. As Robert Kilwardby pointed out in the thirteenth century, there was no intrinsic reason to limit the mechanical arts to seven: “Mechanical arts could be distinguished in many various ways, and in many diverse numbers. For I see no other compelling reason why about so countless an array of arts we should number them precisely as seven, save for a certain superficial correspondence with the seven liberal arts.”1 The desire to situate the mechanical arts within a larger system provided a good extrinsic reason to limit the number to seven: the number of heavenly bodies, days of creation, notes on a scale, deadly sins, etc. Even more important was its correspondence to the seven liberal arts. Medieval analogy and number symbolism established authoritative structures within which concepts could be developed. If the number seven is already prescribed, one can move on to the next pair of questions: what to include in the set and why. The making of a classification is a practical way to think about epistemological grounds. Instead of arguing about abstract principles, one can select and organize disciplines, which are more tangible. Arguing about the members of a classification is also a practical way to challenge the grounds on which it is based. All classifications presume a belief that the world and our knowledge of it are organized rationally, whether by God, human faculties, molecular structures, or some other principle. To devise a rigorous classification, one proceeds on faith, as if the classification were absolute. This belief was evident in virtually all of the texts that were studied during the research for this book. They presume that the world is truthful and that classifications should correspond to it. Classifications were taken seriously as expressions of divine order and human knowledge, with consequences for practice and social standing. This was evident in Martianus Capella’s demand that architecture and medicine be expelled from the wedding of Philology and Mercury, as well as Leonardo da Vinci’s emotional appeal for painting to be recognized as a liberal art. As Robert Kilwardby’s comment suggests, the number of elements in a given category became less important during the late Middle Ages, but a more basic belief remained: that classifications are hierarchic and can be

252

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

mapped with a bifurcating line on a single plane.2 A hierarchy is a comprehensible structure in which “the one” is linked to “the many.”3 However, the intermediate categories between the one and the many can be tenuous and negotiable. Although the Encyclopédie employed the standard hierarchic structure, d’Alembert admitted that many different mappings could have been made. Thus one can create as many different systems of human knowledge as there are world maps having different projections, and each one of these systems might even have some particular advantage possessed by none of the others … In any case, of all of the encyclopedic trees, the one that offered the largest number of connections and relationships among the sciences would doubtless deserve preference. But can one flatter oneself into thinking it has been found? … Thus, the general division remains of necessity somewhat arbitrary … We have chosen a division which has appeared to us most nearly satisfactory for the encyclopedic arrangement of our knowledge and, at the same time, for its genealogical arrangement.4 Subjects that we now consider singular did not always reside in a single classification. In ancient Greece, music could be understood as a techne¯ for instrumental music, as a component of mousike¯ for inspired performances, and as a liberal art for its numerical properties. In Hugh of St Victor’s time, architecture could be understood as either a mechanical art or a contemplative art, depending on its religious purpose. In the Italian Renaissance, architecture belonged to both the mechanical arts and the arti del disegno. In the Encyclopédie, architecture was divided into four parts that were associated not only with the fine arts of imagination but with two other human faculties: memory and reason. Of all the sciences and arts, architecture posed the greatest problem for the Encyclopédie. Its separation into four parts, spread across all three divisions of the tree diagram, implied topological loops that would have destroyed the flat, bifurcating pattern. Throughout history, architecture’s diverse properties provided vexing challenges to philosophers. Although classifications in different historical periods repeated many of the same terms (e.g., music, architecture), they did not simply shuffle the

Conclusion

253

same elements on a neutral field. As classifications and practices changed, so did the definitions of their disciplines. At a disciplinary level, architecture in one period was not the same as architecture in another period. In fact, the ancient Greeks had no word for architecture. If we assume that the current definition of architecture is timeless, this is bound to impede an understanding of earlier periods that relied on a different definition. It may also impede an understanding of the human condition at a higher level that transcends historical limits and discontinuities. The liberal arts category was a significant benchmark throughout all four historical periods: at the end of techne¯, as a foil to the mechanical arts, in the background of the arts of disegno, and as a fading parallel to the fine arts. Although the significance and membership of the liberal arts were not constant, the category itself has continued for two thousand years. Apart from Varro’s declaration – now lost – that architecture is one of nine liberal arts, architecture never was included formally in the liberal arts but always seemed to be hovering on the periphery. Although the practical work of architects has been regarded with respect and admiration, it was difficult to trace architectural knowledge to a divine source, so its liberal art status remained in doubt. Medicine encountered the same predicament – at least, until the early scientific study of the body sought to understand this thing that God had made. Returning to our own time, when the very concept of disciplinarity underlies new waves of projects that are interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and crossdisciplinary, there is an even greater need to recognize the common grounds shared by disciplines – and especially grounds that are not shared. One should not simply take terms such as “music” and “architecture” as timeless universals, without defining their historical limits and their governing concepts; otherwise, analogies are liable to mislead. The growing ambiguity of the word “architecture” compounds the problem. Classifications matter because they frame our understanding of what we do and enable alliances to be established with others. In turn, this has a bearing on practice. Recognizing the diverse properties of architecture, the changing definitions of arts in Western history, and the fact that Western history is only part of the global story, it is likely that the discipline of architecture and its elements of practice will be redefined once again, sooner or later.

254

Four Historical Definitions of Architecture

Notes

cha p ter one 1 Small, Musicking, 19–29. 2 Goehr, Imaginary Museum, 176–204. Her study extends essays in Dahlhaus, Schoenberg, 210–47. 3 An equivalent work concept in painting is described in Shiner, Invention of Art. 4 Goehr, Imaginary Museum, 262. 5 See Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (1),” especially 498; and Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (2).” 6 Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (1),” 496. 7 See Part 1, 498 (techne¯); 505, 507 (liberal arts); 507 (mechanical arts); and 514 (arti del disegno). The fine arts are discussed throughout Part 2. 8 Architecture’s relation to techne¯ is discussed in Pérez-Gómez, “Myth of Dedalus,” 49–52; Meagher, “Techne,” 158–64; McEwen, Socrates’ Ancestor; and Vesely, Architecture, 242, 282–93. Architecture’s relation to the mechanical arts is mentioned briefly in Vesely, Architecture, 282, 292. Architecture’s relation to the fine arts is discussed in Harrington, Changing Ideas. 9 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “discipline.” Words with the root disciplinemphasize the pupil’s learning. Words with the root doctrin- emphasize the master’s teaching. 10 Kelley, History and the Disciplines, 1. 11 See Flint, Philosophy; and Machlup, Knowledge, vol. 2. 12 See Parker, “Seven Liberal Arts,” 417–61. 13 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “architecture.” 14 Weatherhead, “History of Collegiate Education,” 24. 15 Ingarden, Ontology of the Work of Art. 16 Ibid., 255–75.

17 It appears in Addison, Spectator 415: “Greatness, in the works of Architecture, may be considered as relating to the bulk and body of the structure, or to the Manner in which it is built.” Reprinted in Addison, Works, 3:498. It appears also in Boffrand, Livre d’architecture, reprinted in Boffrand, Book of Architecture, 65: “A well is commonly a work of masonry that demands no great attention; but this one may take its place among great works of architecture.” 18 United States Library of Congress, “Circular 41.” See also Oman, Report of the Register of Copyrights. 19 Galkin, History of Orchestral Conducting, xxiv, 188; Colvin, Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 28. 20 Goehr, Imaginary Museum, 260–9. cha p ter t wo 1 Vitruvius Ten Books 7.12–14. 2 Burford, Craftsmen, 16. For pre-Platonic developments in the meaning and application of techne¯, see Roochnik, Of Art and Wisdom, 18–89. 3 Vernant, Myth and Thought, 283, 292. 4 Frontisi-Ducroux, Dédale; Morris, Daidalos. 5 Mireaux, Daily Life in the Time of Homer, 151. 6 Ibid., 148–9; Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, 24. 7 Pollitt, Ancient View of Greek Art, 32. 8 Vernant, Myth and Thought, 262. 9 “Inspiration” comes from Latin inspirare ‘to breathe into’. Lewis, Latin Dictionary, s.v. “inspiro.” 10 B. Schweitzer, quoted in Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 83–4. Later, Plato divided poetry decisively into two types: a higher, more divine version that comes from inspiration and a lower, more worldly version that comes from literary skill. Later still, Aristotle would go a step further by classifying poetry strictly as a form of techne¯, based on techniques that could be taught. 11 On techne¯ metaphors in early Greek texts on poetry, I wish to acknowledge research by Lisa Landrum; see “Architectural Acts: Architect-Figures in Athenian Drama and their Prefigurations” (PhD diss., McGill University, 2010). 12 See Nightingale, Spectacles of Truth, 44, 52. 13 Pollitt, Ancient View of Greek Art, 33–5. 14 Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. “architektonia.” 15 Perseus Digital Library Project.

256

Notes to pages 19–24

16 Stockwell and Minkova, English Words, 57–9. 17 Havelock, Literate Revolution, 8. 18 See Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 13, 139, 161. 19 Perseus Digital Library Project, s.v. “architectus.” The Latin word architectus (architect) appears in plays by Plautus (254–184 bce) and writings by Cicero (106–43 bce) before it appears in Vitruvius. 20 Ibid., s.v. “architectura.” The first reference is ca. 46–43 bce: Cicero De officiis 1.42.151. 21 See Mireaux, Daily Life in the Time of Homer, 152–4; Burford, Craftsmen, 196; and Vernant, Myth and Thought, 283. 22 Burford, Craftsmen, 82, 198. 23 Ibid., 96–7. 24 McEwen, Socrates’ Ancestor, 51. Sacrificial practices in ancient Greece and their representation in temple details are discussed in Hersey, Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture, chap. 2. 25 Heidegger, “Building Dwelling Thinking,” 159. See also Roochnik, Of Art and Wisdom, 19. 26 Aristotle Physics 199a8–21. 27 Atwill, Rhetoric Reclaimed, 48. 28 Vernant, Myth and Thought, 261. 29 Mireaux, Daily Life in the Time of Homer, 149; McEwen, Socrates’ Ancestor, 72. 30 Heidegger, “Building Dwelling Thinking,” 159. 31 Burford, Craftsmen, 13–14. Again, the words “sculpture” and “architecture” are anachronisms that correspond only partially to their Greek counterparts. 32 Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, 27, 42, 226. 33 Herodotus Herodotus 3.60. The translated word “designer” seems anachronistic here because its modern connotation distinguishes designer from builder. 34 Ibid., 4.87. 35 Roochnik, Of Art and Wisdom, 84. 36 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “direct.”

37 In ancient Greece, the prefix α´ρχι- (archi-) refers to the “chief ” among herdsmen, companions, cooks, donkey-drivers, and ministers. It refers to the “head” among waiters, gardeners, and members of a family. Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. “α´ρχι-.” The related prefix arch- (archangel, archbishop, archduke, archenemy) also means chief, principal, high, leading, prime. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “arch-.”

Notes to pages 24–30

257

38 Burford, Craftsmen, 94. 39 Ibid., 136. 40 Xenophon, quoted in ibid., 29. 41 Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, 29–33. 42 Plato Statesman [Politicus] 259e–260b. 43 Aristotle Metaphysics 981a30. 44 Burford, Craftsmen, 114. 45 Ibid., 69. 46 Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 46. 47 Detienne and Vernant, Cunning Intelligence, 5–6. 48 See Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 139. 49 Burford, Craftsmen, 112, 125. 50 Vernant, Myth and Thought, 291. 51 Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 92. The reference to Aristotle involves a discussion of Homer: “For the poet should say as little as possible in his own voice, as it is not this that makes him a mimetic artist.” Aristotle Poetics 1460a5. 52 See Haselberger, “Architectural Likenesses,” 77–94. 53 Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 100-10, reproduces the Prostoon Inscription from the late fourth century bce, accompanied by an English translation. 54 Coulton, Ancient Greek Architects at Work, 55; Coulton, “Greek Architects and the Transmission of Design,” 455. 55 This is the origin of the English word “paradigm.” In Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the word “paradigm” is a misnomer that has been repeated by many others in science, humanities, and other domains. In Greek, a paradeigma is an example to be emulated, whereas Kuhn’s paradigm is a stable system of concepts that may be challenged by an anomalous empirical observation. 56 McEwen, Socrates’ Ancestor, 20–2, 55. 57 Creatio ex nihilo, the notion that God created the world of matter from nothing, is a Christian concept, introduced in the late second century ce by theologians Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch. See May, Creatio ex nihilo, 148–63. 58 A distinction between two types of cosmogonic myths – making the world from something versus making the world from nothing but a thought or a word – is discussed in Long, Alpha. 59 Burford, Craftsmen, 96. 60 This had been discovered already by the Chinese and the Babylonians. See Sparshott and Goehr, “Philosophy of Music.” 61 Lippman, Musical Thought in Ancient Greece, 2, 41.

258

Notes to pages 31–6

62 Aristoxenus Elementa harmonica and Elementa rhythmica, discussed in Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre, 294–344. 63 Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre, 125. 64 Lippman, Musical Thought in Ancient Greece, 89. 65 This notion is discussed in McEwen, Socrates’ Ancestor, chap. 4. 66 Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre, 24. 67 Aristotle De anima 2.8, quoted in ibid., 160. 68 Lippman, Musical Thought in Ancient Greece, 79, 81, 105. 69 Ibid., 71–2. 70 Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 51–2, 98. 71 Roochnik, Of Art and Wisdom, 248. On ideal forms, see Plato Republic 10.596b, 10.601d. 72 The distinction between a mode of knowledge based on techne¯ and a mode of knowledge based on first principles is discussed (with a focus on rhetoric) in Atwill, Rhetoric Reclaimed, chap. 1. See also Nightingale, Spectacles of Truth, 22–6, 68–93. 73 Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 6.4.1–6; Aristotle Metaphysics 981a25. 74 Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 6.3.3, 6.7.3. 75 Lobkowicz, Theory and Practice, 5–15, 18. 76 Vitruvius Ten Books 1.2. 77 See Rykwert, Idea of a Town, chap. 2 and 3. cha p ter t hre e 1 Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 53. 2 Whitney, Paradise Restored, 27. 3 Aristotle Politics 8.2.1.1337b. 4 Coulton, Ancient Greek Architects, 23. 5 These seven examples are cited in Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 52–6. A slightly expanded set appears in Tatarkiewicz, “Classification of Arts in Antiquity,” 231–40. 6 Plato Republic 601d–602b. 7 Aristotle Physics 199a15. 8 Cicero De oratore 1.2.6–1.6.22. 9 Contrary to Tatarkiewicz, “Classification of Arts in Antiquity,” 236, painting, sculpture, music, acting, and athletics are not mentioned in Cicero’s text, nor do the terms artes maximae, artes mediocres, and artes minores appear. 10 Quintilian Orator’s Education 2.18.1–3.

Notes to pages 37–43

259

11 Aristotle Metaphysics 1025b25. 12 Contrary to Tatarkiewicz, “Classification of Arts in Antiquity,” 234, this reference is from Galen Claudii Galeni Pergameni scripta minora 1:129. 13 This five-level list is from Tatarkiewicz, “Classification of Arts in Antiquity,” 236, but the sources he cites (Plotinus Ennead 4.4.31, 5.9.11) are not so decisive in their distinctions among levels. See the corresponding sections in Plotinus, Six Enneads. 14 Plotinus Plotinus 1.6.3. 15 See Marrou, History of Education in Antiquity, 176–9, 406–7. 16 Ibid., 137, 141. 17 Vitruvius Ten Books 1.1. 18 Ibid., 1.11-12; Marrou, History of Education in Antiquity, 191. 19 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “art.” 20 Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary, s.v. “art.” 21 Whitney, Paradise Restored, 25, 27. 22 Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (1),” 505. 23 Marrou, “Les arts libéraux dans l’antiquité classique,” 23. 24 Vitruvius Ten Books 7 introduction 14. 25 Cicero De officiis 1.42.150–1. Contrary to Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 106, the Latin text of Cicero Orator ad Brutum 2 does not refer to the occupation of architects as sordida (vulgar); see Letters to Quintus and Brutus, 201–307. 26 Brown, “Vitruvius and the Liberal Art of Architecture,” 99–107. 27 In the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, occasional comments about architecture being a liberal art were based on this secondary, popular meaning, not on the primary philosophical definition of a liberal art. Modern remarks about architecture being a liberal art are casual, without reference. 28 Martianus Capella, Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts, 2:471.9–18, 2:471.24–472.1. 29 See Johnson, “Curriculum of the Seven Liberal Arts,” 1:92–3. 30 Boëthius De arithmetica 1.1, cited in Perseus Digital Library Project, s.v. “quadrivium.” 31 Boëthius De institutione musica 1.9–10. 32 Ibid., 1.34. 33 Ibid., 1.9. 34 Cassiodorus De artibus ac disciplinis liberalium litterarum. 35 The flexible ranking of subjects by different philosophers, and even in different

260

Notes to pages 43–51

writings by the same philosopher, is illustrated by the analytical charts in Marrou, “Les arts libéraux.” 36 Philostratus the Athenian Life of Apollonius of Tyana 2:335. 37 Augustine City of God 22.24. 38 These Christian theologians were Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch. See May, Creatio ex nihilo, 148–63. 39 Augustine uses this metaphor three times in Confessions: “Architect and Governor of the universe” (1.19.31), “Architect of Creation” (5.3.5), and “Architect of heaven and earth” (11.13.15). Although he did not intend the reverse metaphor – an architect as God – this cleared the way for analogies to move in both directions. 40 Isidore of Seville, quoted in Brehaut, Encyclopedist of the Dark Ages, 48. 41 Lutz, “Remigius’ Ideas,” 65–6. 42 Isidore of Seville Liber numerorum 8.44, and Differentiae 2.39, cited in Whitney, Paradise Restored, 61. In another treatise, Etymologiae 20, Isidore divided philosophy into a somewhat different set of categories: physics (the four quadrivium subjects), ethics, and logic (rhetoric and dialectic). See Weisheipl, “Classification of the Sciences,” 63–4. 43 Eriugena’s name appears in several variations, including John/Johannes Scot(t)us Eri(u)gena, John Scot(t)us, John the Scot, and Joannis Scoti Erigenae. He was not the thirteenth-century John Duns Scotus. Eriugena’s life and early writings are described in Moran, Philosophy of John Scotus Eriugena, 1–47, and O’Meara, Eriugena, 16–31. 44 O’Meara, Eriugena, 8. 45 Eriugena Iohannis Scotti Annotationes in Marcianum 79.12. 46 Ibid., 170.14. 47 Carabine, John Scottus Eriugena, 8. 48 Contreni, “John Scottus,” 25. 49 Eriugena Iohannis Scotti Annotationes in Marcianum 170.14, quoted in O’Meara, Eriugena, 27. 50 Lutz, “Remigius’ Ideas,” 65–86, cited in Whitney, Paradise Restored, 71 n. 70. As noted in Lutz (78), Remigius Commentum in Marcianum Capellam includes a general reference to mechanical arts (79.11) and the specific reference to architecture and medicine (153.20). 51 Whitney, Paradise Restored, 71 n. 70. 52 Oleson, Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices.

Notes to pages 52–5

261

53 Hero of Alexandria Pneumatica, x (introduction to 2d ed.), xiii (translator’s preface). Hero lived in the first century ce and wrote six treatises, including one on mechanics (lifting machines). He was not the first to make automata; they were made also in archaic Greece. 54 Lewis, Latin Dictionary, s.v. “mechanicus.” 55 Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. “µηχανη´,” “µηχανικο´ς.” 56 Procopius of Caesarea Procopius 1.1.23. 57 Ibid., 1.1.34. 58 Ibid., 1.1.24. The elevated status of me¯chanikos is noted also in Kostof, “Architect in the Middle Ages,” 63. 59 Me¯chanikos sometimes is translated as “engineer” but the modern connotation would be anachronistic in a Byzantine or medieval setting. Lloyd, “Methods and Problems,” 564–77, discusses terms for several occupations, including architekto¯n and me¯chanikos (567). Referring to a more Western context in the early medieval period, Nikolaus Pevsner suggests that the responsibility for designing the ground plan led the role of the architectus to be associated more with designing than with building, but there was still no fundamental distinction between the architect and the mason. Pevsner, “The Term ‘Architect’,” 551–2. 60 Quoted in Downey, “Byzantine Architects,” 109 n. 2. 61 Pappus of Alexandria Collection 8 preface 1–3, discussed in Downey, “Byzantine Architects,” 105–9. Elsewhere, Downey corrects a small misunderstanding by the Loeb translator of Pappus that affects the relative definitions of me¯chanikos and architekton, and what they study. See Downey, “Pappus of Alexandria,” 197–200. 62 Pappus of Alexandria Collection 8 preface 1. 63 Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 102, 107–8, refers to

Downey’s essay and distinguishes between a µηχανικο´ς (me¯chanikos) who

invents or designs something innovative and an α´ρχιτε´κτων (architekto¯n) who

manages site operations to construct a more conventional building. 64 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 191 n. 64 (translator’s note). 65 Martin of Laon, a ninth-century student of Eriugena, quoted in ibid., n. 64 (translator’s note). 66 Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. “µοιχο´ς.” 67 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 2.20. cha p ter fo ur 1 The original Latin version of Didascalicon is published in Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon de studio legendi; and in Hugh of St Victor Didascalicae.

262

Notes to pages 55–9

2 Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. “διδασκαλικο´ς.” 3 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 1.1. 4 Illich, In the Vineyard of the Text, 17. Illich also notes that early twelfth-century miniatures continue the tradition of icon painting from the eastern Christian church by representing figures in a glowing way, as if they contain their own internal source of light. He contrasts this form of illumination to later paintings from the Renaissance in which an external source of light falls onto a figure and is reflected back to the viewer (19). 5 Ibid., 54. Illich notes that Hugh’s Didascalicon comes at the end of this tradition. Subsequent texts were conceived and designed differently, to be consulted in a scholastic way rather than recited in a monastic way (95). 6 Emerson, “Plainchant.” 7 Illich, In the Vineyard of the Text, 97. 8 Ibid., 90. A modern scholar who prepares a critical edition of a medieval treatise would study all existing manuscript copies to map the cumulative changes in reverse and thus determine which is the earliest and presumably most authoritative. 9 Augustine City of God 22.30. 10 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 3.4. 11 Ibid., 1.11. 12 Hugh’s Latin terms are theologia, mathematica, and physica. They refer to speculative knowledge in three domains: the intellectible, the intelligible, and the natural. Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon de studio legendi 2.1. 13 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 6.2. A more extended analogy appears in 6.4. 14 Much later, in the eighteenth century, Denis Diderot took a great interest in the mechanical arts and ensured that many articles on crafts and trades were included in the Encyclopédie. However, the mechanical arts after the Industrial Revolution were much different than in the twelfth century: not only in their equipment and techniques but, more importantly, in their relation to philosophy and theology. 15 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 2.20. The seven mechanical arts are discussed individually in 2.21–7. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., 1.9. Note that the elephant’s tusks do not encase the body but act as a form of armament similar to spears, creating a protective zone of safety around the body. 18 Ibid.

Notes to pages 59–66

263

19 Ibid., 3.3, 6.2, 6.4. 20 Ibid., 2.20. 21 Ibid., 2.6, 2.17, 2.18. 22 Ibid., 2.12. 23 Ibid., 2.8. 24 Ibid., 2.12. 25 The devices that Hugh describes had been used for thousands of years. See John H. Munro, “Textiles,” in Mantello and Rigg, Medieval Latin, 474; and Bert Hall, “Technology and Crafts,” in Mantello and Rigg, Medieval Latin, 427. 26 The Latin word navigatio ‘a sailing’, ‘navigation’ (Lewis, A Latin Dictionary, s.v. “navigatio”) seems like an odd term for commerce, which is suggested only indirectly: as a shipping of goods over water; however, the remoteness resulting from a sea voyage aligns with Hugh’s intent to emphasize negotiation. By 1500, the word navigatio also had acquired the meaning ‘freight’. Latham, Revised Medieval Latin Word-List, s.v. “navigatio.” 27 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 2.23. 28 Ibid., 2.25. 29 Ibid., 2.27. 30 Ibid., 2.22. In the second sentence Taylor translates latomos et caementarios as “woodworker” but “mason” seems more appropriate because these words refer to stone and masonry. Lewis, Latin Dictionary, s.v. “cementarius,” “lautomus.” 31 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 2.22. 32 This differs from modern concepts of medieval architecture that focus exclusively on cathedrals. 33 As a set, this range of activities and facilities resembles the detailed program for the many peripheral buildings in the Plan of St Gall, an early ninth-century drawing of a self-sufficient monastery in a rural setting (roughly contemporary with Eriugena). See Horn and Born, Plan of St Gall. 34 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 3.16. 35 Ibid., 3.2. 36 Ibid., 1.9. 37 Ibid. 38 Hugh also refers to arts being “discovered.” Ibid., 6.14 (Appendix A). 39 Ibid., 1.11. 40 This questions the modern assumption that the medieval mechanical arts were driven by a technological imperative, an assumption that is evident in even the

264

Notes to pages 66–78

most comprehensive publication on the mechanical arts: Whitney, Paradise Restored. 41 In a building contract, a medieval patron often would specify that the new building should be modeled after another building “or better.” Harvey, Mediaeval Craftsmen, 158. The existing building stock was not regarded as an authoritative canon to be emulated faithfully but as an example that could be superseded if another option seemed more promising. 42 According to Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 2:92, De architectura had been known during the Middle Ages since at least the ninth century. 43 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 2.1. 44 Ibid., 1.9. 45 Hugh’s Christian declaration that humanity and nature are separate is contrasted by a pagan tradition prevalent in northern and eastern Europe, described in Gurevich, Categories of Medieval Culture, 41–91. Peasants who were immersed in the substances and rhythms of nature imagined combinations of humans and animals, humans and the earth, etc. The integration of this earthly grotesque with Christian concepts is illustrated in medieval maps of the world, including one that Hugh of St Victor is supposed to have drawn as part of a manuscript, described in Dalché, Le “Descriptio Mappe Mundi.” 46 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 1.9. 47 The debate about whether the Bible encourages humans to use up nature as a convenient resource or to act as nature’s custodian is traced through writings by medieval philosophers in Ovitt, Restoration of Perfection, 57–87. 48 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 1.9. 49 Ibid., 1.4. 50 Ibid., 1.9. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. This resembles the anonymous (and undated) Latin aphorism Mater artium necessitas (“Necessity is the mother of invention”) that was written down eventually in the seventeenth century. Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 108, 124. 53 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 3.18, 3.19, 5.8. 54 Ibid., 1.8. 55 Ibid., 3.2. 56 Ibid., 1.4. 57 Ibid., 1.2.

Notes to pages 78–81

265

58 Ibid., 2.22. Architectonicam is the accusative case of architectonica. Taylor’s English translation contains some omissions and errors in construction terminology that have been corrected here by referring to the Latin text in Buttimer’s critical edition, Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon de studio legendi, and the relevant words in Lewis, Latin Dictionary. 59 This is somewhat consistent with historical research on the role of medieval (master) masons and (master) carpenters, including those who directed the construction of cathedrals. “The medieval sense of mason is far less specific and could be general and almost all-inclusive, and it comprehended both the master who designed and gave the orders, and the skilled artisan who carried them into effect. We must, therefore, understand ‘mason’ in the same way that we think of ‘musician’, as comprising the composer, the conductor and the members of the orchestra.” Harvey, Master Builders, 13. 60 Historians of medieval architecture indicate that the position of the masterbuilder was comparable to the position of the ancient architekton in its supervisory role, preceded by apprenticeship in masonry or carpentry. Svanberg, Master Masons, 114. 61 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 1.4. 62 In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, master builders and craftsmen in England and France were educated first in the liberal arts: in vernacular languages from age five to ten, followed by Latin from eleven to thirteen. From fourteen to seventeen, they apprenticed in carpentry or masonry. At that point, different paths could be taken: youths destined to become artisans would continue to apprentice in carpentry or masonry from eighteen to twenty-one; youths destined to become architects would study the geometry for setting out building components. The next three years (the “wanderyears”) were spent gaining experience on jobs of various kinds. A qualified journeyman then could make and present a masterwork to demonstrate competence in a set of practical building problems. Harvey, Mediaeval Architect, 99–100. 63 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 6.14 (Appendix A). 64 Ibid., 152 (translator’s note). 65 Ibid., 2.22. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., 2.13. In a separate treatise Hugh discusses the use of geometry for terrestrial and celestial surveying (i.e., nature, not the mechanical arts). See Hugh of St Victor, Practical Geometry. 68 This contrasts with the use of practical geometry in twelfth-century religious

266

Notes to pages 82–5

buildings. See Bucher, “Medieval Architectural Design Methods,” 37–51; and Shelby, “Geometrical Knowledge,” 395–421. Shelby refers to Hugh’s Practica geometriae as the first treatise to distinguish theoretical and practical geometry, but notes that Hugh refers only to nature, not to buildings (401). 69 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 1.4. 70 Beyond the mechanical arts, over 2,200 medieval architectural drawings have survived (mainly from the fourteenth century onward), but most drawings and templates produced by master builders were discarded after being used for construction. Bucher, “Design in Gothic Architecture,” 50. 71 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 1.4. 72 Ibid., 2.21. 73 An English translation is included in Hugh of St Victor De arca Noe morali. 74 An English translation is available in Hugh of St Victor De arca Noe mystica, but its irregular description of details and its convoluted organization make it almost incomprehensible. Rudolph, “First, I Find the Center Point,” 9–31, argues convincingly that this “tortured” text was written not by Hugh of St Victor but by one of his students. Rudolph’s book includes a set of diagrams that attempts to reconstruct parts of Hugh’s original drawing, based on this text. 75 Hugh of St Victor De arca Noe morali 1.11. 76 Genesis 6:15–16 (King James Version). 77 Hugh of St Victor De arca Noe morali 1.12. 78 Zinn, “Hugh of St Victor and the Ark of Noah,” 264. 79 Ibid., 262. 80 Hugh of St Victor De arca Noe morali 1.12. 81 Zinn, “De gradibus ascensionum,” 65. 82 Rudolph, “First, I Find the Center Point,” 27–8. 83 Ibid., 18. 84 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 3.3. 85 Ibid., 2.12. 86 Umberto Eco notes that some scholars claimed that medieval beauty was strictly intelligible and not sensory. He refutes this claim by presenting contrary evidence and by pointing out that ascetics such as Bernard of Clairvaux were acutely aware of sensory beauty but chose to denounce it: “For us, all bodily delights are nothing but dung.” Art and Beauty, 5–7. 87 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 6.13. Modern editions of Didascalicon include three short appendices after Book 6, but they are regarded as addenda to be inserted into earlier books of the treatise, not as a progression that follows Book 6.

Notes to pages 85–9

267

88 This “bottom-up” model can be associated with medieval constructions that do not have an explicit religious program, such as castles, fortified towns, houses, farms, forests, and perhaps also the peripheral buildings in a monastery that surround the church and the cloister. Books on non-religious medieval buildings include Cantor, English Medieval Landscape; and Thompson, Medieval Hall. 89 This short treatise is included as the seventh book of Didascalicon in the major modern source: Migne, Patrologia Latina, as well as the digital edition: Patrologia Latina Database. In each case, this treatise is a reprint of a 1648 edition. In turn, eleven excerpts from Migne’s compilation appear in Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 2:197–200, where he combines excerpts from Book 2 and Book 7. Nine of Tatarkiewicz’s quotations (identified as #2–5, 8–10, 13–14), along with his discussion of them (113, 190–5), are from Book 7 (De tribus diebus) and suggest that Didascalicon discusses aesthetic topics such as beauty, composition, movement, harmony, pleasure, delight, and the senses; however, the first six books do not mention any of these topics. By not noticing the difference or by not referring to Buttimer’s 1939 critical edition of Didascalicon, Tatarkiewicz’s presentation distorts the epistemological and theological hierarchy that Hugh devised for the mechanical arts, the liberal arts, and the scriptures. Otto von Simson also cites Patrologia Latina to extract aesthetic topics from “Book 7” of Didascalicon; see Gothic Cathedral, 36, 50. 90 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon de studio legendi is a critical edition that analyzes and sequences thirty of the eighty-eight surviving manuscript copies of Didascalicon to identify the most authoritative version, which Buttimer traces to 1151, ten years after Hugh died (p. x). Although this twelfth-century manuscript identifies De tribus diebus as Book 7 of Didascalicon, Buttimer concluded that it should be removed: “Extraneous material is included with the true text, for example, the addition of the independent text De Tribus Diebus as book VII” (vii, xx). Buttimer’s six-book critical edition of the Latin text of Didascalicon (1939) was the source for Taylor’s 1961 English translation: Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon. Since then, others have endorsed this separation, including Poirel’s critical edition of Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus. 91 Cizewski, “Reading the World,” 65–88. The following discussion relies mainly on Cizewski’s summary of De tribus diebus, supplemented by excerpts from others and occasional comparisons to the Latin text in Patrologia Latina Database (where it is presented as the seventh book of Didascalicon) and in Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus.

268

Notes to pages 89–90

92 This set of three was a contemporary theological formulation by Pierre Abélard; see Cizewski, “Reading the World,” 84 n. 17. 93 Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus 1, quoted in ibid., 69. 94 This incremental approach is similar to the instructions for interpreting the scriptures that he provided in Books 4–6 of Didascalicon. 95 Zinn, “De gradibus ascensionum,” 62–3. The three levels symbolize the three stages of anagogy: purgation, illumination, and union. 96 Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus 26, quoted in Cizewski, “Reading the World,” 80. 97 This phrase is the title of Book 26, the second last in the treatise. It serves also as the title of the entire treatise when it is separated from Didascalicon. 98 Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus 27, quoted in Cizewski, “Reading the World,” 81. 99 Ibid., 82. 100 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon 5.9. 101 Although the English language typically conflates meditation and contemplation, they have different origins and can have different meanings. “In Christian writing, meditation which engages the intellectual or discursive faculties is sometimes distinguished from contemplation which transcends them.” Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “meditation.” “Meditation” derives originally from the IndoEuropean root mederi ‘to heal’ (s.v. “meditate,” “medic”). “Contemplation” derives from Latin con- + templum ‘an open place for observation, marked out by the augur with his staff ’ (s.v. “contemplate,” “contemple”). 102 Hugh of St Victor De modo dicendi et meditandi, quoted in Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 2:201. 103 Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus 9, quoted in Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 2:198. 104 Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus 13, quoted in ibid. 105 Hugh (who was based in Paris) refers not only to the horse, the pig, the eagle, and the ant, but also to the elephant, the tiger, and the gryphon. Cizewski, “Reading the World,” 73, suggests that his creatures come more from books than from live observation. Hugh might have responded that his description was intended to be more universal than his own experience. 106 Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus 12, quoted in ibid., 74. According to Otto von Simson, Hugh developed the first philosophy of beauty since Augustine; see Gothic Cathedral, 105. 107 Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus 14, quoted in Cizewski, “Reading the World,” 75.

Notes to pages 90–4

269

108 Hugh of St Victor De tribus diebus 4, quoted in Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 2:200. 109 A partnership in the making of religious buildings is indicated by accounts involving patrons and master-builders. The patron, perhaps an abbot, would consider what needs to be done and why; the master-builder would consider what can be done and how. Their two realms would overlap in discussions of geometry, beauty, statuary, etc. Partnership also is suggested by the absence of separate titles: “The creative personality did not interest the Middle Ages enough to insist on a terminological distinction between patron and artist. No need was recognized for placing on record the name of him who conceived a church building. This is what the often quoted anonymity of the Middle Ages really means.” Pevsner, “The Term ‘Architect’,” 553. A comprehensive study of medieval architectural patronage has not yet been done (comparable to Jenkins, Architect and Patron), but the active role of the patron alongside the master-builder is described in Shelby, “Monastic Patrons,” 91–6, and Svanberg, Master Masons, 17–24, 33. 110 The metaphor of God as an architect is mentioned in Augustine Confessions 1.19.31, 5.3.5, 11.13.15. “So conversant with the works of Augustine and so similar in manner of thinking was Hugh that he was called alter Augustinus, a second Augustine.” Rudolph, Artistic Change at St-Denis, 39. 111 Quoted in Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, 56. 112 Ibid., 40. 113 Quoted in Harvey, Mediaeval Architect, 22–4. 114 Pevsner, “The Term ‘Architect’,” 549–62. On the occasions when the word “architect” was used, it might refer to a clerical patron, a craftsman, or (erroneously) a roofer. 115 Ibid., 555. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Latin word “fabrica” referred to a building but could refer also to the agency of a religious institution that administered donations for construction. The word “opus” (which would be used again in the late eighteenth century to identify musical works) also referred to this agency. Branner, “‘Fabrica, opus,’” 27–30. 116 This argument is presented in Rudolph, Artistic Change at St-Denis. 117 Simson, Gothic Cathedral, 115, 120. 118 Suger, Abbot Suger. The three documents are known commonly as Ordinatio (1140–41), De consecratione (1144–47), and De administratione (1148–49). 119 Rudolph, Artistic Change at St-Denis, 24. 120 Ibid., 32. Otto von Simson also doubts Suger’s capacity to devise such a plan: “His [Suger’s] work neither as a theologian nor even as writer is equal to the

270

Notes to pages 95–8

best among them. Compared with, say, Hugh of St-Victor’s magnificent exposition of Dionysian theology, Suger’s own writings are at best sketchy annotations.” Gothic Cathedral, 131. 121 Rudolph, Artistic Change at St-Denis, 33–46. Rudolph also dismisses the notion that the emphasis on light in St-Denis was based on Pseudo-Dionysian symbolism (48–56, 62, 65–6). 122 Ibid., 62. 123 Rudolph acknowledges the “Didascalicon Book 7 vs. De tribus diebus” debate and seems to favour the first option. Ibid., 64. 124 De consecratione, Suger refers to the beauty of gems, precious stones, and uninterrupted light, which others have associated with the arrival of the Apocalypse: “radiance like a most rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal” (Revelation 21:9). Invoking a liberal art, Suger refers to “geometrical and arithmetical instruments” but only for equalizing the central nave, not for laying out the vaults in the choir (which he never mentions). Libellus alter de consecratione ecclesiae sancti dionysii, in Abbot Suger, 4. 125 Rudolph does not suggest that Hugh was involved in anything more than the art program. Suger worked with an unidentified master builder on the reconstruction of the choir. See Artistic Change at St-Denis, 66. 126 The creation or recreation of a religious building would be prompted by a message received from above. Such a message inspired an earlier rebuilding of the Church of St-Denis. Simson, Gothic Cathedral, 92. 127 Hugh of St Victor Didascalicon, 4 (translator’s introduction). 128 Whitney, Paradise Restored, 110–11. 129 Bonaventure De reductione artium ad theologiam, 2. This quotation refutes a statement by Ivan Illich: “Neither Hugh’s idea of science as a remedy nor his notion of mechanics as part of science survived him.” Shadow Work, 90. 130 Bonaventure De reductione artium ad theologiam, 2. 131 Kilwardby De ortu scientiarum 39.363–71. This chapter is a review of Hugh’s mechanical arts. 132 Ibid., 40.372–8. This chapter is a summary of Kilwardby’s mechanical arts. 133 Whitney, Paradise Restored, 118. 134 Kilwardby De ortu scientiarum 40.378, translated in Whitney, Paradise Restored, 119. 135 Ovitt, “Status of the Mechanical Arts,” 103. 136 Kilwardby De ortu scientiarum 42.393, translated in Ovitt, “Status of the Mechanical Arts,” 103.

Notes to pages 98–101

271

137 Ovitt, “Status of the Mechanical Arts,” 103. 138 Rüegg, “Themes,” 27. 139 Hugh of St Victor also wrote a short treatise on the subject, Practica geometriae, that presents practical methods but no Euclidean principles. See Practical Geometry. Shelby, “Geometrical Knowledge,” 401, suggests that Hugh was the first to distinguish theoretical geometry from practical geometry, but the two traditions had been active in their separate domains for more than a millennium. 140 Wise, Nature of the Liberal Arts, refers selectively to the history of the liberal arts and brings a Jesuit perspective to the question of what should be included in a modern liberal education. 141 Historical surveys of the liberal arts mention architecture only twice: when Varro includes it and when Martianus Capella excludes it. See Parker, “Seven Liberal Arts,” 433, 448, 459; Abelson, Seven Liberal Arts, 4, 7; and Wagner, “Seven Liberal Arts,” 15, 19. 142 This is the basic proposition in Brown, “Vitruvius and the Liberal Art of Architecture.” 143 The relation between pitches was the primary characteristic of religious music. Other musical features that we tend to appreciate – melody, rhythm, timbre, expression, etc. – were subordinate or absent. Therefore, listening to medieval music requires different ears. 144 Abelson, Seven Liberal Arts, 128. 145 In this context a mode (Latin modus) refers to eight different arrangements of pitch intervals in a musical scale: Dorian, Lydian, etc. It derives from ancient Greece and was carried forward by Boëthius and others. Powers and Wiering, “Mode.” 146 Goehr, Imaginary Museum, 132. cha p ter five 1 Vasari, Le vite. 2 Vasari, Lives, 1:3. 3 The concept of disegno originated in Italy. The primary theoretical developments occurred in Florence, with secondary contributions from Venice and Rome. 4 Disegno referred only to arts in which physical products are made, not to poetry or music. 5 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 205.

272

Notes to pages 101–6

6 S. Battaglia, Grande Dizionario della Lingua Italiana, IV, s.v. “disegno,” translated and quoted in Baxandall, “English Disegno,” 84. 7 The word “design” appears in English in the late sixteenth century, with the same range of meanings as in the Italian dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “design.” The Italian word disegno was adopted by the French desseing and the English design, with slightly different connotations. See Baxandall, “English Disegno,” 87. In German, “das Design” is a recent adoption of the English word. For a brief historical survey of the term “design” in architecture, see Forty, Words and Buildings, 136–41. 8 Lewis, Latin Dictionary, s.v. “designo.” Neither classical nor medieval Latin includes designo as a noun, only as a verb. The closest noun is designatio ‘a marking-out, describing, designating; specification’, which appears in Vitruvius and Cicero. Lewis, Latin Dictionary, s.v. “designatio.” 9 The primary literature on disegno is patchy. Abundant secondary literature exists for major figures in Renaissance art (Alberti, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Vasari, etc.), and most of their writings are available in translation. As noted by Celenza, Lost Italian Renaissance, 52, many Latin texts from the Renaissance still exist only in manuscript form and many others have not been translated into other languages. There have been several dissertations, articles, and book chapters on the Accademia del Disegno, but the concept of architecture as an arte del disegno has been mentioned only in passing. Painting and sculpture have been the primary subjects. 10 For example, see Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy, 55, and Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (1),” 514. 11 In twentieth-century publications, this triad – painting, sculpture, and architecture – appears in titles or subtitles for many different places, times, and practitioners: for example, India, Egypt, Thailand, Persia, Germany, Russia, the Vatican, the United States, the world; the Middle Ages, Romanesque, Bohemian Gothic, Italian Renaissance, modernity; Michelangelo, and Alvar Aalto. 12 For example, see Pliny Natural History 9:35.36.65–8. 13 One source of error is Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (1),” 507–8, which states that Hugh of St Victor’s Didascalicon (2.20) mentions “various branches of sculpture and painting … as subdivisions of armatura,” the mechanical arts division in which Hugh included architecture. On the contrary: Painting and sculpture are not included in armatura and not mentioned anywhere else in Didascalicon. As Kristeller normally is authoritative, especially on Renaissance topics, others may have repeated his statement without checking the source.

Notes to pages 106–9

273

The same error appears in Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 2:113, originally published in Polish in 1962, which states that in Hugh of St Victor “the visual arts were classified with the mechanical arts” and “painting and sculpture were subordinate” to architecture. This may have arisen from the confusion over the “seventh book” of Didascalicon, discussed in Chapter 4. Tatarkiewicz, “Theatrica, The Science of Entertainment,” 267, either corrects or contradicts his previous statement by saying that painting and sculpture during the Middle Ages were never included in either the liberal arts or the mechanical arts. A similar statement is made in Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 14; however, the same error is repeated in recent scholarly publications, such as Farago, Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Paragone’, 73; and Barzman, Florentine Academy, 145. 14 The term “humanism” was coined by historians in the nineteenth century but studia humanitatis (humanist study; subjects essential to being human) dates from the fourteenth century; see Kristeller, “Humanism and Scholasticism,” 110–11. Renaissance humanism has different roots and intentions than twentieth-century humanism, a diverse assembly of moral and social movements that promotes the interests of all humans amidst various “inhuman” forces. 15 Kristeller, “Humanist Learning,” 3, 5. 16 Trinkhaus, “Humanism,” in Encyclopedia of World Art, 7:710. 17 Kristeller, “Humanism and Scholasticism,” 99–100, 113, 116; Kristeller, “Moral Thought,” 25. 18 Mantello and Rigg, Medieval Latin, 3. 19 Kristeller, “Humanist Learning,” 5. 20 Ibid., 12. 21 Petrarch, quoted in Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 3:10. 22 Horace Art of Poetry 361. In this simile, he was referring to different ways in which poems and paintings are observed: “One strikes your fancy more, the nearer you stand; another, the farther away.” 23 Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators, 101. 24 Plutarch Moralia 346f–347a, quoted in ibid., 100–1. Plutarch praised poetry and painting despite contrary sentiments from Plato. In Book 10 of Republic, Plato associates poetry and painting but relegates both of them to the lowest of his three levels associated with human arts (the user, the maker, and the imitator), three steps removed from reality. 25 There were enough similarities and differences between poetry and painting to invite a more detailed comparison under Horace’s dictum ut pictura poesis during the next few centuries. See Lee, Ut Pictura Poesis.

274

Notes to pages 110–13

26 Barasch, Theories of Art, 167. 27 Vasari, Lives, 1:117. To trace Giotto’s roots, Vasari went back a generation to praise Giovanni Cimabue (ca. 1240–ca. 1302). Cimabue, who was Giotto’s teacher, is the first artist mentioned in Vasari’s Lives. Ibid., 1:52, 57. 28 Petrarca, Petrarch’s Remedies, 1.40. 29 Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators, 15–17. 30 Vallani, De origine civitatis Florentiae et eiusdem famosis civibus, quoted in ibid., 70. This book appears also in an 1847 edition: Liber de civitatis Florentiae famosis civibus. 31 Ferguson, “Humanist Views,” 27. 32 Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators, 71. 33 For a brief historical survey of concepts associated with mimesis and imitation, see Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 266–75. 34 See Pigman, “Versions of Imitation,” 1–32. 35 This list is modified from Ackerman, “Imitation,” 132. 36 Pigman, “Versions of Imitation,” 3–9, discusses three transformative metaphors that were used to understand how artists imitate nature: apian (gathering pollen to make honey); digestive (converting nutritious foods that one has eaten); and filial (applying a parent’s lessons in a new situation). 37 Petrarca, De remediis utriusque fortunae, 1.40–1, written between 1354 and 1366, cited in Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators, 53, 56, 61. 38 Petrarca, Petrarch’s Remedies, 1.41. 39 Pliny Natural History 9:35.5.15. Although this story often is retold as a neutral act of mark-making, Pliny indicates that there is an emotional component. This man was loved by a woman, so the linear outline that remains after he and his shadow depart is not just a mark on a wall but an expression of absence and longing. 40 Ibid., 9:35.43.151. 41 Petrarca, Petrarch’s Remedies, 1.41. 42 Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators, 58. 43 Staley, Guilds of Florence, 47. 44 Ibid., 169. 45 Goldthwaite, Building of Renaissance Florence, 255. 46 Staley, Guilds of Florence, 262–3. 47 Ibid., 322–3. 48 Ibid. At that time the term “università” was associated with guilds, whereas the term “sapienza” referred to what we now associate with a university. Pevsner, Academies of Art, 46.

Notes to pages 113–18

275

49 Westfall, “Painting and the Liberal Arts,” 493. 50 Cennini, Craftsman’s Handbook, 2. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 The different social circumstances for practising artists and scholarly humanists are described in Troncelliti, Two Parallel Realities, 57. 54 Petrarch, writing in Latin, used graphis (‘drawing pencil’, ‘drawing’) when discussing drawing in a similar way. Petrarca, De remediis utriusque fortune. 55 Cennini, Craftsman’s Handbook, 8. cha p ter s ix 1 Valla, Elegantiarum latinae linguae (1435–44), preface, translated in Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators, 117. See also Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences, 16. The original Latin text appears in Valla, De linguae latinae elegantia, preface. 2 See Grayson, “Humanism of Alberti,” 37–56. 3 Giorgio Vasari’s emphasis on practical achievements is illustrated by his treatment of Alberti, who receives only a few pages: Lives, 1:414–19. He notes briefly that Alberti “is known more for his writings than for the work of his hands,” lists the subjects of his treatises in two sentences, then discusses the buildings on which he worked. 4 Cecil Grayson, who prepared a critical edition of the Latin text, found it fuller and more precise in expression than the Italian. Alberti, On Painting and On Sculpture, vii. 5 Ibid., 5, 18–21. 6 Ibid., 20, 22. 7 Grayson, “Composition of L.B. Alberti’s Decem libri de re aedificatoria,” 152–61, indicates 1443–52 but amends this to 1447–52 in a subsequent essay: “Leon Battista Alberti, Architect,” 9. 8 Alberti, On Painting, 2.27. 9 Ibid., 2.28. 10 Ibid., 2.58. 11 Ibid., 2.32. 12 Vasari mentions not just the baptistry but also other scenes in Florence. Lives, 1:327. 13 The references are to Vitruvius Ten Books 4.1.6, 7.7–14. 14 Alberti, On Painting, 2.26.

276

Notes to pages 119–26

15 Ibid. Alberti’s implicit parallel between poetry and painting is discussed in Westfall, “Painting and the Liberal Arts,” 500–2. 16 In sculpture, circumscription is evident in the mapping of the external surface of a figure by Alberti’s finitorium device. In architecture, circumscription is evident in the emphasis on the area, defined by the external outline of the building. 17 Erwin Panofsky situates “circumscription” in a longer history of rhetoric that links it to disegno: “Alberti also adapted, however tentatively, to the painter’s profession the categories of classical rhetoric: invention, disposition (changed to circonscriptione and compositione, and about one hundred years later replaced by disegno), and elocution (changed to receptione de lume).” Renaissance and Renascences, 26. 18 Alberti, On Painting, 1.5. 19 Ibid., 1.5–7. Other contemporary artists expressed similar sentiments; for example, Piero della Francesca: “By drawing we mean profiles and contours which contain the thing,” quoted in Tolnay, History and Technique, 4. 20 Alberti, On Painting, 2.31. 21 Pliny Natural History 9:35.5.15–16, 9:35.43.151. 22 This distinction is illustrated more vividly in anamorphic art, which plays with the difference between these two forms of observation: the image that our retina receives and the bodily memories we import. See Baltrušaitis, Anamorphic Art. 23 Alberti, On Painting and On Sculpture, 133. 24 Ibid., 121. 25 Ibid., 119. 26 The finitorium is illustrated in Alberti, Of Statuary, in Architecture of Leon Battista Alberti in Ten Books; Of Painting in Three Books; and Of Statuary in One Book. Its operation is described in Tavernor, On Alberti, 7, 39. Leonardo da Vinci later would describe and illustrate a similar device to reproduce the form of a statue. See Leonardo, Treatise on Painting, 154. 27 Alberti, On the Art of Building, 1.12. Later (9.8) he refers to painting and sculpture in an equally objective way, complaining that they can be damaged when incompetent people cram them into buildings that are not yet finished. 28 Ibid., 6.13. 29 Ibid., 9.4. 30 Ibid., 7.10. 31 Ibid., 7.17.

Notes to pages 126–31

277

32 Ibid., 7.10, 7.17, 9.4. 33 Ibid., 6.1. 34 Alberti, De pictura, 2.46, 3.58. Because Latin has no equivalent word, disegno was an Italian supplement to the Latin text, along with disegnare, disegnamento, disegnino, and disegnato; however, in two of the six appearances in translation it becomes “painting” or is omitted altogether, suggesting that Alberti’s intention was not quite clear or does not map directly into English. 35 Alberti, On Painting, 2.31. Elsewhere Alberti defines “circumscription” (circonscrizione) as the external outline of a visible form. 36 Ibid., 2.46. 37 Ibid., 3.58. 38 Ibid., 1.23. The Latin word pictura can refer to both painting and drawing – and sometimes even sculpture. 39 Alberti, De re aedificatoria (1485). 40 Alberti, Leon Battista Alberti: De re aedificatoria: A Lemmatized Concordance. 41 Alberti, I dieci libri de l’architettura. 42 Richard Krautheimer has traced the etymology of the Renaissance term: “Lineamenti is a Renaissance Italianization of the classical lineamenta. The Latin word, while it occurred during the Middle Ages, seems to have done so only in a figurative sense, denoting lineage or ancestry. It was apparently first restored to its original meaning, or to one close to it, by fifteenth century writers in both Latin and in the new Italian form. Its significance in classical Latin was evidently ‘lines,’ or ‘an outline drawing’; occasionally it meant also the outline or the sketch of a speech.” He adds, “In [Lorenzo] Ghiberti’s discussion of the second door [of the Florence baptistry], lineamenti must again be understood as a counterpart of rules: that is, as principles, outlines or diagrams that illustrate the rules. Just what principles or outlines Ghiberti had in mind remains for the moment an open question.” Lorenzo Ghiberti, 230. 43 Alberti, L’architettura di Leonbatista Alberti. 44 Five editions were consulted: Monte Regale, 1565; Venice, 1565; Bologna, 1782; Rome, 1784; and Milan, 1833. 45 “A wood model made of the church of the Santissima Annuziata in 1384 is repeatedly referred to as a disegno in the account for its construction.” Goldthwaite, Building of Renaissance Florence, 369. 46 Cortelazzo and Zolli, Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana, s.v. “disegnare”: ‘to represent a figure using lines’; ‘to make a mental plan before executing it’; ‘to imagine, to pretend’. The citations are from Dante.

278

Notes to pages 131–3

47 Vitruvius, De architectura: Concordance: Documentation bibliographique, lexicale et grammaticale, s.v. “designo.” 48 Alberti, On the Art of Building, prologue. 49 Ibid., 6.1. As noted in Chapter 2, Cicero – whom Alberti cites frequently – was the earliest writer to use the word architectura. 50 Ibid. Alberti’s view of Vitruvius is described in Krautheimer, “Alberti and Vitruvius,” 323–32. This essay includes a graphic comparison of the contents of the two treatises. 51 Alberti, Leon Battista Alberti: De re aedificatoria: A Lemmatized Concordance, 176. It appears twice in the prologue and once in Book 9. He uses aedificatio (the act of building) and its derivatives fifty-six times. 52 The Latin titles of the two other treatises, De pictura and De statua, also referred to physical objects (pictures and statues) rather than to arts or activities (painting and sculpture). 53 All of the Italian translations changed aedificatoria to architettura. 54 Alberti, On the Art of Building, 1.3–6. 55 Ibid., 1.3. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid., 1.4. 58 Ibid., 1.8. 59 Ibid., 7.10, 7.17. 60 Ibid., 8.7. 61 Ibid., 7.13. Alberti mentions the medieval era only once (8.5), to deplore its obsession with building enormous religious buildings and towers, even in small towns. 62 One rare reference (9.7) mentions the ark and the flood. 63 This is noted in Farago, “Classification of the Visual Arts,” 28. 64 Alberti, On the Art of Building, prologue. 65 Ibid., 1.7. 66 Ibid., 1.9. 67 Ibid. The extension of humanism’s rhetorical ambition from poetry to painting and to architecture is discussed in Westfall, “Society, Beauty, and the Humanist Architect,” 72–3. 68 Alberti, On the Art of Building, 1.2–6. 69 Ibid., 1.2. 70 Ibid. Elsewhere in the treatise Alberti discusses the education of the architect, but in a somewhat ambivalent way. In the prologue, where the role of the archi-

Notes to pages 133–7

279

tect is glorified, he lists many responsibilities that an architect faces and many abilities that are required. To prepare for them, he says that an architect “must have an understanding and knowledge of all the highest and most noble disciplines” (prologue). This aligns with his recommendation for painters in On Painting, 3.52. However, in Book 9 he narrows his focus for architects by establishing two priorities and making others optional: “Of the arts the ones that are useful, even vital, to the architect are painting and mathematics. I am not concerned whether he is versed in any others. I will not hear those who say that an architect ought to be an expert in law … Nor do I demand that he should have an exact understanding of the stars … Nor do I say that he ought to be a musician, because he must place sounding vases in a theater; nor an orator, to instruct his client on what he proposes to do.” On the Art of Building, 9.10. These last few examples contradict Vitruvius, who had recommended a wide range of preparatory studies that could be applied directly to an architect’s practice; see Vitruvius Ten Books 1.1. Modern architectural education tends to side with Vitruvius. 71 Alberti, On the Art of Building, 1.1. 72 Ibid., 1.9. In 2.4 he elaborates on this thought: “We shall relate the advice handed down to us by the learned men of the past, in particular Theophrastus, Aristotle, Caro, Varro, Pliny, and Vitruvius: for such knowledge is better gained through long experience than through any artifice of invention; it should be sought therefore from those who have made the most diligent observations on the matter.” 73 On the rare occasions when Alberti says that architecture imitates nature, he refers not to visible appearances but to functional or mathematical analogies. In the book on construction he says, “With every type of vault, we should imitate Nature throughout, that is, bind together the bones and interweave flesh with nerves running along every possible section” (3.14). The imitation of nature is more prevalent in the books on ornament in the second half of the treatise: “All that has been said our ancestors learned through observation of Nature herself … They declared that Nature, as the perfect generator of forms, should be their model. And so, with the utmost industry, they searched out the rules that she employed in producing things, and translated them into methods of building” (9.5). 74 Alberti, On the Art of Building, 6.1. 75 Ibid., 1.9. 76 Ibid., 1.9–10. 77 Ibid., 1.1.

280

Notes to pages 137–9

78 Ibid., 1.5. 79 Ibid., 1.3. 80 Ibid., 1.8. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid., 1.4. 83 Ibid., 1.3. 84 Ibid., 1.4. 85 Ibid., 1.2. 86 Ibid., 1.9. 87 Alberti’s primordial account starts with the roof, whereas Hugh of St Victor started with the perimeter wall for protection from enemies. 88 Alberti, On the Art of Building, 1.11. 89 Ibid., 1.9. 90 Ibid., 1.2. 91 Ibid., 1.3, 1.10, 1.13. 92 Ibid., prologue. Ambivalent attitudes toward materials and construction appear elsewhere in the treatise. In Books 2 and 3, Alberti shows considerable interest and a critical attention to details: “It is appropriate to mention here how unimpressed I am with modern-day architects, who, in order to accommodate the floor beams, leave gaps in the very bones of the wall” (3.12); “I have myself seen stones crack when a large quantity of exceedingly hot lead is poured over them to secure the cramps” (3.11). However, his commentary would not help a craftsman carry out this work, so it is far from the apprenticeship tradition in which Cennini instructed painters. Despite being about construction, Book 3 includes almost no explicit references to craftsmen, tools, labour, know-how, or sequences. It is written as if the architect is the sole operative individual and the building is being built through his volition and direction. In Book 9, however, the architect lets others take over: “Should you propose to supervise and execute the work, you will hardly be able to avoid having sole responsibility for all the errors and mistakes committed by others, whether through inexperience or neglect. Such projects require zealous, circumspect, and strict clerks of works, to supervise the necessary work with diligence, application, and their constant presence” (9.11). 93 Ibid., 1.8. 94 His treatises on painting and sculpture present elaborate devices for surveying and recording existing subjects but his treatise on architecture does not. 95 Alberti, On the Art of Building, 1.2.

Notes to pages 140–4

281

96 In On Painting, 2.33, 2.35, Alberti describes pictorial composition in a similar way: as a nested hierarchy of four elements from small to large: plane, member, body, and historia. As noted in Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators, 131, this pictorial hierarchy is comparable to the linguistic hierarchy of elements in the humanist theory of rhetoric: word, phrase, clause, and sentence. 97 This emphasis on the exterior outline of a figure is also evident in On Painting and On Sculpture. 98 Because Alberti discusses the geometry of lines and angles in Book 1, some have assumed that he was talking about drawings; for example, in Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy, 10: “The first book [of De re aedificatoria] is mainly given up to the importance of drawings.” Alberti discusses design drawings and models in 2.1 and 9.10. 99 In Filarete, Treatise on Architecture, 1:15 (fol. 7v), the architect is encouraged to let the building design develop in the mind for nine months, but during this time the architect also should make drawings and discuss them with the patron. 100 When Alberti discusses drawings in 2.1, 6.1, and 9.10, the lines acquire weight. 101 Alberti, On the Art of Building, prologue. 102 On paratactic drawing, see Groenewegen-Frankfort, Arrest and Movement, 1–11. On paratactic literature, see Auerbach, “Odysseus’ Scar,” as well as a note in the introductory essay by Edward W. Saïd (xviii). 103 Lang, “De Lineamentis,” 331–5, suggests that lineamenti exist strictly in plan, but this seems unlikely because Alberti’s last three lineaments – wall, roof, and opening – have a vertical component. 104 Alberti, On the Art of Building, 1.1. 105 Ibid. and a note by the translators (422) provide two different translations for structura. Because ‘construction’ suggests materiality, it is a more appropriate modern translation than ‘structure’, which is now associated with immaterial static and dynamic forces. 106 Ibid. 107 Alberti later visualizes an angle not just as a relation between two lines but in a planar way that includes the surface between the lines, like the thin membrane between adjacent bones in a bat wing: “Any part of the surface within this perimeter that is contained between two intersecting lines is called an angle.” Ibid., 1.7. 108 Ibid., 1.1. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid.

282

Notes to pages 144–7

111 Ibid., 1.8. 112 Ibid., 1.10. 113 Ibid., 1.8. Here he uses a practical form of calculus to identify the geometric figure with the maximum area for a given perimeter. 114 Ibid., 1.11. 115 Ibid., 1.8. cha p ter s even 1 Aquinas, Division and Methods of the Sciences, 11, Question 5, Article 1, Reply to 3. This statement was included in an article entitled “Is speculative science appropriately divided into these three parts: natural, mathematical, and divine?” Aquinas referred back to Hugh of St Victor and continued to distinguish liberal arts from mechanical arts. He also acknowledged productive arts that are based on reason: “for example, producing a composition, syllogism or discourse, numbering, measuring, composing melodies, and reckoning the course of the stars” (12). 2 Alberti, On Painting, dedication. 3 Ibid. 4 Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy, 49. 5 Ibid. 6 Cennini, Craftsman’s Handbook, 1.1. 7 Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences, 16. 8 Alberti, On the Art of Building, prologue. 9 Farago, “Classification of the Visual Arts,” 33. 10 Alberti, On the Art of Building, prologue. 11 Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy, 48; Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 3:47. 12 Staley, Guilds of Florence, 37. The guild structure in late medieval and Renaissance Florence was somewhat variable over time, consisting of either two or three classes. When it consisted of three, the guilds of the ruling class included judges, notaries, bankers, doctors, and furriers; the guilds of the middle class included butchers, blacksmiths, and masters of stone and wood; and the guilds of the working class included wine merchants, tanners, locksmiths, and carpenters. In 1280, five of the working class guilds were promoted to the middle class due to their growing number of members and their growing wealth (45). The fact that local economic circumstances could affect the guilds, along with the notion that the guilds could be situated on a graduated ladder, may have suggested that similar adjustments were possible in the liberal arts.

Notes to pages 148–50

283

13 Farago, Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Paragone’, 73. 14 A comprehensive list would include Lorenzo Ghiberti, Filarete, Marsilio Ficino, Luca Pacioli, Francesco di Giorgio, and Michelangelo. Later, Anton Francesco Doni’s book Disegno (1549) made a Neoplatonic parallel between the working process of God and the working process of the artist that distinguished between the preliminary plan and the subsequent execution; see ibid., 37–8. After Vasari, a treatise by Federico Zuccaro (whose names appear alternately as Federigo and Zuccari), L’idea de’ pittori, scultori e architetti, distinguishes between internal design in the mind (disegno interno) and external design on paper (disegno esterno); see Panofsky, Idea, 85–93. In the seventeenth century, disegno was opposed to colore in a purported debate between painters in Florence, who favoured the use of disegno in preparatory drawings that compose the outlines of figures before adding colour, and painters in Venice, who favoured colore as a direct modeling of figures in colour; see Poirier, “Studies on the Concepts of Disegno.” 15 See Summers, Michelangelo, 250–61. Panepistemon was an introduction to a series of lectures on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Summers also suggests that Poliziano was Michelangelo’s teacher when both were in the Medici household for two or three years, until 1492, when Michelangelo was thirteen; see 242–9. 16 Ibid., 251. In the 1495 edition, Poliziano, Panepistemon, graphike appears as graphice, but spelling variations are evident also in other Latin words. This edition of Panepistemon is part of a larger volume that includes a Latin edition of Vitruvius. 17 Poliziano, Panepistemon, [8]. Hugh’s mechanical arts were fabric-making, armament (including architecture), commerce, agriculture, hunting (including cooking), medicine, and theatrics; see Didascalicon 2.20. 18 Summers, Michelangelo, 250. 19 Poliziano, Panepistemon, [9]. 20 Whereas the graphike-disegno division lists different forms of painting and sculpture, the architectura division refers to various topics extracted from Vitruvius rather than Alberti: representational modes (orthographia, etc.), properties of buildings (eurithma, etc.), types of buildings (publicorum, etc.), and the three criteria (firmitas, utilitas, and uenustas). Ibid. 21 Summers, Michelangelo, 254. 22 Discussing Leonardo’s work in terms of disegno, Martin Kemp notes that the modern meaning of “drawing” can be associated with Leonardo’s work as a painter and that the modern meaning of “design” can be associated with his

284

Notes to pages 150–3

work as an inventor. However, he adds that the modern meanings of “drawing” and “design” do not convey the expansiveness of Leonardo’s thought that is implied in the concept of disegno. Leonardo da Vinci: Experience, 96. 23 Leonardo, cited in Zwijnenberg, Writings and Drawings, 25. Leonardo uses “science” to refer to disciplines that are based in the mathematics of nature – including drawing and painting. 24 Leonardo, Treatise on Painting, 37. 25 Like Alberti, he stressed that these outlines (lineamenti) should be conceptually strong but graphically weak: “The lateral boundaries of these bodies is the line forming the boundary of the surface, which line is of invisible thickness. Wherefore, O painter! do not surround your bodies with lines.” Leonardo, Literary Works, 1:129. 26 Leonardo, Treatise on Painting, 37. He also describes a device that imitates Alberti’s perspective veil and anticipates Dürer’s perspective screen: “Take a glass as large as your paper, fasten it well between your eye and the object you mean to draw, and fixing your head in a frame (in such a manner as not to be able to move it) at the distance of two feet from the glass; shut one eye, and draw with a pencil accurately upon the glass all that you see through it. After that, trace upon paper what you have drawn on the glass, which tracing you may paint at pleasure, observing the aerial perspective.” Treatise on Painting, 44. 27 Leonardo, Leonardo on Painting, 44. 28 Leonardo, Treatise on Painting, 41–2. He did not mention one other difference between painting and vision: the eye’s ability to focus alternately on foreground or background contours. 29 Ibid., 8. 30 This attention to bodily gestures aligns with the concept of finitio and the finitorium device described in Alberti, On Sculpture. 31 Leonardo, Treatise on Painting, 154. 32 Leonardo, quoted in Carl Goldstein, Teaching Art, 89. 33 Leonardo, Treatise on Painting, 156. 34 Ibid., 7–8. 35 Ibid., 2, 5–6. This advice corresponds to what Cennino Cennini recommended in Il libro dell’arte. 36 Leonardo, Leonardo on Painting, 40. 37 Leonardo, Treatise on Painting, 152. 38 This strategy has a precedent in classical Roman and humanist eloquence: speeches that praise one subject while demeaning another. The various writings

Notes to pages 153–6

285

in Leonardo’s notebooks that compared painting to other arts were assembled in 1817 under the title Paragone. This Italian word, like the English “paragon,” was a new word derived from Greek roots para- ‘beside’ and agon ‘contest’, ‘struggle’. Farago, Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Paragone’, 8, 33. 39 Leonardo, Leonardo on Painting, 40–5. 40 Ibid., 38. Leonardo apprenticed in a workshop known mainly for its sculpture. Later he boasted that he “can execute sculpture in marble, bronze and clay.” Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci: Experience, 97. 41 Leonardo, Leonardo on Painting, 38–42. 42 Ibid., 19–23. 43 Ibid., 37. 44 Ibid., 46. 45 Ibid., 34–5. 46 Ibid., 37. In 1509 Luca Pacioli made the same argument in an effort to have perspective recognized as a liberal art. Of the four traditional liberal arts based on mathematics, he accepted three – geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy – but questioned the fourth, music theory, saying that if music is included, perspective also must be included. See Pacioli, Divine proportion, 1.3. 47 Leonardo, Leonardo on Painting, 22. 48 Ibid., 37. Along with sight and hearing, he considers smell, taste, and touch. He demeans smell because it does not enable one to locate the source of an odour: a curious argument. When he demeans taste and touch because they require local contact, it becomes clear that he privileges experiences that can locate distant things precisely: an extension of his earlier praise for perspective. Leonardo on Painting, 18. He also mentions that individual senses collectively inform the sensus communis. 49 Pythagorean theory, with its emphasis on numerical proportion, indeed was concerned only with the relative pitch of music. Other properties, such as intensity, rhythm, and timbre, are included in other theories of music that recognize performance. 50 Leonardo, Literary Works, 2:59–84. 51 Farago, “Classification of the Visual Arts,” 31, makes a similar point about painting: that Leonardo promoted it as a liberal art because it is a form of universal knowledge, not because of its rhetorical capacity. 52 His projects for canals and three-level cities are large mechanical devices for fluids but could be categorized also as architectural projects. Leonardo would not have distinguished between architecture and mechanical engineering.

286

Notes to pages 156–8

53 The static forces of structure are more difficult to visualize than the dynamic forces of mechanics in motion. Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci: Marvellous Works, 129, suggests that Leonardo understood architectural structure as an equilibrium of forces, analogous to the equilibrium of structural components in the human body, as illustrated in the drawings of his skeletal tiburio design for the cathedral in Milan (1488). 54 Although geometry tends to be associated with a final form, constructing a geometric figure is a mechanical operation that requires instruments and a series of steps. The residual actions may be implicit in the final form. 55 Leonardo, Treatise on Painting, 152. 56 Leonardo, Leonardo on Painting, 45. 57 Leonardo, quoted in Farago, Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Paragone’, 239. 58 Vasari, Lives, 1:626. 59 Yates, “Italian Academies,” 6, notes that an academy was not a school or university. Although it alludes to Plato’s groves of Akademeia outside the wall of Athens, the academy was basically an Italian Renaissance institution. Academies began after Greek scholars arrived in Italy in the 1430s. They were primarily social groups for humanist research and the revival of classical knowledge and virtue. The Accademia Platonica was founded in Florence in 1442 and later included Marsilio Ficino and Angelo Poliziano among its members. Starting in the late 1520s after political upheavals in Italy, many small academies, often with obscure or mystical names, were formed to address a much wider range of subjects, not necessarily classical. Over two thousand Italian academies have been identified from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century; see Yates, “Italian Academies,” 7. For the early history of academies, see also Pevsner, Academies of Art, chap. 1. 60 On Varchi’s early involvement with academies, see Samuels, “Benedetto Varchi,” 599–634. 61 Eisenbichler, Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici, xiii. Cosimo’s linguistic ambition was for Tuscan to replace Latin as the primary language for developing and disseminating knowledge. 62 Basile, “Fasseli gratia per poetessa,” 137. 63 Varchi, Due lezzioni. The stated publication date, 1549, is based on the Florentine calendar. In the Julian calendar it would be 1550: the same year as Vasari’s first edition of the Lives. 64 Mendelsohn, Paragoni, 105. 65 Varchi’s commentary on this sonnet is discussed in Panofsky, Idea, 119–21,

Notes to pages 158–60

287

which considers whether Michelangelo’s understanding of art was influenced more by Platonic or Aristotelian concepts. 66 Mendelsohn, Paragoni, 110. 67 Varchi, Due lezzioni, 70–7. 68 Mendelsohn, Paragoni, 84. 69 Ibid., 64. 70 Varchi, quoted in ibid., 113. 71 Although Varchi sometimes cites Michelangelo as a precedent for artists to imitate, at other times he seems reluctant to do so. The consistent perfection of Michelangelo’s art since birth suggested that it came directly from a divine source, whereas other humans had to learn their art and imitate the divine. Ibid., 102. 72 Similarly, an Aristotelian approach would regard an artist’s initial sketch as rough and imperfect, to be developed gradually to perfection by working with worldly material. A more Platonic approach would regard an artist’s initial sketch as an inspired authority to which all subsequent imitations must be faithful. 73 Mendelsohn, Paragoni, 92. 74 Varchi, quoted in ibid., 77. 75 Ibid., 76. 76 Ibid., 73. 77 Ibid., 79. 78 Ibid., 45, 116, suggests that disegno originated in medieval architecture with Villard de Honnecourt and even Varro from ancient Rome, in turn suggesting that architecture is the parent of painting and sculpture. The argument seems anachronistic and unconvincing. 79 Quiviger, “Benedetto Varchi,” 220, 224. 80 Varchi, Due lezzioni, 102. 81 For a comprehensive biographical outline of Vasari’s practical work, see Rubin, Giorgio Vasari, 9–19. 82 Vasari, Le vite. The larger political territory is noted in ibid., 214. 83 Vasari was the first to refer to late medieval churches (erroneously) as products of the Goths, a fourth-century tribe with no connection to what would be called “Gothic.” See Vasari on Technique, 83; and Vasari, Lives, 1:59. He was also reportedly the first to use the concept of “rebirth” (renascita) to designate the Renaissance period. “The earlier Italians used instead almost every possible equivalent: revival, restoration, awakening, reflowering, or return to the light.

288

Notes to pages 160–3

Vasari chose the more vivid metaphor.” Ferguson, Renaissance in Historical Thought, 65. 84 Vasari, Lives, 1:112. 85 Ibid., 1:22. 86 Although painting and sculpture are characterized here as fraternal twins, elsewhere Vasari describes sculpture (in stone, for example, which involves only subtractive actions) as the “niece” of painting, with plastice (modeling in clay or wax, which involves both additive and subtractive actions) as the sister of painting. Ibid., 1:16. Although the generations and genetic relationships are somewhat loose, it is clear that all three occupations are members of the same family and that the head of the family is disegno. 87 Ibid., 1:22–3. 88 Ibid., 1:15–16. 89 Ibid., 1:22. 90 Ibid., 1:27. 91 Ibid., 1:24. 92 Ibid., 1:36–7. 93 Ibid., 1:12. 94 Ibid., 1:32. 95 Ibid., 1:247. 96 Accademia delle arti del disegno: Nuovo statuto, 37. 97 Vasari, Lives, 2:550–2. In his account of the life of Montorsoli, Vasari makes some retroactive adjustments to history by saying that the “Compagnia del disegno” and its chapel had been associated with all three arti del disegno since the time of Giotto. 98 Just before Varchi’s lectures in 1547, the Accademia Fiorentina had tightened its membership rules to exclude those with few literary skills, resulting in the suspension of some of the artists. Writing new compositions in Tuscan was a requirement for all members. These rules were loosened again in 1550. Mendelsohn, Paragoni, 26; Basile, “Fasseli gratia per poetessa,” 137. This may have prompted a desire for a separate academy for artists. 99 The statutes are recorded in Pevsner, Academies of Art, 296–304. 100 Vasari, Lives, 2:552. 101 Farago, Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Paragone’, 130. 102 Barzman, “Accademia del Disegno,” 179–83. 103 Pevsner, Academies of Art, chap. 2, and Goldstein, Teaching Art, chap. 1, present some thin evidence of earlier art academies in Leonardo’s circle and in 1530s

Notes to pages 165–7

289

Rome but acknowledge that the Accademia del Disegno (1563) in Florence was the first formal academy of art. Other art academies were established later in Perugia (1573), Rome (1593), and Bologna (1598). In France, the first art academy was the Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture (1648). The academy in Florence still exists under the name Accademia delle arti del disegno. A brief institutional history is included in Accademia delle arti del disegno: Nuovo statuto, 37–51. 104 Barzman, Florentine Academy, 56. 105 Divine Michelangelo, 22, 28. The text is from a pamphlet issued shortly after the event. It was also the basis for part of Vasari’s life of Michelangelo in Lives, 2:747–8. 106 Divine Michelangelo, 74. 107 Reynolds, “Accademia del Disegno,” 175–6. 108 Barzman, Florentine Academy, 72. 109 Ibid., 83–4. 110 Ibid., 184. The Guild of Builders had superseded the Guild of Masters in Stone and Wood in 1534. 111 Ibid., 59. 112 Wittkower, in Divine Michelangelo, 44, refers to a lengthy power struggle between the guilds and the artists. Debates involving guild control over production, buying, and selling could offer insights into changing definitions of art and distinctions between artisans and artists. However, Cosimo’s 1571 transfer of commercial control for painters, sculptors, and architects is not mentioned in two major histories of guilds in Florence: Goldthwaite, Building of Renaissance Florence; and Staley, Guilds of Florence. There is also no circumstantial discussion of it in the records of the academy, according to Barzman, Florentine Academy, 207. Although guild membership officially was required, exceptions for highly respected practitioners had been possible since 1430, when Brunelleschi avoided membership when directing the construction of the cathedral dome in Florence. See Wittkower and Wittkower, Born Under Saturn, 10, for the story of Brunelleschi being jailed and subsequently released; Vasari does not mention this event in his life of Brunelleschi. 113 Reynolds, “Accademia del Disegno,” 184. 114 Tolnay, History and Technique, 5–6. 115 This two-step sequence was the typical approach to painting in Florence. (It had not yet acquired the modern association with colouring books and paintby-numbers.) Venetian painters, on the other hand, tended to work directly in

290

Notes to pages 167–9

colour and paint, without composing a drawing first. See Poirier, “Studies on the Concepts of Disegno,” 37–9, 98–9. 116 Barzman, Florentine Academy, 67. Zuccaro’s letter is also described in Pevsner, Academies of Art, 51–2. Zuccaro later left the academy and became the director of a new academy of art in Rome. His activities there are described in Barasch, Theories of Art, 295–303. 117 Summers, “Sculptural Program,” 68 n. 4. Symbols of the Christian trinity already were included in the sculptural programme for the chapel that Montorsoli donated to the academy. 118 Vasari, Lives, 1:24. This aligns with how painting and sculpture are presented in the first half of Alberti, On the Art of Building: as ornaments for niches – but not in the second half, where they parallel architectural ornamentation. 119 Pevsner, Academies of Art, 296–304. 120 Goldstein, “Vasari,” 150. 121 Reynolds, “Accademia del Disegno,” 82. 122 Pevsner, Academies of Art, 299. 123 Barzman, Florentine Academy, 194. 124 Divine Michelangelo, 19–21. The dispute involved painters Vasari and Bronzino and sculptors Cellini and Ammannati. 125 Barzman, Florentine Academy, 68. 126 Goldstein, Teaching Art, 224–5. 127 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 148. 128 Ibid., 206. 129 Ibid., 207. 130 The amendments are reprinted in Wazbinski, L’Accademia Medicea del Disegno, 441–3. 131 Reynolds, “Accademia del Disegno,” 145. Barzman, Florentine Academy, 35, adds a further detail about an addendum to this article that was crossed out. 132 The headings in the second edition of Vasari’s Lives offer a historical glimpse of the various combinations of the three arts during the previous 250 years. They include ninety-eight painters, twenty sculptors, seven architects; five painter/sculptors, four painter/architects, thirteen sculptor/architects; and five painter/sculptor/architects. (A few other occupations are mentioned: goldsmith, illuminator, engineer, master of glass windows, craftsman, engraver of cameos and gems, engraver of prints, master of casting, and miniaturist.) Vasari’s biographies of the architects indicate that all of them migrated through other occupations before arriving in architecture. The singular architects who

Notes to pages 170–2

291

(hypothetically) would have been excluded from the Accademia del Disegno include Giuliano and Antonio San Gallo and Donato Bramante. 133 Barzman, Florentine Academy, 36. 134 Ibid., 111. 135 Divine Michelangelo, 53, 57, 61, 73. 136 Reynolds, “Accademia del Disegno,” 180–2. 137 The laurel branch was a Medici symbol. Its ability to grow back after being chopped down symbolized the ability of the Medici family to return to Florence and prosper after being exiled. Hollingsworth, Patronage, 258. 138 Summers, Michelangelo, 257. 139 Divine Michelangelo, 121. 140 Vasari, Lives, 2:868–84 (painters), 2:884–96 (sculptors). The only reference to a singular architect is Palladio, whom Vasari identifies as a foreign member (2:884). In 1566, six notable artists from Venice, including Palladio, Titian, and Tintoretto, were approved for special membership but the academy’s records indicate that they never paid fees and do not mention them again. Barzman, Florentine Academy, 56–7. 141 Vasari, like Alberti, understood sculpture as a figure in the round, not as a figure integrated into the wall of a building, as in Gothic statuary. Vasari on Technique, 143, describes walking around a sculpture to see it from all sides. He also advises carving sculptures to acknowledge their eventual location relative to the observer: for example, to be seen from below or from a distance (145). 142 Ibid., 206–7. Despite the ambition to separate design from construction, histories of architectural practice show that architects continued to be active on the building site for at least several more centuries. See Jenkins, Architect and Patron, 45. 143 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 96–7. 144 Vasari, Lives, 1:22. 145 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 205. 146 Vasari’s narrative description of paintings is discussed under the term ekphrasis in Alpers, “Ekphrasis,” 192–203. She identifies four types of writing in the Lives, each with its own tradition: biographical anecdotes about artists; descriptions of narratives represented in artworks; descriptions of stylistic developments; and descriptions of technical skills. Alberti indicates a similar narrative intent as the final stage in the theoretical composition of a painting: surfaces, then members, then bodies, and finally historia (an arrangement of bodies expressing a particular story). See On Painting, 2.35.

292

Notes to pages 172–5

147 Vasari, Lives, 2:657. 148 Ibid., 2:721–3. cha p ter eig ht 1 Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (1),” and “Modern System of the Arts (2).” 2 Kivy, Philosophies of Arts, 5. 3 Ibid., 220 n. 10. 4 Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, s.v. “art.” The term “beaux-arts” was not common until the mid-eighteenth century. 5 Ibid., s.v. “beau,” from Latin bonus ‘good, beautiful’. 6 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “polite,” from Latin polire, ‘to smooth’, ‘to polish’. 7 Ibid., s.v. “fine,” from Latin finire, ‘to finish’. 8 Ibid., s.v. “fine art.” The earliest reference to “fine art” is 1767. 9 Tatarkiewicz, History of Six Ideas, 17. 10 Perrault, Cabinet des beaux Arts. 11 Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (1),” 527. 12 Barchilon and Flinders, Charles Perrault, 59. The authors say that they found clues in the images but do not present evidence. They suggest that modesty prevented Perrault from presenting this luxuriously decorated studio as his own. 13 Perrault, Cabinet des beaux Arts, 1. 14 Ibid., 19. 15 The poem was delivered to the academy in 1687. It is reprinted in Perrault, Parallèle des anciens et des modernes, 165–71. 16 The dialogue on these three arts is reprinted in ibid., 128–64. 17 Morley, preface to Spectator, vol. 1. 18 On positive and arbitrary beauty, see Rykwert, First Moderns, 36–7, 116. 19 Spectator 29, in Addison, Works, 2:468. 20 Abrams, “Art-as-Such,” 142. 21 See Black, Italy and the Grand Tour. Anthony Burgess’s anecdotal essay in Burgess and Haskell, Age of the Grand Tour, is also illuminating. 22 Pfister, Fatal Gift of Beauty, 3. 23 Spectator 411, in Addison, Works, 3:487. 24 Spectator 411, in ibid., 3:488. 25 Spectator 412, in ibid., 3:489–92. 26 Spectator 411, in Addison, Works, 3:488. M.H. Abrams notes that all of the fine arts provide “a diversion or escape from ordinary utilitarian and moral interests and pursuits.” See “Art-as-Such,” 152.

Notes to pages 176–86

293

27 Spectator 413, in ibid., 3:493. 28 Spectator 414, in ibid., 3:497. 29 Spectator 415, in ibid., 3:498–501. 30 Spectator 415, in ibid., 3:500. The quotation is from Roland Fréart de Chambray, A Parallel of the Ancient Architecture with the Modern (1650). 31 Spectator 415, in ibid., 3:501. 32 Spectator 411, 416, in ibid., 3:487, 502. 33 Spectator 418, in ibid., 3:509. Aristotle says, “We enjoy contemplating the most precise images of things whose actual sight is painful to us, such as the forms of the vilest animals and of corpses.” Poetics 1448b10. 34 Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (2),” 18 n. 172. 35 Shaftesbury, Characteristicks, 2:406–8. 36 Ibid., 1:240–1. 37 Ibid., 2:104. 38 Dubos, Critical Reflections, 1:35. 39 Baumgarten’s thesis was entitled “Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus” (Reflections on Poetry). 40 Baumgarten, Reflections on Poetry, 78. 41 Ibid., 41. 42 Baumgarten’s word “confused” (confusae) now has a derogatory meaning he did not intend. Ibid., 42. 43 Ibid., 76. 44 Ibid., 55–6. 45 Kristeller, “Modern System of the Arts (2),” 20. 46 Batteux, Beaux arts, 6. Batteux devotes separate chapters to poetry, painting, music and dance, but not to sculpture, eloquence, or architecture. Architecture is mentioned only eight times in his treatise but the remarks are deliberate and not just passing references. 47 Ibid., 38–9. 48 Ibid., 13, 258. 49 Ibid., 38. 50 Ibid., 45. 51 Ibid., 262. 52 Ibid., 263. 53 Ibid., 44. 54 Ibid., 43. 55 Ibid., 45–6.

294

Notes to pages 186–93

56 Ibid., 46. 57 Diderot and d’Alembert, Encyclopédie. 58 The tree diagram appears in Chambers, Cyclopaedia, ii. 59 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 110–11. 60 Ibid., 51. 61 Bacon, Tvvoo Bookes, book 2, chap. 1. D’Alembert notes that the lower parts of the hierarchies in Bacon and the Encyclopédie are quite different. Preliminary Discourse, 159–64. 62 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 48. 63 Rey, Grand Robert, s.v. “civil.” 64 The term “architecture pratique” appears in the diagram but nowhere else in the Encyclopédie. The other terms are cited occasionally in articles: “architecture navale” (14 citations), “architecture militaire” (16 citations), and “architecture civile” (14 citations). 65 In d’Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 144–5, as well as a 1995 reprint, the English translation of the chart is misleading because it combines the Memory and Reason columns from the 1751 diagram with the Imagination column from the 1750 diagram. Consequently, “civil architecture” does not appear anywhere. 66 Ibid., 156. 67 All other disciplines in the 1751 diagram are grouped graphically with curly braces to indicate the hierarchy, but in the Imagination section a vertical line separates poetry and its divisions on the left from the five non-verbal fine arts on the right. These five arts are also italicized, unlike all other disciplines in the diagram. (These two graphic irregularities are noted also in Simowitz, Theory of Art, 5.) This irregularity is not explained or resolved in “Preliminary Discourse”; instead, d’Alembert’s methodical description of verbal poetry is broken suddenly by the phrase “on the other hand” (en revanche), followed by a kaleidoscopic series of analogies among the various fine arts. See Preliminary Discourse, 156. Kristeller also glosses over this irregularity and simply lists five fine arts: (written) poetry from the left side and painting, sculpture, (civil) architecture, and music (but not engraving) from the right side; see “Modern System of the Arts (2),” 22. 68 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 55. 69 Ibid., 37–8. 70 Ibid., 50. 71 Harrington, Changing Ideas, 10, 31. 72 Blondel, Cours d’architecture, 1:124, 143.

Notes to pages 193–201

295

73 Ibid., 1:129–30. 74 Ibid. 75 This is consistent with the current meaning of “liberal arts” as a foundation for advanced education. 76 Curson, Theory of Sciences, preface. 77 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 116. 78 Diderot and d’Alembert, Encyclopédie, 1:717, s.v. “art.” My translation. 79 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 40. “Science” is derived from Latin scientia ‘knowledge’ and is not limited to natural science. 80 The assembled plates were published in 1762, 1765, 1768, and 1772. 81 Diderot and d’Alembert, Encyclopédie, 1:714, s.v. “art.” 82 The digital edition of the Encyclopédie indicates that there are seventy-nine passing references to “arts libéraux” but no significant discussion of their history or meaning. There is no dedicated article on the liberal arts, only part of a paragraph in the article entitled “Art,” where Diderot blames the liberal arts for the low status of the mechanical arts, and a paragraph in “Preliminary Discourse” where d’Alembert makes a similar criticism (Preliminary Discourse, 41–2). Elsewhere in the Encyclopédie these seven arts are discussed only individually. 83 This is noted also in Simowitz, Theory of Art, 10, and Harrington, Changing Ideas, 7. 84 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 118–26. See also Diderot and d’Alembert, Encyclopédie, 1:xxxvij–xl. 85 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 43. 86 Diderot and d’Alembert, Encyclopédie, 5:496, s.v. “elemens des sciences.” My translation. 87 Ibid., 8:560, s.v. “imagination.” My translation. 88 Becker, Heavenly City, 8. 89 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 43. Changing concepts of imagination from the late seventeenth to the early nineteenth century are discussed in Engell, Creative Imagination. 90 For a survey of eighteenth-century theoretical writings on the topic of origin, see Labio, Origins and the Enlightenment, especially chap. 3. 91 Laugier, Essay on Architecture, 8. 92 Ibid., 40. 93 Herrmann, Laugier, 43–4, suggests that the “imitation of nature” principle in architecture before Laugier had been losing credibility.

296

Notes to pages 201–5

94 Laugier, Essay on Architecture, 11. 95 Seeking deeper origins in nature was a common Enlightenment tactic. “The eighteenth-century Philosophers might therefore rewrite the story of man’s first state, relegating the Garden of Eden to the limbo of myths; they might discover a new revelation in the book of nature to displace the revelation in Holy Writ.” Becker, Heavenly City, 128–9. 96 Laugier, Essay on Architecture, 11–12. 97 Ibid., 13. The earlier examples presented in Rykwert, On Adam’s House, show that Laugier was not the first to imagine a primitive hut, but Herrmann suggests, in Laugier, 48, that he was “the first to present the hut as a structure of vital importance for the present.” 98 Laugier, Essay on Architecture, 12. 99 Ibid., 14, 23, 25. 100 Gay, Enlightenment, 1:8. 101 Laugier, Essay on Architecture, 19. 102 Ibid., 37. 103 Ibid., 65. 104 Ibid., 36. 105 Ibid., 12. 106 Ibid., 14. 107 Ibid., 38. 108 Ibid., 32. 109 Ibid., 35. 110 In France and England there was no single institution devoted to all five arts. Unlike the Accademia del Disegno, separate academies focused on individual arts. They shared common principles rather than common locations. 111 Gay, Enlightenment, 1:140. 112 Meanwhile, in 1766, Gotthold Lessing objected to direct analogies and translations among the fine arts. He distinguished the synchronic arts of painting and sculpture from the diachronic art of poetry, comparing their respective modes of representation and observation. See Lessing, Laocoön. 113 The royal academies were closed in 1793. In 1795 the Institut national des sciences et des arts was formed, with members from painting, sculpture, architecture, musical composition, literature, and archaeology. In 1803 this group was subdivided into four bodies, one of which became the Académie des beaux-arts, for painting, sculpture, architecture, musical composition, and engraving; cinema/ audiovisual was added in 1985. See Institut de France, Académie des beaux-arts.

Notes to pages 205–11

297

114 The École des beaux-arts was established formally in 1819 as a school for painting, sculpture, and architecture. See Jacques and Vidler, “Chronology,” 151–7. 115 This point is made also in Munro, Arts, 132–6. 116 Diderot and d’Alembert, Encyclopédie, 2:173, s.v. “beau.” See also Funt, Diderot, 73 n. 158, 85–7. 117 Wittkower, “Imitation,” 144–5. 118 The uppermost heading in the Encyclopédie tree diagram is “entendement” (understanding), not “connaissance” or “connoissance” (knowledge). 119 The now-common proverb “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” arose in the mid-eighteenth century. Knowles, Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 595. 120 The rise of instrumental music has been described by writers in the philosophy of music: in particular, Carl Dahlhaus, Lydia Goehr, and Peter Kivy. They refer to it also as “absolute music” and “pure music.” 121 The main contribution is Abrams, Mirror and the Lamp, but three articles by Abrams thirty years later are also noteworthy: “Kant and the Theology of Art”; “From Addison to Kant”; and “Art-as-Such.” 122 The main contribution is Dahlhaus, Idea of Absolute Music, originally published in German in 1978. 123 The main contribution in music is Goehr, Imaginary Museum. Another book that follows Kristeller and surveys research in various arts is Shiner, Invention of Art. 124 Goehr, Imaginary Museum, 128–9, 192. 125 Dahlhaus, Idea of Absolute Music, 8. 126 The imitative limits of instrumental music are examined in Kivy, “Is Music an Art?”; however, Kivy uses his observations about imitation and an overly universal acceptance of Batteux’s imitation principle to reach an invalid conclusion that music was not a fine art and that Kristeller’s basic premise about five fine arts is wrong. 127 Batteux, Beaux arts, 1.2. 128 Bonds, Music as Thought, 13. 129 These activities are cited throughout Elkin, Old Concert Rooms of London. 130 Ibid., 67. 131 Galkin, History of Orchestral Conducting, 58. The original Gewandhaus was demolished in 1893 after being replaced in 1884 by a larger concert hall on a different site. The current Gewandhaus is a third building on yet another site, built in 1968. 132 Forsyth, Buildings for Music, 57.

298

Notes to pages 211–14

133 The Thomaskirche in Leipzig, where J.S. Bach presided, had a similar layout of pews. See ibid., 12. 134 Concerts at the Altes Gewandhaus are described in Hennenberg, Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra. As noted at the beginning of the introduction, subsequent concert halls developed an even more extreme set of roles, relationships, and practices. See Small, Musicking, 19–119. 135 See Hoffmann, “Beethoven’s Instrumental Music.” The full review was published in 1810. An abridged version appeared in 1813. 136 Ibid. 137 Bonds, Music as Thought, 12. 138 Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment, 201–2 (§51). 139 He cites Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder (1773–98) as “the single most important figure in the articulation of a new aesthetic of listening at the end of the eighteenth century … Listening is something he does to the music … [with a] sense of exertion … by consciously distancing himself from all external stimuli other than the music.” Bonds, Music as Thought, 22, 29. 140 Ibid., 14, 33. 141 Dahlhaus, Idea of Absolute Music, 9. 142 This is the basic thesis of Abrams, Mirror and the Lamp. The mimetic mirror that reflects external light is superseded by an expressive lamp that generates its own light. 143 Burke, Philosophical Enquiry, 60. 144 The name “Claude glass” referred to the landscape paintings of Claude Lorrain (1600–82), which typically seem like twilight scenes: a dark foreground in silhouette, a bright sky in the background, and a few small areas of inhabited detail. This device was known also as the “Claude mirror” and the “Gray mirror,” after the poet Thomas Gray. Maillet, Claude Glass, 31–5, 138. See also Andrews, Search for the Picturesque, 68–71. 145 Earlier versions of the black mirror acquired demonic associations. Mirrors already were associated with witches and the devil, “to rival his creator by producing simulacra.” Some believed that one could use a black mirror to conjure the souls of the dead and “see all the persons one wishes to see, no matter what part of the world they are in.” Maillet, Claude Glass, 48–61. cha p ter nine 1 Boullée was also a student of Germain Boffrand and Jean-Laurent Le Geay. His teachers are discussed in Kaufmann, Three Revolutionary Architects, 437–47, 450–2.

Notes to pages 214–20

299

2 Boullée, Boullée’s Treatise on Architecture, 1; Kaufmann, Three Revolutionary Architects, 456. 3 These buildings are documented in Pérouse de Montclos, Étienne-Louis Boullée, 45–65. 4 Boullée, Architecture: Essai sur l’art, 26. 5 “That he loved his art with a ‘passion impérieuse’ appeared in a draft of an anonymous obituary recounting the architect’s habit of getting up during the night and setting down on paper the ideas that had come to him in sleepless hours.” Kaufmann, Three Revolutionary Architects, 457. 6 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 82. 7 Pérez-Gómez, Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science, 138. 8 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 110. 9 Ibid., 83. 10 Ibid., 85. 11 Ibid., 116. 12 Ibid., 107. 13 Ibid., 85. 14 Ibid., 109. 15 Ibid., 87. Perrault’s view is presented in Ordonnance, 47–50. 16 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 116. 17 Ibid., 105, 111; Architecture: Essai sur l’art, 41, 80, 93. 18 “Something comparable to poetry in its beauty or emotional impact; a poetic quality of beauty and intensity of emotion; the poetic quality of something. In early use, chiefly in poetry of motion (also the foot): dancing.” Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “poetry.” The first citation is from 1664. The same figurative meaning appears in French, dating from before 1699. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, s.v. “poésie.” This meaning of “poetry” and “poetic” would become much more common with Romanticism in the nineteenth century. 19 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 83. 20 Ibid., 88. Boullée’s original text refers to “l’art méchanique de l’architecture.” Architecture: Essai sur l’art, 41. 21 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 109; Architecture: Essai sur l’art, 87. 22 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 84. 23 Ibid., 107. He does not mention naval architecture, suggesting that ships and harbours are not a priority. He also does not discuss practical architecture, as materials and construction are not his concern. 24 Ibid., 108. Pérouse de Montclos notes, “Boullée’s designs in the field of military

300

Notes to pages 220–3

architecture owe nothing to the techniques of fortification: they are simply ‘the image of might’.” Étienne-Louis Boullée, 40. 25 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 113, 114; Architecture: Essai sur l’art, 100. 26 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 109. 27 Ibid., 100. 28 He also suggests that everything in nature is striving for perfection, but does not elaborate. Ibid., 90. 29 Ibid., 85, 87. Elsewhere, in a section on teaching architecture, he suggests that a building would be perfect if its decoration reflected its genre [espèce] and its layout [distribution] reflected its purpose [destination]. Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 115; Architecture: Essai sur l’art, 103. 30 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 82. 31 Ibid., 113. 32 Ibid., 82, 85, 108, 110. 33 Ibid., 90, 101, 105, 106, 107. On Boullée’s buried architecture and its invocation of the sublime, see Vidler, “Notes on the Sublime,” 175. 34 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 107. 35 Ibid., 86. 36 Ibid., 112. 37 On the role of sensationalism in Boullée’s work, see Bressani, “Étienne-Louis Boullée,” 37–57. 38 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 113. 39 Ibid., 112. 40 This is evident in the project for a museum, as well as some of the cenotaphs. 41 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 83. 42 Ibid., 87. This statement should not be taken out of context, as an argument for naivety. Boullée is referring to the ability of Claude Perrault and François Blondel to make excellent works without being aware of the original principles that he himself had discovered. 43 Ibid., 83. 44 Ibid., 84. In fact, painters and writers in the eighteenth century still worked mainly for patrons. See Shiner, Invention of Art, 125–8. 45 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 84. 46 Ibid., 109. 47 Ibid., 93, 94, 111. 48 Ibid., 88. 49 Ibid., 106. This description is similar to contemporary accounts by writers on

Notes to pages 223–6

301

the Picturesque and the Sublime, including those who used the Claude glass to view and record such scenes. 50 Boullée’s section drawings consistently suggest stone construction, with an occasional use of wood for small roof structures. 51 These incongruous shadows are evident in several drawings: the Circus elevation (HA 55, no. 16, 17); a cenotaph (HA 57, no. 20); another cenotaph (HA 55, no. 26); and a city gate (Uffizi collection). 52 The complex Enlightenment attitude toward Christianity is discussed throughout Becker, Heavenly City, especially chap. 2. 53 Alberti did the same, but his intention was to invoke the ancients and timeless institutions. 54 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 87. “La fête-Dieu, en usage chez les Chrétiens.” Architecture: Essai sur l’art, 39. 55 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 94. 56 Ibid., 112. Rather than encouraging an observer to behold a starry sky in nature, Boullée designs a building that represents such a sky. The imitation of nature thus is preferred to nature itself. 57 Ibid., 115. 58 Ibid., 82. 59 Condillac, Treatise on the Sensations, 155–339. 60 In Saisselin, “Architecture and Language,” 239–53, Nicolas Le Camus de Mézières is presented as a transitional figure who is committed to decorum but also invokes a language of sensation. 61 Two examples are the Versailles renovation and the public library. In the projects that could become commissions, Boullée describes their practical attributes: shortest possible distances, good sight lines, good acoustics, operational convenience, easy exits, etc. In the non-commission projects he does not bother with such issues, suggesting that sensation is the only real concern. 62 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 105. 63 Ibid., 107. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid., 83. Here he uses “art” with its more traditional meaning. 66 Ibid., 88. For the split between composer and performer, see Goehr, Imaginary Museum, 188. For the separation of architect and builder, see Kaye, Development of the Architectural Profession, 52–67, and Colvin, Biographical Dictionary, 24–33. 67 The perspective of the opera is the only drawing in which the building is im-

302

Notes to pages 226–30

mersed in significant surroundings, consistent with how it is described in the text. 68 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 99. 69 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “monument.” From Latin monere ‘to remind’. Equivalent meanings were evident in French at the time. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, s.v. “monument.” 70 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 105. 71 Ibid., 86. 72 Ibid., 91. 73 In the two section drawings of the Cenotaph for Newton, he addresses the structural challenge by illustrating two ways to lighten the top of the dome and thus reduce the risk of collapse. 74 According to Baumgarten, “[If] the historical part is not rich enough, heterocosmic fictions are likely to be necessary. Therefore, fictions both true and heterocosmic are, on condition, necessary in a poem.” Reflections on Poetry, 58. 75 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 97, 105. 76 Ibid., 114. Although his drawings are concise and carefully composed, the accompanying text rambles through autobiographical remarks, compositional principles, building features, guided tours, historical comparisons, and imagined events. 77 Referring to the subsequent development of the Beaux-arts plan, Van Zanten, “Le système des Beaux-Arts,” describes its composition not as a volumetric object but as a modulated series of pictorial tableaux: a rhythmic marche for a moving observer. 78 For example, a swarm of men entering and leaving a municipal palace, or a crowd gathered in an amphitheatre. Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 100, 101. 79 Baumgarten, Reflections on Poetry, 40. 80 Ibid., 75–6. 81 This is consistent with the original meaning of utopia as a place that is selfcontradictory and therefore cannot exist. It differs from the popular notion that a utopia is an ideal place to be sought or made. 82 Baumgarten, Reflections on Poetry, 56. 83 Ibid., 55–8. 84 Ibid., 78. 85 Baumgarten’s subsequent book, Aesthetica, initially was intended to consider all the fine arts but did not.

Notes to pages 230–4

303

86 The drawing dimensions are noted in Rosenau, Boullée and Visionary Architecture, 149–55. The largest drawing is eight feet wide. 87 Kivy, Philosophies of Arts, 42–52. 88 McClary, “Music, the Pythagoreans, and the Body,” 82–104, presents an erotic model in which popular instrumental music incites bodies to dance or to follow along with its meter, rhythm, and tonal progressions. She also refers to the narrative of Western tonality as a journey of delayed gratification. Spatial perceptions are discussed in Lippman, “Music and Space.” Temporal perceptions are discussed in Kramer, Time of Music, and Hasty, Meter as Rhythm. Clifton, Music as Heard, provides an in-depth phenomenological analysis. 89 Kivy, Philosophies of Arts, 208. 90 Abrams, “From Addison to Kant,” 18, 21. 91 Shaftesbury, Characteristicks, 2:104. 92 Bradley, “Poetry for Poetry’s Sake,” 5–6, quoted in Abrams, “From Addison to Kant,” 20. 93 Disinterestedness is discussed as an attitude and experience throughout Stolnitz, Aesthetics and Philosophy, especially chap. 2–3. Its historical development in the eighteenth century is discussed in Stolnitz, “On the Origins of ‘Aesthetic Disinterestedness’,” 131–43. 94 Stolnitz, “On the Origins of ‘Aesthetic Disinterestedness’,” 132–4. 95 Shaftesbury, Characteristicks, 1:142–3. 96 Ibid., 1:135. 97 Boffrand, Book of Architecture, 9–10. A year before Batteux, and six years before Diderot and d’Alembert, Boffrand associated architecture with the four other fine arts: “The study of one subject adds new knowledge to the other. Painting, sculpture and poetry are sisters: the first two address the eye, the third the ear. Music paints the various incidents of Nature … Architecture … is capable of a number of genres that bring its component parts to life.” Book of Architecture, 8. 98 Le Camus de Mézières, Genius of Architecture, 88, 94. 99 Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 87. 100 Architects often use such actions to describe the composition of a project: especially since the 1920s, the decade when disinterested contemplation reached its plateau, according to M.H. Abrams. 101 By theorizing a heterocosmic realm, Baumgarten’s theory of poetic fictions in 1735 anticipates the twentieth-century phrase “world of the work,” apparently coined by Roman Ingarden and used by Mikel Dufrenne, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Peter Kivy, and others in writings on hermeneutics.

304

Notes to pages 234–8

Discussions of disinterested contemplation tend to downplay the contribution of the interpreter; a modicum of self-interest seems unavoidable. 102 Although we tend to take frames for granted, André Malraux notes that the frame was unknown in the Eastern Christian church, where art was part of the continuum of the sanctuary. Malraux, Museum Without Walls, 195. On framing, see also Osborne, Art of Appreciation, 27. 103 By the late eighteenth century, the Louvre in Paris and the Uffizi in Florence had been transformed into fine art museums. Shiner, Invention of Art, 91. 104 Of course, art museums had both an aesthetic and a socio-political agenda. A painting or sculpture in an art museum was authorized by the curator as being worthy of aesthetic contemplation. Conversely, its presence legitimized the authority of the institution to make such decisions on behalf of a larger social or political body. 105 Sennett, Fall of Public Man, 77. 106 Abrams, “Art-as-Such,” 145. 107 Shiner, Invention of Art, 89. In 1759 Abbé Laugier had planned to produce the first journal on the fine arts but it did not materialize. Wolfgang Herrmann, introduction to Laugier, Essay on Architecture, xv–xvi. 108 Shiner, Invention of Art, 135. 109 Although architecture played a role in the establishment of fine art museums, it was only as a means to a different end; it framed paintings and sculptures, rather than being a subject in its own right. 110 Szambien, Musée d’architecture, 31–45. 111 Richardson, “Introducing Architectural Museums,” 6, distinguishes between earlier collections of architectural artifacts and subsequent architectural museums with a didactic ambition. Shiner, Invention of Art, 105, claims that Boullée “envisaged an eventual ‘museum of architecture’ that would contain everything of significance to the art,” but Boullée suggested merely that members of architectural academies in France submit designs that would improve their cities. These projects would be gathered together and “would offer the most complete museum of all that comes within the field of architecture.” Boullée, Architecture, Essay on Art, 111. 112 Abrams, “Art-as-Such,” 149–51. 113 Tinniswood, History of Country House Visiting, 45, 53. 114 According to Lipstadt, “Early Architectural Periodicals,” 51, the first architectural periodical was the Journal des bâtiments civils (1800). 115 The aesthetic canon is discussed uncritically in Byron, Appreciation of Architec-

Notes to pages 239–40

305

ture, 16–27. He describes “non-architectural buildings” in a rather unflattering way: “The prime fact about them is that, in so far as the word ‘architecture’ has a meaning distinct from that of mere construction, they are not architecture; they have no design, neither static nor mobile; they neither attract the eye to a focal point, nor, save for purposes of curiosity, do they make it aspire elsewhere; they simply repel it, like some monstrous piece of flesh from which the veil has suddenly been withdrawn” (27). 116 Lydia Goehr notes a similar “separability” strategy in music. See Goehr, Imaginary Museum, chap. 6. 117 See “The Illusion of Inclusion: Guidebook and Historic Architecture,” in Arnold, Reading Architectural History, 173–88. Arnold focuses on eighteenthand nineteenth-century Britain and notes that tourists focused on historical lessons and social examples of how to live, rather than on architectural features. 118 On architectural photography in the mid-nineteenth century, see Bergdoll, “A Matter of Time,” 98–119. 119 See Baird, “Life as a Work of Art,” 27–55. 120 For a historical survey of theories and practices of architectural restoration, conservation, etc., see Jokilehto, History of Architectural Conservation. 121 See Goehr, Imaginary Museum, chap. 9. 122 Boullée would disagree, as he defined architecture exclusively as a fine art, separate from building; however, he recognized utility in a general way. 123 Blondel, Cours d’architecture, 1:129, includes a paragraph that mentions all five arts and shows that he recognizes architecture as one of the fine arts. Blondel’s attitude toward innovation is summarized in Middleton, “Jacques-François Blondel,” 143–5. 124 Blondel, Cours d’architecture, 1:125. In the first volume he includes separate chapters on painting, sculpture, and gardening. 125 Spener grew up reading the Bible. As a child, he was also influenced by English Puritan writings that criticized orthodox Christian practices and sought “otherworldly” standards of morality. “I remember very well that when I was twelve years old I saw some people dance and was persuaded by others to join in the dancing. Hardly had I begun, however, when I was overtaken by such fear that I ran away from the dance and never since that time tried it again.” Spener, Pia desideria, 10. 126 Other Pietists included philosopher Johann Georg Hamann (1730–88), poet Christoph Martin Wieland (1733–1813), writer Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803), writer Karl Philipp Moritz (1756–93), philosopher Friedrich

306

Notes to pages 241–2

Schleiermacher (1768–1834), and philosopher of music Wilhelm Wackenroder (1773–98). 127 The complete title is Pious Desires for a God-pleasing Reform of the True Evangelical Church, Together with Several Simple Christian Proposals Looking Toward this End. 128 Spener, Pia desideria, 116–17. 129 Ibid., 117. 130 Ibid., 115–16. 131 Ibid., 93. 132 Quoted in Becker, “Pietism’s Confrontation,” 144. 133 Ibid., 147. 134 Ibid., 153. 135 Smith, J.G. Hamann, 19. 136 Isaiah Berlin suggests that Romanticism (preceded by Pietism) rejected three basic propositions of the Western tradition: “First, that all genuine questions can be answered … The second proposition is that all these answers are knowable … The third proposition is that all the answers must be compatible with one another … The particular twist which the Enlightenment gave to this tradition was to say that the answers were not to be obtained in any of the hitherto traditional ways … by revelation, by tradition, by dogma, etc. There is only one way of discovering these answers, and that is by the correct use of reason, deductively as in the mathematical sciences, inductively as in the sciences of nature. There is no reason why such answers, which after all have produced triumphant results in the worlds of physics and chemistry, should not equally apply to the much more troubled fields of politics, ethics and aesthetics.” Roots of Romanticism, 21–2. 137 Ibid., 59. 138 Ibid., 62. 139 See Berlin, Three Critics of the Enlightenment. 140 Gay, Enlightenment, 1:141. 141 Ibid., 1:33. 142 Becker, Heavenly City, 50. 143 Gay, Enlightenment, 1:59. 144 Becker, Heavenly City, 30–1. 145 Ibid., 102–3. 146 Ibid., 155. 147 Ibid., 8.

Notes to pages 242–7

307

148 Gay, Enlightenment, 2:215. 149 Immanuel Kant used this aviation metaphor, but in reverse: “Taste, like the power of judgment in general, is the discipline (or corrective) of genius, clipping its wings and making it well behaved or polished.” Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment, 197 (§50). cha p ter ten 1 Kilwardby De ortu scientiarum 40.378, translated in Whitney, Paradise Restored, 119. 2 This normal state of affairs is demonstrated by an amusing but disturbing counterexample cited by Michel Foucault: the taxonomy of animals in the story “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins” by Jorge Luis Borges, in which the elements of the set cannot be mapped onto any single ground. See Foucault, Order of Things, xv. 3 Defining “the one” is a big decision. In many schemes, philosophy or theology was placed at the top and was associated with God. The Encyclopédie placed (human) understanding rather than (divine) knowledge at the top. 4 Alembert, Preliminary Discourse, 48–9.

308

Notes to pages 247–53

Bibliography

Abelson, Paul. The Seven Liberal Arts: A Study in Mediaeval Culture. New York: Columbia University Teachers College, 1906. Abrams, M.H. “Art-as-Such: The Sociology of Modern Aesthetics.” In Doing Things with Texts: Essays in Criticism and Critical Theory, edited by Michael Fischer, 135–58. New York: W.W. Norton, 1989. – “From Addison to Kant: Modern Aesthetics and the Exemplary Art.” In Studies in Eighteenth-Century British Art and Aesthetics, edited by Ralph Cohen, 16–48. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. – “Kant and the Theology of Art.” Notre Dame English Journal 13 (1981): 75–106. – The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953. Accademia delle arti del disegno: Nuovo statuto. Florence: Accademia delle arti del disegno, 1982. Ackerman, James S. “Imitation.” In Origins, Imitation, Conventions, 125–41. Cambridge, m a : m it Press, 2002. Addison, Joseph. The Works of the Right Honourable Joseph Addison, Esq. 4 vols. London: Jacob Tonson, 1721. Alberti, Leon Battista. De pictura. Edited by Cecil Grayson. 1998. http://www.liberliber.it/biblioteca/a/alberti/de_pictura/html/index.htm. – De re aedificatoria. Florence: Nicolaus Laurentii, 1485. – I dieci libri de l’architettura. Translated by Pietro Lauro. Venice: Appresso V. Vavgris, 1546. – L’architettura di Leonbatista Alberti. Translated by Cosimo Bartoli. Florence: Appresso L. Torrentino, 1550. – Leon Battista Alberti: De re aedificatoria: A Lemmatized Concordance. Edited by Javier Fresnillo Núñez. 3 vols. Hildesheim, Germany: Olms, 1996.

– Of Statuary. Translated by James Leoni. In The Architecture of Leon Battista Alberti in Ten Books; Of Painting in Three Books; and Of Statuary in One Book. London: T. Edlin, 1726. Reprint, New Haven: Research Publications, 1979. – On Painting. Translated by John R. Spencer. 2d ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. – On Painting. Translated by Cecil Grayson. Harmondsworth, uk : Penguin, 1991. – On Painting and On Sculpture. Translated by Cecil Grayson. London: Phaidon, 1972. – On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Translated by Joseph Rykwert, Robert Tavernor, and Neil Leach. Cambridge, m a : m it Press, 1988. Alembert, Jean Le Rond d’. Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedia of Diderot. Translated by Richard N. Schwab. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963. Alpers, Svetlana Leontief. “Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes in Vasari’s Lives.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 23, no. 3–4 (1960): 190–215. Andrews, Malcolm. The Search for the Picturesque: Landscape Aesthetics and Tourism in Britain, 1760–1800. Aldershot, u k : Scolar Press, 1989. Aquinas, Thomas. The Division and Methods of the Sciences: Questions V and VI of his Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius. Translated and edited by Armand Maurer. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1963. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by Hugh Tredennick. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a : Harvard University Press, 1933. – Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 1932. – Physics. Translated by Philip H. Wicksteed and Francis M. Cornford. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 1929. – Poetics. Translated by Stephen Halliwell. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, ma : Harvard University Press, 1995. – Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, ma : Harvard University Press, 1944. Arnold, Dana. Reading Architectural History. London: Routledge, 2002. Atwill, Janet M. Rhetoric Reclaimed: Aristotle and the Liberal Arts Tradition. Ithaca, ny: Cornell University Press, 1998. Auerbach, Erich. “Odysseus’ Scar.” Translated by Willard R. Trask. In Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, 3–23. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans. Translated by R.W. Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

310

Bibliography

– Confessions. Translated by Albert C. Outler. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955. Bacon, Francis. The Tvvoo Bookes of Francis Bacon: Of the Profience and Aduancement of Learning, Diuine and Humane. London: Henrie Tomes, 1605. Baird, George. “Life as a Work of Art.” In The Space of Appearance, 27–55. Cambridge, m a : m it Press, 1995. Barasch, Moshe. Theories of Art: From Plato to Winckelmann. New York: New York University Press, 1985. Barchilon, Jacques, and Peter Flinders. Charles Perrault. Boston: Twayne, 1981. Bartlett, John. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Proverbs Traced to their Sources in Ancient and Modern Literature. Edited by Justin Kaplan. 17th ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 2002. Barzman, Karen-edis. “The Accademia del Disegno and Fellowships of Discourse at the Court of Cosimo I de’ Medici.” In The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici, edited by Konrad Eisenbichler, 177–88. Aldershot, uk : Ashgate, 2001. – The Florentine Academy and the Early Modern State: The Discipline of Disegno. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Basile, Deana. “Fasseli gratia per poetessa.” In The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici, edited by Konrad Eisenbichler, 135–48. Aldershot, uk : Ashgate, 2001. Batteux, Charles. Les beaux arts réduits à un même principe. Paris: Durand, 1746. Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb. Reflections on Poetry. Translated by Karl Aschenbrenner and William B. Holther. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954. Baxandall, Michael. “English Disegno.” In Words for Pictures: Seven Papers on Renaissance Art and Criticism, 83–97. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. – Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition, 1350–1450. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Becker, Carl L. The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers. 2d ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Becker, George. “Pietism’s Confrontation with Enlightenment Rationalism: An Examination of the Relation between Ascetic Protestantism and Science.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30, no. 2 (1991): 139–58. Bergdoll, Barry. “A Matter of Time: Architects and Photographers in Second Empire France.” In The Photographs of Édouard Baldus, edited by Malcolm Daniel, 98–119. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture, 1994. Berlin, Isaiah. The Roots of Romanticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. – Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Bibliography

311

Black, Jeremy. Italy and the Grand Tour. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Blondel, Jacques-François. Cours d’architecture. 6 vols. Paris: Desaint, 1771. Reprint, Paris: Phénix Éditions, 2001. Blunt, Anthony. Artistic Theory in Italy 1450–1600. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Boëthius, Anicius Manlius Severinus. De institutione musica. Translated by Calvin M. Bower. In Fundamentals of Music, edited by Claude V. Palisca, 1–195. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Boffrand, Germain. The Book of Architecture. Translated by David Britt. Aldershot, u k : Ashgate, 2002. Bonaventure. De reductione artium ad theologiam. In Saint Bonaventure’s De reductione artium ad theologiam: A Commentary with an Introduction and Translation, edited and translated by Sister Emma Thérèse Healy, 20–42. Saint Bonaventure, ny: Saint Bonaventure University, 1955. Bonds, Mark Evan. Music as Thought: Listening to the Symphony in the Age of Beethoven. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Boullée, Étienne-Louis. Architecture: Essai sur l’art. Paris: Hermann, 1968. – Architecture, Essay on Art. Translated by Sheila de Vallée. In Boullée and Visionary Architecture, edited by Helen Rosenau, 82–116. London: Academy Editions, 1976. – Boullée’s Treatise on Architecture. Edited by Helen Rosenau. London: Alec Tiranti, 1953. Boyer, Ernest L., and Lee D. Mitgang. Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice: A Special Report. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996. Bradley, A.C. “Poetry for Poetry’s Sake.” In Oxford Lectures on Poetry, 5–6. London: Macmillan, 1909. Branner, Robert. “‘Fabrica, opus’ and the Dating of Mediaeval Monuments.” Gesta 15, no. 1–2 (1976): 27–30. Brehaut, Ernest. An Encyclopedist of the Dark Ages: Isidore of Seville. New York: Columbia University, 1912. Bressani, Martin. “Étienne-Louis Boullée, Empiricism and the Cenotaph for Newton.” Architectura: Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baunkunst 23, no. 1 (1993): 37–57. Brown, Frank E. “Vitruvius and the Liberal Art of Architecture.” Bucknell Review 11, no. 4 (1963): 99–107. Bucher, François. “Design in Gothic Architecture: A Preliminary Assessment.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 27, no. 1 (1968): 49–71. – “Medieval Architectural Design Methods, 800–1560.” Gesta 11, no. 2 (1972): 37–51.

312

Bibliography

Bundgaard, Jens Andreas. Mnesicles: A Greek Architect at Work. Translated by Ingeborg Nixon. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1957. Burford, Alison. Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society. London: Thames and Hudson, 1972. Burgess, Anthony, and Francis Haskell. The Age of the Grand Tour. New York: Crown, 1967. Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful. 2d ed. Menston, u k : Scolar Press, 1970. Byron, Robert. The Appreciation of Architecture. London: Wishart, 1932. Cantor, Leonard, ed. The English Medieval Landscape. London: Croom Helm, 1982. Carabine, Deirdre. John Scottus Eriugena. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Cassiodorus. De artibus ac disciplinis liberalium litterarum. In An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings, 142–209. Translated by Leslie Webber Jones. New York: W.W. Norton, 1969. Celenza, Christopher S. The Lost Italian Renaissance: Humanists, Historians, and Latin’s Legacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Cennini, Cennino d’Andrea. The Craftsman’s Handbook. Translated by Daniel V. Thompson, Jr. New York: Dover, 1960. Chambers, Ephraim. Cyclopaedia: or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. 2 vols. London: Knapton, 1728. Chenu, M.-D. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West. Translated by Jerome Taylor and Lester K. Little. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Cicero. De officiis. Translated by Walter Mitchell. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 1913. – De oratore. Translated by E.W. Sutton. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, ma : Harvard University Press, 1942. – Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Edited and translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 2002. Cizewski, Wanda. “Reading the World as Scripture: Hugh of St Victor’s De tribus diebus.” Florilegium 9 (1987): 65–88. Clifton, Thomas. Music as Heard: A Study in Applied Phenomenology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Colvin, Howard. A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600–1840. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Conant, Kenneth John. Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 800–1200. 3d ed. Harmondsworth, uk : Penguin, 1979.

Bibliography

313

Condillac, Étienne Bonnot de. A Treatise on the Sensations. Translated by Franklin Philip. In Philosophical Writings of Étienne Bonnot, Abbé de Condillac, 155–339. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982. Contreni, John. “John Scottus, Martin Hiberniensis, the Liberal Arts, and Teaching.” In Insular Latin Studies, edited by Michael Herren, 23–44. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981. Cortelazzo, Manlio, and Paolo Zolli. Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli S.p.A., 1980. Coulton, J.J. Ancient Greek Architects at Work: Problems of Structure and Design. Ithaca, ny: Cornell University Press, 1977. – “Greek Architects and the Transmission of Design.” In Architecture et société: De l’archaïsme grec à la fin de la république romaine, 453–68. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1983. Curson, Henry. The Theory of Sciences Illustrated; or the Grounds and Principles of the Seven Liberal Arts: Grammar, Logick, Rhetorick, Musick, Arithmetick, Geometry, Astronomy; Accurately Demonstrated and Reduced to Practice. London: Richard Smith, 1702. Dahlhaus, Carl. Esthetics of Music. Translated by William Austin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. – The Idea of Absolute Music. Translated by Roger Lustig. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. – Schoenberg and the New Music: Essays by Carl Dahlhaus. Translated by Derrick Puffett and Alfred Clayton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Dalché, Patrick Gautier. Le “Descriptio Mappe Mundi” de Hughes de Saint-Victor: Texte inédit avec introduction et commentaire. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1988. Detienne, Marcel, and Jean-Pierre Vernant. Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Atlantic Highlands, nj: Humanities Press, 1978. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert, 1992. Diderot, Denis, and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, eds. Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. University of Chicago, Project for American and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language (art fl). 2007. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/encyc/. – Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. 35 vols. Paris: Briasson, 1751–80. Reprint, New York: Readex Microprint, 1969. The Divine Michelangelo: The Florentine Academy’s Homage on his Death in 1564. Translated by Rudolf Wittkower and Margot Wittkower. London: Phaidon, 1964.

314

Bibliography

Downey, Glanville. “Byzantine Architects: Their Training and Methods.” Byzantion 18 (1948): 99–118. – “Pappus of Alexandria on Architectural Studies.” Isis 38, no. 3–4 (1948): 197–200. Dubos, Jean-Baptiste. Critical Reflections on Poetry, Painting, and Music. Translated by Thomas Nugent. 3 vols. London: John Nourse, 1748. Reprint, New York: ams Press, 1978. Duro, Paul. The Academy and the Limits of Painting in Seventeenth-Century France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Eco, Umberto. Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages. Translated by Hugh Bredin. 2d ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Eisenbichler, Konrad, ed. The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici. Aldershot, uk : Ashgate, 2001. Elkin, Robert. The Old Concert Rooms of London. London: Edward Arnold, 1955. Emerson, John A. “Plainchant.” Grove Music Online. Edited by L. Macy. http://www.grovemusic.com. Engell, James. The Creative Imagination: Enlightenment to Romanticism. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 1981. Erb, Peter C., ed. Pietists: Selected Writings. New York: Paulist Press, 1983. Eriugena, Johannes Scottus. Iohannis Scotti Annotationes in Marcianum. Edited by Cora E. Lutz. Cambridge, m a : Mediaeval Academy of America, 1939. Farago, Claire J. “The Classification of the Visual Arts in the Renaissance.” In The Shapes of Knowledge from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, edited by Donald R. Kelley and Richard H. Popkin, 23–48. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. – Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Paragone’: A Critical Interpretation with a New Edition of the Text in the Codex Urbinas. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992. Ferguson, Wallace K. “Humanist Views of the Renaissance.” American Historical Review 45, no. 1 (1939): 1–28. – The Renaissance in Historical Thought. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948. Filarete. Treatise on Architecture: Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, known as Filarete. Translated by John R. Spencer. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Flint, Robert. Philosophy as Scientia Scientiarum and A History of the Classification of the Sciences. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1904. Forsyth, Michael. Buildings for Music: The Architect, the Musician, and the Listener from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. Cambridge, ma : mit Press, 1985.

Bibliography

315

Forty, Adrian. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson, 2000. Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: The Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage, 1973. Frontisi-Ducroux, Françoise. Dédale: Mythologie de l’artisan en grèce ancienne. Paris: François Maspero, 1975. Funt, David. Diderot and the Esthetics of the Enlightenment. Geneva: Droz, 1968. Galen. Claudii Galeni Pergameni scripta minora. Vol. 1. Edited by Joachim Marquardt. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1884. Galkin, Elliott W. A History of Orchestral Conducting in Theory and Practice. Stuyvesant, ny: Pendragon Press, 1988. Gay, Peter. The Enlightenment: An Interpretation. 2 vols. New York: W.W. Norton, 1995. Glotz, Gustave. Ancient Greece at Work. Translated by M.R. Dobie. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1965. Goehr, Lydia. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Goldstein, Carl. Teaching Art: Academies and Schools from Vasari to Albers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. – “Vasari and the Florentine Accademia del Disegno.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 38, no. 2 (1975): 145–52. Goldthwaite, Richard A. The Building of Renaissance Florence: An Economic and Social History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. Grayson, Cecil. “The Composition of L.B. Alberti’s Decem libri de re aedificatoria.” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3rd ser., vol. 11 (1960): 152–61. – “The Humanism of Alberti.” Italian Studies 12 (1957): 37–56. – “Leon Battista Alberti, Architect.” Architectural Design 49, no. 5–6 (1979): 7–17. Gurevich, A.Y. Categories of Medieval Culture. Translated by George Campbell. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985. Harper, Douglas. Online Etymology Dictionary. 2001. http://www.etymonline.com. Harrington, Kevin. Changing Ideas on Architecture in the Encyclopédie, 1750–1776. Ann Arbor, m i: um i Research Press, 1985. Harvey, John. The Master Builders: Architecture in the Middle Ages. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. – The Mediaeval Architect. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1972. – Mediaeval Craftsmen. London: B.T. Batsford, 1975. Haselberger, Lothar. “Architectural Likenesses: Models and Plans of Architecture in Classical Antiquity.” Journal of Roman Antiquity 10 (1997): 77–94.

316

Bibliography

Hasty, Christopher F. Meter as Rhythm. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Havelock, Eric A. The Literate Revolution in Greece and its Consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Heidegger, Martin. “Building Dwelling Thinking.” Translated by Albert Hofstadter. In Poetry, Language, Thought, 145–61. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. Hennenberg, Fritz. The Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra. Translated by Lena Jaeck. Leipzig: ve b Edition Leipzig, 1962. Hero of Alexandria. Pneumatica. Translated by Joseph Gouge Greenwood. In The Pneumatics of Hero of Alexandria, edited by Bennet Woodcroft. London: MacDonald, 1971. Herodotus. Herodotus. Translated by A.D. Godley. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 1938. Herrmann, Wolfgang. Laugier and Eighteenth-Century French Theory. London: A. Zwemmer, 1962. Hersey, George L. The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture: Speculations on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi. Cambridge, ma : mit Press, 1988. [Hippisley, John]. The Polite Arts, or, A Dissertation on Poetry, Painting, Musick, Architecture, and Eloquence. London: J. Osborn, 1749. Hoffmann, E.T.A. “Beethoven’s Instrumental Music.” Translated by Ingrid Schwaegermann. In E.T.A. Hoffmann: His Development as a Musical Writer; or Musikalische Novellen und Afsätze von E.T.A. Hoffmann, n.p. Leipzig: InselBücherei, 2001. Hollingsworth, Mary. Patronage in Sixteenth-Century Italy. London: John Murray, 1996. Horace. The Art of Poetry. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. In Satires, Epistles, Ars Poetica, 450–89. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, ma : Harvard University Press, 1970. Horn, Walter, and Ernest Born. The Plan of St Gall: A Study of the Architecture and Economy of Life in a Paradigmatic Carolingian Monastery. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Hugh of St Victor. De arca Noe morali. Translated by Community of St Mary the Virgin. In Hugh of Saint-Victor: Selected Spiritual Writings, 45–153. London: Faber and Faber, 1962. – De arca Noe mystica. Translated by Jessica Weiss. In The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, edited by Mary Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski, 45–70. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. – De tribus diebus. Edited by Dominique Poirel. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002.

Bibliography

317

– Didascalicae. In Patrologia Latina Database. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 2006. http://pld.chadwyck.com/. – Didascalicon de studio legendi. In Hugonis de Sancto Victore: Didascalicon de studio legendi: A Critical Text, edited by Charles Henry Buttimer, 1–135. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1939. – The Didascalicon of Hugh of St Victor: A Medieval Guide to the Arts. Translated by Jerome Taylor. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. – Practical Geometry. Translated by Frederick A. Homann. In Practical Geometry, 33–70. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1991. Illich, Ivan. In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh’s Didascalicon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. – Shadow Work. Boston: Marion Boyars, 1981. Ingarden, Roman. Ontology of the Work of Art: The Musical Work, The Picture, The Architectural Work, The Film. Translated by Raymond Meyer and John T. Goldthwait. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1989. Institut de France. Académie des beaux-arts. http://www.academie-des-beauxarts.fr/uk/membres/index.html. Jacques, Annie, and Anthony Vidler. “Chronology: The Ecole des Beaux-Arts, 1671–1900.” Oppositions 8 (1977): 151–7. Jenkins, Frank. Architect and Patron: A Survey of Professional Relations and Practice in England from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Johnson, Richard. “The Curriculum of the Seven Liberal Arts.” In Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts, vol. 1, edited by William Harris Stahl, 90–8. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Jokilehto, Jukka. A History of Architectural Conservation. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1999. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Edited by Paul Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Kaufmann, Emil. Three Revolutionary Architects: Boullée, Ledoux, and Lequeu. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1952. Kaye, Barrington. The Development of the Architectural Profession in Britain. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1960. Kelley, Donald R., ed. History and the Disciplines: The Reclassification of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe. Rochester, ny: University of Rochester Press, 1997. Kemp, Martin. Leonardo da Vinci: Experience, Experiment and Design. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

318

Bibliography

– Leonardo da Vinci: The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Kerman, Joseph. Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology. Cambridge, ma : Harvard University Press, 1985. Kilwardby, Robert. De ortu scientiarum. Edited by Albert G. Judy. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1976. Kivy, Peter. “Is Music an Art?” In The Fine Art of Repetition: Essays in the Philosophy of Music, 360–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. – Philosophies of Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Knowles, Elizabeth. Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Kostof, Spiro. “The Architect in the Middle Ages, East and West.” In The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, edited by Spiro Kostof, 59–95. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. – “Architecture in the Ancient World: Egypt and Greece.” In The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, edited by Spiro Kostof, 3–27. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Kramer, Jonathan. The Time of Music: New Meanings, New Temporalities, New Listening Strategies. New York: Schirmer, 1988. Krautheimer, Richard. “Alberti and Vitruvius.” In Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art, 323–32. London: University of London Press, 1971. – Lorenzo Ghiberti. 2d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. “Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance.” In Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains, 92–119. New York: Harper and Row, 1961. – “Humanist Learning in the Italian Renaissance.” In Renaissance Thought and the Arts: Collected Essays, 1–19. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. – “The Modern System of the Arts.” In Renaissance Thought and the Arts, 163–227. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. – “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics (1).” Journal of the History of Ideas 12, no. 4 (1951): 496–527. – “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics (2).” Journal of the History of Ideas 13, no. 1 (1952): 17–46. – “The Moral Thought of Renaissance Humanism.” In Renaissance Thought and the Arts: Collected Essays, 20–68. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Bibliography

319

Labio, Catherine. Origins and the Enlightenment: Aesthetic Epistemology from Descartes to Kant. Ithaca, ny: Cornell University Press, 2004. Lang, S. “De Lineamentis: L.B. Alberti’s Use of a Technical Term.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965): 331–5. Latham, R.E. Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. Laugier, Marc-Antoine. An Essay on Architecture. Translated by Wolfgang Herrmann and Anni Herrmann. Los Angeles: Hennessey and Ingalls, 1977. Le Camus de Mézières, Nicolas. The Genius of Architecture; or, The Analogy of That Art with our Sensations. Translated by David Britt. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1992. Lee, Rensselaer W. Ut Pictura Poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting. New York: W.W. Norton, 1967. Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo on Painting: An Anthology of Writings by Leonardo da Vinci with a Selection of Documents Relating to his Career as an Artist. Translated by Martin Kemp and Margaret Walker. Edited by Martin Kemp. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. – The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci. Edited by Jean Paul Richter. 2d ed. 2 vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1939. – A Treatise on Painting. Translated by John Francis Rigaud. London: George Bell and Sons, 1906. Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. Laocoön: An Essay upon the Limits of Painting and Poetry. Translated by Ellen Frothingham. New York: Noonday Press, 1957. Lewis, Charlton T. A Latin Dictionary Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, comps. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Lippman, Edward. Musical Thought in Ancient Greece. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. – “Music and Space: A Study in the Philosophy of Music.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1952. Lipstadt, Hélène. “Early Architectural Periodicals.” In The Beaux-Arts and Nineteenth-Century French Architecture, edited by Robin Middleton, 51–7. Cambridge, m a : m it Press, 1982. L’Isle André, Yves Marie de. Essai sur le beau. Paris: Chez Ferra ainé, 1810.

320

Bibliography

Lloyd, G.E.R. “Methods and Problems in the History of Ancient Science: The Greek Case.” Isis 83, no. 4 (1992): 564–77. Lobkowicz, Nicholas. Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx. Lanham, m d: University Press of America, 1983. Long, Charles H. Alpha: The Myths of Creation. New York: Braziller, 1963. Lutz, Cora E. “Remigius’ Ideas on the Classification of the Seven Liberal Arts.” Traditio 12 (1956): 65–86. Machlup, Fritz. Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance. Vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Maillet, Arnaud. The Claude Glass: Use and Meaning of the Black Mirror in Western Art. Translated by Jeff Fort. New York: Zone, 2004. Malraux, André. Museum Without Walls. Translated by Stuart Gilbert and Francis Price. London: Martin Secker and Warburg, 1967. Mantello, F.A.C., and A.G. Rigg, eds. Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographic Guide. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1996. Marrou, Henri-Irénée. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by George Lamb. London: Sheed and Ward, 1956. – “Les arts libéraux dans l’antiquité classique.” In Arts libéraux et philosophie au Moyen Age, 5–27. Montreal: Institut d’études médievales, 1969. Martianus Capella. Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts. Translated by William Harris Stahl and Richard Johnson. Vol. 2. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. Mason, Hugh J. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto: Hakkert, 1974. Mathiesen, Thomas J. Apollo’s Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. May, Gerhard. Creatio ex nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought. Translated by A.S. Worrall. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1994. McClary, Susan. “The Blasphemy of Talking Politics during Bach Year.” In Music and Society: The Politics of Composition, Performance and Reception, edited by Richard Leppert and Susan McClary, 13–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. – “Music, the Pythagoreans, and the Body.” In Choreographing History, edited by Susan Leigh Foster, 82–104. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. McEwen, Indra Kagis. Socrates’ Ancestor: An Essay on Architectural Beginnings. Cambridge, m a : m it Press, 1993. Meagher, Robert. “Techne.” Perspecta 24 (1988): 158–64.

Bibliography

321

Mendelsohn, Leatrice. Paragoni: Benedetto Varchi’s Due Lezzioni and Cinquecento Art Theory. Ann Arbor, m i: u m i Research Press, 1982. Middleton, Robin. “Jacques-François Blondel and the ‘Cours d’architecture’.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 18, no. 4 (1959): 140–8. Migne, Jacques-Paul, ed. Patrologia cursus completa, series Latina. 217 vols. Paris: Migne, 1844–55, 1862–65. Mireaux, Emile. Daily Life in the Time of Homer. Translated by Iris Sells. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1959. Mitias, Michael. “The Aesthetic Experience of the Architectural Work.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 33, no. 3 (1999): 61–77. Mitscherling, Jeffrey Anthony. “The Identity of the Architectural Work of Art.” Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy 8, no. 3 (2004): 491–518. Moran, Dermot. The Philosophy of John Scotus Eriugena: A Study of Idealism in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Morley, Henry. Preface to The Spectator. 3 vols. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1891. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12030/12030-h/12030-h/12030-h.htm. Morris, Sarah P. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Munro, Thomas. The Arts and their Interrelations. 2d ed. Cleveland: Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1969. Nightingale, Andrea Wilson. Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in its Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Oleson, John Peter. Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices: The History of a Technology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Oman, Ralph. The Report of the Register of Copyrights on Works of Architecture. Washington: Library of Congress, 1989. O’Meara, John J. Eriugena. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Onians, John. “Idea and Product: Potter and Philosopher in Classical Athens.” Journal of Design History 4, no. 2 (1991): 65–73. Osborne, Harold. The Art of Appreciation. London: Oxford University Press, 1970. Ovitt, George, Jr. The Restoration of Perfection: Labor and Technology in Medieval Culture. New Brunswick, n j: Rutgers University Press, 1987. – “The Status of the Mechanical Arts in Medieval Classifications of Learning.” Viator 14 (1983): 89–105. Oxford English Dictionary. 2d ed. 20 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

322

Bibliography

Pacioli, Luca. Divine proportion. Translated by G. Duchesne and M. Giraud. Paris: Librairie du Compagnonnage, 1980. Panofsky, Erwin. Idea: A Concept in Art Theory. Translated by Joseph J.S. Peake. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1968. – Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1960. Pappus of Alexandria. Collection. Translated by Ivor Thomas. In Selections Illustrating the History of Greek Mathematics, vol. 2, edited by Alexander Jones, 564–621. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 1951. Parker, Henry. “The Seven Liberal Arts.” English Historical Review 5, no. 19 (1890): 417–61. Patrologia Latina Database. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 2006. http://pld.chadwyck.com/. Pérez-Gómez, Alberto. Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. Cambridge, ma: m it Press, 1983. – “The Myth of Dedalus.” AA Files 10 (1985): 49–52. Pérouse de Montclos, Jean-Marie. Étienne-Louis Boullée. Paris: Flammarion, 1994. – Étienne-Louis Boullée (1728–1799), Theoretician of Revolutionary Architecture. Translated by James Emmons. New York: George Braziller, 1974. Perrault, Charles. Le Cabinet des beaux Arts. Paris: G. Edelinck, 1690. – Charles Perrault: Memoirs of My Life. Translated by Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989. – Parallèle des anciens et des modernes, en ce qui regarde les arts et les sciences. 4 vols. Paris: Jean Baptiste Coignard, 1688–97. Reprint, Munich: Eidos Verlag, 1964. Perrault, Claude. Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns after the Method of the Ancients. Translated by Indra Kagis McEwen. Santa Monica, ca: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1993. Perseus Digital Library Project. Edited by Gregory R. Crane. Tufts University. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. Petrarca, Francesco. De remediis utriusque fortune. Rome: Biblioteca Italiana. 2006. http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it:6336/dynaweb/bibit/autori/p/petrarca/de_remediis. – Petrarch’s Remedies for Fortune Fair and Foul: A Modern English Translation of De remediis utriusque Fortune, with a Commentary. Translated by Conrad H. Rawski. 5 vols. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. Pevsner, Nikolaus. Academies of Art Past and Present. 2d ed. New York: Da Capo Press, 1973.

Bibliography

323

– An Outline of European Architecture. 6th ed. Harmondsworth, uk : Penguin, 1960. – “The Term ‘Architect’ in the Middle Ages.” Speculum 17, no. 4 (1942): 549–62. Pfister, Manfred, ed. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Italies of British Travellers, An Annotated Anthology. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1996. Philostratus the Athenian. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Translated by Christopher P. Jones. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Pigman, G.W. “Versions of Imitation in the Renaissance.” Renaissance Quarterly 33, no. 1 (1980): 1–32. Plato. Republic. Translated by Paul Shorey. In Plato: The Collected Dialogues, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, 575–844. New York: Pantheon, 1961. – Statesman [Politicus]. Translated by J.B. Skemp. In Plato: The Collected Dialogues, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, 1018–85. New York: Pantheon, 1961. Pliny. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a : Harvard University Press, 1952. Plotinus. Plotinus. Translated by A.H. Armstrong. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a : Harvard University Press, 1966. – The Six Enneads. Translated by Stephen MacKenna and B.S. Page. 2006. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plotenn/index.htm. Poirier, Maurice. “Studies on the Concepts of Disegno, Invenzione, and Colore in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Italian Art and Theory.” PhD diss., New York University, 1976. Poliziano, Angelo. Panepistemon. Florence, 1495. Reprint, Woodbridge, c t : Research Publications, 1979. Pollitt, J.J. The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Powers, Harold S., and Frans Wiering. “Mode.” Grove Music Online. Edited by L. Macy. http://www.grovemusic.com. Procopius of Caesarea. Procopius. Translated by H.B. Dewing. Vol. 7, Buildings [De aedificiis]. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, ma : Harvard University Press, 1940. Quintilian. The Orator’s Education. Translated by Donald A. Russell. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 2001. Quiviger, François. “Benedetto Varchi and the Visual Arts.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 50 (1987): 219–24. Rey, Alain, ed. Le Grand Robert de la langue française. 10th ed. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert, 2001.

324

Bibliography

Reynolds, Ted. “The Accademia del Disegno in Florence: Its Formation and Early Years.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1974. Richardson, Margaret. “Introducing Architectural Museums.” Architectural Heritage: The Journal of the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland 7 (1996): 3–19. Roochnik, David. Of Art and Wisdom: Plato’s Understanding of Techne. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. Rosenau, Helen. Boullée and Visionary Architecture. London: Academy Editions, 1976. Rubin, Patricia Lee. Giorgio Vasari: Art and History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Rudolph, Conrad. Artistic Change at St-Denis: Abbot Suger’s Program and the Early Twelfth Century Controversy over Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. – “First, I Find the Center Point”: Reading the Text of Hugh of Saint Victor’s The Mystic Ark. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2004. Rüegg, Walter. “Themes.” In A History of the University in Europe, edited by Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, 3–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Rykwert, Joseph. The First Moderns: The Architects of the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge, m a : m it Press, 1980. – The Idea of a Town: The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy, and the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976. – On Adam’s House in Paradise: The Idea of the Primitive Hut in Architectural History. 2d ed. Cambridge, m a : m it Press, 1981. Saisselin, Rémy G. “Architecture and Language: The Sensationalism of Le Camus de Mézières.” British Journal of Aesthetics 15, no. 3 (1975): 239–53. Samuels, Richard S. “Benedetto Varchi, the Accademia degli Infiammati, and the Origins of the Italian Academic Movement.” Renaissance Quarterly 29, no. 4 (1976): 599–634. Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism. New York: Vintage, 1978. Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of. Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. 3 vols. London: John Darby, 1711. Shelby, Lon R. “The Geometrical Knowledge of Mediaeval Master Masons.” Speculum 47, no. 3 (1972): 395–421. – “Monastic Patrons and Their Architects: A Case Study of the Contract for the Monks’ Dormitory at Durham.” Gesta 15, no. 1–2 (1976): 91–6. Shiner, Larry. The Invention of Art: A Cultural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Bibliography

325

Simowitz, Amy Cohen. Theory of Art in the Encyclopédie. Ann Arbor, mi: umi Research Press, 1983. Simson, Otto von. The Gothic Cathedral: Origins of Gothic Architecture and the Medieval Concept of Order. 2d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974. Small, Christopher. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover, n h: Wesleyan University Press, 1998. Smith, Ronald Gregor. J.G. Hamann, 1730–1788: A Study in Christian Existence, With Selections from his Writings. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Sparshott, Francis, and Lydia Goehr. “Philosophy of Music: II. Historical Survey, Antiquity–1750.” Grove Music Online. Edited by L. Macy. http://www.grovemusic.com. Spencer, Andrew. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. Spener, Philipp Jakob. Pia desideria. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964. Staley, Edgcumbe. The Guilds of Florence. London: Methuen, 1906. Stockwell, Robert, and Donka Minkova. English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Stolnitz, Jerome. Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960. – “On the Origins of ‘Aesthetic Disinterestedness’.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 20, no. 2 (1961): 131–43. Suger, Abbot. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St-Denis and its Art Treasures. Translated and edited by Erwin Panofsky. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946. – Libellus alter de consecratione ecclesiae sancti dionysii. Translated by Erwin Panofsky. In Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St-Denis and its Art Treasures, edited by Erwin Panofsky, 82–121. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946. Summers, David. Michelangelo and the Language of Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. – “The Sculptural Program of the Cappella di San Luca.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz 14 (1969): 67–90. Svanberg, Jan. Master Masons. Uppsala, Sweden: Carmina, 1983. Szambien, Werner. Le musée d’architecture. Paris: Picard, 1998. Talbot, Michael, ed. The Musical Work: Reality or Invention? Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000.

326

Bibliography

Tatarkiewicz, Wladyslaw. “Classification of Arts in Antiquity.” Journal of the History of Ideas 24, no. 2 (1963): 231–40. – History of Aesthetics. Vol. 1. Translated by Adam Czerniawski and Ann Czerniawski. The Hague: Mouton, 1970. – History of Aesthetics. Vol. 2. Translated by R.M. Montgomery. The Hague: Mouton, 1970. – History of Aesthetics. Vol. 3. Translated by Chester A. Kisiel. Edited by D. Petsch. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. – A History of Six Ideas: An Essay in Aesthetics. Translated by Christopher Kasparek. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980. – “Theatrica, The Science of Entertainment: From the XIIth to the XVIIth Century.” Journal of the History of Ideas 26, no. 2 (1965): 263–72. Tavernor, Robert. On Alberti and the Art of Building. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Thompson, Michael. The Medieval Hall: The Basis of Secular Domestic Life, 600–1600 A.D. Aldershot, uk: Scolar Press, 1995. Tinniswood, Adrian. A History of Country House Visiting: Five Centuries of Tourism and Taste. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. Tolnay, Charles de. History and Technique of Old Master Drawings: A Handbook. New York: Hacker, 1983. Trinkaus, Charles. “Humanism.” In Encyclopedia of World Art, 7:702–43. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. Troncelliti, Latifah. The Two Parallel Realities of Alberti and Cennini: The Power of Writing and the Visual Arts in the Italian Quattrocento. Lewiston, ny: Edwin Mellen Press, 2004. United States Library of Congress. “Circular 41: Copyright Claims in Architectural Works.” Copyright Act (1990). http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.html. Valla, Lorenzo. De linguae latinae elegantia. Cambridge: Edward Hall, 1688. Van Zanten, David. “Le système des Beaux-Arts.” Architecture d’aujourd’hui 310 (1975): 97–106. Varchi, Benedetto. Due lezzioni. Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1549. Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. 2d ed. 2 vols. New York: Knopf, 1996. – Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Translated by Louisa S. Maclehose. New York: Dover, 1960.

Bibliography

327

Vernant, Jean-Pierre. Myth and Thought among the Greeks. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983. Vesely, Dalibor. Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation. Cambridge, ma: m it Press, 2004. Vidler, Anthony. “Notes on the Sublime: From Neoclassicism to Postmodernism.” Princeton Journal: Thematic Studies in Architecture 3 (1985): 165–91. Vitruvius. De architectura: Concordance: Documentation bibliographique, lexicale et grammaticale. Edited by L. Callebat, P. Bouet, Ph. Fleury and M. Zuinghedau. Hildesheim, Germany: Olms, 1984. – The Ten Books on Architecture. Translated by Morris Hicky Morgan. Cambridge, m a: Harvard University Press, 1926. Wagner, David L. “The Seven Liberal Arts and Classical Scholarship.” In The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, edited by David L. Wagner, 1–31. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. Watt, Mary Alexandra. “The Reception of Dante in the Time of Cosimo I.” In The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici, edited by Konrad Eisenbichler, 121–34. Aldershot, uk : Ashgate, 2001. Wazbinski, Zygmunt. L’Accademia Medicea del disegno a Firenze nel cinquecento: Idea e istituzione. Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1987. Weatherhead, Arthur Clason. “The History of Collegiate Education in Architecture in the United States.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1941. Weisheipl, James A. “Classification of the Sciences in Medieval Thought.” Medieval Studies 27 (1965): 54–90. Westfall, Carroll William. “Painting and the Liberal Arts: Alberti’s View.” Journal of the History of Ideas 30, no. 4 (1969): 487–506. – “Society, Beauty, and the Humanist Architect in Alberti’s De re aedificatoria.” Studies in the Renaissance 16 (1969): 61–79. Whitney, Elspeth. Paradise Restored: The Mechanical Arts from Antiquity through the Thirteenth Century. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1990. Wiora, Walter. Das musikalische Kunstwerk. Tutzing, Germany: H. Schneider, 1983. Wise, John E. The Nature of the Liberal Arts. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1947. Wittkower, Rudolf. “Imitation, Eclecticism, and Genius.” In Aspects of the Eighteenth Century, edited by Earl Wasserman, 143–61. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. Wittkower, Rudolf, and Margot Wittkower. Born Under Saturn: The Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution. New York: W.W. Norton, 1963.

328

Bibliography

Yates, Frances A. “The Italian Academies.” In Renaissance and Reform: The Italian Contribution, 6–29. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983. Zinn, Grover. “De gradibus ascensionum: The Stages of Contemplative Ascent in Two Treatises on Noah’s Ark by Hugh of St Victor.” Studies in Medieval Culture 5, no. 19 (1975): 61–79. – “Hugh of St Victor and the Ark of Noah: A New Look.” Church History 40, no. 3 (1971): 261–72. Zwijnenberg, Robert. The Writings and Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci: Order and Chaos in Early Modern Thought. Translated by Caroline A. van Eck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Bibliography

329

This page intentionally left blank

Index

academies, 105, 159, 170, 180, 184, 211,

123–8, 132–3, 153; On Sculpture, 124,

287n59; for architecture, 220, 240

128–30; reference by Vasari, 276n3

Accademia del Disegno, 105, 166–77;

Alembert, Jean Le Rond d’. See Diderot

architecture in, 170–7; removal of architects from, 171–7 Addison, Joseph, 185–8, 237, 246; on architecture as a fine art, 187 aesthetic perception, 7, 11, 178, 188–9, 212, 235–42; in Addison, 185–8; of ar-

and d’Alembert ancestors. See apprenticeship, guilds apprenticeship: in ancient Rome, 44; in Cennini, 120–1; compared to academies, 167, 170; in guilds, 118; in techne¯, 25–30, 35, 38, 39. See also guilds

chitecture, 187, 201, 237–8, 240–2; in

Aquinas, Saint Thomas, 149–50

Baumgarten, 190–1, 234; in Boullée,

architect: in Alberti, 137–8, 143; ancient

228, 232–3; with a Claude glass, 218–19,

Roman definition of, 24–5, 39; in Boul-

226, 239, 241; of instrumental music,

lée, 223–5, 230; Byzantine definition of,

216–17. See also disinterested contem-

56–7; medieval definition of, 82, 98;

plation, fine arts

in Vasari, 166. See also architekton

agriculture: in Cicero, 46; compared to

architectural education: in Alberti,

techne¯, 22; in Hugh of St Victor, 65,

279n70; in current practice, 13; me-

67–8, 72, 76, 82; in Massieu, 188; in

dieval, 266n62; in Vitruvius, 44. See

Philostratus, 52; in Plotinus, 43; in

also guilds

Poliziano, 151–2 Alberti, Leon Battista, 123–48; argu-

“architectural work,” 12, 17–20, 251 architecture, 10, 12–13, 251; compared to

ments for liberal art status, 123, 135–6,

building, 209, 222–3, 230, 237, 241;

160; on construction, 281n92; on

compared to eloquence, 192–3; com-

drawing, 282n98; On the Art of Build-

pared to painting and sculpture, 165–6;

ing, 124, 130–48, 151; On Painting,

etymology in Latin and Greek, 21, 24

architekton: compared to me¯chanikos, 56–7; compared to tekton, 24, 30–2, 41,

arts, 211; etymology of, 179. See also fine arts

56; compared to theoros, 23; etymolo-

Beethoven, Ludwig van, 215–16

gy of, 24, 30, 56–7; meaning of, 29; re-

beholder. See aesthetic perception

sponsibilities of, 30; wages of, 31, 41

Blondel, Jacques-François, 201, 220, 242;

Aristotle: on imitation, 116, 188; on music, 37; on techne¯, 27–8, 31–2, 34, 39, 41–3 art: ars et ingenium, 114–15; in Boullée,

definition of architecture, 201 Boëthius, Manlius, 49–50, 53, 102; treatise on music, 49–50. See also Pythagorean harmony, quadrivium

221; compared to craft, 21–2, 44, 115; in

Boffrand, Germain, 237

Diderot and d’Alembert, 203; etymol-

Bonaventure, Saint, 100

ogy of, 45; in Vasari, 166. See also craft arts of disegno, 105–77; compared to fine

Borghini, Vincenzo, 163, 167–8 Boullée, Etienne-Louis, 220–33; on archi-

arts, 210–11; origin of, 107–8; in Varchi,

tecture as a fine art, 221; comparison

162; in Vasari, 105, 165–6, 175. See also

of architecture and building, 222–3,

Accademia del Disegno, disegno Augustine, Saint, 52–3, 59, 63, 87, 270n110; on arts, 52 authorship: in Addison, 186; in current practice, 14, 18; in Hugh of St Victor, 76–8, 96; in techne¯, 25–6

230; on monuments, 230–1; on natural sensations, 222, 224–5, 227–9; on poetry of architecture, 222, 224, 228, 230 Brunelleschi, Filippo, 118, 125 builder, 12, 251; in Alberti, 143; in Boullée, 230; in current practice, 15–16; in Grosseteste, 97; in Hugh of St Victor,

Bacon, Francis, 9, 180, 195

81–3; in medieval practice, 98; in

banausic crafts. See craft

techne¯, 29–32. See also tekton, architek-

Batteux, Abbé Charles, 191–3, 213; on

ton

architecture as a hybrid art, 191, 193

building, 12, 251; in Addison, 187; in Al-

Baumgarten, Alexander, 190–1, 233–5,

berti, 143–5; in Boullée, 222–3, 230–1;

238, 242, 246. See also heterocosmic

in current practice, 16–18; in Hugh of

fiction

St Victor, 74, 83–5; in Laugier, 209;

beauty: in Addison, 185; in Alberti, 126; in Augustine, 52–3; in Boullée, 222, 228; in Hugh of St Victor, 84, 88–9, 94–5; in

rankings by ancient philosophers, 41– 3; in techne¯, 32–4; in Vitruvius, 39 Burke, Edmund, 217–18. See also sublime

Laugier, 208–9; in medieval art, 89, 267n86; in Shaftesbury, 188–9, 236 beaux-arts, 179–85, 203, 211; Académie des beaux-arts, 211; École des beaux-

332

Cassiodorus, 50–1 Cennini, Cennino, 119–21 Chambers, Ephraim, 193–4

Index

Cicero, 25, 42, 46, 119, 135; ranking of occupations, 46 Cimabue, 113, 115, 163, 275n27 circumscription. See drawing

designer, 12, 251, 273n7; in Alberti, 137–9; in Boullée, 224–5; in current practice, 11–14; in Hugh of St Victor, 76–8; in techne¯, 25–6, 29

Claude glass. See aesthetic perception

Didascalicon. See Hugh of St Victor

Condillac, Étienne Bonnot de, 224, 228

Diderot and d’Alembert: on architec-

contemplation: in Aristotle, 39; in Boul-

ture, 195–201; elevation of mechanical

lée, 229; in Burke, 217–18; compared to

arts, 202, 263n14; Encyclopédie, 193–

invention, 102–3; compared to medi-

205; on fine arts, 199–201, 211, 236;

tation, 92–3, 99, 269n101; in Dubos,

transition from liberal arts to fine

189; in Hugh of St Victor, 62–3, 88–99;

arts, 203–4

of instrumental music, 216–17; in Leonardo da Vinci, 157; in Shaftesbury, 189. See also disinterested contemplation

disciplines. See epistemological classification disegno: in Alberti, 128, 132–4, 137–9, 142–3, 145, 148; in Cennini, 119–21; def-

copyright, 6, 14, 19. See also authorship

initions of, 106–8; in Leonardo da

Cosimo I de’ Medici, 105, 159–60, 163,

Vinci, 153–5; origins of, 109, 119; in

167–9, 172. See also Accademia del

Poliziano, 151–3; in Varchi, 160–2; in

Disegno

Vasari, 105–6, 165–6, 169–70, 174. See

craft: in Cennini, 119–21; compared to art, 21–2, 44, 115; in current practice,

also lineamenti disinterested contemplation, 232, 235–

17; free compared to banausic, 31, 40–

40; compared to medieval contempla-

5, 156; in Hugh of St Victor, 70, 81;

tion, 235, 237. See also contemplation

rankings by ancient philosophers, 41– 3; in techne¯, 27–32, 35; in Vasari, 166

drawing, 12, 251; in Alberti, 128, 132, 138, 145; in arts of disegno, 106–7, 116; in

Craftsman’s Handbook. See Cennini

Boullée, 226–7, 230, 232; in Cennini,

creation: in Augustine, 53; in Boullée,

119–21; circumscription, 126–7, 277n16,

225; in Eriugena, 54–5; in Hamann,

277n17; in current practice, 17; in

243; in Hugh of St Victor, 90–1, 96–8;

Leonardo da Vinci, 153–5; in mechani-

in Leonardo da Vinci, 156; from

cal art, 85; medieval, 267n70; in Pliny,

nothing (creatio ex nihilo), 35, 53; in

127–8; in Poliziano, 151–2; in techne¯,

Shaftesbury, 246

34; in Varchi, 162; in Vasari, 169, 171.

Curson, Henry, 201–2

See also disegno, lineamenti Dubos, Abbé Jean-Baptiste, 189, 217

Daidalos (Daedalus), 22, 25–6, 37, 76;

dweller, 12, 251; in Alberti, 141–3; in

reference by Hugh of St Victor, 76

Boullée, 223, 227–30; in current

Index

333

practice, 15; in Hugh of St Victor, 80–1; in Laugier, 209; in techne¯, 28–9

fine arts, 178–247; alternate names for, 179; arts included in, 188, 199, 210–11; in Batteux, 191–3; in Boullée, 221–5,

education: ancient, 44, 102; in Cicero,

228; compared to arts of disegno, 179,

46; in Curson, 201–2; in Hugh of St

210; compared to liberal arts, 181, 185;

Victor, 82–3; medieval, 50–1. See also

compared to ordinary world, 186,

architectural education, liberal arts,

208–9, 217, 225; compared to religion,

quadrivium, trivium elements of architectural practice: in

245–7; definition of, 179, 191, 210–12; in Diderot and d’Alembert, 197–201,

arts of disegno, 134–48; in current

203–5; includes or excludes architec-

practice, 10–20; in fine arts, 221–33; in

ture, 188–9, 204–5; institutions for

mechanical arts, 73–88; in techne¯, 21–

architecture, 238–40; in Laugier, 205,

36. See also builder, building, designer,

208–9; perceiving architecture as,

drawing, dweller, material elements of musical practice, 4–7, 10–12,

237–8; in Perrault, 180–5; recognition of instrumental music, 213–14; “taking

18–20; composer, 5–7, 20, 50, 188, 217,

flight,” 193, 225, 241, 247. See also

222; listener, 4–7, 61, 188, 214–17, 243;

Kristeller

performance, 4–7, 22, 37, 47, 50, 92, 214, 216–17, 239; performer, 4–7, 20, 41,

first principles: in Boullée, 224; in Hugh of St Victor, 77, 81–2; in Laugier, 208;

50, 103, 214, 217, 239; score, 5–7, 20, 217;

in Plato and Aristotle, 38–9, 44; in

sound, 4–7, 37, 49–50, 89, 103, 113, 192,

Vitruvius, 39

213, 216–17, 239 eloquence: in Batteux, 191–3; compared

Francke, August Hermann. See Pietism Fréart de Chambray, Roland, 187

to architecture, 192–3; in Perrault, 180–3; recognized as a liberal art, 110–12, 149–50 Encyclopédie. See Diderot and d’Alembert epistemological classification, 8–10, 252– 4; of ancient crafts, 41–4; of ancient music, 47; in Encyclopédie, 193–205; of

Galen, 43 Giotto, 113, 115, 163 God as an architect, 53, 96–7, 270n110 Goehr, Lydia, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, 3, 5–7, 11–12, 18–20, 213, 217 Grand Tour, 186

fine arts, 178–9, 210–12; of medieval

Grosseteste, Robert, 97

arts, 51–3, 101–2, 109; renegotiation of,

guilds, 117–19, 150, 168–9, 174, 290n112.

135–6, 149–50; as a tree diagram, 194–5,

See also apprenticeship, education

252–3 Eriugena, Johannes Scotus, 53–7, 59, 65, 73; reference by Hugh of St Victor, 76

334

Hamann, Johann Georg. See Pietism Hephaistos, 22, 25–6, 41–2

Index

Herder, Johann Gottfried von. See Pietism

200, 211; diminishing belief in, 213–14, 217, 228; in Hugh of St Victor, 79–80,

Hero of Alexandria, 55

85, 94; in Laugier, 205, 208; in Leonar-

Herodotus, 29, 34

do da Vinci, 153–4; in Philostratus, 52;

heterocosmic fiction: in Baumgarten,

in Plato and Aristotle, 115–16, 221; in

191, 233–5, 238, 246; in Boullée, 229,

Renaissance arts, 115–16; types of,

231, 233, 247

211–12, 275n36; in Varchi, 162; in

Hoffmann, E.T.A. See Beethoven Horace: comparison of poetry and painting, 113, 119, 189–90 Hugh of St Victor, 59–99; on architec-

Vasari, 166, 169; in Villani, 115 Ingarden, Roman, Ontology of the Work of Art, 18–19, 304n101 invention: in Augustine, 52; in Boullée,

ture, 70–2, 74–5, 76, 81–4; art program

224–5; in Cennini, 120; compared to

for Church of St-Denis, 98; on con-

contemplation, 102–3; in current prac-

templation in De tribus diebus, 89–99;

tice, 19; in Diderot and d’Alembert,

Didascalicon, 59–89; on education, 61–

203–4; in Eriugena, 55–6; in Hugh of

4, 82–3; on inventors and recorders of

St Victor, 65, 72, 74, 77–8; in Leonardo

arts, 76–8; on liberal arts, 63–4, 67; on

da Vinci, 155–6; in Perrault, 181, 183;

mechanical arts, 65–70, 81, 84; on mu-

in techne¯, 35; in Vasari, 165–6; in

sic, 66–7; on nature, 78–80; on Noah’s

Vitruvius, 39

ark, 86–8, 98; reference by subsequent

Isidore of Seville, 53

philosophers, 100, 109 humanism, 109–17, 274n14. See also eloquence, poetry hybrid arts. See Batteux

Kilwardby, Robert, 100–1, 252; on mechanical arts, 100–1 Kristeller, Paul Oskar, “The Modern System of the Arts,” 3, 7–8, 178, 180,

imagination: in Addison, 186–7; in

191, 210–13

Baumgarten, 233–4; in Boullée, 225, 226; in Cennini, 120; in Diderot and d’Alembert, 194–201, 204–5, 247; in fine arts, 178–9; in Herder, 244; in

Laugier, Abbé Marc-Antoine, 205–10, 241, 247, 305n107; primitive hut, 205– 9, 231, 237–8

Hoffmann, 216; in Horace, 119–20; in

Le Camus de Mézières, Nicolas, 238

Philostratus, 52

Leonardo da Vinci, 153–9; argument for

imitation of nature: in Addison, 187; in

painting as a liberal art, 156–8

Alberti, 138, 280n73; in Batteux, 192; in

liberal arts, 10, 48, 249, 254; architecture

Baumgarten, 191; in Boullée, 221, 224,

excluded from, 46–9, 102–3; architec-

228, 302n56; compared to expression,

ture included in, 45–7, 102, 136,

217, 221; in Diderot and d’Alembert,

272n141; argument for including

Index

335

architecture, 137; argument for includ-

Eriugena, 53–6; etymology of, 45, 55–8;

ing painting, 115, 119, 123, 156–8, 168;

in Hugh of St Victor, 63–89, 94; in

argument for including eloquence

Kilwardby, 100–1, 252; origin of, 53;

and poetry, 111–13, 149; argument for

partnership of patron and builder,

including sculpture, 123, 168; authority

270n109; in Poliziano, 151; in Perrault,

for membership, 113, 135–6, 149–50; in Boëthius, 49–50; in Cassiodorus, 51; compared to mechanical arts, 54–7, 64–7, 88, 101–4, 109, 181, 202; com-

185 me¯chanikos: compared to architekton, 56–7 medicine, 43–4, 53–4, 65, 77, 101–2; com-

pared to vulgar arts, 40–7, 51; in Cur-

pared to architecture, 45–6, 48, 55, 160;

son, 201–2; in Diderot and d’Alem-

in Hugh of St Victor, 67, 69, 77

bert, 202–4, 296n82; in Eriugena, 53–5;

meditation. See contemplation

in Hellenistic Greece, 45, 51; in Hugh

Michelangelo, 151, 160–6, 204, 250;

of St Victor, 63–7, 76–8, 84–5, 88; in

involvement with Accademia del

Isidore of Seville, 53; in Martianus

Disegno, 167–8, 170, 173–4, 176

Capella, 48–9; in Perrault, 181–5; in

mimesis. See imitation of nature

Varro, 46, 48. See also education,

monument: in Boullée, 230–1

quadrivium, trivium lineamenti, 132–3, 137–48, 154, 278n42,

mousike¯, 22–3, 36–7, 47; definition of, 22 music: in Aristoxenus, 37; in Batteux,

282n103, 285n25. See also disegno,

192; in Boëthius, 49–50; concert hall,

drawing

4–5, 12, 214, 239; Gewandhaus (Leipzig), 214–15; in Hugh of St Victor,

Marriage of Philology and Mercury. See Martianus Capella

66–7, 88–9; instrumental, 37, 44, 47, 50, 104, 213–17, 234, 242; in Kilwardby,

Martianus Capella, 48–9, 54–5

100; “musical work,” 5–7, 18–19, 216–17;

Massieu, Abbé Guillaume, 188

in Perrault, 181. See also elements of

material, 12, 251; in Alberti, 139–41, 147;

musical practice, Goehr, mousike¯,

in Boullée, 226; in current practice,

Pythagorean harmony, Small

14–15; in Hugh of St Victor, 78–80; in techne¯, 26–7 mechanical arts, 40–104; in Batteux, 191;

nature: in Addison, 186; in Alberti, 133, 138–41, 145; in arts of disegno, 107, 116,

in Bonaventure, 100; compared to

120–1; in Boullée, 224–6; in a Claude

adultery, 57–8; compared to contem-

glass, 219; in Hugh of St Victor, 65,

plative art, 89–99; compared to liberal

79–80, 90–3, 96; in Laugier, 205; in

arts, 54–7, 64–7, 88, 101–4, 109, 181, 202;

Leonardo da Vinci, 153–8; in Poliziano,

compared to mechanics, 45, 55–6; in

152; in techne¯, 26–7, 42–3. See also

Diderot and d’Alembert, 202–5; in

imitation of nature

336

Index

Noah’s ark: in Hugh of St Victor, 84,

ture, 116, 165, 174, 177; reference by

86–8, 98

Alberti, 135

noble art, 150

Plotinus, 43, 116 Plutarch, 113

Oetinger, Friedrich Christoph. See Pietism

poetry: of architecture in Boullée, 222, 224; argument for liberal art status, 111–13, 149; in Batteux, 193; in Baum-

painting: absent from Hugh of St Victor,

garten, 190, 233–5; in Boullée, 222, 224,

88; in ancient Greece and Rome, 41–3,

228, 230; compared to painting, 113–14,

108–9; argument for liberal art status,

119, 130, 157, 189; definitions of, 222; in

115, 119, 156–7; in arts of disegno, 108;

Diderot and d’Alembert, 194–5, 198–9,

in Cennini, 119; compared to architec-

200; in fine arts, 7, 178–9, 185, 211, 239;

ture, 117, 126, 130, 175–6; compared

in humanism, 110–15, 117; in mousike¯,

to music, 158; compared to poetry,

22; in Perrault, 180–1; in Varchi, 160,

113–14, 119, 130, 157, 189; compared to

162

sculpture, 116, 124–5, 128–9, 160–2, 165,

Poliziano, Andrea, 151–3

171, 174–5; in Leonardo da Vinci, 153–4;

primitive hut. See Laugier

in medieval Europe, 108–9; mythical

Procopius, 56

origin of, 116, 127–8, 177

Propylaea (Athens), 24

Pappus of Alexandria, 57 paradeigma, 34–6

Pythagorean harmony, 36, 38, 49–50, 66, 103, 222

Parthenon (Athens), 21, 33, 38; wages for artisans, 31 Perrault, Charles, 180, 212, 222; Le Cabinet des beaux Arts, 180–5 Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca), 110–14, 116–17, 163, 174 Philostratus the Athenian, 51–2 Pietism, 242–4, 246

quadrivium, 10, 149; absent from Perrault, 184; in Boëthius, 49–50; in Hugh of St Victor, 64, 66–7; in Isidore of Seville, 53; in medieval education, 51, 53, 102. See also education, Pythagorean harmony, trivium Quintilian, 43

Plato: on Demiurge, 96; on ideal forms, 38; on mimesis, 115–16; on music, 37, 213; reference by Alberti, 135, 140; reference by Hugh of St Victor, 76; refer-

ranking of arts. See epistemological classification Remigius of Auxerre, 55

ence by Shaftesbury, 188–9, 236; on techne¯, 31–2, 37–40, 42–4 Pliny: mythical origin of painting, 116, 127–8; painting compared to sculp-

Index

Schiller, Friedrich, 239 sculpture: absent from Hugh of St Victor, 88, 109; in Alberti, 124–5,

337

128–31; in ancient Rome and medieval

medieval education, 51. See also edu-

Europe, 108–9; in Batteux, 191–3; com-

cation, quadrivium

pared to painting, 116, 124–5, 128–9, 160–2, 165, 171, 174–5; in Diderot and

Valla, Lorenzo, 122–3

d’Alembert, 200; in fine arts, 7, 178;

Varchi, Benedetto, 159–62, 165–6, 168,

in Leonardo, 156–7; mythical origin of, 116; in Petrarch; 116–17; in

170, 174 Varro, Marcus Terentius: on architecture

Poliziano, 152–3; in techne¯; 23–4, 42; in

as a liberal art, 45–8, 65, 102; opposed

Varchi, 160–2; in Vasari, 165, 171

by Martianus Capella, 48; reference

Shaftesbury, Third Earl of (Anthony Ashley Cooper), 188–90, 235–6, 246 Small, Christopher, Musicking, 4–5, 11–12 Sophists, 23, 38, 42 Spener, Philipp Jakob, 242–3. See also Pietism sublime, 217–19; in Boullée, 221, 226, 232. See also Burke Suger, Abbot, 89, 98

by Alberti, 135; reference by Hugh of St Victor, 76 Vasari, Giorgio, 162–77; compared to Alberti, 124, 131–2; compared to Petrarch, 117; compared to Poliziano, 152; compared to Varchi, 162; on disegno, 105–8, 117, 250; Lives, 105, 108, 159, 162–6; reference to Alberti, 276n3; reference to Leonardo da Vinci, 159. See also Accademia del Disegno

“taking flight.” See fine arts

Villani, Filippo, 115

techne¯, 21–39; compared to Hugh of

Villard de Honnecourt, 73, 102

St Victor, 72, 78, 80, 84; compared to mousike¯, 36–8; definition of, 21–2;

Vitruvius: architecture after techne¯, 24–5, 30, 39; De architectura, 21, 118,

etymology of, 27, 29; occupations in,

133, 205; on liberal education, 44, 46,

22, 29; ranking of crafts, 31, 41–3; rede-

102–3; reference by Alberti, 125–6, 134;

fined by Plato and Aristotle, 31–2, 39;

reference by Boullée, 222; reference

redefined by Sophists, 23, 38. See also

by Hugh of St Victor, 76, 78, 81–2;

architekton, tekton tekton, 24, 29, 31; in Plato, 31–2. See also

reference to Varro, 46 vulgar arts. See liberal arts

architekton tree diagram. See epistemological

Xenophon, 31, 34

classification trivium, 10; in Hugh of St Victor, 64, 67;

Zuccaro, Federico, 169–70, 284n14

in humanist education, 110–13, 149; in

338

Index