Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Vitruvius, memory and imagination : on the production of archaeological knowledge and the construction… Millette, Daniel M. 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2002-732142.pdf [ 40.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0076917.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0076917-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0076917-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0076917-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0076917-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0076917-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0076917-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0076917-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0076917.ris

Full Text

Vitruvius, Memory and Imagination: On the Production of Archaeological Knowledge and the Construction of Classical Monuments Daniel M . Millette B A . Hons. (Geography and Classical Studies), The University of Ottawa, 1993 M A . (Geography), The University of British Columbia, 1995 M A S . A. (Advanced Studies in Architecture), The University of British Columbia, 1997 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR of PHILOSOPHY in INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A December 2001 © 2002, by Daniel M . Millette In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT As the "Revolution" threatened Rome during the final decades of the Republic, the many landscapes of the city — built, intellectual, social and natural — became inextricably linked within a confused cultural matrix. Vitruvius was not simply observing a set of places; he was living within spaces that, while having lost many of their explicit meanings over time, contained within them implicit, albeit unclear, cultural codes for him to ponder. Vitruvius in fact was not describing Roman architecture as it was; he was describing it as he wished it to be. There are a host of reasons to question the physical exactitude of his examples and subsequent models: The vantage point of a single individual living within a specific place at a particular moment in time was, and continues to be, limited at best. There are geographical and architectural inaccuracies that leave the reader wondering if Vitruvius actually saw much of what was inserted within the treatise. And Vitruvius would have generalized in order to arrive at the broad sets of tenets contained in the books. The "looseness" characterizing the tenets of Vitruvius is precisely what has enabled imaginative interpretations over the centuries. By including drawings within translations, the classical imagination has become fused with memories of what monuments should look like. Linked to this, translated versions of Vitruvius' treatise can be usurped in order to connect ruins more closely to Roman architectural ideals than they may have been in the first place. The translation and annotation project of Jean Gardet and Dominique Bertin in the 1550s is an example of how the treatise of Vitruvius was attached, inextricably, to the antiquities of southern France. The habit of turning to the De A r c h i t e c t u r a in order to produce a body of archaeological knowledge and in turn to provide "proof for the architectural reconstruction of classical monuments has persisted. In the end, the monument can serve as confirmation for the translated text, and the text re-confirms the monument. In Orange, the use of the treatise by architects has been retraced to show that the reconstructed theater does not correspond, in its rebuilt state, to that which would have stood in its place. Eventually, the habit of turning to Vitruvius was adapted to such an extent that it practically became invisible, with architects and archaeologists turning to it with little thought as to its i i contextual validity. This is probably why we see so few explicit references to its use in the literature documenting the re-building of monuments; it is only by retracing field notes that the extent to which it was used, even relatively lately, can be assessed. At the same time, classical archaeology has — and continues to — direct its attention to deblayage, remaniements, consolidations and in time, la sauvegarde. The present-day impetus for these activities is closely connected to history, heritage and ultimately, the notion of patrimoine. The difficulty today is that the more we re-build, whether it be for basic cultural consumption or within grander state agendas, the recourse to producing related bodies of knowledge to justify architectural plans has the potential to increase significantly. The understanding of classical architecture within the context of history and heritage must be met by a corresponding comprehension of its temporal, formal and social nature; Vitruvius' words, as I have stressed, do not necessarily depict a material architecture. Vitruvius' architect lived within an urban setting that was highly dynamic and not necessarily readily interpreted. And while Republican spaces derived from a need for function, efficiency, beauty and representation, they were not necessarily or completely redesigned each time they were re-used; they were often modified to suit. Notions related to specific and ideal spaces were most probably stored within the minds of the multifaceted designers to be shaped according to particular sets of pre-existing cultural and built conditions as well as geographical settings. And to these, the craftspeople would have added personal interpretations. Today the problems arise when architects and archaeologists, eager to convince themselves and others of their theoretic, forget that we simply do not know what memories resided in the mind of Roman architects. in CONTENTS Abstract i i List of Figures vi Acknowledgements ix Preface xi Chapter 1 - Beginnings: Classical Landscapes? 2 Introduction 2 1.1 Research Contexts 5 1.2 Research Specifics 7 Chapter 2 - Vitruvio 12 Introduction 12 2.1 BlurredLandscapes 16 2.2 The De Architectura Libri Decern 40 2.3 Transcriptions, Translations and Transformations 117 Chapter Conclusion 134 Interlude I - On Memories in Arausio 138 Chapter 3 - Vitruve 154 Introduction 154 3.1 The New Ruin: Rome and France 155 3.2 New Landscapes: Vitruvius and the French Ruin 166 Chapter Conclusion 195 Interlude II- On Classical Archaeology 196 Chapter 4 - Vitruve: Reprise 211 Introduction 211 4.1 Habits of Acceptance 213 4.2 New Monuments: Vitruvius and the Production of Archaeological Knowledge 232 Chapter Conclusion 283 iv Chapter 5 - Endings: Classical Productions 287 Introduction 287 5.1 On Monuments, Memory and Patrimoine 288 5.2 Dissertation Conclusion 299 Bibliography 300 LIST of FIGURES Figure 2.1 - Paestum: Temple of Athena; late 6' century B.C. 22 Figure 2.2 - Rome: Largo Argentina: Round Temple 24 Figure 2.3 - Pompeii: Street Scene 27 Figure 2.4 - Rome: Forum Boarum: Temple of Hercules 29 Figure 2.5 - Rome: Forum Boarium: Temple of Portunus 36 Figure 2.6 - The "Parts of A r c h i t e c t u r a " and their Corresponding Books 46 Figure 2.7 - Vitruvius' Tenets of A r c h i t e c t u r a 64 Figure 2.8 - Vitruvius' Tenets of A r c h i t e c t u r a According to Germann 72 Figure 2.9 - The Circle of the Winds, Book I 80 Figure 2.10- The Orientation of Streets, Book I 81 Figure 2.11- E n t a s i s , Book III 82 Figure 2.12- Scamilli Impares, Book III 84 Figure 2.13 - The Ionic Volute, Book III 84 Figure 2.14- Harmonic Limits of Musical Notes, Book V 85 Figure 2.15- Chorobates and other Instruments, Book VIII 86 Figure 2.16 - Geometric Replication of the Square, Book IX 86 Figure 2.17- Pythagoras' Triangle, Book IX 88 Figure 2.18 - The Water Screw, Book X 88 Figure 1.1 - Arausio: Site 140 Figure 1.2 - Arausio: Site Plan 140 Figure 1.3 - Arausio: L 'Arc d ' O r a n g e 142 Figure 1.4 - Arausio: L 'Arc d ' O r a n g e : Detail 143 Figure 1.5 - Arausio: Wall Parallel ling the cardo 145 Figure 1.6 - Arausio: Theater Outer Scaenae Wall 145 Figure 1.7 - Arausio: Theater 147 Figure 1.8 - Arausio: Theater: Scaenae Wall Drawing by Caristie 147 Figure 1.9 - Arausio: Theater: Scaenae Wall: Reinstalled Columns 148 vi Figure 1.10 - Arausio: Theater: Scaenae Wall: Column 149 Figure 3.1- Orange: Restitution of la statue d'Auguste 163 Figure 3.2 - Caristie: Restitution of Le Temple de Serapis a Pouzzoles 165 Figure 3.3 - Gardet et Bertin; Title Page 170 Figure 3.4 - Martin et Goujon; Title Page 171 Figure 3.5a - Gardet et Bertin; Composite Capital 179 Figure 3.5b - Martin et Goujon; Composite Capital 179 Figure 3.6a - Gardet et Bertin; Theatre Plan 180 Figure 3.6b - Martin et Goujon; Theatre Plan 180 Figure 3.7a- Gardet et Bertin; Circle of the Winds 184 Figure 3.7b - Martin et Goujon; Circle of the Winds 184 Figure 4.1- The Theater at Orange 234 Figure 4.2 - la Pise's Theater at Orange 238 Figure 4.3 - Giuliano de Sangallo's Theater at Orange - late 15th c. 239 Figure 4.4 - Giuliano de Sangallo's Theatre at Ferento - late 15th c. 239 Figure 4.5 - The Theater at Orange - late eighteenth century 240 Figure 4.6 - The Theater at Orange - late eighteenth century 241 Figure 4.7 - The Theater at Orange - early nineteenth century 241 Figure 4.8 - Cadastre Napoleonien - Orange 243 Figure 4.9 - Millin's Theatre at Orange 246 Figure 4.10 - M . de Gasparin's Theater at Orange 247 Figure 4.11- The Theater at Orange - Renaux, 1832 250 Figure 4.11a- The Theater at Orange - Renaux, 1832, detail 250 Figure 4.12 - The Latin Theater - Vitruvius 258 Figure 4.13 - Theater Elevation - Remains 260 Figure 4.14 - Site Plan - Remains 261 Figure 4.15- The Theater at Orange - Early Plan 261 Figure 4.16 - Caristie: Theatre Remains 263 vii Figure 4.17 - Caristie: Theatre Reconstruction 263 Figure 4.18- Theater at Orange, Elevation; Etat actuel - 1873 264 Figure 4.19 - Scaenae building - North Elevation - Reconstruction 265 Figure 4.20 - Scaenae building - North Elevation - Actual 265 Figure 4.21 - Vela Rigging Components - Reconstruction 267 Figure 4.22 - The Theater of Orange - "Final" Plan 267 Figure 4.23 - The Theater of Orange - 1861 274 Figure 4.24 - The Theater of Orange - 1860s (?) 276 Figure 4.25 - The Theater of Orange - 1835-39 276 Figure 4.26 - The Theater of Orange - Seat-Versurae Connection - east 281 Figure 4.27 - The Theater of Orange - Seat- Versurae Connection - west 282 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It was John Donne who said that "no man is an island". I agree. This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of numerous individuals. Of course without an advisory committee, it would be difficult to navigate through the doctoral process. I remain appreciative of mine. My research supervisor, Sherry McKay, as well as Anthony Barrett, Derek Gregory and Christopher Macdonald, have allowed me to wander at will and for that I am thankful. Each has helped me in her or his own particular way. Sherry McKay's reading and commenting on the chapters as they evolved has been a main motivator for me: her probing and questioning has without doubt raised my level of enquiry and her support throughout the process has been key; I remain unclear as to how I will be able to repay the debt. I am also obliged to those individuals who have reviewed different sections, some as they were being modified for publication or conference communications, while others as they were taking shape for the present work: Marc Grignon at the Universite Laval, Wolfgang Haase at Boston University, Michel Janon at the Universite de Provence and Gerald Sandy at the University of British Columbia. I am indebted to Michel Janon, who, while at the University of Ottawa and later as he moved to the Universite de Provence, encouraged me in my architectural and archaeological research endeavors. Similarly, I am appreciative of the support I continue to receive from Xavier Lafon at the Institut de recherche sur 1'architecture antique (Centre nationale de la recherche scientifique) in Aix-en-Provence. I acknowledge the institutions that have allowed me to mine their archives and libraries: In Paris, the Bibliotheque nationale (in particular, its salle des livres rares, but also its documents on Les Monuments Historiques), in London, the British Library (especially its rare books room), in Orange, the Archives du Musee d'Orange and the Depot du Musee d'Orange, in Rome, the American Academy, in Montreal, the Canadian Center for Architecture, and of course, in Vancouver, the University of British Columbia (and in particular, its Woodward library's rare editions of the De Architectura L i b r i Decern). ix For this research I received fellowships and awards from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of British Columbia Faculty of Graduate Studies, as well as other awards and grants from the University of British Columbia (including the John Grace Fellowship) and the Government of France (Ministere de la Culture and the Direction Regionale de l'Archeologie du Midi). I have also benefited from the Universite de Provence's Fondation Paul Albert Fevrier which rendered possible my time at the Institut de recherche sur 1'architecture antique in Aix-en-Provence. Similarly, my time at the American Academy in Rome facilitated work on the topography of Republican Rome. A l l of this support has enabled me to cast a much wider net than initially envisioned. Finally, I need to thank those who have listened to my ramblings on Vitruvius, memory and assorted imaginations over the past few years: James (the fellow on the other side of the bar), Mai, Kim, and of course, Joanne. x PREFACE Epistemology,1 Hermeneutics2 and Historiography3 are three words I do not use in this dissertation. The three theoretical notions, however, are fundamental to the way I read, interpret and assemble the materials in my discussion. How knowledge is produced, transmitted and in turn reinterpreted is at the forefront of my thoughts. And this relates particularly to the way Vitruvius, the De Architecture! Libri Decern and their related bodies of knowledge are referenced, co-opted and reaffirmed as "authority". Directly linked to this is classical-archaeology-as-discipline. Its praxis, "scientification" and generally unquestioned authoritative nature are part of a long-standing set of notions rooted in pre-Renaissance Rome. I am thus preoccupied by the relationship between the two — Vitruvius and classical archaeology — in that each confirms the "reality" of the other. The ready appropriation of this relationship within various agendas of building or monument reconstruction is what motivates this preoccupation. Memory is a term I use throughout this dissertation. I use it while recognizing that there are differing views and ways of defining the term, especially when referring to "collective memory" and "cultural memory". As I will discuss in Chapter 1, when I refer to collective memory I am talking about what might best understood as "passed down histories"; the collective memory, to me, is one which is generally accepted by the collective, yet not necessarily textually documented or organized along a rational, temporal continuum. And when I refer to "history", I am talking about the organization and re-organization of past events, as rationalized, generally along a temporal continuum, and usually presented as the "official" version of some social or cultural entity such as a state or other collective. History 1 I take Epistemology as meaning the study of what makes up "legitimate" knowledge. For a summary of current thought on epistemology-as-theory, see Derek Gregory's entry in The Dictionary of Human Geography - 4 t h Edition (London: Blackwell, 2000). 2 How meaning is interpreted, or the study of the way meaning is interpreted, is how I define Hermeneutics. Looking at meaning critically, neutrally and with as little conscious bias as possible is my preoccupation as well as my rather idealistic goal. 3 Here Historiography is interpreted as the study of the development of "historical" research and writing. I take it on the one hand to include the way Vitruvius assessed and chronicled histories, and in turn the way through which we assess and textually reinterpret Vitruvius, the De Architectura and the histories through which they have survived. For a relevant study that discusses "history" and "historiography", especially as assembled by historians like Manfredo Tafuri, see Panayotis Tournikiotis The Historiography of Modem Architecture (MIT, 1999). xi can also be generally accepted by the collective (although not always) and by virtue of its textualization or formalization through mechanisms such as propaganda or related monument building, it re-presents the past and thus attempts to re-align the collective memory. When I refer to "memory", I realize that the term is somewhat contentious and that its definition is one which is shifting. Connected to the above idea of appropriation is the use of the gaps that exist between textual descriptions and visual depictions. The inclusion of photographs of reconstructed Republican monuments in Chapter 2 may at first glance appear problematic; I include these for general reference only and they should be read as such. Similarly, my choice of translation versions can also be seen as problematic because I turn to a translation which is profusely illustrated. I had initially selected the edition prepared by Frank Granger simply because I found it easier to read. Later, in comparing English, Italian and French versions, I came to realize that there is no perfect rendition and that the Granger text is perhaps even less idyllic than others. This was especially apparent when I was writing about the theoretic contained within the treatise and comparing different interpretations of specific terms. At the same time I was critically reviewing4 the translation by Ingrid Rowland, and while its illustrations can be difficult to accept, I have found the rendition to be the most candid in terms of its identification of emendations and transformations.5 I turn to it for most of my English quotations. Rowland, however, does not include the Latin text. For my Latin quotations, I use the Latin-French Bude edition, which to me is the most accurate and comprehensive of all. The present research is borne out of an interdisciplinary program in architecture, classical archaeology and geography; it has been written for a corresponding readership. Chapters 1 and 2 outline the problematic and situate the treatise of Vitruvius in its widest context; Chapters 3 and 4 develop the main dissertation arguments. It is coincidental that as I moved through space to carry out my research, I was pulled in different disciplinary directions. In Paris and elsewhere in France, I was persistently reminded of I ' a r c h e o l o g i e scientifique. Similarly, in London the advice was towards the "accuracy" of philology, the "scientific" 51 will have a great deal more to say about translations at the end of Chapter 2. xii study of texts. And in Rome, a sort of architectural determinism seemed prevalent — the architecture will tell you the story. Luckily in Vancouver I was allowed to wander across disciplinary boundaries and in many ways it was geography that facilitated the process. In terms of my thoughts on classical archaeology, I write from the perspective of a decade of fieldwork and turn to the work of Bruno Latour for my critique of archaeological practice. While I write this dissertation with the archaeologist in mind, it is not necessarily intended as a critique of the historical "method"; it is a critique of the interpretation of Vitruvius' words within archaeological practice. I owe a great deal to my archaeological mentors and my criticism — which will become especially apparent in my second Interlude ~ has nothing to do with them; it has to do with the systematic replication of research and reporting modi that reside in the collective disciplinary memories of architecture and archaeology. xiii | * t i ~ \ R U E > : VITRUVE (h—. ( m dmm 1 Vitruvius, Memory and Imagination: On the Production of Archaeological Knowledge and the Construction of Classical Monuments CHAPTER 1 - Beginnings: Classical Landscapes? ". . . do [historians] reconstruct or even invent an ancient world that is so foreign, so completely different in its characteristics as to be now impenetrable?" Golden and Toohey, 1997 "In discussing Rome, one sees that the problem revolves around Vitruvius" Foucault, 1982, 16 INTRODUCTION Over the centuries, scholars have turned to the writings of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio in attempts to understand the monuments and sites of the classical world. His De A r c h i t e c t u r a L i b r i Decern continues to be reinterpreted and probed in what seems to be an ongoing search for a deeper understanding of the design methods and architectural thought of Antiquity. Interpretations of the treatise, be it through philological study, architectural reconstruction, archaeological technique, or within theoretical models of classical landscapes, has been fundamental to architectural research, especially since Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472) took interest in it in the fifteenth century. More recently, the referencing of the text within the development of computational modeling to reconstruct monuments can be seen as an extension of this habit.1 On the one hand, a tradition ~ an albeit invented one, to use Eric Hobsbawm's (1983) term — of looking to Vitruvius for guidance has evolved, while on the other hand, a "canonized" Vitruvius-related body of knowledge has established itself as arbitrator of "authentic" Roman architecture. The transcribed, translated and transformed It is difficult to conceive of the creators of virtually reconstructed models and monuments such as The Forum of Trajan in Rome and various buildings of Pompeii not having referenced Vitruvius. Discussions with reconstruction experts invariably turn to Vitruvius. See James E. Packer The Forum of Trajan in Rome - A Study of the Monuments (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997), his "Trajan's Glorious Forum" in Archaeology, January-February, 1998, pp. 32-41, and Maurizio Forte and Alberto Siliotti (editors) Virtual Archaeology - Re-creating Ancient Worlds (New York: Harry N . Abrams, 1995). 2 text of Vitruvius bears enormous cultural weight and a close reading of the resulting canon is long overdue. Architectural and archaeological researchers typically turn to the De A r c h i t e c t u r a and compare its passages to what is observed in the field and to look for confirmation of imagined or anticipated spaces in constructing ~ hypothetically or physically — corresponding architectures. There are important implications to the latter: At the epistemological base of architectural history and theory, the text's use — and perhaps its manipulation within a deeper transformative process of co-opting it as "truthful" ~ is fundamental. As less-than-robust theoretical reconstructions are added to the literature, the resulting research corpus becomes increasingly blurred and less reliable. And in the rush to re-build monuments, turning to Vitruvius to buttress theoretical models can be seen by some as a viable alternative. The problem of course is that if Vitruvius-based theories are accepted in planning architectural rebuilding programs, there is the very real possibility that a new, invented set of classical forms will emerge. Closely related to this is also the possibility that the reconstructed monuments can be appropriated within agendas that seek to rewrite or realign — overtly and covertly ~ historical narratives. Henri Lefebvre (1991) signals one of the associated risks, noting that the nations that support research leading to reconstructions "are liable to discover how such spaces may be pressed into the service of cultural consumption, of 'culture itself, and of the tourism and the leisure industries with their almost limitless prospects... 2(360). His words are echoed in the actions of public and private bodies as they usurp monuments within popular reconstruction campaigns. In Greece, for example, the state (through its tourism department) has decided to rebuild some twenty-five classical theaters,3 not to mention sections of the Parthenon.4 In appeasing critics and in the spirit of "accuracy", the ratio of archaeological evidence to Vitruvius-based imagery within individual rebuilding programs remains to be seen. And 2 Lefebvre goes on: "... [and w]here destruction has not been complete, 'renovation' becomes the order of the day, or imitation, or replication..." (360). 3 "Culture Minister Stavros Benos recently announced an ambitious decade-long program to spend $104 million to restore 25 ancient Greek and Roman theaters..." (Associated Press, Vancouver Sun, November 2, 1996, H7). 4 See Associated Press, "Greece Restoring Parthenon" in Las Vegas Sun, May 27, 1999. 3 what agencies will align themselves with the Greek tourism body will also be significant. In France, there are similar state sanctioned programs directly aimed at the remaniements, consolidations and the mise-en-valeur of dozens of classical monuments. Thus as the push to re-build accelerates — and it is — the result may very well be a set of new spaces that have little to do with the intentions for which they were originally designed. At the same time, recent changes in national and international interaction suggest that we need to more clearly identify and understand the psychological and emotional ways that monuments operate; "heritage" and "identity" issues, for instance, as connected to monuments, need to be debated and more clearly defined by collectives and perhaps less-so by individual, state or corporate entities. As Brian Osborne (1998) highlights, "[njational-states have long made use of many devices and agencies to create an emotional bonding with particular histories and geographies. These have become transmuted into an 'awareness of belonging' and, in some cases, the politics of fantasy. The imaginative use of symbols and myths have become the stuff of history, tradition, and heritage. It is in this context that the concepts of social memory, monuments, commemorations, and performances become significant: that is, the marking of time, the figuring of the landscape, and the ritualization of remembering" (432).5 Indeed, public and private institutions have developed sophisticated means by which emotive links are created between individuals, the collective, and their memories, especially as rooted in historical, geographical, architectural imaginations. Many of these links of course, can operate as nodes — memory nodes - that can trigger certain reactions. Whether intentional or not, monuments embody specific messages that in turn re-write and re-direct memories. And this is especially relevant when it comes to classical monuments and, as I shall highlight, Vitruvius-as-disciplining-vehicle. The cultural burden classical monuments bear is readily adaptable to a variety of agendas, making the sponsoring of their reconstruction a viable alternative in the realignment of histories. An awareness of the processes through which classical monuments are co-opted in order to script collective memories is thus also overdue. 5 On "awareness of belonging", Osborne is quoting G. Simmel. 4 1.1 R E S E A R C H C O N T E X T S Much of the study of the Vitruvius corpus has been undertaken by classical historians. This makes sense: From etymological and philological viewpoints, the text is directly linked to the study of classical history in general and the latin language in particular. And as the only comprehensive text dealing with classical architectural description and to some extent, theory, classical archaeologists refer to it accordingly. It is a classical treatise dealing with the built, natural and social/cultural realms of a particular time. It serves as a referential tool from which the historian obtains clues in attempts to more clearly understand classical landscapes. And paradoxically, while architects treat the treatise more pragmatically, they also look at it in reverential terms. Indeed, some architectural educators call for a renewed focus on Vitruvius in teaching architecture (Brady, 1996; Heath, 1989) and at the same time some university architecture departments like the University of Notre Dame's, are based almost completely on the classical notions derived out of the De Architectural As the oldest chronicle from which insight into classical architecture can be gained — aside from the architecture itself — the De Architectura holds a certain explicating power. It would be difficult, for example, to understand urban planning, proportioning or any other landscape-governing tenets ~ in a classical sense — without Vitruvius. The text is a repertoire of technical details and theoretical clues bound within didactic and descriptive frameworks that evoke certain imagery. Its descriptive qualities convey a feel for spaces that would otherwise be difficult to conceptualize. It may in fact be due to a combination of these descriptive 6 The University of Notre Dame's School of Architecture "emphasizes...the design of contemporary buildings in a classical manner following the precedents of Vitruvius..." (University of Notre Dame, School of Architecture, Prospectus, 2001). Thomas Gordon Smith (1995-96) of the same university records his views on classical archaeology and Vitruvius: "I believe that it is natural for a true classical architect to be involved with archaeology. The obvious place to turn to is antiquity. While engaged in a project to provide illustrations for a new edition of Vitruvius I learned that Hellenistic and Roman sites along the Turkish coast and foothills offer a gold mine of ancient intellectual property..." (44). Clearly Smith sees Vitruvius and classical archaeology as key in understanding related architecture. While I do not intend within this dissertation to look for meaning in Smith's designs, the example illustrates the extent to which the treatise has become inextricably linked within interpretive webs; for a detailed account of Thomas Gordon Smith's thoughts on classical architecture, see his Classical Architecture - Rule and Invention (Layton: Gibbs M . Smith Inc. Peregrine Books, 1988). Along similar lines, the students at the New York Academy of Arts are encouraged to use models of Antiquity in their work; see Pierce Rice "Drawing From the Antique - A Folio of Drawings by faculty and Students of the New York Academy of Art" in The Classicist, issue 2, 1995-96, pp. 90-93. 5 qualities, the archaeological focus on understanding voided spaces, and the intrinsically imaginative facets of the architectural design process, that the gaps within classical landscapes are so readily filled-in with Vitruvius. Thus the disciplines of archaeology and architecture have over time turned to the treatise to interpret classical landscapes. At a most basic level, the ultimate aim of each is to understand what no longer exits or to "see" what remains buried beneath the ground. Within the approach of each, however, there is the possibility, and indeed the probability, of usurping the text to confirm and buttress an imaginary set of classical architectures. Because no illustrative material accompanies the treatise as transmitted to us, the reader, whether archaeologist or architect, is forced to imagine a personal view of Vitruvius' spaces. Exacerbating this reality is the fact that each reader carries a personal memory of "the classical" and may very well combine this personal view with imaginative textual interpretations of the De A r c h i t e c t u r a . The difficulty in accepting Vitruvius-based interpretations of ruinous monuments lies in the fact that what was imagined by the initial builder does not necessarily correspond to what is imagined by the reconstruction "expert".7 This is why a reconsideration for the way the treatise of Vitruvius is adapted and adopted needs to be re-instigated. And the problem is not one solely involving "history"; it is one inextricably linked to "geography". The geography of Vitruvius, in terms of descriptions, travels, spatial assertions and interpretations, constitute, to borrow Edward Soja's (1989) postmodern wording, the "making of geography". The production of space is obviously central to both archaeology and architecture. Important is that it is not a process that is uniquely active in the present; how space was produced in Vitruvius' day is just as important as how classical space is re-produced today. And the two are inextricable when it comes to the reconstruction of classical monuments; while the whole is related to original meaning and intent, it is also closely linked to present-day interpretation and intent. Indeed, whether we can produce the same spaces today as Vitruvius would have is questionable. 6 A paradoxical attitude to Vitruvius is evident in current scholarship. While some researchers formulate hypothetical (and sometimes physical) remaniements, others highlight the difficulties in accepting Vitruvius a priori. This is most probably linked to the "general" nature of the text. Varene (2001), for instance, goes back to Vitruvius in determining the module dimensions at the petit temple de Glanum (16). Yet Gros (1994a, b, c; 1996b) underlines the problems in attempting Vitruvius' step by step method of constructing public buildings. Sear (1994, 1996 personal communications) points out that because no two sites have the same characteristics, there are difficulties in accepting Vitruvius' specific design tenets. And Geertman and De Jong (1989) note that passages in the De A r c h i t e c t u r a are "often [taken] out of context" when reconstructing spaces. Even Alberti in the fifteenth century and Claude Perrault (1613-88) in the seventeenth century, to cite just two of the most dominant Vitruvius interpreters, recorded some of the gaps between the text's rhetoric and the built realities that they observed. Notwithstanding the fact that most of the classical architecture the latter two were observing was non-existent during the drafting of Vitruvius' tome, there are a host of reasons to question the text. Theorists are forced to attempt to retrace the steps of the original designers of classical architecture and this may be the reason why many interpretations have an air of imaginativeness about them. Related to this and because of the "general" nature of the tenets in the treatise, I think it is possible for interpreters to fit the descriptions to specific site realities. In other words, just as Vitruvius generalized his examples and images, I think it is possible to reconstitute monuments and link them to corresponding sites, using Vitruvius' generalizations. The problem lies in the way the lines of the treatise are read, interpreted, modified, and made to correspond to field realities and personal notions of the classical to in turn fit within wider agendas. 1.2 RESEARCH SPECIFICS What I aim to show in this dissertation is that the De A r c h i t e c t u r a has been and continues to be usurped by the disciplines of archaeology and architecture in order to perpetually 7 reconstruct classical landscapes. I highlight that within the Vitruvius corpus lies authoritative modes of knowledge-production that legitimize the production of architectural and archaeological knowledge. I underscore that the initial drafting and subsequent interpretations of the De Architectu.ro. and its later expositions, explications and canonization have been co-opted in the creation of "new" classical imaginations. And finally, I site the underlying impetus for the sustenance of these processes in France; while I begin in Republican Rome, I ultimately follow the movement of the De A r c h i t e c t u r a to present-day France and consider the persistent penchant of classical landscape reconstruction and the use of Vitruvius within this process. Chapter 2's primary goal is to bring together the disparate literature in order to discern the general histories and theories contained in Vitruvius' treatise, and perhaps more importantly, render context to the subsequent interpretations of the same text. The canonical web is intricate and the best way I have found to begin deciphering it has been to revisit — temporally and spatially — the landscapes that Vitruvius would have been living and writing in. An initial section thus locates the day-to-day lifeworld of Vitruvius and sites his text accordingly. In Chapter 3., I schematically trace the trajectory of Vitruvius' treatise from Rome to France and connect the use of Vitruvius to the early moments of the discipline of archaeology. The translation of Jean Gardet and Dominique Bertin is used to outline some ways through which the treatise was usurped in the quest to make the French landscape classical, and in some ways, the classical landscape French. Chapter 4 looks at the impetus for reconstructing classical monuments in France. I retrace the main cultural moments that led to the restitution practices of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; in other words, I look at "habits of acceptance". The effects of the canon are clear in nineteenth century France and its role as "proof within the production of archaeological knowledge is what I emphasize; I use the theatre at Orange, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, to make the point. In Chapter 5, I explore the notions of monuments and memory in France before concluding with some thoughts on the use of the De A r c h i t e c t u r a . 8 The two Interludes I include are "interludes" in the sense that they break from the narrative, reinforce specific points, contextualize particular notions, and reorient the discussion. In Interlude I, I use the monuments of Orange, France as examples of the way memory operates in a Roman architectural and cultural context. In Interlude II I take a close look at the way classical archaeology operates (persistently) within scientific and art historical modes and in turn perpetuate authoritative interpretations of classical texts, sites and finds. Linked to my discussion of Vitruvius and monuments is the notion of "memory".8 The term can be problematic in these memory-obsessed times and, while I will have a great deal more to say about it below, there are a few things that require clarification. I refer to different memories: Vitruvius' architectural memory and the collective memory of the builders of his day, the architectural memory of the interpreters of Vitruvius' text as changing in time — late antiquity, Middle Ages, Renaissance — and the classical memory of today's reader, both individual and collective. When I refer to "collective memory" I am talking about what might best understood as "passed down histories"; the collective memory, to me, is one which is generally accepted by the collective, yet not necessarily textually documented or organized along a rational, temporal continuum. When I refer to "history", I am talking about the organization and re-organization of past events, as rationalized, generally along a temporal continuum, and usually presented as the "official" version of some social or cultural entity such as a state or other collective. History can also be generally accepted by the collective (although not always) and by virtue of its textualization or formalization through mechanisms such as propaganda or related monument building, it re-presents the past and thus attempts to re-align the collective memory. When I refer to "memory", I realize that the term is somewhat contentious and that its "definition" is one which is shifting. From Cicero's writings on rhetorical memory techniques and Frances Yates' (1966) "rediscovery" of classical mnemotechniques, to the nineteenth century ideas of John Ruskin (1849) and the early twentieth century writings of Alois Reigl (1926), there has been a certain tendency to connect memory to architecture. This has continued during the past century, 8 For a commentary on memory, see, among others, Adrian Forty "Memory" in Words and Buildings - A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture (London: Thames and Hudson, 2000) pp. 206-19. 9 especially as the work of Walter Benjamin (1998, 2000), Christine Boyer (1994), Pierre Nora (1996) and Aldo Rossi (1966) has become popularized. My use of the word is limited to "what is remembered" by individuals and collectives and I have tried to maintain "history" and "memory" as separate entities. In Chapter 2 and my fist Interlude I will discuss some of the ways thoughts are registered and remembered and in Chapter 5,1 will return to the notion of memory as I look for the meaning of classical landscape production in France. 10 dmm 11 CHAPTER 2 - Vitruvio "Thus I assert emphatically my opinion that the old principles... should be called back into service..." Vitruvius, De Architectura Libri Decern, [C], I. 4. 9 "But this is indeed the moment for us to pass on to the wonders of our own city, to review the resources derived from the experiences of 800 years, and to show that here too in our buildings we have vanquished the world..." Pliny, Naturalis Historia, XXXVI, 24. 103 INTRODUCTION What was it about the architecture of early Rome that had Vitruvius calling for a return to the old ways and Pliny registering such intense pride for the past? The feeling certainly had a lot to do with their personal views, but it was also related to the perpetual rebuilding campaigns of Republican leaders. The Urbs had been in constant social and political flux and the dozens of consecutive large-scale architectural projects that marked the late Republic reflected the mood.9 On the one hand the schemes encouraged the abandonment or destruction of previously coveted monuments, while on the other they included new forms, types and methods that were not clearly understood. Urban Rome had become multifarious, with an assortment of cultural signifiers imported from the provinces and beyond, reflected in places, sacred and profane, and spaces, public and private, whose original intent and physicality had become obscured and ambiguous. There was a sense of loss as the late Republican city gradually fragmented into "disjointed, episodic, and incomplete" spaces (Favro, 1996, 78). In short, the Rome of Vitruvius was made up of confused landscapes and looking to the familiar structure of the past would have been one way of coping with the disarray.10 9 1 wil l describe some of these large-scale projects in the pages to follow. 1 0 Here landscape is not considered solely as the physically built or naturally occurring topography that is observable; "landscape" in this research context is social, built, and geographic, characterizing what constitute the features of particular periods as manifested through culture over time and space. The landscapes of Vitruvius are all of these, as observed by him, complete with his notions of antiqitus, history 12 The disorder had been in the making for centuries. Power and domination, as manifested through war, settling in the provinces, and civic rule, were constantly forcing boundaries to be redrawn and to some extent, histories to be rewritten. In addition to their policies of expansion, leaders had sought to shape collective behaviors, and eventually cultural histories, through the radical altering of landscapes. One way this was attempted was through public works programs, where monumental architecture, cadastral delimitation and urban renewal schemas were organized and designed to fit state, institutional and personal agendas." Boethius (1939) reminds us that around Vitruvius "was beginning all the enormous reconstruction of the monumental and technical equipment of Rome..." (114). Indeed, surrounding Vitruvius were rapidly changing institutions that seem to have focused on the manipulation of the masses through complex architectural and iconographic programs. The difficulty, however, is that because the changes were so dynamic, it was difficult for both individuals and the collective to register meanings associated with specific monuments, let alone remember them once removed. Vitruvius, of course, was a member of the same collective. The adopting of relatively new architectural methods, materials and purposes would have been a concern for him, but the rapid disappearance of monuments must have been alarming. The extent to which he was aware of the attempts at re-writing histories remains unclear and what he knew about old and architecture (V, preface. 1). And they are also as perceived through today's layered lens of history, archaeology and architecture. Denis Cosgrove, in his Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape (London: Croom Helm, 1984), as well as his Palladian Landscapes (London: Cambridge, 1993), highlights that landscapes "can be both medium and outcome of cultural processes and so in a very real sense play an integral role in ... human history" (5). In other words, landscape, as Dianne Harris (1999) points out, "is both the product of cultural forces and a powerful agent in the production of culture" (435). The present research considers landscape with the latter views in mind. " While some studies such as Tenney Frank's Roman Buildings of the Republic (Rome: American Academy, 1924), L . Crema's L'architettura romana nell'eta della Republica (Berlin: Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, 1973) and Filippo Coarelli's Roma repubblicana dal 270 A.C. all'et augustea (Rome: Quasar, 1987) and Guide archeologique de Rome (Paris: Hachette, 1998) cover principle Republican monuments, including those within the Forum, Palatine and Lower Campus Martius as well as other Republican projects such as aqueducts, roadways and bridges, their focus on monumental architecture negates the vernacular and for the most part leaves out the social and quotidian implications to everyday building. Eva Margareta Steinby's well-edited six-volume Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1993, 95, 96, 98, 00), while comprehensive, is at times lacking in terms of the vernacular. This is not to say that there is absolutely no material on the day-to-day life of Romans; John Stambaugh, in his The Ancient Roman City (London: John Hopkins, 1988) for example, renders a rich portrait of life in Roman urban settings. 13 monuments, partially standing or completely obliterated, is also uncertain. He was, however, clearly sensitive to the notion of the past, quite often alluding to memoria and memoratur --memory and remembering, as well as being familiar with the art of Rhetoric, one of its most important tenets being "memory".12 More significant perhaps, is that he was preoccupied with the implications of architecture upon future remembrance; when he wrote that the emperor's monuments "would be handed down to future generations" ([C], I. preface, 3), he was conscious of the connections that posterity, legacy and meaning had to monuments.13 Along with his awareness of the "memorial" qualities of architecture, Vitruvius was also preoccupied with the state of building practices; his call for a new way of looking at the profession suggests that important changes in building were taking place. While some of these can be extracted from his text, they remain elusive, partly because of the lack of clarity in the treatise and mostly due to the fact that the successive construction campaigns were destructive in nature. We have in fact very little from which to develop a portrait of Vitruvius' day-to-day architectural experience and in spite of having a seemingly well documented corpus on Roman building, what Vitruvius would have observed — and lived — remains difficult to present.14 Frank (1924) and Ward-Perkins (1968) highlight some of the problems in terms of archaeological lacunae; there are, for instance, very few traces of the vernacular of the late first century B.C . . And as Hinard (1998) confirms, there is still no comprehensive compendium of standing monuments for the last few hundred years of the Republic. Thus, one of the main problems in reading the De A r c h i t e c t u r a is due to the lack of a clear portrait of the author's surroundings. 1 2 On Rhetoric, see, among many others, Jeffrey Walker Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 1 3 1 will return to the notion of memory in a detailed section below. 1 4 Among others, Adam (1989), Anderson (1997), Boethius (1970), Brown (1971), Castagnoli (1924), Choisy (1873), Crema (1959; 1973), Gros (1996a), MacDonald (1982, 86), Platner (1904), Sear (1989), Stierlin (1996), Ward-Perkins (1979), Wilson Jones (2000) and Wheeler (1968) document the sources, characteristics and to varying degrees, meaning of Rome's architectural accomplishments and ideals. On the difficulties in assessing the architecture of the late Republic, see Pierre Gros "Architecture et Societe a Rome et en Italie centro-meridionale aux deux derniers siecles de la Republique" in Latomus 156 (Bruxelles, 1978). 14 This chapter's objective is certainly not to produce a catalogue of late Republican architecture. Vitruvius' day-to-day was not filled with some sort of pure "late Republican architecture"; his day-to-day was cumulative and mixed. The combination of abandoned, ruined, used and "under construction" buildings and monuments would have been at once stimulating and puzzling; the city would have been filled with what would have been, to Vitruvius, hints of what things might have been like in the Republic's past. This is key: Along with Vitruvius' notions of what architecture should be, the remnants would have informed his architectural views and of course, his architectural writings; the De A r c h i t e c t u r a was written within specific temporal and spatial contexts and it is simply not possible to begin interpreting it without considering its contexts. Indeed, this is where many readers of the treatise make a major mistake: Rome and the provinces constitute milieux sited onto sedimented landscapes ~ human, political, built and so on — that can be interpreted as primary documents. My initial purpose in this chapter is to consider these as I briefly review the set of key events, influences and innovations that shaped Vitruvius' Rome, all-the-while identifying at least some of the most probable monuments that stood in his day. The second purpose of this chapter is to analyze the De A r c h i t e c t u r a , through its close reading, with the aim of pinpointing the motivation and rationale for the ideals and models making up Vitruvius' A r c h i t e c t u r a . My reading of the treatise of course includes the associated corpus of Vitruvius literature. I assess the extent to which Vitruvius on the one hand "theorized" architecture, while on the other, imagined and produced his own classical knowledge. While references and articles related to the themes of his treatise appear at regular intervals, critical analyses taking the whole of the De A r c h i t e c t u r a into consideration are lacking, especially in the English language.15 The temporal aspects of Vitruvius' 1 5 The recent English translation of Ingrid Rowland with Thomas Noble Howe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) does include a Commentary; it is based primarily on speculative drawings that focus mostly on building technique and caution should be used when referencing it. Some, like James Stevens Curl in his " A New Edition of Vitruvius' De Architectura libri decern" in Journal of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada volume 24, number 4, 1999, pp. 28-29, assess the Commentary as one made up of "scratchy illustrations" with "editorial control...clearly at fault". Alexander McKay (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1978) provides a relatively general resume of Vitruvius' life and writings. The most comprehensive work (published in French) is by Pierre Gros (et al.) with an ongoing translation, commentary and analysis (Les Belles Lettres, Collection des Universites de France); the translation is partially complete. Other relatively recent work includes the German translation of C. Fensterbusch 15 prescriptions, rules and tenets, for instance, are fundamental to present-day interpretations of the book, classical architecture, and in turn to the ongoing production of classical landscapes. Three broad sections follow: B l u r r e d L a n d s c a p e s , retraces the influences of Vitruvius' built and intellectual surroundings, underscoring cultural dynamism leading to the first century B.C. and highlighting intellectual and architectural heterogeneity, especially within the final years of the Republic. The De A r c h i t e c t u r a L i b r i Decern looks at the treatise in detail, assessing its contents and prescribed architectural principles, as well as the built landscapes ~ real or imaginary — portrayed within it. And Transcriptions, Translations and Transformations discusses the extent to which the treatise has been copied through time. It loosely retraces — because it can only be loosely done ~ the trajectory of the De A r c h i t e c t u r a as it made its way from Republican Rome to today's disciplinary confines. I especially critique the way translators have and continue to turn to visual representations in a process that can only further alter the way the treatise is read. 2.1 BLURRED LANDSCAPES BUILDING COLLECTIVE MEMORIES If one expression had to be singled out to describe Roman culture leading to the first century B.C. it would be "dynamic assertion". The conquering of the indigenous population by the Etruscans during the seventh century B.C. had begun a process of expansion that would last well into, and well beyond, Vitruvius' lifetime. Gros (1978) outlines some of the associated changes as represented by a succession of architectural transformations. The latter were in (Darmstadt, 1964) and B. Wesenberg's Beitrage zur Rekonstruktion griechischer Architektur nach literarischen (Berlin, 1983). In Italy, other important work has been instigated, including the comprehensive listing of De Architectura editions in Luigi Vagnetti's "2000 Anni di Vitruvio" in Studi e Documenti di Architettura, number 8, September, 1978, pp. 185-95 and the translations of Antonio Corso and Elisa Romano (Torino, 1997) and Luciano Migotto (Padova, Edizioni Studio Tesi, 1990, 1997). Recent international colloquia include the Vitruv-Kolloquium (Darmstadt: Technische Hochschule, 1982 [1984]), the Monus Non Igratum International Symposium on Vitruvius' De Architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican Architecture (Leiden: Babesch, 1987 [1989]) and the Colloque international organise par l'Ecole francaise de Rome, l'lnstitut de recherche sur l'architecture antique du CNRS et la Scuola normale superior de Pise (Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, 1993 [1994]). 16 fact the result of a series of cultural waves — uneven waves primarily influenced by the Greeks — that would eventually be identified (albeit perhaps unconsciously) by Vitruvius. The changes did not necessarily take place at specific moments; they were gradual, shifting geographically, intellectually and temporally. And as I alluded to in my introduction, the changes did not a priori translate into the complete abandonment of the past; Vitruvius' architectural observations would be comprised of relatively new constructions reflecting sets of adapted cultural traits, and much older customs apparent in more archaic monuments or their remains. Within the matrix making up Vitruvius' day-to-day then, were remnants dating beyond the mid-seventh century B.C. when the Etruscans had sacked the city. 1 6 Aside from the subjugation of early Roman society, one of the major impacts of Etruscan rule had been the establishment of landscape altering strategies: First, new institutions (political, for example) were imposed upon the loosely organized populace (Brown, 1971, 12-14; Wellard, 1973). Then, the surrounding region was reorganized by politically and militarily amalgamating the villages sited on the many hills that would eventually constitute Rome. And finally, massive public works programs were instigated, such as the draining of the area that would eventually become the Forum Romanum (Shadwell, 1883, 56-58; Ogilvie, 1976, 31; Sear, 1989, 12). Through earlier trade with the colonial Greeks of Magna G r a e c i a , the Etruscans had adapted a variety of Hellenic cultural elements to their needs (Barrow, 1949; Lomas, 1993, 6).1 7 This in fact is how a Greco-monumental footprint came to guide the early plan of Rome: Large-scale housing complexes, city walls, and especially temples ~ temples that mirrored Greek principles — were installed as part of the urban schema (Boethius, 1970, 1 6 Prior to Etruscan rule the city was made up of relatively unorganized settlements. According to Roman lore, Rome had been founded in 753 B.C.. Among others, Plutarch (46-120 A.D.) in his Life of Romulus (edited by John Dryden, London, 1927-28) relates the story of the founding of the city and attributes it directly to Romulus (I, 36). For a detailed recounting of the legend, see Carl Grimberg's La Grece et les origines de la puissance romaine (Limbourg: Marabout Universite, 1973), pp. 280-84. And for discussions on the legend's significance, see Joseph Rykwert's The Idea of a Town - The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World. (London: Faber and Faber, 1976) and R. M . Ogilvie's Early Rome and the Etruscans (Great Britain: Harvester Press, 1976), pp. 33-35. 1 7 Greek colonies had been established in southern Italy and in Eastern Sicily as early as 750 B.C., with the first probably at Cumae on the bay of Naples. Etruria and Greece were by far the most important settlers of Italy during the seventh and eighth centuries B.C.. 17 91; Claridge, 1998; Marucchi, 1933, 6).1 8 The largest (and last) monument built by the Etruscans in Rome, the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus (dedicated in 509 B.C.) , characterizes the extent to which the Etruscans dominated (Drummond, 1993, 86; Sear, 1989; Tadgell, 1998, 118).19 Several hundred years later and in spite of extensive renovations undertaken in 83 B.C. (Pliny, Naturalis H i s t o r i a , X X X V I , 45) and a further refit in 42 B.C. (Dudley, 1967, 81), Vitruvius would have still been able to experience the temple's presence upon the Capitoline. The notion of power transcended its massing: dwarfed by an imposing, Parthenon-like scale (it measured some 62.25 x 53.30 meters in plan), Vitruvius would have been able to recognize its triple cellas and eighteen stone columns as derived from Greco-Etruscan design and it is quite possible that he realized it was modeled after the Etrurian temple at Vei i . 2 0 It is unfortunate that a better glimpse cannot be realized for most other Etruscan spaces. Social institutions remain enigmatic and traces of quotidian architecture are, for the most part, non-existent; housing complexes, for example, were razed and forgotten during the middle and late Republic. This is not to say that the Republican patricians immediately There have been a variety of interpretations and attempts to clarify meaning in Greek temple architecture. Indra Kagis McEwen's Socrates' Ancestor - An Essay on Architectural Meanings (Cambridge: MIT, 1993), for instance, develops the idea that the loom is represented in the temple. The idea is based partly on the double premise that the loom and the house "must have shared something of the same identity" and that "only householders (by definition, loom owners) could be citizens of the polis" (110). Thus, to McEwen, "[t]he Greeks, when they built the temples without which the polis could not come to be, were setting up looms" (111). While the loom did play a central role in the Greek household, it is difficult to accept McEwen's argument; making the leap from the loom's somewhat fragile and at times overly complex wooden frame to the massing of imposing stone and marble structures is at best, challenging. On the other hand, George Hersey, in his The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture: Speculation on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi (Cambridge: MIT, 1988) proposes a somewhat more realistic interpretation: He sees Greek temple columniation as sets that "resemble files of gigantic warriors marching ashore, armed and menacing, bearing aloft their weapons and supplies" (59). While he is here referring to a temple at the Greek colony of Paestum, the inference is that the majority of temples were built with this ideal in mind. He offers no conclusive proof for the theory, however. Yet when we consider that such imposing monuments were erected throughout the Greek world—and hence Italy during Rome's early years, it is not difficult to accept that invaders like the Etruscans and eventually the Romans, would want to adopt the model. However, the original intent of Greek temple architecture is not necessarily the issue here; it is the adapting of perceived intentions to fulfill other agendas. For a formal dissertation on meaning in classical architecture, see Alexander Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre Classical Architecture - The Poetics of Order (Cambridge: MIT, 1990). 1 9 Traces of the temple's podium remain, situated beneath the Museo Nuovo wing of the Capitoline Museum. 2 0 So close was this temple's design to his own Book Ill 's "triple temple" that Robertson (1929) is of the opinion that it served as Vitruvius' prototype (200). 18 discarded all Etruscans spaces; it is more likely that through successive reorganizations, needs changed and their corresponding footprints gradually disappeared. By the time the Republican patricians replaced the last Etruscan King in 507 B . C . , 2 1 this first wave of Greek influence — via the Etruscans — had defined early Roman society and especially its urban template (with the imposition of monuments and the siting of walls and the Forum), all-the-while delineating new trading patterns and establishing quasi-autocratic, aggressive and expansionist policies. As the early Republicans moved away from Rome to annex other peoples, a second wave of Greek influence moved in the opposite direction towards Rome.22 The trend reflected a policy of assertion and conquering that soon had Rome extending its reach all the way up to the Po Valley (Hibbert, 1985, 9-15).23 In Rome, close relationships between state and religion were manifested through the control of sacred and state spaces that became contained within well-planned zones — zones that sharply contrasted the cramped housing areas emplaced in compact and comparatively unplanned sites (Crawford, 1989, 17-18). At the same time, Republican leaders began to conceptualize sites of representation that specifically aimed at displaying power.24 Interestingly, it was a model originally imported by the Etruscans — the forum — that was appropriated to echo their ambitions: Forums became monument foci; the Forum Romanum was formally emplaced and organized within the urban plan, with the Pontifex Maximus' official residence and places of business and veneration 2 1 Tarquinius Superbus was deposed in 507-510 B.C.. 2 2 Rome not only came into contact with Hellenic influences through war and conquering; trade had been established as early as 509 B.C., when a commercial treaty with Carthage was organized. Similar alliances served commercial and defensive purposes, as, for example, with the Latin League and the Hernici on the eastern frontier during the fourth century B.C.. 2 3 For a discussion of institutional control over religion (with priests), government (with senators), laws (with magistrates), and the lower classes (with bounded cultural traditions), see Ross Holloway's The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium (London: Routledge, 1994). 2 4 For a useful "sourcebook" on governing, see Barbara Levick's Government of the Roman Empire. A Sourcebook (London and New York: Routledge), 2000. 19 sited within its vicinity (Frank, 1924).25 Other forums were planned that, in contrast, tended to focus inwardly. The rest of the city, at least until the third century B.C. , remained unplanned and at best only loosely organized. The forum "type"2 6 would be long lasting and centuries later Vitruvius would discuss it in relative detail (V, I, 1-10). In spite of the emphasis on large-scale public places, "until the end of the third century B.C. Rome.. .[would look] tawdry, with patched temples and winding, unpaved streets" (MacKendrick, 1983, 71) and very little urban planning would be considered beyond immediate monument sites. Contrasting sharply with the disarrayed city was the annexation of much of the Mediterranean region (Kostof, 1985, 192; Stierlin and Picard, 1965, 8). The expansion was relatively aggressive with thousands of settlers installed regardless of protests by neighboring communities.27 Rome negotiated agreements with those willing and imposed alliance treaties on those less accepting. This involved close contact with earlier settled Greeks and the result was a third Hellenic cultural wave that continued throughout the third century B.C. ; the Greek colony Taranto, for instance, was conquered in 272 B . C . . 2 8 Within the Forum Romanum, the Temple of Saturn — the first temple of the Republic — was erected between 501 and 493 B.C., the Temple of Castor and Pollux was completed in 484 B.C., and the Temple of Concord was dedicated in 366 B.C.. Initially erected to appease the gods, they came to command, as Brown, in his Roman Architecture (New York: George Brazilier, 1971), eloquently put it: "duty, discipline and decorum" (14). They would serve as models for the dozens to follow and for Vitruvius to later scrutinize; it should be of no surprise that he would devote two Books to the type (III, IV). 2 6 While it is difficult to identify the forum as a "type", it certainly had tenets and corresponding meanings that were specific to it. Russell (1968), in his "The Origins and Development of Republican Forums" in Phoenix, volume 22, number 4, pp. 304-36, highlights "axiality, symmetry and frontality" as general features (336). Considering its "drawing" qualities, however, nodality should be added: A corresponding land use strategy emerged within the forum's surroundings as people and activities were drawn towards it. Vitruvius later considered the forum as key to the urban plan, citing for example that its size should be relative to population and that it be designed with a variety of purposes in mind (V, 1.3). Interestingly, as the multi-purposed forum became central to the city, individual monuments became central to the forums. In a sense, as religion and state ruled Rome and the territories, so too did temples and temple construction sites dominate the forums. 2 7 The League of Latin cities tried to stop Rome's expansion but was overpowered in 338 B.C.. 2 8 Because of the destruction-reconstruction cycle, the archaeological record of the Republican city has been poorly preserved. In a sense then, it is fortunate that Rome did establish colonies: From the colonial centers we get a better sense of landscape production. It is significant, however, that Roman leaders did not perceive their colonies in the same way as they saw Rome; Rome was at the center of a world empire while the provinces were mere extensions. Thus, while elements such as the grid-plan are not applicable to Rome itself, they certainly reveal a great deal in terms of its strategies of domination. This may have something 20 One of the key instruments of territorial expansion was the grid-plan. Borrowed from Greek orthogonal planning and adapted primarily for military purposes, the grid-plan was implanted onto urban sites, often regardless of topographic or cultural realities (Crawford, 1989, 22; Dudley, 1967, 13; Wilson, 1989, 363). Traveling during his military career, Vitruvius might have experienced the impact of the organizing tenet. The traces of the flnitor, mensor, agrimensor and gromaticas, all land surveyors, either civil or military, would have certainly remained for him to observe ~ street blocks, land-surveying signposts and land-allotment markers had all been part of the strategy — and he clearly had the grid-plan in mind when discussing street layouts in Book I (IV). 2 9 Another reason for the successful expansion was Rome's way of accepting indigenous culture all-the-while imposing its own cultural checks (Castagnoli, 1972; Ward-Perkins, 1968, 19). This is clear from the slight modifications to the colonial outpost urban plans: Cosa (273 B.C.) and Paestum (273 B.C.) for instance, retained within their walls a host of pre-colonial features amalgamated to the Roman plan. At Cosa, a grid was inscribed with correspondingly sited state and religious buildings, all accommodating indigenous crafts and customs within their design and construction (Brown, 1950, 1960; Salmon, 1970, 29-32; Wheeler, 1968, 34). And at Paestum, a former Greek colony (Poseidonia), the Romans rearranged part of the town plan to their standard all-the-while maintaining existing monuments (Griffiths Pedley, 1990; Theodorescu, 1989, 114) (figure 2.1).30 Rome systematically gained dominion over Sicily (264 B.C.) , Sardinia and Corsica (238 B.C.), eventually Carthage (202 B.C.) and even smaller settlements like Ampourias, a Greek to do with an idyllic tabula rasa approach whereby at least one sector of a conquered city would be re-ordered. 2 9 For a discussion of Roman surveying see Brian Campbell "Shaping the Rural Environment: Surveyors in Ancient Rome" In Journal of Roman Studies, volume L X X X V I , pp. 74-99, 1996. See also O.A.W. Dilke Greek and Roman Maps (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press) and M.J.T. Lewis Surveying Instruments of Greece and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 3 0 The Romans would have encountered the temple to Hera at Paestum. In this regard, George Hersey has already been alluded to: In his The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture - Speculation on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi (Cambridge: MIT, 1988) and "Vitruvius and the Origins of the Orders: Sacrifice and Taboo in Greek Architectural Myth" in Perspecta, number 23, pp. 66-77, he underlines the very real possibility that the Greek temple — he refers directly to the temple to Hera ~ would have conjured up the image of marching armies on the shores. That said, it should not be entirely surprising that the Romans would emulate the type either way. 21 Figure 2.1 - Paestum: Temple of Athena; late 6 century B.C. outpost on the Iberian coast, were settled (Mierse, 1994). Certainly as Claridge (1998) points out, "[t]he eastern Mediterranean was collapsing apace" (7). While this was happening, however, innovations were moving in space.31 Physical and correspondingly psychological domination through the imposition of regulations and direct rule was tested throughout the provincial centers (Potter, 1990, 70).32 At the same time, through appropriation, assimilation and adaptation, new ideas flowed towards Rome; the expansionist experience enabled a set of important innovations (Coulon, 3 1 As we shall see, it is difficult to ponder a retired military officer and perhaps traveling architectus such as Vitruvius later overlooking what would have been a great many "unordinary" design features, crafts, techniques, materials and forms appearing in Rome. 3 2 Rome's reign over most of Italy during the early second century B.C. facilitated a new kind of control using land tenure: Peasant land was "expropriated" by large landowners who could afford to "purchase" them during difficult periods or while farmers served their time in the military; peasant farmers were increasingly forced to rely on the ager publicus, or public lands. Land ownership and control thus fell to the rich and the state. For a discussion, see Michael Crawford (1989) "Early Rome and Italy", in John Boardman, Jasper Griffin and Oswyn Murray (editors) The Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). 22 1990, I): Opus caementicium, or concrete, for example, rendered possible a new set of specialized building types34 such as the monumental arch, porticus, basilica, amphitheater, theatre (in wood and stone) and atrium- peristyle house.35 The adaptive use of concrete was a key innovation and prime enabler in the development of new building types. It was popularized throughout the Republic, facilitating the development of the basilica and porticus, for example, and the design of complexes such as the Palatine (204-191 B.C.) and the Porticus Aemilia (c. 193-174 B.C.) with its concrete roof. The arch continued to be adapted during this period; Vitruvius would later include a short reference to it in his digression on building foundations and substructures (VI, 8. 3-4). A further set of innovations was the use of specialist labor in conjunction with the semi-circular vault; the combination was utilized at Palestrina to render a less-than-hospitable sloping terrain into a majestic complex of terraces and retaining walls that still attest to its impact. At Rome, then, the first monuments on the Largo Argentina were enabled through innovations borne out of contacts in the provinces (figure 2.2). First opus caementicium and the arch, and eventually, specialized labor and reusable formwork. The temples dedicated to Feronia (early third century B.C.), Juturnia (241 B.C.), the Lares P e r m a r i n i , or household deities (early second century B.C.), and Fortuna Huiusce Diei (101 B.C.) incorporated the new innovations within their designs. By the late third century B.C., a complex array of monuments physically controlled and psychologically held the populace in Rome 3 3 Among many others, see Jean-Pierre Adam Roman Building - Materials and Techniques, translated by Anthony Mathews (London: B.T. Batsford Limited, 1994a) for a full discussion on arches, vaults and opus caementicium. 3 4 For an account of building forms and types, see John C. Anderson Roman Architecture and Society (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1997), Pierre Gros L 'Architecture Romaine - du debut du Hie siecle av. J.-C. a la fin du Haul Empire - Tome I (Paris, 1996a) and William L . MacDonald The Architecture of the Roman Empire - Volumes I and II (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982, 1986). 3 5 For a discussion of Vitruvius' description of the Greek house see especially F. Mayence "Vitruve et la maison grecque" in Melanges Charles Moller, volume 1, issue 4, 1914, pp. 31-36. 23 Figure 2.2 - Rome: Largo Argentina: Round Temple and in the provinces, all within a codified ideology involving subjugation, order and duty.36 Closely related to the three were military campaigns that took place with increasing frequency.37 The apparition of victory-temples corresponded with the campaigns, with some forty added to the Urbs during the third century B.C.; the message gradually shifted from Rome-as-center-of-empire to General-as-ruler-of-empire. For a detailed resume o f building projects and their costs during the Republic, see Tenney Frank An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome - Volume 1 - Rome and Italy of the Republic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1933). 3 7 For a discussion on the motivation for conquest, see A l l a n M . Ward, "The Roman Republ ic" in Stanley M . Burstein, Ramsay M a c M u l l e n , Kur t A . Raaflaub and A l l e n M . Ward Ancient History: Recent Work and New Directions (Claremont: Regina Books , 1997), pp. 55-78. 24 From the fall of Syracuse in 212 B.C. and especially after the second Punic War (218-202 B.C.) a fourth wave of Hellenic influence swelled over the city.38 War had necessitated manufacturing; trade had enhanced it. Spaces of commerce emerged as specialized traders, moneylenders and craftspeople engaged in new economic activities.39 In 210 B.C. an ambitious urban infrastructure program, including aqueducts and roadways, was undertaken.40 By then palaces were visible within the few planned areas; shanties on the other hand, were rendered invisible, relegated to areas away from the monumental (forum) nodes. So luxurious were the palaces that, according to Pliny, laws had to be changed -- or ignored — to accommodate their construction (Naturalis H i s t o r i a , XXXVI, II. 5). To Lafon (1989) and Rawson (1985) the design fantasias of this time place grand villas among the most important developments in Republican architecture (188-90; 185).41 Traces of this palace tradition were there for Vitruvius to later inspect, although perhaps because of his distaste for all-things-ostentatious, he gave very little attention to the villa.42 The economic benefits of trade translated into renewed institutional activity and forum building increased in frequency and complexity as Rome became a veritable worksite.43 Consider a quotation from Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 17) who recounts some of the frenzied building activity of 179 B.C.: For a rendering of Rome's wars between the first Punic War and the destruction of Corinth, see Polybius' History (214-122 B.C.), translated by W. R. Patin (Cambridge). 3 9 For a general discussion of the military and political events of the late to middle Republic, see Jean-Michel David's La Republique romaine de la deuxieme guerre punique a la bataille d'Actium (Paris: Editions du Seuil), 2000. 4 0 For an example of the type of study undertaken regarding technical aspects of the De Architectura and urban features such as aqueducts, see A . Trevor Hodge (1996) "In Vitruvium Pompeianum: Urban Water Distribution reappraised", in American Journal of Archaeology, number 100, pp. 261-76. 4 1 While Vitruvius did not discuss the villa in detail, he did describe some of its construction features, providing, for example, instructions on the design and proportion of rooms (VI, 3). He also discussed structural woodwork in IV, 2,1; for a detailed analysis on wood use in large houses, see Roger B. Ulrich (1996) "Contignatio, Vitruvius, and the Campanian Builder", in the American Journal of Archaeology, Volume 100, pp. 137-51. To Metraux (1992), it is possible that the omission of a detailed treatment of the villa may have been due to serious social implications; Vitruvius may have understood that while it might have been important to have showcase homes in the city, such villas would have been considered as ostentatious in the countryside (326). 4 2 The villa lacunae in the De Architectura will be discussed below. 4 3 Two of the large projects underway include the temple of Magna Mater (dedicated in 191 B.C. and extensively renovated in 111 B.C.), and the area of the Circus Flaminius (221 B.C.). A group of basilicas, including the Basilica Porcia (184 B.C.), the Basilica Aemilia (179 B.C.) and the Basilica Sempronia (170 B.C.) were also emplaced in close proximity to the Forum Romanum. 25 From the monies raised and divided between them, Lepidus built a theatre with a proscaenium by the Temple of Apollo, restored the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, and had the columns surrounding it scoured and painted white... M . Fulvius carried out still more works, and of greater utility - a harbor and bridge piles in the Tiber, a basilica behind the new shops, and a fish market surrounded by shops which he sold to private owners. quoted from Dudley, 1967, [XL, 51.2-8] The new docking and market facilities Livy describes bring up an interesting point: Not only were they built to support trade (of tufa, wood and salt, among other products) but they also showcased the new technologies of the time.44 By then, travertine had replaced tufa as material of choice (Adam, 1994a, b) 4 5 and the use of marble was being tested. In terms of architectonics, the problem was no longer one of monolithic structures, it was one of bringing together a host of smaller structural members such as arches to work in concert within larger assemblies (Gros, 1978, 14). As nearby peoples were convinced to join Rome, their own Greek influence reinforced Rome's penchant for the Hellenic; Pompeii, for example, with its Etruscan Temple of Apollo, became an ally to Rome during the second century B.C. (figure 2.3). The refinement of innovations enabled Roman engineers to undertake more elaborate building programs focusing on scale, structure and use; status and dominance would now be displayed through technology. Concrete, travertine and a host of forms such as the arch had been well developed prior to Vitruvius' career;46 he would register in his day-to-day observations the ensemble of these as packed within the forum sites. Vitruvius would later devote a chapter to harbors, breakwaters and shipyards (V, 12). 4 5 The merits of brick types are provided in Vitruvius' Book II (8). 4 6 For some comments on Vitruvius' career, see Pierre Gros' edited "Munus Non Ingratum - Le Traite Vitruvien et la Notion de Service" in Le Projet de Vitruve - Objet, Destinataires et Reception du De Architectura. Actes do colloque international organise par l'Ecole Fran9aise de Rome, l'institut de recherche sur l'architecture antique du CNRS et la Scuola normale superiore de Pise, Rome, 26-27 mars, 1993 (Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1994d), pp. 75-90. See also Antoinette Novara's "Faire Oeuvre Utile: La Mesure de l'Ambition Chez Vitruve" also in Le Projet de Vitruve - Objet, Destinataires et Reception du De Architectura. Actes du colloque international organise par l'Ecole Francaise de Rome, l'institut de recherche sur l'architecture antique du CNRS et la Scuola normale superiore de Pise, Rome, 26-27 mars, 1993 (Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1994d), pp. 48-61. 26 Figure 2.3 - Pompeii: Street Scene dmm 00-08 Upon Corinth's fall in 146 B.C., direct Greek influence intensified in yet another Hellenic wave (Baratte and Metzger, 1994, 476). Rome took on the use of marble, and the Orders as related ideas were imported directly from Greece (Sear, 1989, 19). Strabo (64-63 B.C.- c. A.D. 25) renders a partial portrait of what had taken place at Corinth: And when these [Romans] were removing the ruins and at the same time digging the open graves, they found numbers of terra-cotta reliefs, and also many bronze vessels. And since they admired the workmanship they left no grave unransacked; so that, well supplied with such things and disposing of them at a high price, they filled Rome... The Geography, VIII, 6.23 The material movement highlighted by Strabo underscores the extent to which Hellenic objects were transformed into trophies and ultimately venerated. We can readily trace some of the cultural changes within construction practices: Wood and terracotta were replaced by stone and marble. Entire buildings were devoted to the housing of Greek art: The Porticus 27 Metelli (146 B.C.) for instance, was designed specifically to display "artistic loot" (Ward-Perkins, 1979, 12) and private luxurious homes continued to reflect Greco influence; palaces "were architectural conceits..." that incorporated the latest technologies and styles (Ward-Perkins, 1979, 14).47 The same went for temples: The temple of Jupiter Stator and Juno (146 B.C.) relied heavily on Hellenic features and especially on Greek marble. Vitruvius would later write that the Greek architect Hermodorus of Salamis had been hired for the latter temple's design and he would use it as his example for theperipteros, or peripteral temple in his Book III (2). So intent was the temple's sponsor on the Greek theme that he provided for the installation of Greek objects within the design (Frank, 1933, 286). In this way the building was not only an homage to a deity (Juno) and a sponsor (Q. Caecilius Metellus), but it also became a receptacle for venerated (Greek) goods. Similarly, the Temple of Hercules, also known as the Temple of Vesta, would later elucidate for Vitruvius, albeit perhaps subconsciously, the extent to which Greek thought had become integrated within Roman life (figure 2.4). Located in the Forum Boarium, the builder had imported Greek workers to construct it within a circular plan akin to a Greek tholos. It had a Hellenic-looking stepped arrangement surrounding its base, a set of Corinthian capitals with a likeness to those of the Olympieion at Athens and Pentalic marble serving as revetement (Ward- Perkins, 1979).48 A casual gaze would have transported Vitruvius to Athens ~ or at least towards an imagined Athens. By the end of the second century B.C. , Rome had refined its ability to assimilate, change, innovate and transform what had begun as Etruscan, colonial Greco and then Greek institutions and The Casa dei Grifi is a good example of such a home. Built as a large compound between 80 and 60 B.C., it had an intricate decor complete with marble-like stucco panels that would have necessitated the best crafts and trades people of the region. 4 8 The temple is also known as the Temple of Hercules Victor. 28 Figure 2.4 - Rome: Forum Boarum: Temple of Hercules (as rebuilt 80-70 B.C.) dmm 00-08 corresponding building ideas in order to shape its landscapes, provincial or otherwise, into ensembles that fulfilled specific ideals of power.49 And yet surprisingly, urban planning beyond the confines of the monumental sites remained rudimentary (Dudley, 1967, 13). The consecutive set of Hellenic waves and reconstruction periods left a topography that, while recalling Greek ideals, rendered a disparate panorama. Crowded urban dwellers were confronted with a medley of buildings and sites in varying states of cohesion; in spite of new 4 y The success, however, was not without repercussions in the countryside. Deforestation and soil mining had rendered large tracts of land unsuitable for long-cultivated crops such as cereal and urban building programs had required so much timber that the slopes around Rome were eroding. Pastoral, ranching and vineyard activity intensified while small-scale farming was virtually abandoned. Private land was lost to debt and military obligation and the whole resulted in increased urban migration. By the beginning of the first century B.C., shanties and insulae, relatively poor quality apartments, appeared in the spaces between the places of the late Republic. The effect upon urban life was profound — a period of "bouleversements considerables'" as Xavier Lafon writes in "Vitruve et les villas 'de son temps"'' in Munus Non Ingratum -Proceedings of the International Symposium on Vitruvius' De Architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican Architecture (Leiden: Stichting Bulletin Antieken Beschaving, 1988), pp. 188-93. 29 techniques, building types and design ideas, apartments were crowded and it would have been a challenge to navigate the crowded and scaffold-covered streets.50 While the influence expressed in the urban and rural landscapes was mostly from Greece, its life spanned hundreds of years and its meanings would therefore not necessarily have been obvious. Even a hundred years before Vitruvius' lifetime, centuries of conquering and warring had left muddled and quasi-abandoned rural settings. Some monuments blended into a matrix that became part of the present instead of being reminders of the past; others began to remind Romans of what it was they were supposed to remember. And while Republican Romans had a general awareness of the past, it was mired in displaced legends and dislodged within the rapid-changing propaganda schemes. Some footprints of the first five hundred years of the Republic would have been apparent to Vitruvius; clear images of its architecture, however, would have at best been difficult for him to differentiate or reconstitute. Nevertheless, as "visual imagery", to use Paul Zanker's (1990) words, was about to become increasingly sophisticated, a new mode within which histories would be constantly revised through the use of monuments was about to be borne. SCRIPTING HISTORIES If a definitive urban template had been imposed upon the Roman topography during the first five hundred years of the Republic, a process of frequent and perpetual reconstruction projects would attempt to script the histories of the final century. And if waves of Hellenic influence had shaped those same first five centuries, it would be quakes of Roman ego that would determine the last hundred years. While physical and psychological domination would continue, rulers would become obsessed with public perception. The use of architecture to enhance one's image had been tried by early leaders; later rulers would master s o Vitruvius wrote about "high-rise" apartment blocks, noting that "the Roman people had excellent dwellings without legal obstacle" ([C], II, 8.17). The comment may have been inserted to appeal to his readers rather than the occupants of the dwellings. Vitruvius was living on a pension provided by Augustus' sister and he would have been aware of the implications of openly critiquing those in power. The comment illustrates the fact that his writings have to be interpreted with caution. 30 it. In this regard, Sulla (138-78 B.C.) , Pompey (106-48 B .C. ) , Caesar (102-44 B.C.) and eventually Augustus (63 B.C.-14 A.D.) erected the stageset that Vitruvius would ultimately gaze upon. He undoubtedly viewed and possibly inspected some of the important monuments of the first centuries of the Republic (especially those enhanced after the fall of Corinth), and he probably participated in many of the public fetes — sacred and profane — as well as the popular recitals. As architectus,51 he would have been especially interested in the renovated spaces of the Palatine and Capitoline as undertaken by Sulla. Sulla's building program was unprecedented, as reflected in his leadership style. Restoring senatorial government, he was acutely aware of the prestige, status, notoriety and of course, votes that could be garnered through building campaigns. He was astute at drafting texts using architectural vocabularies: His military escapades in Greece (92-85 B.C.) coincided with large projects at Praeneste (the temple of Fortuna Primigenia) and Terracina (the temple of Jupiter Anxur), as well as the massive renovation of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in 83 B . C . . 5 2 His motives seem certain: First, to attain personal prestige and power on a scale that reached beyond Rome and extended all the way to Athens; and second, to begin editing recent histories through architecture. While the Etruscans and early Republicans had manifested power through their monuments and siting arrangements, Sulla was learning to use specific building types to convey his messages. He reworked the Forum Romanum, for example, altering its orientation and re-building specific institutionally-linked spaces, erecting a new Curia and tabularium, the archival building, and enlarging the pomerium — the sacred urban border (Hibbert, 1985, 20). He also sponsored a new set of temples, including two dedicated to Hercules (MacKendrick, 1983, 141).53 The emphasis was on vast renovation programs to convey ultimate authority. Sulla looked to the Greeks for his guiding principles and later, through Vitruvius' eyes, the scale of his program would have been among the most revolutionary of the time. 5 1 For a discussion on the term architectus and architect as used in late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, see N . Pevsner (1942), "The Tern 'Architect' in the Middle Ages", in Speculum, volume 17. pp. 549-62. 5 2 Catullus (87-54 B.C.) completed the work in 69 B.C.. 5 3 Here I am referring to the Temple of Hercules Custos at the Circus Maximus and the temple to Hercules Sullanus on the Esquiline. 31 Similarly, Pompey's rule translated into aggressive conquering and urban rebuilding strategies. He continued with expansionist policies, founding centers such as Lugdunum Convenarum in 72 B.C. , and building, with projects initiated throughout central Italy (Torelli, 1995, 191-199). He and his family sponsored an assortment of temples in Rome, including an additional one dedicated to Hercules near the Circus Maximus; Vitruvius used the latter as an example for his "areostyle" temple in his Book III (2). Pompey too exploited the opportunity to revise histories, turning his attention to the Campus Martius, the open flood-plain to the north of the urban area outside the Servian Wall (Strabo, The Geography, V, 3.8). There he set out to build commemorative monuments dedicated to his personally perceived grandeur, choosing to develop an entirely new district and sponsoring innovative projects such as the city's first theatrum lapideum, or stone theatre; typical of Pompey's manipulative ways, the theatre of Pompey cleverly included a small temple to Venus Victoria at the top of the cavea to appease his anti-theater critics (Pliny, Naturalis H i s t o r i a , X X X V I , 24, 115).54 Like Sulla, Pompey was a master at self-promotion and propaganda, shaping the Campus Martius into an expansive memory-space with victory-temples complete with commemorative inscriptions and family-linked deities serving as reminders of "past" leadership greatness.55 By Sulla's and Pompey's time then, the emphasis was clearly on the leader and no longer on Rome per se. Pompey built himself a house on the Campus Martius, complete with gardens linked to the theatre grounds.56 The complex was based on the Greek house, especially in terms of its links to public This specific design feature did not form part of Vitruvius' Latin theater design description; I will return to the Latin theater in a later chapter. 5 5 I will discuss, in my first Interlude, an example of how memory devices, as contained within planning and architecture, would have operated to direct the behaviour of the populace. 5 6 Initially made of wood, theatres incorporated "experimental" features. Pompey installed the temple to Venus Victoria with the dual purpose of appeasing critics—those opposed to permanent theatres in Rome— and increasing his own popularity. The theatre's presence signified the importance of Greek-influenced poetry and comedy, not to mention the ruler's willingness to sponsor architecturally innovative structures. Within the theatre of Pompey, Vitruvius would later have been able to examine the "new" vaulting techniques that incorporated opus incertum, the inserting or filling-in of the spaces created by the arch supports. Here, the incertum was novel, installed as opus reticulatum, where the pyramid-shaped moellons were placed with their pointed ends towards the inner walls. For a discussion on masonry techniques, see Jean-Pierre Adam La Construction Romaine - Materiaux et Techniques (Paris: Editions Picard, 1989). For a discussion on theatres, see Jean-Baptiste Ache Elements d'une Histoire de I'Art de Bdtir (Paris: Editions du Moniteur des Travaux Publics, 1970), page 91, Edmond Frezouls "Aspets de I'histoire architecturale du theatre romain" in Aufstieg Und Niedergang Der Romischen Welt-Geschichte Und Kultur Roms Im Spiegel 32 spaces. Pompey's palatial residence instigated emphasis on grandiose and "personally" sponsored public building projects; by then, elites "made no clear distinction between public functions and private rank, or between public finances and personal wealth" and they correspondingly turned to questionable public/private funding arrangements to finance their projects (Veyne, 1997, 95). One such space was Julius Caesar's Forum Julium (46 B.C.) (Tadgell, 1998, 190). He too had felt that architectural patronage could translate into opportunities to realign public perception (Hibbert, 1985, 29). He sponsored the Circus Maximus expansion with, according to Pliny, "nearly three acres of buildings and seats for 250,000" (Naturalis H i s t o r i a , X X X V I . 24, 103). He paid for a stadium, complete with a temporary theatre and a naumachia, or artificial lake, accommodating hundreds of sailors for mock battles. He restored a set of monuments within the Forum Romanum, redesigning the Curia and other buildings and replacing the wooden enclosure of the centuriata and the tiburta — the assemblies — with a marble structure. The Regia was also renovated, in marble. By Caesar's time the private sponsoring of architectural projects signified support and caretaking of public institutions. In this light, Caesar planned public libraries, the theatre below the Capitoline and the temple of Mars. The temple of Saturn was rebuilt and the temple of Apollo was renovated (McKay, 1985, 82). These are spaces that Vitruvius would have later been able to study. Like Sulla, Caesar seems to have had some planning foresight, purchasing land in the center of the city to provide opportunity for the eventual extension of the Forum Romanum. And beyond his ambitious projects, he convinced powerful families to sponsor the renovation of older temples; by providing monies for the renovations, it was possible to attach, or re-attach in the case of temples originally installed by family ancestors, the name of the sponsor with that of temple deities. In this way, the notion of p a t r i m o n i u m , a family's right — and obligation ~ Der Neurren Forschung, volume II (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1982), p. 353-54) and Margaret Bieber The History of the Greek and Roman Theater (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961). For a look at special theater features such as awnings, see Robert B . Montilla "The Awnings of Roman Theatres and Amphitheaters" in Theater Survey - The American Journal of Theater History, volume X , number 1, pp. 75-88, May, 1964. For a bibliography related to Vitruvius' Book V and theatre architecture, see my "Space, Imagination and Vitruvius in Archaeological [Re]construction: Reconsidering a Modus Operandi Unpublished M A S A Thesis (Vancouver: University of British Columbia School of Architecture, 1998). 5 7 This arrangement may have influenced Vitruvius in his brief discussion of house siting in Book VI , although the connection is not certain. 33 to maintain heritage (Chastel, 1993, 405) would be used to remind the plebs of who was in control.58 During the final decades of the Republic, Rome experienced major conflicts: War abroad and civil unrest at home weakened the Republic; the populace was in constant fear of losing its property, the empire was being repeatedly threatened, and the leadership was undergoing constant change (Goodman, 1997, 8).5 9 Certainly foreign expansion and influence continued, with temples still erected as far away as Philae (Bailey, 1990, 127) and colonies such as Arausio, founded at around 36 B.C.. The chaos partly ended in 30 B.C. with the rise of Octavian who aimed at stabilizing the Roman domain by restoring its institutions, in the "hope to reunite the Romans through an ideological program of legitimacy, constitutionalism, and Romanism" (Reinhold, 1978, 10). In other words, he wanted to return to the Republic of his ancestors: the old ways (Charlesworth, 1939). By 27 B.C. when the name Augustus was given to him, he was completely reconstructing Roman landscapes according to his own version ~ or vision — of the old R e p u b l i c ? 0 Just as Sulla's relatively short dictatorship (84-80 B.C.) had focused on erasing the past, so too did Augustus' as he razed urban areas to site his monuments: The Senate House, for example, which had been refurbished by Caesar some fifty years earlier, was wiped away. Some 127 key monuments were either built or extensively remodeled between the death of Caesar in 44 B.C. and that of Augustus' in A . D . 14 (McKay, 1985, 18). Augustus reconstructed at least 82 temples throughout the Empire (Platner, 1904, 53; Augustus, Res The notion of patrimonium will be discussed further in Chapter 5. 5 9 For a discussion on the transition from Republican architecture to that of the Augustus', see John Ward-Perkins "From Republic to Empire: Reflections on the Early Provincial Architecture of the Roman West", in M. V. Taylor Memorial Lecture (London: Institute of Classical Studies, London University, 1968), pp. 1-19. 6 0 That Augustus turned to monuments as tools for re-writing histories is clear. Among other documents, he left at his death, the Res Gestae posthumously described his "achievements"; for an analysis, see P. A . Brunt and J. M . Moore Res Gestae Divi Augusti - The Achievements of the Divine Augustus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967). For a brilliant analysis, see Paul Zanker The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Michigan, 1988). By his time, the will to amplify unchallenged power and confirm this power through built language was common. Ramsay MacMullen "Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces" in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology (Volume 64, Issue 40, 1959), Andrew Wallace-Hadrill's Augustan Rome (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1933) and Kurt A . Raaflaub and Mark Tohner (editors) Between Republic and Empire - Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990) discuss the motives of Augustus and to some extent, later Imperial leaders. 34 Gestae 19-21), meaning that they were probably standing, although not necessarily in use, during Vitruvius' time. As I will outline in my first Interlude, Rome ~ and the provincial cities ~ were involved in a process within which each ruler focused on visual propaganda to provide an instructive text of power (Charlesworth, 1939, 108; Favro, 1996, 107; Guven, 1998, 30-31). Augustus was a master at this, realizing that he could maintain power by monopolizing architectural displays. The new monuments, complete with distinct ornamentation,61 would in fact function as mnemonic devices that etched notions of loyalty and power onto the collective imagination (Zanker, 1988). Within Vitruvius' professional lifetime then, memorials were no longer devices aimed solely at nation building or commemoration; instead of being simple reminders of duty and devotion to Rome, they were "instructors" of duty and devotion to the leader. The imagery created by the array of monuments and associated "art" was prescribing a certain behavior for the Roman populace (Sauron, 1998). Vitruvius would have consciously studied and unconsciously taken in the divergent influences within this set of forms. Institutions were based on Greek models and in turn manifested in a Greco-Roman architecture. The Temple of Portunus (c.150 B.C.) in the vicinity of the Forum Boarium, for example, had Greek details (extensive marble), was built with Roman construction materials and techniques (concrete with travertine), and was organized within an Italian-colonial plan (small and circular) (Wilson, 1989, 361) (figure 2.5). The visual array of Vitruvius would have included different influences and the palette of building types would have appeared heterogeneous, each with its own set of uses and meanings. In addition to temple-monuments, there were basilicas, amphitheaters, monumental arches, bridges62 and eventually theatres that were conceived with similarly blurred motives. The whole may have been very confusing for an architectus striving for order. 6 1 On ornamentation, see Thomas Yan "Les ornements, la cite, le patrimoine" in Images Romaines - Actes de la table ronde organiseepar I'Ecole normalesuperieure (24-26 octobre 1996) (Paris: Presses de l'Ecole normale superieure, 1998). 6 2 The Pons Mulvius (109 B.C.) and the Pons Fabricius (62 B.C.), for example, were bridges that incorporated the latest technology. 35 Figure 2.5 - Rome: Forum Boarium: Temple of Portunus (c.150 B.C.) dmm 00-08 Of course, the vernacular of Vitruvius was not strictly made up of public spaces: Everyday places, albeit laconic to us in terms of archaeological evidence, filled the gaps between the monumental centers.63 They seem to have been of less importance to the planners of the time and perhaps for this reason Vitruvius scarcely focused on them. Dedicating his writings to the Emperor, Vitruvius may have wanted to avoid focusing on architecture that reflected anything less than grandeur. "The crushing anonymity, loneliness and unsightliness of the high-rise apartments" (McKay, 1985, 28) would have served as a reminder to the old architect that Rome — and its architecture — was in need of rethinking.64 The remains of one such house can still be observed (archaeologically) beneath Vespasian's markets. See Amanda Claridge Rome Archaeological Guide (Oxford and new York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 112. 6 4 Indeed, overcrowding, high rent and insecurity contributed to the civil unrest towards the end of the Republic. As Augustus consolidated his power, the Pax Augusta re-instilled a sense of stability and pride in citizenship; this in a sense is what motivated the construction boom during the final years of the Republic. 36 Walking along the narrow streets, Vitruvius must have felt at least some tension in the city; no doubt he encountered thousands of urbanites, travelers and peasants in what can best be characterized as an emporium atmosphere. The landscapes were confused: Rome brilliantly planned vast territories but the city itself remained unplanned, plagued with disasters such as fires and floods, and subject to sudden bursts of redevelopment. It was predominantly the latter schemes that contributed to the chaotic feel as "[mjonuments to individuals embellished the city, yet such self-serving works conveyed rivalry and thus did not foster a unified urban identity" (Favro, 1996, 44-45). Within the crowded spaces, Vitruvius would have pondered the architectural writings of others65 and without doubt would have given serious thought to the intellectuals — the poets, writers and philosophers — of the time.66 To Baldwin (1990) at least, the Roman architect "had probably been reading more [than the] poetry" that he hinted at (432, footnote 46).67 Recall that this was a time when, in the search for ordered knowledge, Greek and Roman literature were given the task of persuading readers of new cultural and intellectual possibilities.68 The two literatures were inextricably linked; in fact, by Vitruvius' lifetime, "the blending of Greek and Roman critical thought about the arts [was] so complete that neither can be said to be dominant or dependent" (Pollitt, 1974, 66). The writings reflected the times, often calling for a return for I will return to this below; beyond the Latins he listed, Vitruvius also named no less than 42 Greeks: In addition to the architectural monographs that were available to him, he named at least eleven authorities in his Book VII (preface. 12). Within Vitruvius' lifetime, for instance, Marcus Tarentus Varro (116-27 B.C.) wrote at least fifty-six treatises, including some related to the building crafts. 6 6 Philosophical discourse had earlier been based in the oral tradition, but with the plays from Greece had come a philosophy that was textual, accessible at least to the elite. Cicero (106-43 B.C.) for example, advocated critical thinking and he saw philosophy as a discipline that should reinforce the traditional stances of political, economic, social and religious institutions. He felt that tradition should not be questioned, but instead reinforced by philosophy. His writings were known to Vitruvius (IX,preface. 17). As Vitruvius began to think about his treatise, the "New Poets" flourished (around 50 B.C.), including Catullus (c.84-54 B.C.) and Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) who, among others of their time, rebelled against the status quo in writing — against the epics and tragedies — and wrote for a more sophisticated audience in a form of highly intellectualized poetry. Lucretius, whom Vitruvius also made mention of (IX, preface. 17), wrote in a didactic tone on Epicurean physics and cosmology. His On the Nature of Things vividly described the natural landscapes of his time. 6 7 The Greek historians Polybius (c. 200-118 B.C.) and Diodorus Siculus (fl. c. 60-30 B.C.) as well as the Roman historian Sallust (86-35 B.C.) were also well known during the first century B.C.; it is difficult to ponder Vitruvius not accessing their texts. 6 8 There were many other "popular writers". Latin literature was alive in Rome, with the influential work of the still popular Greek, Livius Andronicus (c.240 - 207 B.C.) as well as Seneca the Elder (c.55 B.C. -A.D. 40). Others were widely read, like the poet Albius Tibullus (55/48 - 19 B.C.) and of course, Virgil (70 - 19 B.C.), who replaced Accius (b.170 B.C.) and Ennius (c.239 - c.169 B.C.) in the school curriculum towards the end of the Republic (Schrijvers, 1989, 13). Terence's (c. 190-159 B.C.) works, dating to 170 or 160 B.C., like Plautus' (254-184 B.C.) were based on the Greek comedies. 37 "the old ways"; Horace (65-8 B.C.) and Virgil (70-19 B.C.) were suggesting changes and the influence of Cicero (106-43 B.C.) and Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) underscored rhetoric and "science".69 Vitruvius would have had a feel for the way people had lived during his past, including the way society had perceived those practicing his profession; that is to say, as Guy Metraux (1992) has pointed out, "money-grubbing tricksters" (327). So important was literature becoming in "persuading" people that Horace, for example, in his Ars poetica, called for the good behavior of poets. Onians (1988) rightly makes the point that the popular argument regarding "unnatural and inappropriate modern poetry [...was] parallel to Vitruvius' contemporary attack on unnatural and inappropriate wall paintings" (40).70 This clearly suggests that Vitruvius was aware of cultural and intellectual change. Writers of the day appealed to the educated and wealthy and the two groups were inextricably linked through patronage. The result of this link, of course, was that obligation could alter content; it would have been difficult, if not altogether dangerous, for example, for a writer to be outwardly critical of the lifestyle of a patron. Thus we find dedications of all kinds, including those within the De A r c h i t e c t u r a . 1 1 This may be why Vitruvius was cautious in his critiques of certain building practices. At the same time, recitatio, or formal readings, were prepared for the nobilitas. This in turn generated more interest for intellectuals in writing and in turn, rhetoric. By the late Republic, the art of rhetoric was fundamental to education and philosophical thought; it offered a means by which complex issues and subjects could be analyzed, presented, argued and compared. Perhaps more importantly, For a note on the links between Lucretius and Vitruvius, see W. A . Merrill's still relevant "Notes on the Influence of Lucretius on Vitruvius" in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, volume 35, pp. xvi-xxi (American Philological Association, 1904). 7 0 For a technical note on painting styles discussed by Vitruvius, see Sara R. Yerkes "Vitruvius' monstra" in Journal of Roman Archaeology, volume 13, 2000, pp. 234-51. 7 1 The dedications will be further elaborated below. 38 rhetoric provided scholars and writers like Vitruvius with a vehicle within which a didactic approach to teaching and learning could be readily undertaken.72 Thus Vitruvius found himself within vibrant social and architectural milieux filled with the ideas and ideals of thinkers, notably of Greek persuasion, that drew an increasing amount of attention from Roman patrons (Wallace-Hadrill, 1989, 78-79). Whether considered within chronological frameworks, typological development, social context, or even comparative geographical schema — Rome and Italy, Rome and the provinces, or Rome alone — the reality is that the Republican years were turbulent ones that manifested themselves as layered landscapes that cannot be readily elucidated as a clear and coherent cultural topography. The era, as we have seen, was comprised of disjunctive periods that deliberately sought to alter previously established social norms and their signifiers. In a sense, that the real past kept being substituted for a false one reflected the uncertainty of the ideological firmament. Before and especially during Vitruvius' lifetime, Rome and the provincial centers were being perpetually re-planned, forcing the thousands of urban and rural dwellers, as well as the transients from all over the Mediterranean and beyond, to crowd the narrow streets and interact in what would have been a set of disassociated spaces in a condition of constant re-construction. It is not certain that Vitruvius would have deciphered the spaces in terms of their temporal origins. During the last hundred years of the Republic, state priorities were perpetually refocused within personal agendas; the result was the installation of military leaders as worshiped individuals and the periodic abandon, reuse and refurbishing of what had previously been 7 2 One aspect of Rhetoric is particularly relevant to the discussion to follow: the Art of Memory. In the Art of Memory, the speaker (or writer) activated and triggered the imagination with a set of loci, or places sited in the mind. Commonly borrowed were landscapes and architectural models. A n imagined building for instance, would be designed with as many loci as required, each "decorated" in a specific way; the individual loci and related ornamentation represented particular parts of a discours or set of ideas to be remembered. The rooms were then linked to distinct parts of the text or speech and revisited and retrieved as required.72 Familiar with Cicero, Vitruvius was de facto conscious of the memory-shaping device, where "real" spaces could perhaps be substituted for "false" ones; I will return to his employ of rhetoric in the following pages. 39 significant spaces. Personally sponsored temples, for example, while outwardly dedicated to individual gods, were built within the spirit of self-aggrandizement and propagandist programs based on triumphalism, heroism and egoism. Similarly, the provincial and colonial apparatus sought to control settlers and others with its imposing grid plans, land tenure strategies and monumental projections of power, duty and devotion. The process accelerated as it reached Vitruvius' lifetime in the late Republic. A codified ideology was established, by which building types were used to inscribe particular memories through well-developed and self-propelling iconographic programs (Zanker, 1988). As means of representation, architecture allowed sponsors to write their own truths. And as the writing of histories became more sophisticated, so too did the manipulation of memories. Augustus' forum and his Res Gestae are the culmination of this modus operandi (Sablayrolles, 1981). Power was asserted, histories scripted and memories in turn altered. As the monuments recounted and incarnated particular versions of new "truths", the old truths were perceived as disappearing. It was partly the latter that would motivate Vitruvius to write his treatise. 2.2 THE DE ARCHITECTURA LIBRIDECEM Vitruvius lived in — and wrote his treatise within ~ multifarious intellectual and built contexts. He would have felt the volatility and no doubt recognized the changes in thinking. On the one hand he would have sensed the nervousness of a war-weary people; civil war especially would have brought upon a fear of social implosion (Knell, 1985, 6). And on the other hand, he would have been interested in the incoming intellectual thought of Greece. In this dynamic lifeworld he struggled to contextualize his built surroundings and the architectural profession in general. This may partly explain the significant and comprehensive set of requisites that the De A r c h i t e c t u r a outlines for building practitioners. To Vitruvius, the architectus had to be "an experienced draftsman, well versed in geometry, familiar with history, a diligent student of philosophy, know music, have some acquaintance with medicine, understand the rulings of legal experts, and have a clear grasp of astronomy and the ways of Heaven" ([C], I, 1.3). He went further in elaborating the need for technical 40 expertise in mathematics, arithmetic, geometry, mensuration and optics (I, 1.4) and stressed the importance of technical (drawing) skills (I, 2.2).73 With this somewhat daunting range of required disciplinary abilities, it is not surprising that MacMullen (1959) finds the professional standard difficult to accept (211). It is possible, however, that he was simply outlining the set of skills one would need to satisfy a personal notion of the ideal builder; there is, after all, a later note indicating that he realized no-one can reach perfection (I, 1.13-14). MacDonald's (1982) assessment of the tenets allows for this later consideration, concluding that the writer was probably listing "what the best professionals must always know" (138). Similarly, Frezouls (1989a) underscores that "la formation encyclopedique requise" was in keeping with the thinking of the time (40). And McKay (1985) echoes this sentiment as well (12). This is reasonable, given the intellectual underpinning and technical complexity to many architectural undertakings; the design requirements for theatres and temples, for example, would have necessitated multidisciplinary approaches. Other writers who were known to Vitruvius, like Cicero and Lucretius, were also advocating broad disciplinary knowledge in their own fields. Like his contemporaries, Vitruvius highlighted the merits of a lifetime of learning (after the long digression on the required training), concluding "none but those who have climbed step by step, nurtured from an early age by education - in letters above all, and in the arts - to reach the loftiest sanctuary of Architecture." ([C], I, 1.11). With what appears to be a conspicuous attempt at separating the learned architectus from the layperson, it is also entirely possible that the list of requisite knowledge related to some sort of elitism. We know that Vitruvius was cognizant of professional and social status because there is a note in Book VI that indicates that the practice of architecture by non-professionals could not be condoned and that "[o]ur ancestors, therefore, would pass their projects to architects who, first of all, came from proven good family, inquiring next whether they had been properly brought up, judging it best to entrust work to native modesty rather than aggressive audacity." ([C], IV, 7 3 Drawings in Vitruvius' treatise wil l be discussed in detail below. See Philippe Fleury "Introduction" in his translation of the De Architectura (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1990) for particulars on the location of the sketches. See also Pierre Gros "Les illustrations du De Architectura de Vitruve. Histoire d'un malentendu", in Claude Nicolet (editor) Les Litteratures Techniques dans VAntiquite Romaine - Statut, Public et destination, Tradition, pp. 19-44, (Geneve: Vandcevres, 1996). 41 preface. 6). He was undoubtedly concerned with the growing number of successful merchants, who, eager to emulate members of the established leading class, were constructing their independently funded and personally designed houses.74 It would have been extremely difficult for Vitruvius to accept the designs of the uninitiated; architectura was a profession and a mandatory set of knowledge areas coupled to "superior" intellect would have been key in defending the position of a liberal thinker among other artists and scholars (Germann, 1991, 16). Here lies an important gateway into the intellectualized cultural realm within which the De Architectura was written: The conspicuous attempt at exclusivity through erudition and strict professional definition is a principle notion of Vitruvius' Architectura and is closely tied to his objectives; the whole leads to a set of important questions: What were the underlying purposes for such a textual undertaking; why present a "theoretical" treatise? Was it about Roman and Greek architecture; or was it about the architectural imagination of one man? Was the intent to present a historical text or a theoretical one? And were the depictions and descriptions of Vitruvius abstract spaces or particular places? The following sections take an in-depth look at the ancient text: its organization and composition as a treatise, its "theory" of Architectura and its illustrative devices and place/space referencing. T E N E T S To Vitruvius, Rome as a political entity and colonial power was especially manifested through its egregiae auctoritates -- the eminent dignity of its architecture; he wrote: "indeed the majesty of the Empire had found conspicuous proof in its public works..." ([C], I, preface. 2).7 5 Within his day-to-day panorama, he had a multitude of textual and visual 7 4 This may in fact be one of the reasons why there are so few details outlining private villas within the treatise. For a discussion, see Xavier Lafon "Vitruve et les villas 'de son temps "' in H. Geertman and J. J. De Jong's Munus Non Ingratum - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Vitruvius' De Architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican Architecture, Babesch - Bulletin Antieke Beschaving -Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology, Supplement 2, pp. 188-93, (Leiden: Stichting Bulletin Antieken Beschaving, 1989). 7 5 Silvio Ferri, in his translation/commentary of the De Architectura, postulates that to Vitruvius, auctoritas had both Latin and Greek significance (33, 58, 1960). Vitruvius' use of the term in different contexts 42 precedents that reflected this dignity — descriptions from colleagues and travelers, written monographs and commentaries, maps,76 memories of previous military travels,77 and as highlighted in the earlier part of this chapter, a matrix of sedimented landscapes from Rome's past and present and their corresponding imagery, real or imagined (I, preface, 2; Jeppeson, 1989). These observations are obviously key in considering the topics included within the Books and the influence of his surroundings becomes apparent. I here draw from the summaries of Terquem (1885) and Fleury (1990): Book I focuses on the training of the architect and related definitions, urban siting, city walls, orientation of the winds, and the position of structures within city walls. Book II elucidates the evolution of the primitive house and to some extent, humanity itself. Construction materials are also included. Book III is devoted to temple architecture, including plans, proportions, types (of temples), and the Ionic Order, as it relates to temples. Book IV is a continuation of the discussion on temples and the Orders, as well as ornament and the details of temple decor. Book V continues with the theme of the type, including the b a s i l i c a , f o r u m , and other public buildings. The theatre section (both the Greek and Roman examples are included) is relatively comprehensive, touching on siting, resonance vessels, plan, porticus, and so on. Book VI is a discussion of houses, including measurements, proportions, inner spaces and their modification to suit owners. Book VII is a relatively short digression on decoration: among other topics are stucco, paint, pigments and colors. Book VIII presents waterworks and aqueducts in relative detail. Book IX turns the reader towards astronomy, including the workings of the universe, celestial bodies and solar and water clocks. would suggest that Ferri is correct. For a discussion, see J.J. Pollitt The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History and Terminology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). 7 6 He mentions maps in Book VIII (II, 6). 7 7 There are hints that Vitruvius may have served under Caesar in the Maritime Alps (II, 9.15) and in campaigns in Africa (VIII, 3.25). These will be further discussed below. 43 Book X is a short treatise on mechanics, examining its history and related definitions, as well as civil and war machines. (17-19; xxvi-xxvii) At first reading, the contents and organization seem logical: As a former military officer, he would have felt that elucidating the layout of city walls and towers was a priority.78 As a building designer — he mentioned that he designed a b a s i l i c a at Fano (V, 1.6-10) ~ he would have been intent on talking about construction materials, proportion and decor.79 And given the focus on temple building during his lifetime, it is not surprising that two Books were focused on temple architecture. Other building types are discussed, to a lesser extent, with the stone theater — a relatively new idea to Rome ~ given a more detailed rendering in Book V. Similarly, the houses of the ruling classes were included although as we have seen, little attention was given to the villa. 8 0 Having been involved in waterworks and military There has been considerable debate as to the time of the De Architectura's completion. In the preface of Book I, it seems certain that Vitruvius is referring to a dead Caesar when he writes that "... when the council of the Olympians consecrated him among the abodes of immortality and passed his sovereignty into your own jurisdiction..." ([C], I, preface. 2). Frank Granger, in the Introduction to his translation of the De Architectura (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983) states that the text would have been completed prior to 27 B.C. because Vitruvius never refers to Octavian as Augustus (Volume I, xiv). Elizabeth Rawson, in her Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London: Duckworth, 1985) is of the very plausible opinion that most of the treatise was written — or at least conceptualized — earlier in the third decade of the first century B.C.. To her, Vitruvius would have, like many academics and intellectuals of today, formulated his thoughts earlier on during his career. R. Syme, in his "Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature" in Roman Papers, volume 1 (Oxford, 1979), on the other hand, feels that the treatise was written after 27 B.C.. For a more complete assessment, as well as a discussion on "the identity" of the old writer, see B. Baldwin "The Date, Identity, and Career of Vitruvius" in Latomus, number 49, pp. 425-434 (1990), G. Lugli Tecnica edilizia romana. Volume 1 (Rome, 1957) and Pierre Gros "Aurea Templa. Recherches sur l'architecture religieuse de Rome a l'epoque d'Auguste." in Bibliotheque des Ecoles Francaise d'Athene et de Rome, numero 231 (Rome, 1976). Date estimates range from between 25 B.C. and 14 B.C.. For a commentary related to a counter argument for the first century B.C. date, see Gerald Baldwin Brown "Dr. Ussing on Vitruvius" in Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, January 28, 1899, pp. 149-64. 7 9 Vitruvius' basilica at Fano wil l be discussed below. For a detailed commentary, see Lionel March "Roman Wonders" in Architectonics of Humanism - Essays on Number in Architecture (London: Academy Editions, 1998), pp. 132-40 and F. Pellati "La Basilica di Fano e la formazione del trattato di Vitruvio" in Rendiconti dela Pontifica Accademia di Archeologia, volume 33-34. p. 155 (1947-49). See also W. Alzinger "Vitruvs Basilika und der archaologische Befund" in H . Geertman and J. J. De Jong Munus Non Ingratum - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Vitruvius' De Architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican Architecture, Babesch - Bulletin Antieke Beschaving - Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology, Supplement 2, pp. 212-16, (Leiden: Stichting Bulletin Antieken Beschaving, 1989). No epigraphic note is known to corroborate his design claim, nor is there any archaeological evidence. 8 0 For more on the villa and the related lacunae in Vitruvius, see Xavier Lafon's Vitruve et les villas 'de son temps"', in H . Geertman and J. J. De Jong (editors), Munus Non Ingratum - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Vitruvius' De Architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican Architecture, 44 machinery, it should not be surprising that he devoted the final Books to the specifics of machines, mechanics. The section on astronomy may have been borne out of a combination of his experiences and readings;81 he did read Lucretius' writings as well as a variety of specialized technical treatises (VII, preface).82 There are other topics, of course: The role of the architectus, for example, which, as we have seen, had become somewhat eroded in society, was definitely on his mind and defining it would have been one of his primary objectives. The whole renders an approximation of an organized treatise. The topics roughly correspond to Vitruvius' outlook on A r c h i t e c t u r a discussed in Book I, where the "parts of architecture" -- Aedificatio, or Building, Gnomonice, or Dialling, and M a c h i n a t i o , or Mechanics are recorded (figure 2.6): The divisions of architecture itself are three: construction, gnomonics (the making of sundials), and mechanics. Construction in turn is divided into two parts, one of which is the placement of city walls and public works in public spaces, the other is the erection of private buildings. The allocation of public works are three, of which the first is defense, the second religion, and the third service. ([C], I, 3.1; emphasis in translation text) Perhaps Vitruvius saw the three as primordial. Dripps (1997) certainly feels that the origin of the first house is primal, noting that "[w]hat Vitruvius describes is not merely the making 20-23 January, 1987, Babesch - Bulletin Antieke Beschaving - Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology. Supplement 2. pp. 188-93 (Leiden: Stichting Bulletin Antieken Beschaving), 1989. 8 1 For a discussion on Vitruvius' use of the term astrologia (and possible links to magic), see Fr. J. F. Marchal, "Notice sur le mot Astrologia, cite dans le Traite de l'architecture par Vitruve, d'apres le manuscrit 5253 de la bibliotheque royale" in Bulletins de I'Academie Royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, pp. 165-76, volume X V , issue 2, 1848. 8 2 On the language used by Vitruvius, see Louis Callebat "La Prose du 'De Architectura' de Vitruve" in Aufstieg undNiedergang des Romischen Welt, 1982, volume II, number 3 0 - 1 , pp. 696-762. 8 3 The organization scheme — the "parts" and the "books" — seems flawed, with breaks, meanderings, lists and prefaces that appear to have been added after the work was completed. Part of the difficulty of course is due to the processes involved in transcribing and translating. Book II does not readily "fit"; it would have been more logical to include it within Book X . The notions contained within Books VII and VIII are shared between the Private and Public realms of Aedificatio. Similarly, Book II has sections that might be better suited elsewhere. And there remain puzzling aspects to the treatise's organization and content. Why, 45 F I G U R E 2.6 - The "Parts of Architectura''' and their Corresponding Books ARCHITECTURA Aedificatio Gnomonice Machinatio Public Private I VI IX X II III IV V VII VII VIII VIII of a detached and autonomous artifact but the origins of political structure, the formation of language, and finally the birth of architecture" ( l ) . 8 4 It is true that Vitruvius made an effort to convince the reader that the order of the Books is useful and reasoned (II, 1.8); however, this may simply be linked to an effort at rationalizing the treatise (and ultimately his for example, would a digression on the meaning of humanity be included with a discussion on construction materials in Book II? 8 4 The idea of the First House is not new to architectural history discourse. Marc-Antoine Laugier, for example, in his Essai sur l'architecture (Paris, 1753) felt that from the "primitive hut" all elements of architecture were developed. In his Book II (1. 1-2-3) Vitruvius turns to the "First house" to elucidate his theory of where architecture began. To him, early dwellings were facsimiles of caves and huts, built by early people as they imitated more primal shelters. For a thorough discussion, see Joseph Rykwert On Adam's House in Paradise - The Idea of the Primitive Hut in Architectural History (Cambridge: MIT, 1981), and Mark Cousins (1992-93) debate on the merits of a "First House" discourse in Arch Text, volume 1, pp. 35-38. Others turn to the "First House" theme in introducing their own theoretic. R. D. Dripps, for instance, in The First House: Myth, Paradigm, and the Task of Architecture (Cambridge: MIT, 1997) postulates that when Vitruvius uses the tale of the first dwelling (II, 1.1-3), he does so in order to develop an overall understanding of the cultural meaning of architecture; while this is possible, Vitruvius does not allude to this and I do not believe that he was seeking to fully explain cultural origins with his narrative. 46 A r c h i t e c t u r a ) and not necessarily a direct aim at explaining "the origins of political structure." The rationalization would have been linked to one of the main goals of the undertaking: elevating the profession to the status of the Liberal Arts; the importance of the profession as linked to the origins of humanity itself could have been part of the rationalization. Another puzzling aspect of the organization of the treatise is related to the two Books on Temples (III and IV). Vitruvius introduced the two with the intent of discussing temples of the Ionic Order in Book III and the Doric and Corinthian Orders in Book IV. Book III, however, addresses much more than the Ionic Order per se: Symmetry, columns, typology and the foundations of temples are described in general terms and the Ionic Order is focused upon as "the proper style" (Rawson, 1985, 188). Book IV also contains much more than the prescriptions for the Orders that it overtly focuses upon; ornamentation and other tenets form part of the discussion. It is odd that Vitruvius did not reiterate in Book IV that the Ionic Order is the preferred ideal; in that book, he in fact advocated a corrected use of the Doric. The change seems contradictory and may be related to the use of different secondary sources. While the set of Books obviously reflects Vitruvius' personal views, it does not explain his motive for undertaking the project; the latter is elusive with only hints at purposes offered at sporadic intervals. One raison d'etre is in the dedication of Book I: Therefore, because I had been put in your debt for the favor whereby I will never harbor the fear of want for the rest of my life, I began to record these matters for you. For I perceived that you had already built extensively, were building now and would be doing so in the future: public as well as private constructions, all scaled to the amplitude of your own achievements so that these would be handed down to future generations. ([C], I,preface. 3) In this significant quote, Vitruvius was telling the Imperator Caesar that the reason for the dedication was to thank him for his support; retired, the architect was receiving an annual 47 stipend through "the recommendation of ...[Augustus'] sister" (I, preface. 1-2). A little later, Vitruvius gave another reason, explaining to the emperor that it was due to the latter's support of A r c h i t e c t u r a that he was dedicating the treatise to him (I, preface). This makes sense, given the massive building programs of Augustus. Yet dedicating a literary work is not a purpose onto itself and his motivation was more complex. Vitruvius was explicit at the end of the first chapter in Book I when he addressed the larger building community and scholars in general. He wrote: ... I have striven to write them not as a great philosopher or an eloquent orator, nor as a grammarian trained in the finer points of his art, but as an architect who has dipped into literature. But on the power of my own art and the systems of reasoning within it, I promise that, as I expect, in these pages I will without a doubt prove myself possessed of the greatest authority - not only for those who intend to build, but also for all learned men. ([C],I, 1. 18) Here he was no longer solely concerned with the emperor's reading of the Books; he was writing for the aedificantibus, or builder, as well as to the sapientibus, or scholar of the day. With the audience widened even further in Book V s preface, when he addressed all those involved with the building craft, the treatise appears aimed at a diverse readership ranging from emperor to craftspeople. Geertman (1989) deals with this: For the latter, Vitruvius simplified the rules of architecture for the everyday builder to readily interpret.87 This seems obvious ~ design modus would have had to be readily interpreted for the reader ~ yet at the same time it is puzzling that the rules are not clearly outlined and therefore not always understandable. Another reason for undertaking the treatise is provided in Book IV'spreface where the writer indicated that until that time, no work dealing with A r c h i t e c t u r a as a whole Octavia had spent some time in Athens; this may in fact have had some bearing on Vitruvius' preferences. 6 Philippe Fleury (1990) is of the opinion that the end of Chapter 1 (Book I) was the preface in the original draft of the treatise. His rationale is linked to the sequence in which specific items are discussed in the different prefaces. This, however, is as difficult to refute as it is to prove: Chapter 1 of Book II may have been the preface to the Book; the debate continues. 8 7 For a novel approach to Vitruvius' treatment of detail, see Antonio Giuliano "Vitruvio e L'Acanto" in Palladio, volume 14, july-december, 1994, pp. 29-36. 48 had ever been undertaken (IV, preface. 1). The gap in the literature would have preoccupied the presumably well-read architect and he would have wanted to fill it so as to reach a wide readership. But certainly there is more to Vitruvius' motivation than the basic delivery of building instructions and filling-in a perceived literary gap. While he aimed explicitly at architectural education, technical assembly and design prescription, the treatise goes much further. Living in a city pulsating with political irregularity and social uncertainty, not to mention covered in construction sites and in dire need of maintenance, it is conceivable that an architect such as Vitruvius would have wanted some sort of "order". Another motive is thus apparent: He wrote with the idea that the task of the architect involved the ordering of all things related to architecture: site selection, city walls, street layouts, building location and design, water supply and war machines. Perhaps reflecting experience in the provinces, these are the tasks associated with the "proper functioning" of the city — the ordering and coordinating of the populace through its architecture ~ and Vitruvius would have wanted them incorporated within the responsibilities of his architectus. Setting out rules for city planning and allotting the responsibilities for these to the architectus, however, is still probably not his primary motive. There is an attempt at organizing more than the practice and planning of building per se: Vitruvius was re-organizing the architectural discipline and in this light presented an A r c h i t e c t u r a that addressed the intellectual and architectural ideals of the time. This in a sense is part of the reason why he provided the dedication to the emperor. The idea was to ensure that the egregiae auctoritates (as manifested through the De A r c h i t e c t u r a ) remain universal and worthy of the world power Rome has become; a dedication to the emperor would be a first step in ensuring this. In order to be accepted by the intelligentsia and elite, architecture had to maintain exclusivity through a specified erudition and most certainly had to be systematized and ordered. Thus while a first motive is linked to the organization of the city and a second one is related to the systemization of building, a third purpose is directly linked to the reorganization of the discipline within an ordered system. These 49 three purposes are reflected in Vitruvius' discussion of temple types: After organizing buildings in terms of their siting within the city in Book I, the temples are systematized within column-to-wall relationships and elevations-to-wall classifications (within human-body proportioning and other ratio schemata), to finally find their symbolic order within A r c h i t e c t u r a in Books III and IV. Regardless of its organizational difficulties, the treatise had very specific architectural intents. At first reading these seem disparately focused; Vitruvius was, after all, attempting to do something that had not yet been done for architecture. On the one hand, he was compiling a practical builders' manual and filling-in a perceived gap in the literature, while on the other he was attempting to formulate the "theoretical" tenets of a discipline that he was hoping to redefine: It is as i f Vitruvius wanted to present the discipline as both prescriptive and intellectualized, both set and alterable; the duality is significant. And how he accomplished this is key. He integrated a host of fields within his A r c h i t e c t u r a and this partly explains the long and difficult list of requisites discussed in the above introduction. Rawson (1985) grants Vitruvius a great deal of attention in this regard, rightly underscoring that to the old writer, all disciplines were "linked ... by their theory" (186). To Vitruvius, the architectus was to be equipped with more than f a b r i c a , or knowledge-of-craft. Because all disciplines were based within ~ and linked by ~ r a t i o c i n a t i o , or theoretical and scientific knowledge (I, 1.1, 1.12-17), the architect would have had to be familiar with each discipline. F a b r i c a and ratiocinatio are thus fused within Vitruvius' theoretic. Reflecting the cultural influence of the times, the theoretic is especially buttressed by Greek language and ideas. This is why the treatise seems both descriptive and normative.89 In other words, the De A r c h i t e c t u r a on the one hand describes, while on the other, it seeks to prescribe. And this is also why it is punctuated with quasi-historic notions such as the 8 8 1 will return to the dualities contained in the treatise in the final sections of my dissertation. 8 9 The Etruscan temple is a good case in point; he used a Greek term, a neighboring geographic location and a Roman example to describe a type that had little to do with any of these but had everything to do with his idea of this particular temple type. 50 discourse on the origin of humanity and the first house in Book II (1) and pseudo-scientific notions such as the discussion of the elements and atoms, also in Book II (2.1). With a fundamental understanding of the theoretical basis of individual disciplines, the reader of the treatise, to Vitruvius, would be equipped to ensure that A r c h i t e c t u r a would reach its fullest potential and gain a higher level of social respectability. Thus in this sense Vitruvius not only idealized the profession, but aimed at, through the words in the Books, formalizing and elevating the profession. How was this to happen? Well, consider first that the relatively new "multidisciplinary" approach advocated by Vitruvius was not borne exclusively out of his own thoughts. During the first century B.C., the Roman architect was not the most trusted individual; Vitruvius would have been concerned with righting this perception and reality. At the same time, the Roman intellectual world was being transformed as "[professional training... outgr[ew] the old, established values..." (Brown, 1963, 99). The changes would have been at once compelling and profound. And at this intersection between old and new, the search for a new intellectual tradition was on. Some, like Cicero, were looking for ways of restoring cultural stability by promoting, through formal education, an outlook that would take into account both Roman and Greek histories. We have seen that Greek philosophy was of particular interest to intellectuals such as Cicero (Pollitt, 1974); to him, it contained and transmitted wisdom, all-the-while training the practitioner in presenting convincing arguments (Griffin, 1989, 79). The Greek enkykliospaideia, or Liberal Arts, would have thus appealed to Cicero, Roman scholars, and ideally to Vitruvius; the enkyklios paideia had been founded in a tradition that encouraged a multidisciplinary approach to thinking, learning and eventually, professional practice. Vitruvius reminisced on a personal Liberal Arts education in Book VI {preface. 4) and it is within this approach that he found a vehicle by which he could attempt to secure A r c h i t e c t u r a as a re-established profession while elevating it to the higher "Liberal Arts", thereby re-establishing its status (Goalen, 1995, 25). In this sense, the enkyklios paideia was a primary requirement for the architectural writer. Brown (1963) makes the case that Vitruvius is the era's writer "who expressed most freely and explicitly [the] trend" of applying the Liberal Arts to the curriculum (99-100). Brown's 51 point may be true, but Vitruvius does more: Consider his use of the words "encyclios ...disciplina" in Book I (1.12) when referring to the Greek-influenced body of disciplines that the architect is to be familiar with. This differs somewhat from the enkyklios paideia: the Greek term denotes "Liberal Arts" while encyclios ...disciplina means more; it signifies the integration of many disciplines.90 The idea was not simply to adapt the Liberal Arts education to the architectural profession; it was one that would re-examine the status, role and definition of the profession itself. Key then is that to Vitruvius, Architecture-as-Liberal-Art represented more than the design and shaping of built environments; it would also be responsible for the modification and shaping of the intellectual environment. This latter notion is very close to the writings of Cicero. Vitruvius held Cicero in high regard, citing him in his Book IX's preface (17). The latter had written that familiarity with the disciplines was key in becoming an Orator and he had been among the first to use the word "architectura". To Cicero, the discipline of Architectura was like Medicine and Scholarship: Each involved learning for a practical purpose. However, while Cicero grouped Medicine, Scholarship and Architectura together, he does not seem to have been entirely echoed by Vitruvius; the former wrote that the three disciplines were "honorable to persons of a lower class" (Granger, 1983, 16, note 3) while the latter, as we have just seen, sought to elevate the architectural profession to a higher status (Onians, 1988, 40). Varro too had included Architectura as a Liberal Art in his De Novem Disciplinis ?{ Now lost, much of Varro's writing on art and architecture centered on "classification" and "definition" (Brown, 1964, 101).92 He had, however, discussed Rome's architectural history, particularly as it related to house construction and surrounding urban landscapes, and it is highly probable that from his writings Vitruvius derived his own materials for Book VI on 9 0 For early studies of the Greek influence upon Vitruvius, see for example R. Ellis "On Three Greek Epigrams in Vitruvius" in The Journal of Philology, volume 9, pp. 273-77, 1876, Louis Dyer "Vitruvius' Account of the Greek Stage" in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, volume 12, number 23, pp. 356-65, 1891 and Edward Falkener "The Grecian House as described by Vitruvius" in Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, third series, volume I, number 2, pp. 29-49, 1893. 9 1 Vitruvius named Varro in at least two places (VW, preface. 14; IX, preface. 17). 9 2 In Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London: Duckworth, 1985) Elizabeth Rawson makes the point that Vitruvius would have looked to Varro's De Novem Disciplinis and his Imagines; both would have been accessible in Rome during the 40s B.C.. 52 private spaces: From Varro, Vitruvius noted, some of his thoughts on architectural principles had been formulated (IX, preface. 17). If Cicero's dialogues and Varro's writings were popular during the first century B.C., so too were the didactic poems of Lucretius. Nisbet (1989, 108) reminds us that Lucretius too recalled the Greek way ~ he especially espoused "Athenian civilization" in his Book VI of the De Rerum Natura. Baldwin (1990) and Fleury (1990) analyze the ideological links between the De A r c h i t e c t u r a and Lucretius' De Rerum N a t u r a . To them, Lucretius' treatise was one of the primary texts that Vitruvius referenced and according to the two, Vitruvius turned to the earlier work in his discussions on order-in-architecture (I, 2.1), human origins (II, 1.1) and the atoms (IV, preface. 1). Their assertions are not proven, however. Vitruvius also looked to other Romans for inspiration: Fufidius, who had written a volume on architecture, and Publius Septimius, who wrote two volumes on the subject (IX, preface. 17). As Rawson (1985) points out, it is possible that Vitruvius included Fufidius and Septimius as knowledgeable "experts" (188). It may also be that Vitruvius included them out of professional etiquette or personal respect. In this light it is also plausible that he felt that contrasting "amateurs" to Greek authorities would reinforce the notion that the Greek architect and Greek architecture were superior to that of Rome. He had probably read many of the pracepta symmetriarum, or rules (especially as they related to the Orders), of notable Greek architects; there existed a written corpus by Greek architects on individual projects and design theories. Beyond the sources cited in the De A r c h i t e c t u r a , there is also his life experience. Rawson (1985) advances one of the most fundamental ideas in this area, contending that the underpinnings of the De A r c h i t e c t u r a were probably founded during the earlier parts of Vitruvius' life (186-87). This is fundamental to the reading of the De A r c h i t e c t u r a . We know that he postponed publishing the work because he recorded it in his comments relating to war turmoil in Rome: "I dared not, in the midst of such concerns, publish my writings on architecture..." ([C], I ,preface. 1). And given his multifaceted career — military, civil engineering and at least some design work ~ it makes sense that the theoretical basis for his work was borne out of his past experiences and not exclusively out of his present realities. Certainly this would explain some of his omissions: The construction of 53 the amphitheater in 29 B.C., for example, was left out of the treatise which was completed at around this time. Perhaps the best way to consider it is that Vitruvius gathered ideas — consciously and unconsciously — for his future writings during the earlier part of his career, say during the 50s and 40s B.C., and then when he decided to draft the treatise, he mined his recollections and amalgamated these to "present" observations. That said, it becomes relatively easy to understand why he made explicit reference to the above Romans. Cicero, Lucretius and Varro were especially popular during Vitruvius' day, and indeed were representative of the intense intellectual discourse of the time. Their dialogues, writings and poems were all directed at a relatively learned readership (Schrijvers, 1989, 13) and Vitruvius was writing at least in part for the same audience, albeit expanded to reach those interested in building and related ideas. By appealing to the same readership, he was in fact doing for A r c h i t e c t u r a what others were doing for their respective disciplines. That is to say that he was intellectualizing A r c h i t e c t u r a and integrating it within the Liberal Arts. In this light, the Roman writer looked steadily towards the Greek intellectual experience; the list of experts in Book VI {preface. 3) attests to this.93 In addition to the Liberal Arts ideal, there was also the historical context; he saw Greek architecture as historically preceding that of Rome's and lamented the loss. He used History as a way of re-establishing continuity-in-architecture ~ from Greek types to Roman designs, for example ~ in turn reinforcing the notion of a discipline deriving from the Greek. To Vitruvius, the Romans had contributed much less in terms of the architectural wonders of the time. He listed mostly Greek sites, for instance, when enumerating the greatest temples: Ephesus, Miletus, Eleusis (VII, preface. 16) and Athens (VII, preface. 17). Interestingly, however, he did not completely omit Roman accomplishments; the last temple was designed by Cossutius, a Roman architectus (VII, preface. 15). The "experts" will be discussed below. 54 If a Roman had designed a great monument in Greece, it was many Greeks who had done so in Rome (Wilson, 1989, 361). And in keeping with the Hellenic presence in Rome, some forty-two Greeks were cited in the treatise. There are a variety of possible reasons for doing this. No doubt Vitruvius wanted to highlight his familiarity with Greek "authorities" and their writings.94 Theirs were monographs dedicated to singular buildings or specific topics; Pythias' writings, for example, centered on the Temple of Athena at Priene. Obviously the referencing of Hellenic sources was also linked to his intellectual aspirations. Having set exceedingly high standards for the architect, he may have felt that he needed to prove his intellect, wanting to situate himself among those he considered learned. Or he may have simply been keen on using the Greek-founded rhetorical devices that were in practice at the time; listing authorities works well as a basic rhetorical device. It may also be that he was reflecting the fact that Greek architects had been more successful at gaining commissions in Rome during the first century B.C.. The true extent to which he turned to sources — Greek or otherwise — is unclear; he did not always cite his referenced works and he employed a prose that did not readily reveal the use of secondary sources. Gros (1982) suggests that Vitruvius was bounded by inherited Hellenistic traditions that limited his intellectual meandering and choice of writing styles (669). In this sense, Vitruvius' call for encyclopedic knowledge is just like that of the authoritative Greek writers of the time, he relied on authorities and precedents as was customary in Greek writing, and he readily accepted secondary source material just as the Greek scholars were doing in their writings. The first Greek stylistic inheritance — the call for encyclopedic knowledge ~ seems somewhat contradictory when we consider the sometimes overly general passages and the missing analysis in the treatise. Although he listed the disciplines and the detailed knowledge for practicing architecture, Vitruvius elected to remain general with his instructions. Unclear are his reasons for omitting a specific discussion of the problems associated with the unfocussed planning of urban Rome, for example. While not likely, it may be that he did not identify this as a problem. For a further commentary on authorities in Vitruvius, see Pierre Gros, "Structures et limites de la compilation vitruvienne dans les livres III et IV du De Architectura" in Latomus, volume 35, 1975, pp. 986-1009. 55 The second inheritance — the constant reliance on named and unnamed authorities ~ is apparent throughout the text.95 Consider the preface of Book IX where he enumerated a series of "experts": ... [t]he valuable precepts of Pythagoras, on the other hand of Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, and the other sages, cultivated by daily industry ... (2). As for Archimedes, although in his limited wisdom he discovered many wonderful things... (9). Now let our attention turn to the researches of Archytas of Tarentum and Eratosthenes of Cyrene ... (13). I especially admire the volumes of Democritus ... (15). Likewise many people born within our memory will seem to discuss science with Lucretius as if he were there in person, or the art of rhetoric with Cicero, and many subsequent generations exchange conversation with Varro about the Latin language... (17). [C], IX, preface In spite of the enumeration, Vitruvius did not provide the sources of most of his descriptions and depictions, leaving today's reader (and perhaps, although not certainly, the reader of his day) questioning the authenticity (and accuracy) of the latter. Similarly, his adherence and ready acceptance of secondary source instructions leaves the reader wondering if he ever had the confidence to question them. Dominant thinkers, like Archimedes (287-212 B.C.) , who had by then devised methodological research approaches for mathematics and engineering problems, were mentioned yet do not appear to have had much influence on Vitruvius' writing.96 And he did not indicate how he arrived at his concluding generalizations, not elaborating, for example, on the circular arrangement of the winds in Book I (6.2-13) (Plommer, 1971, 161-62; Pottage, 1968, 196). It is quite possible that he was simply paraphrasing from these sources. This was a relatively common rhetorical device employed by both Roman and Greek writers of the time. He mentions Archimedes in Book I (1.7; 1.16). 56 Goalen (1995) suggests that Hermogenes was a main influence (28). Vitruvius does name him several times,97 but the level of reliance remains ambiguous.98 And the guidance of Hermodorus is not assured, although Gros (1973) indicates that it is likely (160-61). The two authorities were not necessarily commonly known and with little critical assessment or elaboration on Vitruvius' part, we have scant means by which to accept these or his other secondary sources.99 We must conclude that Vitruvius either had complete faith in his sources and for this reason chose not to verify or question them, or, that the whole was beyond his own intellectual limit. The confident tone in his writing and his will to write about, promote and reorganize the discipline would seem to suggest the former. Relatively few Roman examples were inserted as part of the references in the treatise. Other than the emulation of all things Greek, there are three possibilities for this: First, Vitruvius was not necessarily looking to Italian examples for his intellectual and aesthetic models. Second, he may have been following his Greek sources too closely, making little effort to locate Roman or Italian case-studies.100 Or third, he was deliberately choosing examples of what he considered to be well known and readily "pictured" by readers. It is probable that the three were part of his reasoning; regardless, the retired military man omitted a great many Roman construction details and examples.101 Vitruvius was attempting to achieve a number of goals. There was the aim at prescribing building instructions to a varied audience. There was the wish to fill-in gaps and contribute to the literature of the time; certainly others were doing the same within the Liberal Arts and he may have wanted to amalgamate different writings already known to architects. There was the will to bring together the disparate components of the art of building and the goal of Hermogenes is recalled in Books III (2.6; 3.8) and V (3.1). 9 8 The reference related to the difficulties with triglyphs (III, 3.9). 9 9 For a brief review of the untenable "theories" in the De Architectura, see J.J Pollitt The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). 1 0 0 These two reasons are postulated by Fleury (1990, XLII). 1 0 1 For example, masonry construction techniques such as opus incertum and opus reticulatum were only briefly mentioned (II, 8.1). This is significant; as we have seen, masonry construction innovations during his lifetime were key in the development of new forms. Vitruvius may have chosen to omit certain techniques because of his personal preferences; he certainly critiqued the poor taste in frescoes (VII, 5.1, 2, 3). 57 elevating the architectural profession to that of a Liberal Art. There was also the larger project of reorganizing the profession and its praxis; linked to the latter, Vitruvius hoped to intellectualize the profession. It is also possible that he was aiming to appeal to an architectural client base attracted to all-things-Greek. Of course throughout all of this, the retired architect was living in a place and time where architectural design, which had been the responsibility of specialist practitioners, was now within the grasp of other "non-professional" individuals; by simply hiring a contractor, people of wealth and power could design and build whatever they desired without employing the services of the architect. The "design" function seems to have been moving away from the architect's control. At the same time, the surrounding cultural topography was unstable and to Vitruvius, the methods of practicing architecture were unsuitable and the architectural superego of Rome had vanished. He thus infused his treatise with countless allusions to the Hellenic world ~ the source of the old ways. The notion of a curriculum based on the enkyklios paideia as transformed into the encyclios disciplina, the many examples of Greek architectural works (with the de facto omission of Roman exemplary), and the profuse use of Hellenic "authorities" were all instilled in order to begin transforming architecture. How he attempted this transformation lies within his particular brand of theoretic. THEORY Vitruvius aimed to deliver a convincing argument to persuade his readership that change was required and that a return to the old (Greek) ways should be a part of that change. Further, the same readers had to be convinced that the architectural profession should be elevated to its "rightful" place among the Liberal Arts. His argument, if it can be called that, was a complex one. He provided a synthesis — a loose system of principles and tenets. I suggest that he was not describing a unifying theory but instead was prescribing an idealized system. The system was based on Greek principles — hence the plethora of Greek terminology — interspersed throughout the De Architectura. Only by separating these principles and then re-assembling the whole can we begin (which is the best we can do) to understand his objective. The various tenets and principles of Vitruvius, as I will point out, are on the one hand inextricably 58 linked to an activity which is "organized", while on the other hand to an activity which is not "organized" and is instead mediated through design, thus becoming an act linked to reflection, imagination and invention. It is in this light that this section takes an in-depth look at the "theory" of Vitruvius. Much has been made of Vitruvius' "theory" of A r c h i t e c t u r a l 0 2 Later writers turned to the treatise for their cues regarding methods, materials, typologies and of course, theoretic. This process intensified especially during the Renaissance as the humanists translated, corrected and usurped its main tenets (Wittkower, 1949; March, 1998).103 From interpretations of the tenets, we have the basis, for example, of today's ideals of perspective and proportion (Germann, 1991; Onians, 1981). This is fundamental; such influence has the interpretation of the treatise had on architectural thought that no comprehensive discussion of architectural theory can be undertaken without going back to it. 1 0 4 But the multiple interpretations have rendered a "Vitruvian theory" that may or may not represent Vitruvius' intent(s). In the first place, while "theory" is often applied to Vitruvius' design tenets, it is difficult to accept his list of requirements as such. Theory as we know it implies a basis that extends beyond prescription, mythological and historical narrative per se; it calls for rules, procedures, assumptions and hypothetical(s) that produce at least partially predictable results. Alternatively, "system", which can be interpreted as a method of organization and See Hanno-Walter Kruft "Vitruvian Tradition in the Renaissance" in his Geschichte der Architekturtheorie: Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Miinchen: C H . Beck'she Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1985), translated into English by Ronald Taylor, Elsie Callander and Antony Wood as A History of Architectural Theory From Vitruvius to the Present (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994), pp. 66-72, Georg Germann, Vitruve et le Vitruvianisme - Introduction a I'Histoire de la Theorie Architecturale, translated by Michele Zaugg and Jacques Gubler, (Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, 1991) and to some extent, Marc Wilson Jones, "Vitruvius and Theory" in his Principles of Roman Architecture (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 33-47.. 1 0 3 1 will return to this later within the present chapter. 1 0 4 Vitruvius' "theory" or "system" can be seen as part of his attempt at elevating the profession. On the "Vitruvian tradition", see Louis Callebat (1994b) "La Tradition Vitruvienne au moyen Age et a la Renaissance: Elements d'Interpretation" in International Journal of the Classical Tradition, volume 1, number 2, Fall, pp. 2-14 and Hanno-Walter Kruft "Vitruvian Tradition in the Renaissance" in his Geschichte der Architekturtheorie: Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Miinchen: C H . Beck'she Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1985), translated into English by Ronald Taylor, Elsie Callander and Antony Wood as A History of Architectural Theory From Vitruvius to the Present (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994), pp. 66-72. 59 coordination, has been utilized by Kruft (1994) and may indeed be closer to what the architectus intended. If Vitruvius' motives were borne out of his desire for a better discipline, the buttresses for his theoretic (or system) were certainly borne out of mythological and "historical" realms. There is the myth of the origins of building in Book I (5.9), for example; it will be discussed a little later. And there is the "historical" notion of the old ways constantly referenced in justifying the organizing tenets. Consider the following quote in Book III: And so, if Nature has composed the human body so that in its proportions the separate individual elements answer to the total form, then the ancients seem to have had reason to decide that bringing the creations to full completion likewise required a correspondence between the measure of individual elements and the appearance of the work as a whole. Therefore, when they were handing down proportional sequences for every type of work, they did so especially for the sacred dwellings of the gods, as the successes and failures of those works tend to remain forever. [C], III, 1.4 Vitruvius' recalling of the ancients was fundamental in developing a system. In this quote, recalling how the ancients had turned to human body proportions to arrive at design solutions for temple-buildings,105 Vitruvius was relying on his readers' respect for elders and the past: The design based on the human body was deemed ideal simply because the ancients had done it this way. Further, the ancients were correct simply because they had been, presumably, Greek ancients. Never mind the fact that the reader does not know if this had actually been how Vitruvius' ancients had set out their building designs. Vitruvius perhaps did not know either. Another example of the use of historical antecedents is found in Book IV where Vitruvius established a historical link between the Doric temple and the art of carpentry: 1 0 5 For some discussion on the influence of Vitruvius' human body proportioning on later writers, see Lawrence Lowic (1983) "The Meaning and Significance of the Human Analogy in Francesco de Giorgio's Trattato" in Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, volume 42, number 4, December, pp. 360-70. 60 ... Drawing from these elements and from the art of carpentry and applying them to the construction of sacred dwellings in stone and marble, craftsmen imitated these arrangements in their sculptures and agreed that these inventions ought to be adopted. The craftsmen of old, building in some place or another, placed joists that protruded from the interior walls to the outer edges [of the buildings]. They built in between the joists and above them decorated the cornices and eves with fine carpentry for a more attractive appearance. Subsequently they decided that these projecting joists should be cut off where they protruded beyond the plane of the walls, and because the result looked unattractive to them, they fitted plaques in front of the cuttings, which were shaped as triglyphs are made today... (2). Thus, for Doric works the principle underlying the triglyphs and mutules was derived from these imitations (3). [C], IV, 2.2-3 Considering the reverential treatment of the workmen of "old", the explanation would have withstood scrutiny in spite of stone clearly not having the malleability of wood. When the reader moves to the next chapter on mythology ~ Greek mythology, that is — explaining how the Orders came to be, the notion of history and myth as proof is reinforced: These cities, once they had expelled the Carians and Leleges, called this region of the earth Ionia after Ion their leader, and establishing sacred precincts there, they began to build shrines. First of all, they decided to build a temple for Panionian Apollo like the ones they had seen in Achaea, and they called this temple "Doric" because they had first seen a temple of this type in the cities of the Dorians. (5) When they had decided to set up columns in this temple, lacking symmetries for them and seeking principles by which they might make these columns suitable for bearing loads yet properly attractive to behold, they measured a man's footprint and compared it with his height. When they discovered that for a man, the foot is one-sixth of his height, they applied this ratio to the column, and whatever diameter they selected for the base of the column shaft, they carried its shaft, including the capital, to a height six times the amount. Thus the Doric column came to exhibit the proportion, soundness, and attractiveness of the male body. (6) [C],IV, 1.5-6 61 With the recalling of myths, the justification for adopting the Greek modus is complete. Within the tenet of decor, for instance,106 Vitruvius tied the Orders ~ Doric, Corinthian and Ionic — to specific divinities. Doric was attached to Minerva, Mars and Hercules, for example. This is not new; the Orders as such had appeared in earlier times in Greece and they were utilized for specific purposes throughout Italy. Within Vitruvius' treatise, a certain normative is established with relation to the Orders, however, by making links with the historical and mythological past. Perhaps nowhere did Vitruvius better merge the historical and mythological past than in Book IPs first chapter. Here the story of the first house is recounted, in a sense reminding the reader of where people had come from. To the author, people had originated in the wilds and had lived rather crudely, finding shelter in caverns and forests (II, 1.1). The discovery of fire had provoked the gathering of people, wherein the first signs of communication occurred. Eventually, individuals began constructing shelters using twigs and tree limbs. Other groups dug earth shelters and others imitated birds with mud and branches used as walls (II, 1.2). The new builders exchanged ideas and made improvements on their structures. The proof 'for this, Vitruvius asserted, was in the fact that "...there is an ancient example to this day of a house daubed with mud. Likewise, on the Capitol, the house of Romulus shows us - and calls to mind - the ancient ways..." that are still observable ([C], II, 1.5). He continued: "Reasoning from these indications about the way in which the ancients invented building we can conclude that this is exactly how it happened" ([C], II, 1.6). Eventually, artisan communities evolved and their built structures became more complex and expansive. Vitruvius maintained the rationalization: Because these things had been so established in the beginning, and nature had not only equipped the people with senses like all the other animals, but had also armed their minds with ideas and plans and subjected all other creatures to their power, so from the making of buildings they progressed, step by step, to the other arts and disciplines, and thus they led themselves out of a rough and brutish life into gentle humanity. [C],2, 1.6 Decor w i l l be discussed in greater detail below. 62 Thus in a mythical story — perhaps containing kernels of truth — that explained the origin of humans, social "progression", and architectural origins, Vitruvius was able to link his discipline to Nature and eventually, the divinities. In this way, the principles of A r c h i t e c t u r a were gradually and subtly introduced, "proven" and rationalized. It is somewhat paradoxical that while Vitruvius' principles are linked to what could be seen as an "organized" activity (the use of proportion and the correct use of the Orders), they are also related to an activity which is less organized and more abstract (the use of reflection and invention). What could thus be seen as a duality in Vitruvius' text is linked within the collective architectural memory of his intended readers. As contained in Vitruvius' books, however, the whole is confusing. Yet the principles are fundamental to the treatise and worth a detailed exposition. Consider them as summarized in figure 2.7. Vitruvius' principles are made up of F i r m i t a s , Utilitas and Venustas (I, 3.2). This is the clearest part of his elucidation of the discipline as-he-sees-it. F i r m i t a s , or solidity (or soundness), includes technique in construction, building materials and statics.107 Utilitas, or utility, signifies the notion of proper use and function of built structures. And Venustas, or grace (or attractiveness), means aesthetic value and includes ideas associated with proportion, the use of the Orders and the act of designing. The three principles are bound within one passage contained in Chapter 3 of Book I: A l l these works should be executed so that they exhibit the principles of soundness, utility and attractiveness. The principle of soundness will be observed if the foundations have been laid firmly, and if, whatever the building materials may be, they have been chosen with care but not with excessive frugality. The principle of utility will be observed if the design allows faultless, unimpeded use through the disposition of the spaces and the allocation of each type of space is properly oriented, appropriate and comfortable. That of attractiveness will be upheld when the appearance of the Vitruvius is not yet cognizant of mathematically-based statics and relied solely on empirical knowledge and rules (Germann, 1991, 13). This may explain why he provided little description and explanation of, for example, vaults and arches, leaving only slight passages on their related elements (VI, 8). Similarly, he enigmatically left out the details of the Pantheon. One possible explanation is that Roman techniques in vaulting were not perfected until after his lifetime. 63 Figure 2.7 - Vitruvius' Tenets of Architectura ARCHITECTURA Firmitas Utilitas — ordinatio eurythmia — symmetria I I Use of proportion Venustas dispositio j ichnographia, j ! orthographia, \ I scaenographia • i j distributio decor Design (Cogitatio & Inventio) Use of the Orders work is pleasing and elegant, and the proportions of its elements have properly developed principles of symmetry. [C], I, 3. 2 (emphasis in translation text) A second set of tenets is included within Venustas: ordinatio (I, 2.2), dispositio (I, 2.2), eurythmia (I, 2.3), symmetria (I, 2.4) decor (I, 2.5) and distributio (I, 2.8). They are relatively close in meaning and tend to overlap, especially in relating to proportion as one of the criteria for beauty. Here we interpret the tenets directly from the text. O r d i n a t i o , or taxis -- recall that Vitruvius often turned to Greek terms — is a modular-based proportioning system and while he at times seems to have attempted to nuance the two, they 64 are in effect the same.108 The term implies complete proportioning based on the moduli, or modular unit, and assumes the building had been conceptualized accordingly. It is very close, and indeed at times overlaps with symmetria (see below). It seems odd that he would deliver this tenet so early; in Book I he had not yet described the proportioning ideal, nor the means by which it could be achieved.109 Dispositio, or diathesis in Greek, is defined primarily as quality ~ qualitas — of arrangement.110 ( O r d i n a t i o is its prerequisite). It is through dispositio that the parts of a building can be integrated and put together; it is "the fit assemblage of details, and, arising from this assemblage, the elegant effect of the work and its dimensions, along with a certain quality or character" ([A], I, 2.2). To Vitruvius, there were different types of dispositio, each derived out of cogitatio, or reflection/imagination, and inventio, or invention (I, 2.2).'11 Key for the argument to follow is that the latter forms the basis of "design" activity and includes ichnographia, orthographia and s c a e n o g r a p h i a (I, 2.2). Ichnographia is the assessment of the plan in terms of site and orientation; in a sense it is the plan itself. Orthographia, on the other hand, is the setting out of the elevation according to the building's proportion scheme. And s c a e n o g r a p h i a is slightly more complex and has no doubt been the cue for subsequent and especially Renaissance "theorists". It is the ability or act of tracing a perspectival drawing of the front elevation and its corresponding side elevations towards a vanishing point: "Item s c a e n o g r a p h i a est frontis et laterum abscedentium adumbratio ad c i r c i n i q u e centrum omnium linearum responsus" ([D], 1,2.2).'12 It is the act of carrying out a one-point perspective that carries within it the ideal of proportion. Thus dispositio is ultimately the Morris Hicky Morgan, in his translation (New York: Dover, 1914, 1960) refers to ordinatio as "Order" (pages 13-14). 1 0 9 Vitruvius did not detail his ideas on proportion when he first wrote about the concept in Book I. To him, "proportion" was not an aesthetic ideal; it was a technical device derived out of numerical juxtapositions. The more specific instructions on proportion are in Book Ill 's Chapter 1. 1 1 0 Morris Hicky Morgan, in his translation (New York: Dover, 1914, 1960) refers to dispositio as "Arrangement". " ' On Vitruvius and imagination-in-design, see Claudio Sgarbi "Rileggere Vitruvio" in Spazio e Societa, volume 14, number 55, pp. 68-75, July-September, 1991; "Vitruvio e le sue immagini" in Spazio e Societa, volume 14, number 56, pp. 52-57, October-December, 1991; "Fabrica e Rationatio" in Spazio e Societa, volume 15, number 57, pp. 122-27, January-March, 1992. 1 1 2 "As for scenography, it is the shaded rendering of the front and the receding sides as the latter converge on a point" ([C], I, 2.3); emphasis in translation text. 65 design of the building, including its execution as derived out of its plan, elevation and perspective."3 Eurythmia is also a subjective tenet as it is related to beauty and linked to proportioning and general arrangement of the building's elements (I, 2.3). Thus it overlaps slightly with dispositio. To Vitruvius, the idea was to relate (proportionately) heights to width, and so on. It is the result or effect of applying the rules of proportion. However, it is not clear if eurythmia was meant to apply to "drawing", or to "building". The former would involve imaginative interpretation; the latter would be concerned with the practicalities of building. Again, ambiguity prevails: Granger (1983) translates it directly to "proportion" (27); Kruft (1994) writes that the tenet "corresponds more or less to the modern conception of harmony" (26). Considering the significance of the following tenet ~ symmetria — it appears likely that it was meant to apply to design methodology and not necessarily to the building technology. It may be because of their closeness in meaning that Vitruvius later (VI, 2.5) attempted to make the distinction between eurythmia and symmetria. Symmetria is the concept of harmony in a building once complete, both as a comprehensive whole and as a set of separate parts relating to the whole (I, 2.4). While similar to eurythmia, there is a difference. Puzzling is that Vitruvius appears to have interchanged symmetria with ordinatio in his prescriptions (Frezouls, 1989a, 44). Granger (1983) translates symmetria quite directly as "symmetry" (27) while Kruft (1994) makes the case that with eurythmia Vitruvius would have meant what we now consider as "proportion". Recall that Granger had translated eurythmia as proportion. Perrault (1684 [1996], 11, footnote 9) also utilizes "proportion" (in French) in this case. Considering that Vitruvius was here delivering the first clue to what continues to be one of the most fundamental ideas on architectural theory — that is to say, the relating of architectural proportions to the human body - "proportion" likely was the intended meaning. 1 1 3 For a more detailed discussion on orthographia, ichnographia and scaenographia, see Maria Teresa Bartoli's (1978) "Orthographia, Ichnographia, Scaenographia" in Studi e documenti di architettura, volume 8, pp. 197-208. 66 I believe, however, that symmetria was also meant to evoke "balance" (of building elements). In the discussion on temple planning, Vitruvius highlighted that: The composition of a temple is based on symmetry, whose principles architects should take the greatest care to master. Symmetry derives from proportion, which is called a n a l o g i a in Greek. Proportion is the mutual calibration of each element of the work and the whole, from which the proportional system is achieved. No temple can have any compositional system without symmetry and proportion, unless, as it were, it has an exact system of correspondence to the likeness of a well-formed human being. [C], III, 1.1; italics in translation text Note that symmetry and proportion — symmetria atque proportione — were presented as two distinct ideas; one leads to the other. In other words, proportion would have been the means to symmetry and the two should not be translated as equals. Related to proportion, consider another part of Vitruvius' commentary on the human body proportioning scheme: Just as in the human body there is a harmonious quality of shapeliness expressed in terms of the cubit, foot, palm, digit, and other small units, so it is in completing works of architecture. [C], I, 2.4 The nose (three lengths) to the face, and the face itself are the fundamental modules: For Nature composed the human body in such a way that the face, from the chin to the top of the forehead and the lowermost roots of the hairline should be one-tenth [of the total height of the body]; the palm of the hand from the wrist to the tip of the middle finger should measure likewise; the head from the chin to the crown, one-eighth; from the top of the chest to the hairline including the base of the neck, one-sixth; from the center of the chest to the crown of the head, one-fourth. Of the height of the face itself, one-third goes from the base of the chin to the lowermost part of the nostrils 67 to a point between the eyebrows, and from that point to the hairline, the forehead also measures one-third. The foot should be one-sixth the height, the cubit one-fourth, the chest also one-fourth.... [C], III, 1.2 The concept is then tied to geometry and, de facto to numerology: So too, for example, the center and midpoint of the human body is, naturally, the navel. For if a person is imagined lying back with outstretched arms and feet within a circle whose center is at the navel, the fingers and toes will trace the circumference of this circle as they move about. But to whatever extent a circular scheme may be present in the body, a square design may also be discerned there. For if we measure from the soles of the feet to the crown of the head, and this measurement is compared with that of the outstretched hands, one discovers that this breadth equals the height, just as in areas which have been squared off by use of the set square. [C], III, 1.3 This is what later theorists and historians referred to as "Vitruvian man". It must be underscored that this rationalization of the human body as the ideal template for proportion is just that: a rationalization. Vitruvius continued the prescription by describing the relationship of the human body to numbers by sub-division (III, 1.5-6-7-8). While evocative, the presentation somewhat breaks down when one of his perfect numbers — the number ten ~ is presented as corresponding to the ten fingers (III, 1.5). He used Plato to substantiate this point and then "the mathematicians" to highlight another perfect number: the number six. With the latter Vitruvius did not have Plato to fall back upon and thus spent a great deal of time proving the number's perfection by showing that it could be divided into units congruent with its proportions (III, 1.6). Combined, Vitruvius said that the two made the most perfect of all numbers (sixteen). This has little to do with the human body of course, and it does not associate the idea of proportion to number."4 What it does, however, is render authority to 1 1 4 In Book IV (1) Vitruvius makes his only links between proportion and numbers when addressing temple types. 68 the human body-proportioning ideal. Vitruvius concluded the discussion of temple proportion by writing that: ... it is agreed that from the limbs of the human body number was discovered, and also the fact that a correspondence of dimension exists among individual elements and the appearance of the entire body in each of its parts, the is left for us to recognize that the ancients, who also established the houses of the immortal gods, ordered the elements of those works, so that, in both their shape and their symmetries, fitting dimensions of separate elements and of the work as a whole might be created. [C], III, 1.9)1 1 5 There are difficulties in accepting this: Quite simply, no two individual bodies are identical and thus the rules for proportion according to the human body are inexact. Symmetria, then, is meant as an approximate tenet that signifies the proportion of separate parts relating to a whole (I, 2.4). I will return to the human body in my discussion of mental loci. Decor is the next tenet Vitruvius enumerates (I, 2.5). Relatively speaking, he spent considerably more time defining this particular aspect of building."6 Here he considered the precedents — the codes contained in older buildings that had been presumably designed by the Greeks. Decor is akin to style appropriateness; it signifies appropriateness of place, form, building function and links to spatial areas and to other buildings. In other words, the end result ~ the final form ~ should be set out to suit its meaning. Vitruvius dealt with two things here: He was calling for following convention in selecting building styles and at the same time he was ordering that the use of interior fashion be appropriate. Interestingly, however, he went beyond aesthetics with the tenet, evoking the gods and their temples, for example, as instances when convention should (must) be followed: ' 1 5 In Book IV is contained a discussion of columns and column proportions. Here the scale of the columns associated with the Doric are deemed male. Vitruvius allots the number six (the height of the male) as the basis for the height of the column, with its base equaling one (IV, 1.6). On the other hand, the columns within the Ionic Order are associated with the female body and assigned the number eight for column proportioning (IV, 1.7). The two can be adjusted - slendered - using the numbers, respectively, seven and nine (IV, 1.8). 1 1 6 Morris Hicky Morgan, in his translation (New York: Dover, [1914], 1960) refers to decor as "Propriety". 69 ... Correctness of function occurs when temples dedicated to Jupiter the Thunderer and Heaven or the Sun and Moon are made open-air shrines, beneath their patron deity, because we see the appearance and effect of these divinities in the light of the outdoor world. Temples of Minerva, Mars, and Hercules will be Doric, because temples for these gods, on account of their courage in battle, should be set up without a trace of embellishment. Temples done in the Corinthian style for Venus, Flora, Proserpina, at the Fountain Spirits (nymphs) are those that will seem to possess the most fitting qualities, because, given the delicacy of these goddesses, the works executed in their honor seem best to augment a suitable quality of correctness when they are made more slender, ornamental, and are decorated with leaves and volutes. If temples are constructed in the Ionic style for Juno, Diana, Father Liber, and other gods of this type, the principle of the "mean" will apply, because their particular disposition will strike a balance between the stern lines of the Doric and the delicacy of the Corinthian. [C], 1,2.5 Similarly, he prescribed appropriate style use for interior spaces: ... Correctness of tradition will be expressed if, when buildings have magnificent interiors, their vestibules have been made equally harmonious and elegant, but had entrances deficient in dignity and respectability they would lack correctness. [C], I. 2.6 Now this is not about adding features to the built form; it is about choosing the right style for the correct purpose. He was here beginning to link esthetics to ethics as he reintroduced (once again) the use of the old ways -- the Greek Orders ~ and went beyond aesthetic, hinting at the meaning attached to the Orders. I will return to this in a moment. D i s t r i b u t i o , or oikonomia in Greek, is the final tenet included within Venustas. It signifies appropriate choice of material use and economy."7 To Vitruvius, the balanced use of these 1 1 7 Morris Hicky Morgan, in his translation (New York: Dover, 1914, 1960) refers to distributio as "Economy". 70 was fundamental in architectural practice (I, 2.8). The idea of choice is also meant to include appropriate design choice depending on the uses of the said building. The latter means that distributio belongs to Venustas; the former links distributio to Utilitas. As with all of the tenets, this one is subtle in its meaning. There remains much ambiguity — especially as it relates to proportion — because Vitruvius simply did not define the term with a great deal of precision. The best we have is his introductory comment of Book Ill's first Chapter on Temple Planning: The composition of a temple is based on symmetry, whose principles architects should take the greatest care to master. Symmetry derives from proportion, which is called a n a l o g i a in Greek. Proportion is the mutual calibration of each element of the work and the whole, from which the proportional system is achieved. No temple can have any compositional system without symmetry and proportion, unless, as it were, it has an exact system of correspondence to the likeness of a well-formed human being. [C], III, 1.1; italics in translation text While the reader is not told how the concept of distributio is to be incorporated within practice, the link to human-body proportions is once again articulated ~ this time as the basic modular underpinning. Figure 2.7 of a few pages back graphically portrays the principles, as I read them, of Vitruvius' A r c h i t e c t u r a . Recall that there are six sub-tenets that fall within Venustas. On the use of proportioning, ordinatio, eurythmia and symmetria fall within two of the main principles: Firmitas and Venustas. On design ~ the activities of cogitatio and inventio — dispositio and its three sub-activities are linked to distributio and to some extent decor. Finally, distributio and decor, while clearly within the main Venustas principle, are also linked to Utilitas. This interpretation of Vitruvius' tenets correlates with Kruft's (1994) yet it differs somewhat from Germann's (1991). Germann's reading of the tenets is provided in Figure 2.8. F i r m i t a s , Utilitas and Venustas are main principles; this is no surprise as they are the ones most clearly identified by Vitruvius in Book I. Beyond these three, however, the 71 Figure 2.8 - Vitruvius' Tenets of Architectura According to Germann ARCHITECTURA Firmitas Utilitas Venustas symmetria intercolumnium modulus eurythmia decor aspectus distributio Adapted and modified from German, 1991, 27 reader must go back a few chapters for the other tenets (I, 2.1-9). The differences between my interpretation (and Kruft's) and Germann's lie in the subtleties of term definitions and their order within the treatise itself. Proportion, for example, cannot be readily defined until Book III. And even there it is ambiguous.118 Germann (1991) turns to intercolumnium and modulus as opposed to ordinatio. He may be more correct; ordinatio is indeed unclear. Recall that Vitruvius gave the Greek word taxis as corresponding to ordinatio: "quae graece taxis dicitur" (I, 2.1). Coulton (1989) shows that when the older writer used modulus in his discussion of Ionic capitals, it was meant to reflect a precise proportioning system that transcended units of measure; in fact, modulus "implies a quite specific type of design" (89). Kurent and Muhic (1977) also attach modulus to precise design features (210-11). But again, Vitruvius' definition of the word was not precise; while 1 1 8 I am not asserting that my interpretation is more correct than Germann's; I am simply illustrating the difficulties in interpreting the treatise. 72 he used it some forty-two times, it was not always employed with the same connotation. For this reason the term ordinatio has been maintained in my schema within the sub-tenet of Venustas. Germann (1991) presents three of the tenets ~ symmetria, eurythmia and decor — as belonging to one group of aesthetic principles (1991, 18). He replaces dispositio with aspectus — "un bel aspect" — which he feels is part of a second aesthetic principle: eurythmia (1991, 21). Again, the differences in opinion serve as a reminder of the ambiguity of the ensemble. To underscore a point I mentioned a few pages earlier, my main reason in presenting the various tenets and principles of Vitruvius is to show that the whole is on the one hand inextricably linked to an activity which is "organized" ~ the use of proportion and the correct use of the Orders, for example — while on the other hand it is an activity which is not "organized" and is instead mediated through design, thus becoming an act linked to reflection, imagination and invention. Acknowledging, as we have already seen, that based on the Liberal Arts the discipline of A r c h i t e c t u r a was rooted in both theory and practice, Geertman makes the observation that the discipline had become, for Vitruvius, an applied science. Further, this applied science can be seen as a social phenomenon, whereby its three branches, Aedificatio, Gnomonice and M a c h i n a t i o , gave the discipline its pertinence ~ its raison d 'etre, so to speak, in addition to ways through which controls could be maintained by the elite. Architecture as a social and political phenomenon is obvious, but here it is the three main principles that we have already discussed ~ F i r m i t a s , Utilitas and Venustas — that serve as the governing criteria by which the discipline is practiced. And the sub-tenets — the six that we have grouped under Venustas — serve as the means by which the criteria satisfy the requirements of building. The whole can in this sense be considered as a process. Geertman elaborates a great deal on this and his notion of A r c h i t e c t u r a ' s social and political role is important. That said, the point does not clarify the precise meaning of Vitruvius' principles. Perhaps the best way to view the differences and overlaps of interpretations of Vitruvius' terminology is as follows: Vitruvius' architectural tenets and principles were clearly taken from a disparate set of sources, including textual, oral and experiential. Fleury (1993) has shown that 73 Vitruvius combined written sources with his own experience.119 And these experiences were part of both his past and his present. Also, Vitruvius turned to both Greek and Latin works and words. It is quite possible — indeed probable ~ that these sources would not all have intended the same precise meaning although employing the same terms. This would have been especially true of technical terms, perhaps changing as they moved, for instance, with military contingents. Ambiguity is inherent when using disparate sources. Further, the reader ~ in this case Vitruvius ~ was not necessarily adept at the Greek language; he may not have been looking at the nuances between the different sources. And it is quite possible that when observing the monuments within his day-to-day, he may at times have been misinterpreting their features in relation to his written sources. The overlaps, redundancies and unclear instructions have thus remained for the reader and interpreter of today. We have discussed some of these: ordinatio and symmetria as well as dispositio and eurythmia overlap in meaning and were probably interchanged by Vitruvius (and by subsequent transcribers and translators). Other tenets, like distributio and decor coalesced in their relation to the Orders. In short, we may never know exactly what Vitruvius' terminology were intended to represent. Certainly a great deal has been written on the Orders.120 Beginning with Alberti, Renaissance writers whose treatises were obviously directly influenced by Vitruvius, emphasized the 1 1 9 In his La Mecanique de Vitruve (Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen, 1993) and "Traites de Mecanique et Textes sur les Machines" in Les Litteratures Techniques dans L Antiquite Romaine - Statut, Public et destination, Tradition — Colloque Vandazvres, 21-25 aout, 1995 (Geneve: Publies sous la direction de Francois Paschoud par Bernard Grange et Charlotte Buchwalder, 1996) and in his "Le De Architectura et les Traites de Mecanique Ancienne" in Pierre Gros (editor) Le Projet de Vitruve - Objet, Destinataires et Reception du De Architectura. Actes du colloque international organise par l'Ecole Francaise de Rome, l'institut de recherche sur 1'architecture antique du CNRS et la Scuola normale superiore de Pise, Rome, 26-27 mars, 1993 (Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1994) Philippe Fleury underscores that Vitruvius was adept at technical terminology related to machines (Book X) . He makes the case that this was precisely why Vitruvius left out crucial details; he would have been so familiar with particular words that to him their meaning was obvious and thus did not necessitate elaboration. The argument of Fleury's is convincing for Vitruvius' machines; whether it holds for the principles and tenets of Architectura, however, is not certain by any means. 1 2 0 See for example, Arthur Stratton The Orders of Architecture (London: Studio Editions, 1986), John Summerson The Classical Language of Architecture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), Alexander Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre Classical Architecture - The Poetics of Order (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990), and especially John Onians Bearers of Meaning - The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). For a discussion of the Orders (from Vitruvius to their influence on French architecture) see Marie-Raphael Paupe "Dorique et Toscan - Du Traite de Vitruve a la Decouverte de la Grece", in Archives d'architecture moderne, number 34, pp. 79-98, 1987. For two specific examples of analytical studies on the Orders, see Louis Frey "Aphrodisias de Carie: Les Chapiteaux du Temple. Etude Technique" in Pierre Gros (editor) Le Projet de Vitruve - Objet, 1A Doric, Ionic and Corinthian Orders, at times adding others like the Tuscan (IV, 7). 1 2 1 Certain is that these were not a Vitruvius or Roman invention; the Greeks had written about the Orders earlier. Vitruvius' Orders are for the most part associated with the column; he provided a brief introduction to the three in his Book I (2.5) and later within long narratives explaining their origin and rationalizing their continued use (Book IV); they were further discussed within the temple genera122 and their related columns in Book IV (1 to 3). They were not set out as an ensemble, however, and the formalized set of Orders only made its appearance later. As of the sixteenth century, the idea of the Orders was appropriated by writers to specifically codify architectonic arrangement. Thus, stylobate, plinth, base, shaft, capital, architrave, frieze and cornice, among others, become "organized" within the discipline. The genera are not only relevant to Vitruvius' tenets, they relate to his cultural lifeworld. Consider the following: Onians (1988) reminds readers of the De A r c h i t e c t u r a that "[o]ne implication of Vitruvius' remarks on proportions [and the Orders] is that columns which are shorter and thicker have a greater dignity than more slender ones. This implies that Doric must be the most dignified of the three Orders, and it is notable that in the initial passage on decor, the virtus which is attributed to Doric can also be seen as marking it out as morally superior to the others" (39). We know that the notion of virtus — moral quality — is a recurring theme in Cicero's later work (especially his De Officiis). By spelling out that the Doric Order is the one most associated with virtus, Vitruvius was attempting to appeal to the Destinataires et Reception du De Architectura. Actes du colloque international organise par l'Ecole Francaise de Rome, l'institut de recherche sur l'architecture antique du CNRS et la Scuola normale superiore de Pise (Rome, 26-27 mars, 1993), pp. 123-37 (Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1994) and Dinu Theodorescu "De Ionica Symmetria a Aphrodisias de Carie. Quelques Reflexions" also in Pierre Gros (editor) Le Projet de Vitruve - Objet, Destinataires et Reception du De Architectura. Actes do colloque international organise par l'Ecole Francaise de Rome, l'institut de recherche sur l'architecture antique du CNRS et la Scuola normale superiore de Pise (Rome, 26-27 mars, 1993), pp. 105-24 (Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1994. 1 2 1 See Alina A . Payne 77;e Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1999). For an example of the close links between the two treatises, see David A . Vi la Domini "The Dimunition of the Column in Alberti and Vitruvius: Correcting Optical Corrections" in Edinburg Architectural Research, volume 23, pp. 25-49, 1996. 122 Genera signifies "kind" or "type" as in "kinds" or "types" of temples. It can be read as "order", but without the connotations attached to the Orders of Alberti and subsequent theorists. 75 morality of the times.123 It is interesting that Vitruvius was trying to do this in spite of the fact that the architecture of the time did not favor the Doric Order; the discussion of the Orders is one of the most detailed in the treatise and it is a paradox that Vitruvius did not adhere to the tenets when he described specific building types in later Books. This is another signal that his written architecture was not one founded in a built reality, but one borne out of the imagination of an individual. Vitruvius had a main purpose in aiming to persuade his readership that change was required and that the architectural profession should be elevated to its "rightful" place among the Liberal Arts. He provided a synthesis ~ a loose system of principles and tenets that he adapted, mostly from Greek sources, in his attempt to organize his discipline. Key is that Vitruvius was not describing a unifying theory; he was prescribing an idealized system. And he was not presenting Roman architecture as it is; he was outlining it as he wished it to be. What he saw in his day-to-day life was not explicitly reflected in his writings; the writings reflected instead a set of desired principles; those are the tenets that I have just discussed. Vitruvius' "theory" was not a realized architecture; it was in fact an idealized — his idealized ~ A r c h i t e c t u r a . The latter was highly imaginative and, as we are about to see, formulated and presented with a variety of devices that includes imagery contained within the Roman collective memory. This is important because all subsequent readers of the treatise would fuse personal imaginations to that of Vitruvius'. D I A G R A M M A It is puzzling that while the De A r c h i t e c t u r a was devised to appeal to those interested in architecture and the building crafts, few visual elements were included to complement the textual depictions. This reality is not without its significance and the resulting interpretive 1 2 3 The virtus argument and its moralizing attachments wil l be elaborated upon in Chapter 4. 76 difficulties are compounded by the fact that the few sketches that did supplement the treatise are no longer extant. The generalized descriptions become compelling and immediate because the readers ~ then and now — can fill-in what is missing: Readers can automatically participate in imaginative constructions, combining personal familiarity and cumulated and learned histories with the generalized tenets of Vitruvius. This means that Vitruvius' treatise can be read within the widest in