Architectural Theory

ARCHITECTURAL THEORYVolume I An Anthology from Vitruvius to 1870

Edited by Harry Francis Mallgrave

Editorial material and organization 2006 by Harry Francis Mallgrave BLACKWELL PUBLISHING 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia The right of Harry Francis Mallgrave to be identified as the Author of the Editorial Material in this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. First published 2006 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1 2006

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Architectural theory, volume I: an anthology from Vitruvius to 1870 / edited by Harry Francis Mallgrave. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-0257-5 (hard cover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-4051-0257-8 (hard cover : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-0258-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-4051-0258-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. ArchitecturePhilosophy. I. Mallgrave, Harry Francis. NA2500.A7115 2005 720.1dc22 2004030886 A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library. Set in 10/13pt Dante by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall The publishers policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards. For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: www.blackwellpublishing.com

CONTENTS

Preface General Introduction

xxi xxiii

Part I:

Classicism and the Renaissance

133 5

A. The Classical and Medieval TraditionsIntroduction 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Vitruvius from On Architecture, Book 1 (c.25 Vitruvius from On Architecture, Book 2 (c.25 Vitruvius from On Architecture, Book 3 (c.25 Vitruvius from On Architecture, Book 4 (c.25 Old Testament from I Kings Old Testament from The Book of Ezekiel (c.586BC) BC)

9BC)

11BC)

12BC)

15 18 20AD)

New Testament from The Revelation of Jesus Christ to Saint John (c.95 Abbot Suger from The Book of Suger, Abbot of Saint-Denis (c.1144)

22

9.

William Durandus from The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments (1286)

24

B. Renaissance and Baroque IdealsIntroduction 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Antonio di Tuccio Manetti from The Life of Brunelleschi (1480s) Leon Battista Alberti from On the Art of Building, Prologue and Book I (144352) Leon Battista Alberti from On the Art of Building, Book 6 (144352) Leon Battista Alberti from On the Art of Building, Book 9 (144352) Il Filarete from Book 1 of his untitled treatise on architecture (14613) Il Filarete from Book 8 of his untitled treatise on architecture Sebastiano Serlio from Book 3, The Complete Works on Architecture and Perspective (1540) Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola from Preface to Rules of the Five Orders of Architecture (1562) Palladio from The Four Books of Architecture (1570) Juan Bautista Villalpando from Ezekiel Commentaries (1604) Georgio Vasari from Preface to Lives of the Most Eminent Italian Architects, Painters, and Sculptors (1550, 1568) Georgio Vasari from Life of Michelangelo in Lives of the Most Eminent Italian Architects, Painters, and Sculptors (1550, 1568) Peter Paul Rubens from Preface to Palaces of Genoa (1622)

2626 28 30 32 34 36 39 42 44 46 48 50

21.

53

22.

55

VI

C ON T EN T S

Part II: Classicism in France and BritainA. French Classicism: Ancients and ModernsIntroduction 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Rene Descartes from Rules for the Direction of the Mind (1628) Roland Freart de Chambray from Preface to A Parallel of the Ancient Architecture with the Modern (1650) Paul Freart de Chantelou from Diary of the Cavaliere Berninis Visit to France (1665) Francois Blondel from Inaugural Lecture to the Academy of Architecture (1671) Francois Blondel, from Architecture Course (1675) Rene Ouvrard from Harmonic Architecture (1677) Claude Perrault annotations to French translation of The Ten Books of Architecture of Vitruvius (1673) Francois Blondel from Architecture Course, Vol. II (1683) Claude Perrault from The Ten Books of Architecture of Vitruvius, second edition (1684) Claude Perrault from Ordonnance for the Five Kinds of Columns After the Method of the Ancients (1683) Jean-Francois Felibien from Preface to Historical Survey of the Life and Works of the Most Celebrated Architects (1687) Charles Perrault from Preface to Parallel of the Ancients and Moderns with Regard to the Arts and Sciences (1688) Charles Perrault ` from Design of a Portal for the Church of Sainte-Genevieve in Paris (1697) Michel de Fremin from Critical Memoirs on Architecture (1702)

575959 61 62 65 70 72 72 74

30. 31. 32.

76 77 78

33.

81

34.

82

35. 36.

83 84

CO N TE N TS

VII

37.

Jean-Louis de Cordemoy from New Treatise on All Architecture or the Art of Building (1706, 1714)

86

B. British Classicism and PalladianismIntroduction 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Henry Wotton from The Elements of Architecture (1624) Christopher Wren from Tract I on architecture (mid-1670s) Christopher Wren from Tracts II and IV on architecture (mid-1670s) Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury from Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (1711) Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury from A Letter Concerning Design (1712) Colin Campbell Introduction to Vitruvius Britannicus, Vol. I (1715) Nicholas Du Bois Translators Preface to The Architecture of A. Palladio (1715) William Kent Advertisement to The Designs of Inigo Jones (1727) James Gibbs Introduction to A Book of Architecture (1728) Robert Morris from An Essay in Defence of Ancient Architecture (1728) Alexander Pope from Of False Taste (1731) Isaac Ware Advertisement to Andrea Palladio: The Four Books of Architecture (1737) Robert Morris from An Essay upon Harmony (1739)

8888 89 91 93 94 98 101 103 106 107 109 112 114 115

VIII

C ON T EN T S

Part III: Neoclassicism and the EnlightenmentA. Early NeoclassicismIntroduction 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach from Preface to Outline for a Historical Architecture (1721) Voltaire from Philosophic Letters on the English (1733) Jacques-Gabriel Soufflot from Memoir on Architectural Proportions (1739) Jacques-Gabriel Soufflot from Memoir on Gothic Architecture (1741) Carlo Lodoli from Notes for a projected treatise on architecture (c.1740s) Baron de Montesquieu from Preface to The Spirit of the Laws (1748) Jean-Jacques Rousseau from Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (1750) Jean Le Rond DAlembert from Preliminary Discourse of the Editors (1751) Jacques-Francois Blondel from Architecture in Diderots Encyclopedia (1751) Charles-Etienne Briseux from Preface to Treatise on Essential Beauty in the Arts (1752) Marc-Antoine Laugier from Essay on Architecture (1753) Marc-Antoine Laugier from Essay on Architecture (1753) Isaac Ware from A Complete Body of Architecture, Chapter II (1756) Isaac Ware from A Complete Body of Architecture, Chapter IX (1756) William Chambers from A Treatise on Civil Architecture (1759) William Chambers from A Treatise on the Decorative Part of Civil Architecture (1791)CO NTE N TS

119121121 122 123 125 126 127 130 132 135 138 140 141 144 147 148 150 152

IX

B. Greece and the Classical IdealIntroduction 67. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett from Proposals for publishing an accurate description of the Antiquities of Athens (1748) Robert Wood and James Dawkins from The Ruins of Palmyra (1753) Johann Joachim Winckelmann from Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture (1755) Allan Ramsay from A Dialogue on Taste in The Investigator (1755) Julien-David Le Roy from The Ruins of the Most Beautiful Monuments of Greece (1758) Julien-David Le Roy from The Ruins of the Most Beautiful Monuments of Greece (1758) James Stuart and Nicholas Revett from Preface to The Antiquities of Athens (1762) Johann Joachim Winckelmann from History of the Art of Antiquity (1764) Johann Joachim Winckelmann from History of the Art of Antiquity (1764) Johann Joachim Winckelmann from History of the Art of Antiquity (1764) Giovanni Battista Piranesi from Observations on the Letter of Monsieur Mariette (1765) Giovanni Battista Piranesi from Opinions on Architecture (1765) Giovanni Battista Piranesi from An Apologetical Essay in Defence of the Egyptian and Tuscan Architecture (1769)

154154 155

68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

158 159 163 165 168 169 172 174 176 178 185 188

C. Character and ExpressionIntroduction 80. Germain Boffrand from Book of Architecture (1745)

190190 191

X

C ON T EN T S

81. 82.

Etienne Bonnot de Condillac from Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge (1746) Julien-David Le Roy from History of the Arrangement and Different Forms that the Christians Have Given to Their Churches (1764) Jacques-Francois Blondel from Course of Architecture (1771) ` Nicolas Le Camus de Mezieres from The Genius of Architecture (1780) ` Nicolas Le Camus de Mezieres from The Genius of Architecture (1780) Jean-Louis Viel de Saint-Maux from Letters on the Architecture of the Ancients and the Moderns (1787) ` A. C. Quatremere de Quincy from Methodical Encyclopedia (1788) Etienne-Louis Boullee from Architecture, Essay on Art (c.1794) Etienne-Louis Boullee from Architecture, Essay on Art (c.1794) Claude Nicolas Ledoux from Architecture Considered in Relation to Art, Morals, and Legislation (1804) John Soane from Royal Academy Lectures on Architecture (V and XI; 181215)

193 195

83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

197 199 201 204 206 210 213 216 218

Part IV: Theories of the Picturesque and the SublimeA. Sources of the PicturesqueIntroduction 92. 93. John Locke from An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) William Temple from Upon the Gardens of Epicurus; or, of Gardening in the Year 1685 (1692) John Vanbrugh from Letter to the Duchess of Marlborough (1709) Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury from The Moralists (1709)CO NTE N TS

221223223 224 229

94. 95.

230 232

XI

96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

Joseph Addison from The Spectator (1712) Robert Castell from The Villas of the Ancients Illustrated (1728) Batty Langley from New Principles of Gardening (1728) Robert Morris from Lectures on Architecture (1736) William Chambers from Designs of Chinese Buildings (1757)

234 239 241 243 245

B. Toward a Relativist AestheticsIntroduction 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. John Locke from An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, fourth edition (1700) Joseph Addison from The Spectator (1712) Jean Baptiste du Bos from Critical Reflections on Poetry, Painting, and Music (1719) Francis Hutcheson from An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1725) George Berkeley from the Third Dialogue of Alciphron (1732) David Hume from A Treatise of Human Nature (173940) Allan Ramsey from A Dialogue on Taste in The Investigator (1755) Alexander Gerard from An Essay on Taste (1756) David Hume from Of the Standard of Taste (1757) Edmund Burke from A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) Edmund Burke from A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757)C ON T EN T S

249249 250 253 256 258 261 266 267 269 271 273

111.

277

XII

112. 113.

Lord Kames from Elements of Criticism (1762) Robert and James Adam from Preface to The Works in Architecture of Robert and James Adam (17738)

284 286

C. Consolidation of Picturesque TheoryIntroduction 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. Thomas Whately from Observations on Modern Gardening (1770) Horace Walpole from The History of the Modern Taste in Gardening (1771) William Chambers from A Dissertation on Oriental Gardening (1772) William Gilpin from Observations on the River Wye (1782) Joshua Reynolds from Discourses on Art (1786) John Soane from Plans, Elevations, and Sections of Buildings (1788) Uvedale Price from Essays on the Picturesque (1794) Richard Payne Knight from Postscript to The Landscape, second edition (1795) Humphry Repton from Sketches and Hints on Landscape Gardening (1795) Uvedale Price from An Essay on Architecture and Buildings as connected with Scenery (1798) Richard Payne Knight from An Analytical Inquiry into the Principles of Taste (1805) John Soane from Royal Academy Lectures on Architecture, V, VIII, and XI (181215)

290290 291 295 298 300 303 305 307 312 316 319

124. 125.

322 325

C ON T EN T S

XIII

Part V: The Rise of Historicism in the Nineteenth CenturyA. Challenges to Classicism in France, 180234Introduction 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand from Precis of the Lectures on Architecture (1802) ` A. C. Quatremere de Quincy from On Egyptian Architecture (1803) Christian Ludwig Stieglitz from Archaeology of the Architecture of the Greeks and Romans (1801) ` A. C. Quatremere de Quincy from The Olympian Jupiter (1814) Charles Robert Cockerell from On the Aegina Marbles (1819) William Kinnard annotations to Stuart and Revetts The Antiquities of Athens, second edition (1825) Otto Magnus von Stackelberg from The Temple of Apollo at Bassae in Arcadia (1826) Jacques Ignace Hittorff from Polychrome Architecture Among the Greeks (1830) Gottfried Semper from Preliminary Remarks on Polychrome Architecture and Sculpture in Antiquity (1834) Leon Vaudoyer excerpts from three letters of 1829, 1830, and 1831 Emile Barrault from To Artists (1830) Victor Hugo from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1832) Gottfried Semper from Preliminary Remarks on Polychrome Architecture and Sculpture in Antiquity (1834) Leonce Reynaud from Architecture in the New Encyclopedia (1834)

331333333 334 338 340 341 343 344

132. 133. 134.

345 347 348

135. 136. 137. 138.

351 353 356 357

139.

359

XIV

CO N TE N TS

B. The Gothic Revival in Britain, Germany, and FranceIntroduction 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. Horace Walpole from Letter to H. Zouch (1759) Horace Walpole from A Description of the Villa of Horace Walpole at Strawberry Hill (1774) Johann Wolfgang von Goethe from On German Architecture (1772) Francois Rene Chateaubriand from The Genius of Christianity (1802) Friedrich von Schlegel from Notes on a Trip through the Netherlands (1806) Joseph Gorres from The Cathedral in Cologne (1814) Georg Moller from Monuments of German Architecture (181521) Thomas Rickman from An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of English Architecture (1817) William Whewell from Architectural Notes on German Churches (1830) Robert Willis from Remarks on the Architecture of the Middle Ages (1835) A. W. N. Pugin from Contrasts (1836) A. W. N. Pugin from The True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture (1841) John Mason Neale and Benjamin Webb from The Ecclesiologist (1841) Victor Hugo from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1832) Leonce Reynaud from Architecture in the New Encyclopedia (1834) ` Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc from On the Construction of Religious Buildings in France (1844)

362362 363 364 366 368 370 373 375 376 378 381 383 385 386 388 390 391

C ON T E N T S

XV

C. The German Style DebateIntroduction 156. 157. 158. Immanuel Kant from Critique of Judgment (1790) August Schlegel from Lectures on Literature and the Fine Arts (18012) Friedrich Gilly from Some Thoughts on the Necessity of Endeavoring to Unify the Various Departments of Architecture . . . (1799) Karl Friedrich Schinkel Literary fragments (c.1805) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel from The Philosophy of Fine Art (1820s) Friedrich von Gartner from Letter to Johann Martin von Wagner (1828) Heinrich Hubsch from In What Style Should We Build? (1828) Rudolf Wiegmann from Remarks on the Book: In What Style Should We Build? (1829) Karl Friedrich Schinkel from Notes for a textbook on architecture (c.1830) Karl Friedrich Schinkel from Notes for a textbook on architecture (c.1835) Rudolf Wiegmann from Thoughts on the Development of a National Architectural Style for the Present (1841) Johann Heinrich Wolff from Remarks on the Architectural Questions Broached by Professor Stier. . . (1845) Eduard Metzger from Contribution to the Contemporary Question: In What Style Should One Build! (1845) Carl Botticher from The Principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building (1846)

395395 396 398 399

159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166.

401 403 406 407 410 412 414 415

167.

417

168.

419

169.

421

XVI

CO N TE N TS

D. The Rise of American TheoryIntroduction 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. Thomas Jefferson Letters (1787, 1791, 1805, 1810) Benjamin Latrobe from Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1807) George Tucker from On Architecture (1814) William Strickland from Introductory lecture on architecture (1824) Thomas U. Walter from Of Modern Architecture (1841) Arthur Delavan Gilman from Architecture in the United States (1844) Thomas Alexander Tefft from The Cultivation of True Taste (1851) Ralph Waldo Emerson from Self-Reliance (1841) Ralph Waldo Emerson from Thoughts on Art (1841) Horatio Greenough from Letter to Washington Allston (1831) Horatio Greenough from American Architecture (1843) Horatio Greenough from Structure and Organization (1852) Henry David Thoreau from his journal ( January 11, 1852) Andrew Jackson Downing from A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening (1841) Andrew Jackson Downing from Cottage Residences (1842) Andrew Jackson Downing from Hints to Persons about Building in the Country (1847)

425425 426 432 435 437 439 440 443 444 446 449 452 454 456 457 460 462

C ON T EN T S

XVII

186. 187. 188.

Andrew Jackson Downing from The Architecture of Country Houses (1850) Calvert Vaux from Villas and Cottages (1857) James Jackson Jarves from The Art-Idea (1864)

464 465 468

Part VI: Historicism in the Industrial AgeA. The Battle of the Styles in BritainIntroduction 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. Thomas Hope from Observations on the Plans and Elevations Designed by James Wyatt (1804) Thomas Hope from An Historical Essay on Architecture (1835) Thomas Leverton Donaldson from Preliminary Discourse before the University College of London (1842) John Ruskin from The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849) James Fergusson, A. W. N. Pugin, Edward Lacy Garbett, and Robert Kerr from The Builder (1850) Edward Lacy Garbett from Rudimentary Treatise on the Principles of Design in Architecture (1850) John Ruskin from The Nature of Gothic (18513) Matthew Digby Wyatt from The Industrial Arts of the Nineteenth Century (1851) Richard Redgrave from Supplementary Report on Design (1852) Owen Jones from The Grammar of Ornament (1856) John Ruskin from The Deteriorative Power of Conventional Art over Nations (1859) Robert Kerr The Battle of the Styles, from The Builder (1860) James Fergusson from History of the Modern Styles of Architecture (1862)CO N T EN T S

471473473 474 476 478 479 482 488 490 493 495 497 499 500 502

XVIII

202.

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

503

B. Rationalism, Eclecticism, and Realism in FranceIntroduction 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. Albert Lenoir and Leon Vaudoyer from Studies of Architecture in France (1844) ` Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc from On the Construction of Religious Building in France (1845) Cesar Daly from On Liberty in Art (1847) Leonce Reynaud from Treatise on Architecture (1850) ` Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc from Architecture in Reasoned Dictionary (1854) Gustave Courbet from Statement on Realism (1855) Charles Baudelaire from The Painter of Modern Life (1859) ` Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc from Lectures on Architecture, Lecture VI (1859) Cesar Daly from Revue generale, Vol. 21 (1863) Cesar Daly from Revue generale, Vol. 23 (1866) Bourgeois de Lagny from Salon of 1866 ` Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc from Style in Reasoned Dictionary (1866) ` Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc from Lectures on Architecture, Lecture XII (1866) Emile Zola from The Covered Market of Paris (1872)

505505 506 508 510 512 513 515 516 518 521 522 524 525 526 527

C ON T EN T S

XIX

C. Tectonics and Style in GermanyIntroduction 217. 218. 219. Karl von Schnaase from Dutch Letters (1834) Karl Botticher from Greek Tectonics (1843) Eduard van der Null from Suggestions on the Skillful Relation of Ornament to Untreated Form (1845) Heinrich Leibnitz from The Structural Element in Architecture (1849) Gottfried Semper from The Four Elements of Architecture (1851) Gottfried Semper from Science, Industry, and Art (1852) Jacob Burckhardt from The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860) Jacob Burckhardt from The History of the Italian Renaissance (1867) Gottfried Semper from Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts (1860) Gottfried Semper from Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts (1860) Rudolf Hermann Lotze from History of German Aesthetics (1868) Gottfried Semper from On Architectural Style (1869) Richard Lucae from On the Meaning and Power of Space in Architecture (1869)

529529 530 531 533

220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229.

534 536 540 545 546 547 551 555 556 558 561 568 583

Additional Recommended Readings Acknowledgments Index

XX

CO N TE N TS

PREFACE

T

he idea of sketching an architectural cross-section through the lines of Western cultural development is a compelling one, if only because the profile of the ideological continuum is on occasions tenuous at best. Theory possesses no tangible form. It exists in large and heavy tomes as well as in short and spirited manifestoes. It is found in the angle of a molding, the silhouette of a roofline, as well as in the impassioned assertions of the confident practitioner. Theory is at times imbued with revolutionary fervor, and it admittedly emanates or takes its lead from larger cultural sensibilities. Architectural theory, for all its occasional abstraction, is nothing less than the history of our ideas regarding our constructed physical surroundings. If we accept this broad definition of theory, we must also accept a wide-ranging approach to the problem of an anthology, one that responds from many sides. Theory needs its context, just as any history of ideas needs its intellectual framework, and the expense and materiality of architecture perhaps make it even more a closely guarded pawn of political ambition, wars, and economic downturns. But ideas also move with a certain volition and tempo of their own, fascinating in their own right. The famous seventeenth-century quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns, for instance, was not only a learned academic dispute concerning past and present accomplishments, but one whose momentous implications for the sciences and arts required more than a century to unfold. Similarly, the seemingly innocent notion of the picturesque in late eighteenth-century Britain demanded the same 100 years of aesthetic cultivation to achieve its subtle refinement. And Ralph Waldo Emersons notion of self-reliance not only crystallized the pioneering spirit of nineteenth-century America but it also strongly resonated within architectural circles for several generations and arguably still reverberates in American architecture today. Each idea thus possesses its specific circumstances and points of origin, and to this end we have framed each section of our anthology with a historical overview and provided each entry with an introduction. To further the readers understanding, we have also suggested a few additional readings in a section at the end of the book. The decision to include a greater (rather than fewer) number of texts and documents in this anthology as well requires an abbreviated format for each selection and a number of necessary stylistic conventions. The use of simple ellipses, . . . , denotes the omission of

words or phrases within a sentence. Square brackets, [ . . . ], indicate the omission of a sentence, sentences, or several short paragraphs, and they can be employed at the beginning or end of a text as well. Asterisks, * * * , refer to the lengthier omission of a paragraph or more, although in some (noted) cases they also appear in the original text. We have left all English texts in their original punctuation, spelling, and style. Books are italicized and the use of quotation marks indicate shorter writings. The increasing body of texts within the chronological structure reflects not only the growing number of historical documents but also the growing complexity or nuances of the theoretical debate. The aim of this anthology has been to balance the presentation of texts with the always growing richness of ideas, and to provide an introduction to, and an overview of, the subject matter to be reviewed. No anthology is intended to supplant the teaching of architectural theory or to constitute a course in itself; this anthology is most definitely not presented to discourage the reader from turning to the multitude of sources themselves. Anthologies are by nature restrictive, cursory, subjective, even arbitrary in their selection, and always in need of revision. At their best, anthologies provide a framework for ideas and encourage the reader to study the material and its historical context with greater seriousness and depth.

XXII

P REF AC E

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

rchitectural theory has its unique distinctions. It comprises a broad body of ideas and debates, which over many centuries has not only come to form a substantial literary edifice but also one ever more complex and refined in its details and issues. With the articulate engagement of one generation responding to the ideas of another, architectural theory is more often than not contentious and instructive. It is not born in isolation. It reflects the aspirations of emperors and the whims of kings, and again the insights of lay critics and the pride of competing professionals. As an intellectual enterprise, architectural theory draws upon the larger currents of its time political, social, scientific, philosophical, and cultural and in this way it often cannot be understood outside of these insinuating forces. As a constructional art, architecture also speaks to the physical world or more generally to human aspirations and values. The study of these ideas is, in its own way, a lucid compendium of human history. The present volume, which is the first of two, begins with theory in ancient and classical times and concludes in 1870. The different eras within this time span, of necessity, are uneven in their presentation. The earliest records we have of architectural thinking in the West are the lay and religious Hebraic traditions recorded in the Old Testament, which became one of the two cornerstones of the later Christian worldview. The other cornerstone classicism is generally taken as synonymous with the Greco-Roman tradition. Although we know aspects of this antique culture extremely well, our knowledge of its architectural dimension is limited to its few surviving monuments and to the treatise of Vitruvius, the lone literary work to come down to us from Roman antiquity. But Vitruvius was operating within a fertile line of theoretical development parallel to and more prolific (in terms of writings devoted to architecture) than that of the Middle East, a tradition of theory that stretches back at least five centuries before him. All of these texts (perhaps hundreds) have unfortunately been lost. Our textual holdings from Late Roman and medieval times when the Christian and classical traditions merge into the body of beliefs that we define as Western culture is scarcely much larger. Nevertheless, its glorious architectural monuments testify to a refined body of theoretical knowledge. It is only with the Renaissance that this dearth of textual evidence begins to be remedied. The production of inexpensive paper, the invention of the

A

printing press, the use of vernacular languages, and the rise of literacy rates all conspire to make the transmission of ideas more efficient and therefore more abundant. Renaissance writers, at the same time, prided themselves in recovering what they believed to be the lost ideals of classicism. Western theory now plots a relatively straight course (although with interesting regional variations) down to the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, when secular forces-at-large now openly clash with the religious traditions and political structures inherited from the past. The result is that fascinating shattering of theory along nationalist and stylistic lines that we generally subsume under the ambiguous concept of historicism. In contrast to the often pejorative use of this term with respect to architectural practice, we shall employ the idea of historicism in a positive sense as an attempt to resolve the apparent discrepancy between greater historical understanding (increasingly viewed in absolute and teleological terms) and an emerging modern industrial state (bourgeois life) that tended toward relativism in both historical and cultural terms. The nineteenth century became increasingly time rich in its theoretical possibilities. And what emerges from it, of course, is that worldview of more modest persuasion which we too narrowly refer to as modernism. The concluding line of 1870 may seem arbitrary but it is chosen for several reasons. First the year, or more correctly the years surrounding it, define a time of significant theoretical change. Theory in its four centuries since the Renaissance had been dominated largely by Italian and French writers and was generally academic in its bearing. And even though this system and its body of beliefs was tottering well before 1870, academic principles fall into a sharp decline in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, even though classicism as a formal attitude and vocabulary survive. The year, with the defining moment of the FrancoPrussian War, also has symbolic connotations for both Europe and North America. The French defeat not only ushered in for that country (and its proud culture) both economic and military decline, but it also signaled the beginning of cultural parity in the West. Britain, with its proud intellectual traditions, was now confidently pursuing its path of design reforms through the Arts and Crafts Movement. The United States, whose first independent theoretical stirrings appear only in the previous generation, was embarking during its postbellum years on a period of unparalleled economic and cultural expansion. And the soon to be unified Germany, with its unrivaled system of higher education, had become by 1870 perhaps the dominant player in architectural theory at least as theory developed in the twentieth century. Cultural identities within the Nordic countries and central Europe, in Austria, Switzerland, Spain, and Italy, were also manifesting themselves around this time. It was thus a period of momentous transformation. Still another reason for choosing the year 1870 to conclude this volume is to respond to earlier intellectual histories that tended to isolate the twentieth century. This study does not represents a modernist view of the world, and indeed it rejects the historiographic notion of a divide proffered by so many twentieth-century historians. Intellectual production is rather a continuous and always evolving process, for architecture is sometimes a closed process frequently circling upon relatively few alternative strategies or ideas. Modernism, if it can be defined at all, is a phenomenon that forms itself over centuries, and whether we trace its roots to the Enlightenment, to the seventeenth century, or to the Renaissance is largely a matter of historical preference. The fact that architectural theory is a closed process should also not be interpreted to mean that it can be understood in and of itself. Indeed, thisXXIV GE N ERA L I NT R O D UC T IO N

particular field of ideas can be grasped in its outlines only by taking into account the context of the philosophical, political, and cultural world in which it arises. It is therefore hoped that the broad approach of this volume will bring both an overview and something of substance to architectural curricula and add substance to the teaching of history and theory.

G E N E R A L I N T R O D U C TI O N

XXV

PART I

C L A S S I C I S M AN D T H E RENAISSANCE

A.

T H E CL A S S I C A L A N D M E D I E V A L TRADITIONSIntroduction

T

he word classical in English, like its Latin counterpart classicus, carries with it rich connotations. The Latin word derives from the verb calare, to call, but this meaning in the Late Roman Republic gave way to referring to those of the first class, as opposed to those of the lower classes. Similar meanings accompanied it until its early English usage in the sixteenth century, when the word more generally came to refer to someone or something of the highest rank or importance, a standard or model to imitate. Around the same time, classical also came to be associated with any of the Greek and Roman writers of antiquity who were held up as worthy models for emulation. When we speak of the classical tradition in architecture, we refer to the intellectual and artistic productions of Greek and Roman antiquity, and to the rediscovery of this legacy in medieval times, the Renaissance, and in the ensuing centuries.I N T R OD U C T I ON T O PA R T I A 3

Classicism in architecture, by happenstance, begins with Vitruvius or Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (c.85c.20 BC) as he is sometimes called, although only the middle name is certain. Classicism is synonymous with Vitruvius because, of the dozens of treatises written on architecture in classical times, his is the one to have survived into modern times. Only a few details of the life of this architect, engineer, and scholar are known with certainty. He was born probably in the second decade of the first century BC, and his breadth of knowledge suggests a good liberal education, training with architects, and travel to various parts of Asia. The chapters of his treatise on the design of houses suggest some familiarity with this subject, but sometime around mid-century he was hired into the service of Julius Caesar as a military engineer. Over the next decade he traveled with the conqueror during his campaigns into Gaul and probably Africa, where Vitruvius prepared fortifications and engines of war. After the Ides of March in 44 BC the architect was without a patron, but within a few years he found employment as an engineer under Caesars adopted son Octavian. His decision proved a wise one, because during the years 4231 BC the forces of Octavian and those of Marc Anthony were squaring off for the control of Rome a conflict that ended with the defeat of Anthony and Cleopatra at Actium in 31 BC. Four years later Octavian assumed the honorific title of Augustus Caesar and the Roman Empire was born. The now aged Vitruvius was at this point working hard to complete the treatise on which he had probably worked for many years. He dedicated it to the new Emperor, and shortly thereafter built the one building that he included in his 10 scrolls, the basilica at Fano. His description of this building, of which nothing has survived, would in itself also later shape the idea of classicism. Vitrvuius must have died shortly after completing his treatise in the mid-20s BC. De architectura, or the text generally referred to as the Ten Books of Architecture, embraces many more concerns than what today is considered to fall within the realm of architecture. The last three books deal with water (aqueducts, wells), time-pieces (zodiacs, planets, astrology, sundials), and mechanics (pulleys, screws, catapults, battering rams). The first seven books concern architecture, in both its material, constructional, and theoretical aspects. Perhaps the heart of his treatise is found in Books 3 and 4, in which he presents the proportional rules and description of three types of temples, first and foremost their columns, which later will be construed as orders. Books 5 and 6 concern other building types, such as basilicas, treasuries, theaters, gymnasia, and dwellings. In Book 1 he presents the six principles of architecture, which are order, arrangement, eurythmy, symmetry, propriety, and economy. A few pages later he reduces these principles to the more famous Vitruvian triad following a seventeenth-century translation of commodity, firmness, and delight. Notwithstanding his rules for proportion and symmetry, Vitruvius was not especially dogmatic in his strictures and he allowed the architect considerable latitude in adjusting proportions where the eye deems it necessary. This freedom would be disallowed in later years as proportional rules often came to be seen as sacrosanct canons. The history of classicism in relation to De architectura is an interesting one. Limiting the historical importance of these scrolls is the fact that Vitruvius composed them prior to the reign of Augustus, of whom Suetonius once noted that he found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble. Thus many of the major monuments whose ruins still grace the city today were not yet built or even contemplated. And when they later came to be constructed they were not designed to the proportional and design specifications outlined by Vitruvius. Hence his treatise has only a small connection with Roman imperial architecture. Speaking in favor of the treatise of Vitruvius, however, is its relation with the classical past. He was an architect versed not only in such Greek philosophers as Pythagoras, Archimedes, Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle, but also in the work of such contemporaries as Varro and Cicero. Moreover, he makes references to dozens of passages and previous treatises on architecture, the vast majority of which were Greek. Vitruviuss own taste in architecture tended toward the late-Hellenic style, especially the Ionian work of Hermogenes (late third or early second century) and Hermodorus of Salamis (mid-second century). In this way, Vitruvius actually reveals more of the theoretical body of Greek architecture than of the contemporary Roman situation. The classicism of Vitruvius, however, defines only one foundation stone of the antique tradition upon which Western intellectual development is based; the other derives from the rise and eventual dominance of Christianity in the West. With its roots in Judaism, Christian culture is at least as old as its parallel Hellenistic and Roman counterparts, with which it would become conjoined after Constantines defeat of Maxentius in AD 312. From his new4 IN T R O D U C T I O N T O P A R T I A

throne in Constantinople (founded 32430), Constantine granted religious freedom to all, but himself converted to Christianity, which now aligned its fortunes (at this point a religion still with a small number of followers) with that of the new Empire. The fates of both the eastern and western Roman empires, however, were not peaceful ones. The Visigoth Alaric captured Rome in 410 (the western empire had moved its capital to Ravenna in 404), and thus began the centuries of the so-called barbarian invasions (actually tribal migrations) that plagued the political stability of Europe well beyond the crowning of Charlemagne as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in the year 800. Seven-hundred Viking longships camped on the Champ de Mars in 885 and laid siege to Paris for 11 months. As the Byzantine empire fell into serious decline in the eleventh century, both Turks and Mongols pressed into Europe from the east, while only the Pyrenees protected the Franks from Muslim incursions moving up through Spain. Pope Gregory VII declared the supreme legislative and judicial power of the Papacy in 1075, and 40 years later the first of the Crusades was raised to wrest Jerusalem from Islamic control. By the time of the fourth Crusade (11981216), the Latin Church had achieved its apogee as a political and military power and essentially unified Europe with its language, law, and theology. Moreover, contacts with Arab scholars had reintroduced the fruits of the Greco-Roman classical tradition into the West. Thus the Gothic period appeared at the moment when a classical cultural renaissance was taking place in Europe; scholars renewed historical interest and the production of books increased dramatically. Throughout these years the Churchs relationship with classicism was nevertheless ambiguous, to say the least. On the one hand classicism bore the marks of paganism, and therefore many of its secular practices (such as art) were often viewed with suspicion. On the other hand there was a genuine interest in recapturing, as it were, the legacy of the past. For instance Vitruvius, whose impact on Roman architecture was very slight, gains considerably in stature in the Epistles of Sidonius Apollinarius in the fifth century AD. The oldest existent manuscript of his treatise dates from the ninth century, and from that time forward it was copied and distributed by the monastic route. The Archbishop of Rouen bequeathed a copy of the treatise to his cathedral in 1183 and Vincent of Beauvais quoted Vitruvius on proportions affirming that De architectura was read during Gothic times. Nevertheless, the book of Vitruvius until the Renaissance was by no means an influential text, and the major monuments of Romanesque and Gothic times (even with their reminiscences of classical motifs) followed local traditions and the technical knowledge of vaulting that had been evolving since Late Roman times. Symbolism, a prominent feature of Gothic architecture in particular, remained wedded to theological and pedagogical interests. The great monuments of the Middle Ages were extensions of the Churchs teachings.

1

VITRUVIUS from On Architecture, Book 1 (c.25

BC)

V

itruvius compiled his 10 books (actually scrolls) from a variety of sources, almost entirely Greek. We might therefore see him like his contemporary Cicero as a champion of a Greek revival that was prominent in the last years of the Roman Republic. This was a movement among the Roman intelligentsia, in all of the liberal arts, to assimilate and transpose concepts or terminology from Greek theory. The problem inherent in such a process of grafting, as Vitruviuss many interpreters have often pointed out, is that of achieving conceptual clarity and consistency of terms.

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (c.9c.20 BC), from Book 1 of De architectura [On architecture] (c.25 BC), trans. Morris Hicky Morgan, in Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. New York: Dover, 1960 (orig. 1914), pp. 5, 1317.

V I T R U V I U S , ON A RC H I T E C TU R E, B O OK 1

5

The following passages from the first and second chapters of Book 1 illustrate this problem. After an initial discussion of the areas of education that the aspiring architect should master, Vitruvius identifies the six principles composing the art and science of architecture. But only the last two principles propriety and economy are relatively straightforward in their meaning. Order (Greek taxis) is the ordering of parts alone and as a whole, and thus implies the concepts of a module and symmetry. Arrangement (Greek diathesis), which has also been rendered in English as design, is similar to order but also adds the idea of aptness of placement. It is also familiar to architects through his discussion of the floor plan, elevation, and perspective. Eurythmy (Latin eurythmia is a transliteration of Greek eurythmos) and symmetry (Greek symmetros; no Latin equivalent) are more elusive. Symmetry, which for Vitruvius is a key concept, is a proper harmony of the parts to each other and to the whole, defining a kind of beauty. Eurythmy, which has also been translated as proportion, is not dissimilar to order and arrangement, and it suggests the use of numerical ratios. It is also the visible coherence of form. In the next section, after his very broad definition of architecture, Vitruvius reduces architecture to the principles of durability (Latin firmitas), convenience (Latin utilitas), and beauty (Latin venustas). These are the three terms that Henry Wotten translated in 1624 (in a different order) as commodity, firmness, and delight. The idea of constructing a work in a durable and convenient way is self-evident, and what he means by beauty is made manifest by his invocation of the term symmetry.

The Education of the Architect1. The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgement that all work done by the other arts is put to test. This knowledge is the child of practice and theory. Practice is the continuous and regular exercise of employment where manual work is done with any necessary material according to the design of a drawing. Theory, on the other hand, is the ability to demonstrate and explain the productions of dexterity on the principles of proportion. 2. It follows, therefore, that architects who have aimed at acquiring manual skill without scholarship have never been able to reach a position of authority to correspond to their pains, while those who relied only upon theories and scholarship were obviously hunting the shadow, not the substance. But those who have a thorough knowledge of both, like men armed at all points, have the sooner attained their object and carried authority with them. [...]

The Fundamental Principles of Architecture1. Architecture depends on Order (in Greek ), Arrangement (in Greek ), Eurythmy, Symmetry, Propriety, and Economy (in Greek N). 2. Order gives due measure to the members of a work considered separately, and symmetrical agreement to the proportions of the whole. It is an adjustment according to quantity (in Greek ). By this I mean the selection of modules from the members of the work itself and, starting from these individual parts of members, constructing the whole

6

V IT R UV I U S, ON AR CHI T ECT U R E , B OO K 1

work to correspond. Arrangement includes the putting of things in their proper places and the elegance of effect which is due to adjustments appropriate to the character of the work. Its forms of expression (in Greek N) are these: groundplan, elevation, and perspective. A groundplan is made by the proper successive use of compasses and rule, through which we get outlines for the plane surfaces of buildings. An elevation is a picture of the front of a building, set upright and properly drawn in the proportions of the contemplated work. Perspective is the method of sketching a front with the sides withdrawing into the background, the lines all meeting in the centre of a circle. All three come of reflexion and invention. Reflexion is careful and laborious thought, and watchful attention directed to the agreeable effect of ones plan. Invention, on the other hand, is the solving of intricate problems and the discovery of new principles by means of brilliancy and versatility. These are the departments belonging under Arrangement. 3. Eurythmy is beauty and fitness in the adjustments of the members. This is found when the members of a work are of a height suited to their breadth, of a breadth suited to their length, and, in a word, when they all correspond symmetrically. 4. Symmetry is a proper agreement between the members of the work itself, and relation between the different parts and the whole general scheme, in accordance with a certain part selected as standard. Thus in the human body there is a kind of symmetrical harmony between forearm, foot, palm, finger, and other small parts; and so it is with perfect buildings. In the case of temples, symmetry may be calculated from the thickness of a column, from a triglyph, or even from a module; in the ballista, from the hole or from what the Greeks call the ; in a ship, from the space between the tholepins (); and in other things, from various members. 5. Propriety is that perfection of style which comes when a work is authoritatively constructed on approved principles. It arises from prescription (Greek H), from usage, or from nature. From prescription, in the case of hypaethral edifices, open to the sky, in honour of Jupiter Lightning, the Heaven, the Sun, or the Moon: for these are gods whose semblances and manifestations we behold before our very eyes in the sky when it is cloudless and bright. The temples of Minerva, Mars, and Hercules, will be Doric, since the virile strength of these gods makes daintiness entirely inappropriate to their houses. In temples to Venus, Flora, Proserpine, Spring-Water, and the Nymphs, the Corinthian order will be found to have peculiar significance, because these are delicate divinities and so its rather slender outlines, its flowers, leaves, and ornamental volutes will lend propriety where it is due. The construction of temples of the Ionic order to Juno, Diana, Father Bacchus, and the other gods of that kind, will be in keeping with the middle position which they hold; for the building of such will be an appropriate combination of the severity of the Doric and the delicacy of the Corinthian. 6. Propriety arises from usage when buildings having magnificent interiors are provided with elegant entrance-courts to correspond; for there will be no propriety in the spectacle of an elegant interior approached by a low, mean entrance. Or, if dentils be carved in the cornice of the Doric entablature or triglyphs represented in the Ionic entablature over the cushion-shaped capitals of the columns, the effect will be spoilt by the transfer of the peculiarities of the one order of building to the other, the usage in each class having been fixed long ago.

V I T R U V I U S , ON A RC H I T E C TU R E, B O OK 1

7

7. Finally, propriety will be due to natural causes if, for example, in the case of all sacred precincts we select very healthy neighbourhoods with suitable springs of water in the places where the fanes are to be built, particularly in the case of those to Aesculapius and to Health, gods by whose healing powers great numbers of the sick are apparently cured. For when their diseased bodies are transferred from an unhealthy to a healthy spot, and treated with waters from health-giving springs, they will the more speedily grow well. The result will be that the divinity will stand in higher esteem and find his dignity increased, all owing to the nature of his site. There will also be natural propriety in using an eastern light for bedrooms and libraries, a western light in winter for baths and winter apartments, and a northern light for picture galleries and other places in which a steady light is needed; for that quarter of the sky grows neither light nor dark with the course of the sun, but remains steady and unshifting all day long. 8. Economy denotes the proper management of materials and of site, as well as a thrifty balancing of cost and common sense in the construction of works. This will be observed if, in the first place, the architect does not demand things which cannot be found or made ready without great expense. For example: it is not everywhere that there is plenty of pitsand, rubble, fir, clear fir, and marble, since they are produced in different places and to assemble them is difficult and costly. Where there is no pitsand, we must use the kinds washed up by rivers or by the sea; the lack of fir and clear fir may be evaded by using cypress, poplar, elm, or pine; and other problems we must solve in similar ways. 9. A second stage in Economy is reached when we have to plan the different kinds of dwellings suitable for ordinary householders, for great wealth, or for the high position of the statesman. A house in town obviously calls for one form of construction; that into which stream the products of country estates requires another; this will not be the same in the case of money-lenders and still different for the opulent and luxurious; for the powers under whose deliberations the commonwealth is guided dwellings are to be provided according to their special needs: and, in a word, the proper form of economy must be observed in building houses for each and every class.

The Departments of Architecture1. There are three departments of architecture: the art of building, the making of timepieces, and the construction of machinery. Building is, in its turn, divided into two parts, of which the first is the construction of fortified towns and of works for general use in public places, and the second is the putting up of structures for private individuals. There are three classes of public buildings: the first for defensive, the second for religious, and the third for utilitarian purposes. Under defence comes the planning of walls, towers, and gates, permanent devices for resistance against hostile attacks; under religion, the erection of fanes and temples to the immortal gods; under utility, the provision of meeting places for public use, such as harbours, markets, colonnades, baths, theatres, promenades, and all other similar arrangements in public places. 2. All these must be built with due reference to durability, convenience, and beauty. Durability will be assured when foundations are carried down to the solid ground and8 V IT R UV I U S, ON AR CHI T ECT U R E , B OO K 1

materials wisely and liberally selected; convenience, when the arrangement of the apartments is faultless and presents no hindrance to use, and when each class of building is assigned to its suitable and appropriate exposure; and beauty, when the appearance of the work is pleasing and in good taste, and when its members are in due proportion according to correct principles of symmetry.

2

VITRUVIUS from On Architecture, Book 2 (c.25

BC)

V

itruvius devotes almost all of Book 2 of his treatise to a discussion of materials, but he introduces these technical matters with his exposition on the origin of architecture. What this story reveals is the extent of Vitruviuss travels, although it is unclear if he indeed ventured to Spain and Portugal. The vividness of his description of the Phrygians suggests that he visited these parts of central and western Asia Minor, generally what is today Turkey. He also seems to have visited Athens, but the citys most famous monument the Parthenon is unfortunately not mentioned in his treatise. This passage also becomes important in the mid-eighteenth century when Marc-Antoine Laugier, who is seeking to overturn the relevance of Vitruvian theory, again draws on the primitive hut to prove that architecture is a rational art.

The Origin of the Dwelling House1. The men of old were born like the wild beasts, in woods, caves, and groves, and lived on savage fare. As time went on, the thickly crowded trees in a certain place, tossed by storms and winds, and rubbing their branches against one another, caught fire, and so the inhabitants of the place were put to flight, being terrified by the furious flame. After it subsided, they drew near, and observing that they were very comfortable standing before the warm fire, they put on logs and, while thus keeping it alive, brought up other people to it, showing them by signs how much comfort they got from it. In that gathering of men, at a time when utterance of sound was purely individual, from daily habits they fixed upon articulate words just as these had happened to come; then, from indicating by name things in common use, the result was that in this chance way they began to talk, and thus originated conversation with one another. 2. Therefore it was the discovery of fire that originally gave rise to the coming together of men, to the deliberative assembly, and to social intercourse. And so, as they kept coming together in greater numbers into one place, finding themselves naturally gifted beyond the other animals in not being obliged to walk with faces to the ground, but upright and gazing upon the splendour of the starry firmament, and also in being able to do with ease whateverMarcus Vitruvius Pollio, from Book 2, chapter 1 of De architectura [On architecture] (c.25 BC), trans. Morris Hicky Morgan, in Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. New York: Dover, 1960 (orig. 1914), pp. 3841.

V I T R U V I U S , ON A RC H I T E C TU R E, B O OK 2

9

they chose with their hands and fingers, they began in that first assembly to construct shelters. Some made them of green boughs, others dug caves on mountain sides, and some, in imitation of the nests of swallows and the way they built, made places of refuge out of mud and twigs. Next, by observing the shelters of others and adding new details to their own inceptions, they constructed better and better kinds of huts as time went on. 3. And since they were of an imitative and teachable nature, they would daily point out to each other the results of their building, boasting of the novelties in it; and thus, with their natural gifts sharpened by emulation, their standards improved daily. At first they set up forked stakes connected by twigs and covered these walls with mud. Others made walls of lumps of dried mud, covering them with reeds and leaves to keep out the rain and the heat. Finding that such roofs could not stand the rain during the storms of winter, they built them with peaks daubed with mud, the roofs sloping and projecting so as to carry off the rain water. 4. That houses originated as I have written above, we can see for ourselves from the buildings that are to this day constructed of like materials by foreign tribes: for instance, in Gaul, Spain, Portugal, and Aquitaine, roofed with oak shingles or thatched. Among the Colchians in Pontus, where there are forests in plenty, they lay down entire trees flat on the ground to the right and the left, leaving between them a space to suit the length of the trees, and then place above these another pair of trees, resting on the ends of the former and at right angles with them. These four trees enclose the space for the dwelling. Then upon these they place sticks of timber, one after the other on the four sides, crossing each other at the angles, and so, proceeding with their walls of trees laid perpendicularly above the lowest, they build up high towers. The interstices, which are left on account of the thickness of the building material, are stopped up with chips and mud. As for the roofs, by cutting away the ends of the crossbeams and making them converge gradually as they lay them across, they bring them up to the top from the four sides in the shape of a pyramid. They cover it with leaves and mud, and thus construct the roofs of their towers in a rude form of the tortoise style. 5. On the other hand, the Phrygians, who live in an open country, have no forests and consequently lack timber. They therefore select a natural hillock, run a trench through the middle of it, dig passages, and extend the interior space as widely as the site admits. Over it they build a pyramidal roof of logs fastened together, and this they cover with reeds and brushwood, heaping up very high mounds of earth above their dwellings. Thus their fashion in houses makes their winters very warm and their summers very cool. Some construct hovels with roofs of rushes from the swamps. Among other nations, also, in some places there are huts of the same or a similar method of construction. Likewise at Marseilles we can see roofs without tiles, made of earth mixed with straw. In Athens on the Areopagus there is to this day a relic of antiquity with a mud roof. The hut of Romulus on the Capitol is a significant reminder of the fashions of old times, and likewise the thatched roofs of temples on the Citadel. 6. From such specimens we can draw our inferences with regard to the devices used in the buildings of antiquity, and conclude that they were similar. Furthermore, as men made progress by becoming daily more expert in building, and as their ingenuity was increased by their dexterity so that from habit they attained to considerable skill, their intelligence was enlarged by their industry until the more proficient10 V IT R U VI U S , ON A RC H I T E C TU R E, B O OK 2

adopted the trade of carpenters. From these early beginnings, and from the fact that nature had not only endowed the human race with senses like the rest of the animals, but had also equipped their minds with the powers of thought and understanding, thus putting all other animals under their sway, they next gradually advanced from the construction of buildings to the other arts and sciences, and so passed from a rude and barbarous mode of life to civilization and refinement. 7. Then, taking courage and looking forward from the standpoint of higher ideas born of the multiplication of the arts, they gave up huts and began to build houses with foundations, having brick or stone walls, and roofs of timber and tiles; next, observation and application led them from fluctuating and indefinite conceptions to definite rules of symmetry. Perceiving that nature had been lavish in the bestowal of timber and bountiful in stores of building material, they treated this like careful nurses, and thus developing the refinements of life, embellished them with luxuries.

3

VITRUVIUS from On Architecture, Book 3 (c.25

BC)

V

itruvian theory is sometimes described as anthropomorphic in the sense that he predicates proportional rules on the ratios of the human body. Here, in this explication of the idea of symmetry in Book 3, he supplies this theoretical basis for why proportions are important. His description of a man with outstretched limbs, placed within a circle and square, later becomes the basis for various Renaissance sketches, the most famous of which is that of Leonardo da Vinci. This proportional aligning of architecture with the human figure, or more generally with the proportional rules of nature, will become a cornerstone of classical theory.

On Symmetry: In Temples and in the Human Body1. The design of a temple depends on symmetry, the principles of which must be most carefully observed by the architect. They are due to proportion, in Greek analga. i Proportion is a correspondence among the measures of the members of an entire work, and of the whole to a certain part selected as standard. From this result the principles of symmetry. Without symmetry and proportion there can be no principles in the design of any temple; that is, if there is no precise relation between its members, as in the case of those of a well shaped man. 2. For the human body is so designed by nature that the face, from the chin to the top of the forehead and the lowest roots of the hair, is a tenth part of the whole height; the open hand from the wrist to the tip of the middle finger is just the same; the head from the chin toMarcus Vitruvius Pollio, from Book 3, chapter 1 of De architectura [On architecture] (c.25 BC), trans. Morris Hicky Morgan, in Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. New York: Dover, 1960 (orig. 1914), pp. 723.

V I T R U VI U S, ON AR CHI T ECT U R E , B OO K 3

11

the crown is an eighth, and with the neck and shoulder from the top of the breast to the lowest roots of the hair is a sixth; from the middle of the breast to the summit of the crown is a fourth. If we take the height of the face itself, the distance from the bottom of the chin to the under side of the nostrils is one third of it; the nose from the under side of the nostrils to a line between the eyebrows is the same; from there to the lowest roots of the hair is also a third, comprising the forehead. The length of the foot is one sixth of the height of the body; of the forearm, one fourth; and the breadth of the breast is also one fourth. The other members, too, have their own symmetrical proportions, and it was by employing them that the famous painters and sculptors of antiquity attained to great and endless renown. 3. Similarly, in the members of a temple there ought to be the greatest harmony in the symmetrical relations of the different parts to the general magnitude of the whole. Then again, in the human body the central point is naturally the navel. For if a man be placed flat on his back, with his hands and feet extended, and a pair of compasses centred at his navel, the fingers and toes of his two hands and feet will touch the circumference of a circle described therefrom. And just as the human body yields a circular outline, so too a square figure may be found from it. For if we measure the distance from the soles of the feet to the top of the head, and then apply that measure to the outstretched arms, the breadth will be found to be the same as the height, as in the case of plane surfaces which are perfectly square. 4. Therefore, since nature has designed the human body so that its members are duly proportioned to the frame as a whole, it appears that the ancients had good reason for their rule, that in perfect buildings the different members must be in exact symmetrical relations to the whole general scheme. Hence, while transmitting to us the proper arrangements for buildings of all kinds, they were particularly careful to do so in the case of temples of the gods, buildings in which merits and faults usually last forever.

4

VITRUVIUS from On Architecture, Book 4 (c.25

BC)

N

o book reveals the Roman character of De architectura better than Book 4, the Preface to which forms this dedication to the Emperor Augustus Caesar. Vitruvius, in his ambition to write a complete and orderly form of presentation, obviously felt he was setting a historical precedent. Even more enchanting to later generations is his often-repeated discussion of the origin of the three architectural orders: the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. These stories are sometimes said to compose the mythology of architecture, fables that were eventually discredited by the rational forces of the Western Enlightenment, but once again they demonstrate the anthropomorphic basis of Vitruvian theory. One sentence within this passage that should not be overlooked is his admission that the proportions for both the Doric and Ionic columns changed after some progress in refinement and delicacy of feeling. Renaissance humanists, operating from a very different aesthetic basis, regarded this

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, from Book 4, chapter 1 of De architectura [On architecture] (c.25 BC), trans. Morris Hicky Morgan, in Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. New York: Dover, 1960 (orig. 1914), pp. 1027.

12

V IT R U VI U S , ON A RC H I T E C TU R E, B O OK 4

remark as a fault of his theory and sought to find hard and fast rules for proportions, ones that would not change over time. In the end, this dispute over the invariability of proportions would eventually lead classical theory into a crisis.

The Origins of the Three Orders, and the Proportions of the Corinthian Capital1. Corinthian columns are, excepting in their capitals, of the same proportions in all respects as Ionic; but the height of their capitals gives them proportionately a taller and more slender effect. This is because the height of the Ionic capital is only one third of the thickness of the column, while that of the Corinthian is the entire thickness of the shaft. Hence, as two thirds are added in Corinthian capitals, their tallness gives a more slender appearance to the columns themselves. 2. The other members which are placed above the columns, are, for Corinthian columns, composed either of the Doric proportions or according to the Ionic usages; for the Corinthian order never had any scheme peculiar to itself for its cornices or other ornaments, but may have mutules in the coronae and guttae on the architraves according to the triglyph system of the Doric style, or, according to Ionic practices, it may be arranged with a frieze adorned with sculptures and accompanied with dentils and coronae. 3. Thus a third architectural order, distinguished by its capital, was produced out of the two other orders. To the forms of their columns are due the names of the three orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, of which the Doric was the first to arise, and in early times. For Dorus, the son of Hellen and the nymph Phthia, was king of Achaea and all the Peloponnesus, and he built a fane, which chanced to be of this order, in the precinct of Juno at Argolis, a very ancient city, and subsequently others of the same order in the other cities of Achaea, although the rules of symmetry were not yet in existence. 4. Later, the Athenians, in obedience to oracles of the Delphic Apollo, and with the general agreement of all Hellas, despatched thirteen colonies at one time to Asia Minor, appointing leaders for each colony and giving the command-in-chief to Ion, son of Xuthus and Creusa (whom further Apollo at Delphi in the oracles had acknowledged as his son). Ion conducted those colonies to Asia Minor, took possession of the land of Caria, and there founded the grand cities of Ephesus, Miletus, Myus (long ago engulfed by the water, and its sacred rites and suffrage handed over by the Ionians to the Milesians), Priene, Samos, Teos, Colophon, Chius, Erythrae, Phocaea, Clazomenae, Lebedos, and Melite. This Melite, on account of the arrogance of its citizens, was destroyed by the other cities in a war declared by general agreement, and in its place, through the kindness of King Attalus and Arsinoe, the city of the Smyrnaeans was admitted among the Ionians. 5. Now these cities, after driving out the Carians and Lelegans, called that part of the world Ionia from their leader Ion, and there they set off precincts for the immortal gods and began to build fanes: first of all, a temple to Panionion Apollo such as they had seen in Achaea, calling it Doric because they had first seen that kind of temple built in the states of the Dorians.V I T R U VI U S, ON AR CHI T ECT U R E , B OO K 4 13

6. Wishing to set up columns in that temple, but not having rules for their symmetry, and being in search of some way by which they could render them fit to bear a load and also of a satisfactory beauty of appearance, they measured the imprint of a mans foot and compared this with his height. On finding that, in a man, the foot was one sixth of the height, they applied the same principle to the column, and reared the shaft, including the capital, to a height six times its thickness at its base. Thus the Doric column, as used in buildings, began to exhibit the proportions, strength, and beauty of the body of a man. 7. Just so afterwards, when they desired to construct a temple to Diana in a new style of beauty, they translated these footprints into terms characteristic of the slenderness of women, and thus first made a column the thickness of which was only one eighth of its height, so that it might have a taller look. At the foot they substituted the base in place of a shoe; in the capital they placed the volutes, hanging down at the right and left like curly ringlets, and ornamented its front with cymatia and with festoons of fruit arranged in place of hair, while they brought the flutes down the whole shaft, falling like the folds in the robes worn by matrons. Thus in the invention of the two different kinds of columns, they borrowed manly beauty, naked and unadorned, for the one, and for the other the delicacy, adornment, and proportions characteristic of women. 8. It is true that posterity, having made progress in refinement and delicacy of feeling, and finding pleasure in more slender proportions, has established seven diameters of the thickness as the height of the Doric column, and nine as that of the Ionic. The Ionians, however, originated the order which is therefore named Ionic. The third order, called Corinthian, is an imitation of the slenderness of a maiden; for the outlines and limbs of maidens, being more slender on account of their tender years, admit of prettier effects in the way of adornment. 9. It is related that the original discovery of this form of capital was as follows. A freeborn maiden of Corinth, just of marriageable age, was attacked by an illness and passed away. After her burial, her nurse, collecting a few little things which used to give the girl pleasure while she was alive, put them in a basket, carried it to the tomb, and laid it on top thereof, covering it with a roof-tile so that the things might last longer in the open air. This basket happened to be placed just above the root of an acanthus. The acanthus root, pressed down meanwhile though it was by the weight, when springtime came round put forth leaves and stalks in the middle, and the stalks, growing up along the sides of the basket, and pressed out by the corners of the tile through the compulsion of its weight, were forced to bend into volutes at the outer edges. 10. Just then Callimachus, whom the Athenians called katathjtxn for the refinei ment and delicacy of his artistic work, passed by this tomb and observed the basket with the tender young leaves growing round it. Delighted with the novel style and form, he built some columns after that pattern for the Corinthians, determined their symmetrical proportions, and established from that time forth the rules to be followed in finished works of the Corinthian order.

14

V IT R U VI U S , ON A RC H I T E C TU R E, B O OK 4

5

O LD T ES TA M E N T from I Kings

itruvius died more than two decades before the birth of Christ, and thus he could not have imagined what would become the Judeo-Christian tradition and its eventual assimilation into the Roman Empire. This religious tradition was, in fact, a parallel world existing alongside Greco-Roman antiquity, with similar yet different ties to the various cultures of the Middle East and Egypt. In Hebrew canon, the two Old Testament books of Kings formed one volume and constituted one of the eight books of the Prophets. Together they compose legendary Jewish history from the time of Ahaziah (c.850 BC) to the release of Jehoiachin from Babylonian imprisonment (c.561 BC). Its author is sometimes said to be Jeremiah, who lived in the late seventh and sixth centuries, although this point has been disputed. I Kings gains its importance to architectural theory because it contains one of the oldest descriptions of architecture that has survived into modern times. Moreover, it describes the famed Temple of Solomon: the temple built in Jerusalem by King Solomon in the mid-tenth century and destroyed by the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. The complex was constructed by Phoenician artisans and its centerpiece was the sanctuary, in front of which stood the two bronze pillars of Yachin and Boaz. The following two passages make clear the importance of costly materials to the chronicler, but equally the importance of numerical proportions (in this case supplied by the Lord himself) to preclassical design. Numeric ratios were thus central not only to the Greco-Roman civilization but also the Judaic and later Christian cultures as well.

V

Chapter 6Solomon builds the templeAnd it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomons reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. 2 And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits. 3 And the porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was the length thereof, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was the breadth thereof before the house. 4 And for the house he made windows of narrow lights. 5 And against the wall of the house he built chambers round about, against the walls of the house round about, both of the temple and of the oracle: and he made chambers round about: 6 The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house.

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

O L D T E S T AM E N T , I KI N GS

15

7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. 8 The door for the middle chamber was in the right side of the house: and they went up with winding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third. 9 So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar. 10 And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high: and they rested on the house with timber of cedar. 11 And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying, 12 Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: 13 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. 14 So Solomon built the house, and finished it. 15 And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, both the floor of the house, and the walls of the ceiling: and he covered them on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house with planks of fir. 16 And he built twenty cubits on the sides of the house, both the floor and the walls with boards of cedar: he even built them for it within, even for the oracle, even for the most holy place. 17 And the house, that is, the temple before it, was forty cubits long. 18 And the cedar of the house within was carved with knops and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen. 19 And the oracle he prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of the LORD. 20 And the oracle in the forepart was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof: and he overlaid it with pure gold; and so covered the altar which was of cedar. 21 So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold. 22 And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold. 23 And within the oracle he made two cher-u-bim of olive tree, each ten cubits high. 24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. 25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cher-u-bim were of one measure and one size. 26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. 27 And he set the cher-u-bim within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cher-u-bim, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house. 28 And he overlaid the cher-u-bim with gold.16 O LD TE ST A M EN T , I KI NG S

29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cher-ubim and palm trees and open flowers, within and without. 30 And the floor of the house he overlaid with gold, within and without. 31 And for the entering of the oracle he made doors of olive tree: the lintel and side posts were a fifth part of the wall. 32 The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cher-u-bim and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold, and spread gold upon the cher-u-bim, and upon the palm trees. 33 So also made he for the door of the temple posts of olive tree, a fourth part of the wall. 34 And the two doors were of fir tree: the two leaves of the one door were folding, and the two leaves of the other door were folding. 35 And he carved thereon cher-u-bim and palm trees and open flowers: and covered them with gold fitted upon the carved work. 36 And he built the inner court with three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams. 37 In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the LORD laid, in the month Zif: 38 And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.

Chapter 7The other buildings of Solomon[...] 13 And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. 14 He was a widows son of the tribe of Naph-ta-li, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. 15 For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about. 16 And he made two chapiters of molten brass, to set upon the tops of the pillars: the height of the one chapiter was five cubits, and the height of the other chapiter was five cubits: 17 And nets of checker work, and wreaths of chain work, for the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; seven for the one chapiter, and seven for the other chapiter. 18 And he made the pillars, and two rows round about upon the one network, to cover the chapiters there were upon the top, with pomegranates: and so did he for the other chapiter. 19 And the chapiters that were upon the top of the pillars were of lily work in the porch, four cubits. 20 And the chapiters upon the two pillars had pomegranates also above, over against the belly which was by the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred in rows round about upon the other chapiter.O L D T E S T AM E N T , I KI N GS 17

21 And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Ja-chin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Bo-az. 22 And upon the top of the pillars was lily work: so was the work of the pillars finished.

6

O LD T ES TA M E N T from The Book of Ezekiel (c.586

BC)

A

lmost contemporary with the writer of I Kings was the prophet Ezekiel, a Jewish priest who was carried away to Babylonia in captivity in 597 BC. Four years later he followed his call into the prophetic ministry and soon thereafter began warning his fellow exiles about the impending doom of Jerusalem, which he saw as divine punishment for Hebraic sinfulness. The first 33 chapters of Ezekiel were composed before the fall of Jerusalem, but after the citys destruction in 586 Ezekiel turned his prophetic vision to the rebuilding of the city and its holy shrines. In chapters 40 to 42 he speaks of rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem, now to be constructed on a grander scale equal to the Babylonian temples with which he was familiar. Once again there is a great emphasis on the numerical and mathematical purity of the work (he may indeed have drawn upon I Kings), and again there is the great importance he places on symbolism.

Chapter 41The measuring of the templeAfterward he brought me to the temple, and measured the posts, six cubits broad on the one side, and six cubits broad on the other side, which was the breadth of the tabernacle. 2 And the breadth of the door was ten cubits; and the sides of the door were five cubits on the one side, and five cubits on the other side: and he measured the length thereof, forty cubits: and the breadth, twenty cubits. 3 Then went he inward, and measured the post of the door, two cubits; and the door, six cubits; and the breadth of the door, seven cubits. 4 So he measured the length thereof, twenty cubits; and the breadth, twenty cubits, before the temple: and he said unto me, This is the most holy place. 5 After he measured the wall of the house, six cubits; and the breadth of every side chamber, four cubits, round about the house on every side. 6 And the side chambers were three, one over another, and thirty in order; and they entered into the wall which was of the house for the side chambers round about, that they might have hold, but they had not hold in the wall of the house.

Old Testament, from The Book of Ezekiel (c.586 BC), chapter 41, The Measuring of the Temple, in the King James version of the Holy Bible.

18

O LD TE ST A M EN T , B OO K OF E Z E K I E L

7 And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers: for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst. 8 I saw also the height of the house round about: the foundations of the side chambers were a full reed of six great cubits. 9 The thickness of the wall, which was for the side chamber without, was five cubits: and that which was left was the place of the side chambers that were within. 10 And between the chambers was the wideness of twenty cubits round about the house on every side. 11 And the doors of the side chambers were toward the place that was left, one door toward the north, and another door toward the south: and the breadth of the place that was left was five cubits round about. 12 Now the building that was before the separate place at the end toward the west was seventy cubits broad; and the wall of the building was five cubits thick round about, and the length thereof ninety cubits. 13 So he measured the house, a hundred cubits long; and the separate place, and the building, with the walls thereof, a hundred cubits long; 14 Also the breadth of the face of the house, and of the separate place toward the east, a hundred cubits. 15 And he measured the length of the building over against the separate place which was behind it, and the galleries thereof on the one side and on the other side, a hundred cubits, with the inner temple, and the porches of the court; 16 The door posts, and the narrow windows, and the galleries round about on their three stories, over against the door, ceiled with wood round about, and from the ground up to the windows, and the windows were covered; 17 To that above the door, even unto the inner house, and without, and by all the wall round about within and without, by measure. 18 And it was made with cher-u-bim and palm trees, so that a palm tree was between a cherub and a cherub; and every cherub had two faces; 19 So that the face of a man was toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side: it was made through all the house round about. 20 From the ground unto above the door were cher-u-bim and palm trees made, and on the wall of the temple. 21 The posts of the temple were squared, and the face of the sanctuary; the appearance of the one as the appearance of the other. 22 The altar of wood was three cubits high, and the length thereof two cubits; and the corners thereof, and the length thereof, and the walls thereof, were of wood: and he said unto me, This is the table that is before the LORD. 23 And the temple and the sanctuary had two doors. 24 And the doors had two leaves apiece, two turning leaves; two leaves for the one door, and two leaves for the other door.

O LD T E ST A M E N T , BOOK OF EZEKIEL

19

25 And there were made on them, on the doors of the temple cher-u-bim and palm trees, like as were made upon the walls; and there were thick planks upon the face of the porch without. 26 And there were narrow windows and palm trees on the one side and on the other side, on the sides of the porch, and upon the side chambers of the house, and thick planks.

7

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

T

he book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse, is the last book to have