Chapter Two

THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA:
ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

claim rep-
The book to which I haveattributed instaurational status and which I
rupture with the tradition of the past opens, paradoxic ally
resents a decisive
n to the ancients (““maiores nostri”) in praise of their ac-
enough, with an invocatio
the past
complishments.! This is theliminalsign of a practice ofreferencing
and is evident in Alberti’s quotation s from an-
which runs throughoutthe treatise
accounts drawn from mytholog y? ancient
cient authors? as well as his numerous
transmitted by the
history (historia),4 the more or less fantastic histories (historiae)
by Alberti him-
literary tradition ofAntiquity,5 and evenhistorical reconstructions
of
self, Perhaps more disconcertingis the fact that this work dedicated to the rules
of subjects which are at
building contains an abundance of references to a variety
reflects on
first glance irrelevant to its purpose. It explains the origin of the winds,
theinstitution ofthe family,
the various types ofpolitical constitutions, analyzes
er and the urban
and meditates on the differences between the rural land-own
rules with praxis: Alberti enun-
merchant. Finally, it seems to confuse theoretical
site for the city or the lay-
ciates the universal rules which govern the choice ofa
than hetreats the matter of what
ing of a foundation for a wall no more carefully
explains in detail how columns
must be doneto keep plaster from cracking; he
beauty, but also how to mix
should be proportioned according to the‘laws’of
guaranteed toattract pigeons.
chalk and human urineto produce a dovecote floor
 Charter Two Tue De we anpiricaroRta: AL RTI, OR DESIRE AND Time

Thus, itis necessary to undertake two fundamental tasks. First ofall it ‘mous you, the mute interlocutor(whetheraller go or reader) who will accom-
‘must be shown that the De re aedificaoria presents anerratic Landscape only to pany the speaker throughout the book. We will come to sce the crucial role
the hasty visitor who takes the shortcut instead of heeding the itinerary con- played in Albertis text as well a in his aesthetic theory by this two-fold dialogic
«ceived and imposed by the author. Examined in a haphazard manner, the com= relation with the work ofhis predecessors and with this‘other’who is his inter-
plexity of Alberti edifice masks the rigorof its structure. Ie will be my aim to locutor: the auditor who listens both to the silent voices ofthe past and the vi-
prove the existence ofthe flawless textual organization whose rigor Alberti pro- brant voice ofthe present.
claims, and to demonstrate that the expositions on the winds, consitutions, or “Theprologue comprises three parts ofunequal weight.The first and prin-
thefamily each assume an intentional, logical,and legitimate placein the text, as cS comprises a eulogy to edification, while the following two sections
{do certain practical recommendations. Moreover, | will demonstrate that the im-
Portance Alberti grants to history andthe past is not marked by traditionalism, ics neseAber whi weiand te ln
butis rather an integral part of his prescient vision and innovative approach. But aside fiom this matter ofcontent, the prologue reveals how the De re aedifi-
‘Thus, 1 will first analyze the structure and functioning manifested in the text.6 ‘atria functions as a text.
My second aim is interpretive, andin order to accomplish it, will delib- “The eulogy in praise ofedification begins with a briefpassage which re-
‘rately appeal to the conceptual tools elaborated by current epistemology, an- -veals its value as a paradigm: for Alberti, more than any other activity building
thropology, and semiology. On the one hand, I will propose a reading ofthe De evinces the creative powers of men because itis superior to other activities in
1 aedifatoria asa theoryof edification. On the other hand, | will try to unpack satisfying demands on the three levels on which human activity functions, those
2 latent meaning carried by the text in general and by certain mythic narratives of necesitas (necesity)* commoditas (commodity)? and voluptas (aesthetic plea-
in particular. In effect, farfrom being harmless diversions, the later are shown to sure). Once itis introduced, ths significant triad—which reappears five times in
work on two levels on the surface,they function in conformity with Alberts in- the prologue—is sharpened, developed, and rendered operative in anticipation
tention; at a deeperlevel, they function without his knowledge. Ofthe significant role it will play in the book.
Finally. structural confrontation ofthe De re acifcatoria with the De ar- ‘After recognizing the paradigmatic value ofedification, Alberti summons
<ditecura ofVitruvius will serve to confirm my hypotheses and make apparent the builder to witness a presentation that is briefbut charged with meaning. Ie is,
by contrast the singularity ofAlberti’ text. in effect, an authentic act ofrecognition and birth in which Alberti opposes to
the artisan and confers the status of architect (“Arcitetum gga..consttuame”)!©
I. THe ARCHITECTURE OF THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA ‘upon the man who,by the force ofhis reason and mental power, can respond to
the exigencies ofnecessity, commodityand aesthetic pleasure.
The ten books ofthe De re editorare introduced with a prologu “The eulogy to edificationis then deferred fora time while a curious nar-
pages? which suggests the spirit of the work andits economy.While hee offour rative is reted. Arguing for a felicitous relation between edification and neces-
modestly by acknowledging the accomplishments ofthe Ancients, who arebegins sity, commodity, and pleasure, the story locates building at anoriginary moment
quently invoked in the lines that follow, the book's esential tone is establishedfre~in ‘when men came together to form society.Here Alberti is not afraid to invert
the ninth line when Alberti suddenly begins to speak in the first person. It is an the order ofevents transmitted by ancient tradition and reiterated by his succes-
‘imperious 1in which reason is incarnate;but this 1 is inseparable from sors, according t0 which the existence ofsociety is a prerequisite for the birth
an anony- and development ofarchitecture. Beginning this way gives legitimacy to Alberti}

°
 Cuarran Two Tue De ne acoiricaronta: LBERTI, OR DESIRE AND THM

‘enterprise and authorizes him to summarize the contributionsto the art of by the infinite diversity ofhuman activities classifiable according to a series ofbi-
building claimed forthe three levels ofthe triadin turn. It sat this poine that the nary oppositions: universal/particula, public/private, sacred/secular.Thus,in a
triad begins its work as an organizing principle, single parallel account,Alberti simultaneously presents the intellectual itinerary
‘The level ofnecessity, whereupon building protects against natural forces that led him to undertake and conceive his book and reveals the principles of
and falls basic human needs, is treated in broad strokes, Onn the other hand, its organization.The logic ofthe genesis ofarchitecture stresses the chrono-lopial
Alberti gives a detailed account ofthe marvels accomplished in the service of stages ofAlberts thinking, which,folowing the sequential onder ofthe triad,
commodity. Edifcation,in response to the requirements that humans are led to ‘unfold in three phases.
assert in the double field oftheir public and private activities, transforms nature ‘Ac the beginning ofthe first phase an observation is made which is im-
and perpetuallyinvents newartifacts.Alberts survey, launched under the tutelary mediately taken as a given:"The building is a form ofbody (eaificium quidem
auspices of Dacdalus, mythic patronofarchitects, begins with the hamesing of comps quoddam ese animadvertinas)"!3 1 wil refer to this a the axiom ofthe build-
untamed waters and the tunnelingof mountains,and ends with the erection of ing as 4 body.The rest ofthe book shows that by ‘body’ Alberti means a living
‘commemorative monuments, interspersing these with treatments on the inven- ‘body.This is not because a naive animism Jeads himto assimilate artifacts to an=
ton ofmachines ofwar,the creation ofrads and cities, and the means bywhich imate beings: nonetheless,Alberti indeed goes further than Aristotle,"* who no,
bbuikiing can prevent the disintegration offamilies as well as cities. doubs inspired him.TheAlbertian formulation not only indicates an identity of

Sa
Although pleasure, that highest degree of pleasure (*samma vohuptas")11 ‘organization, it abo designates the edifice asa veritable substiute for the body,
‘which consists in the enjoyment of beautyis the ultimate aim ofedification,
Alberti does not linger over this level except t0 enunciate two propositions and thus contains the germ ofan aesthetic theory, as we will see. There isa first
Which are repeated and applied throughout his book. The first i that a beautifal ‘corollary immsiately deducible from this axiom which still bears the mark of
‘construction brings glory to its author, not only by dvelling Aristotelianism,though it is not ofgreat import fOr my analysis concerning the
fcure generations but also because it cal s forth appreciation inandthecommentary.
memory of dynamics and textual functioning ofthe concepts utitinedby Albertisas with any
the praise (au) for which the need i ceeply rooted in the sul ofthe spec body: a building conusts ofform (linewmenta)!® determined by the mind (ad oe:
‘ator a the passion for buikling is inherent that ofthe builder, genio) and matter determined! by nature (¢ marie), Abert tnticates that this foe
‘eater the praise. the more rigorously the work will confoem to what Moreover, the mulation has He him fo constrict the series ofres Rr eitication on the level
ready all the ‘principle of econonn’, according to which it should bewe ean a= ‘ofnecessity: he wall thus have to treat in ttecesshon tiles concerns Roem,then
‘Me toad or subsract anything hom the work without damaging imporsi- ‘matter (artificially dieoctared foe the purposes of the aitalysi) and finally their
‘The eulogy to esification ends with a final reference te the triad, Union inthe act ofbushing.
allows Abert to move tothe second moment, the autobiographical which rowthebeginningofthe second phase of his research, Albert was aay
[rofogue. The Dew andicauria ved troma sense ofwonder (atthe purt of his ‘oontionteat with an bons fict the finite variety oF onan prastioes which
‘of efcation) arnt an interrogation (repanting ity prcextare) recognition realiation jcomncer Brings teguies, ifWe are HOE NS Nase OKIE WAN’ AS NERC OF AE
sification as a fundamental human occupation let Albert The of
ta reflect on “the
fevenen the extatishivent ofa taxonomy: As Ror the aint hase Allee meety
{wincipes fomwhich seveanthe parts of whieh ftco rwventonns the fanny fe Rad to cae Aho he tae OF Benner abl see
Aefine1? without being tel atray by the complenity tthe problens mposed and "verte (FN gone pwnd pov cfema) AB Nis fernyatn
tase shoe iat sy NeeRN Amr HIRE, he HE eH Ue pane
 Cuarren Two # DE RE ANDIFICATORIA: ALBERTS, OR DESIRE AND TIME

reparation, how to remedy the mistakes ofthe architectand the accidents ofna- ‘operators are also at work which are not formally recognized as such by Alberti
ture.This is how the second section ofa prologue which begins asa triumphal ‘We will aso see that in order to generate the text in its entirety, only ewo further
anthem can conclude on negative note, Alberti does not cast the horizon of axioms will be needed in addition to the operators introduced in the prologue.
building purely positive terms,nor does he establish a framework based strictly {In my analysis ofAlberti’ treatise, I have found it useful ro employ a di
‘on linear progression, From the outset, he situates the activityofthe builder in gram representing the general architecture ofthe De ve aeifcatoria a it s pro~
the space ofdereliction, caught somewhere betweenerrorand obsolescence. {ected in the profogue.!*I have given it the form ofan equilateral triangle resting,
If the second section of the prologue superimposes two chrono-logics, cn its apex,a form which figures the deployment ofbuilding in time and in
that ofan intellectual enterprise and that of the activity of building, the third space.It is meant to illustrate that the built world occupies increasing space
introduces a new kind ofsuperposition, which this time establishes a one-to- (along the axis ofabscisie) to the extent that it is elaborated in time (along the
‘one correspondence betweenthe chrono-logic ofbuilding and that ofthe books ordinate axs). The prologueis figured by a small triangle,also inverted so that the
‘ofthe De re aedifcaoria, In this way, the doubling system emphasizes the two- apex ofthe larger triangle rests on its base.Its positioningindicates is generative
fold generative and genealogical intentofthe treatise,and indicates thatthe space character,while is size expresses the condensed form in which it contains most
(the book) in which the built world is metaphorically deployed is itself, ofthe opertors ofthe Der aeifcatria. Its form,lastly, sgnifics the homology of
‘metaphorically, also an architecture. the prologue’ development with that ofthe text which follows it.The (wo ax-
(Can this textual edifice withits multiple intentions preserve the rigor and joms not included in the prologue are figured where they appear in the text
strength ofthe preparatory sketch? Before exploring that question, it should be (books 1 and 9). This diagram shows that AlbertiS treatise—in which textual
noted that the prologue is not autonomous: rather.it isthe part ofthe Albertian space (the sequence ofits pages) is systematically represented on the same axis as
construction in which the foundations are established. In conformity with the the time ofconstruction—consists offour consecutive parts The first consists of
‘principle of economy’ mentioned in the eulogy to edification—which will books 1,2,and 3,and offers a general theory ofconstruction. Ie is situated on the
function throughout the De ve acdifatoria—Alberti has, in a minimum ofspace evel ofnecessity, whose rules are successively envisaged in terms of form(con-
and with a minimum ofterminological and conceptual means,revealed his gen- ception), matte, and the manipulation ofmatter The second part,consisting of
erative approach and provided the means for realizing is aims. On the one hand, books 4 and 5,concerns the level ofcommodity, defined by the set ofuses (1s)9,
he provides the enunciative instruments which confront the I of the theorist invented by the desires ofmen and stimulated by socal life. Books 6,7,8,and
with the you ofthe reader-spectator-client-colleague and the it ofhistory which devoted to beauty and ornament, concern the level of pleasure and form the
subsumes the builders ofthe past. Onthe other hand, he provides the logical in- third pare, which can be considered AlbertiS architectural aesthetic. The fourth
struments which serve to generate the rules ofedification and the order ofthe part treating errors and reparation and consisting only ofbook 10. comes to
book. For my purposes,I will referto these logical instruments as eperaton.!7 crown the rest of the edifice. Its terminal position expresses its recapitulative
Some of the operators are explicitly acknowledged by Alberti under the de- fanction and the fact that it refers to the whole ensemble ofthe spaces generated
nomination ofprindpia, partes, or rationes. In my analysis, operators ofthis fist in the preceding books. However the corrective and non-creative function of
‘ype will be considered axioms and designated, respectively, the axiom ofthe triad the rules governing reparation is expressed by the broken line and descending
(which generates the general plan ofthe book),the axiom ofthe building a a body, arrows that move in opposition to the progresivey ascending movement ofthe
and the axiom ofthe taxonomy ofuses, We will ee later that two other types of rest ofthe book. Finally I signalled with shading the parts ofthe text where

n
 Cuarren Two Tue De ke AeiricaTonia: ALBERTI, O& DESIRE AND Time

Alberti departed fiom the plan ofhis prologue. Thus, in book 9, which was sup~ ‘Vesta, to her brothers Heurialus and Hiperbius, o Gallio, o Thraso, or to the
posed to deal with rules governing the omamentation ofprivate buiklings,chap- cyclopsTyphincius.2*To the traditional legends, he opposes the preemptive “sic
ters 5,6,nd 7 teat the ‘philosophical’ laws ofbeauty, and chapters 8 through 11 puto” ofhis own version,andas the inventor or constructor ofthis new narra~
<dcal with the prevention oferrors. Similarly, instead ofbeing exclusively concemed. tive,he substitutes himselffor the presumed inventors ofthe first dwelling, who
‘with the rules ofreparation, book 10devotes 11 ofts 17 chapters o hydrology. are relegated en masse to the domain offantasy.
[Atthe threshold ofthe first book,Alberti devotes the first paragraph of ‘The six ‘principles’ofconception—which one would now call operations,
the first chapter to an exposition ofmethod. On the level ofform,he will ake as, and thus I will henceforth use this term to designate them—concern respec~
his guiding principles clarity and simplicity This constitutes a solicitous gesture tively locality (regio), area,25 compartition of floor plan (parttio), wall (paries), roof-
to the reader,his silentinterlocutor and the youalready presentin the prologue, ing (tectum),and openings (apertones).This ensemble is constituted byAlbert in
whomAlberti will continually invoke and call to witness what follows. On the ‘one ofthe key operators ofhis book.[will refer to it henceforth as the axiom of
level ofmatter,Alberti distinguishes and ranks the three sources ofhis work. conception.After the appearance ofthe origin narrative,this axiom is associated
‘These are,in onder of increasing importance,the patrimony ofwritings on ar- with the axiom ofthe triad, which designates the three fields ofapplication: me-
chitecture, the patrimony ofthe built domain itselfand finally his own mind.To cessty,commodity, and pleasure.
draw up and justify the principles he has undertaken to formulate,Alberti’ re= ‘Afierthe logico-mythic deduction which serves to give them a founda
Alcction will be exercised with more confidence on the buildings than on the tion,the sixoperations ofconception are briefly defined, and then,in the order
texts, which are all too often misleading, and even more onhis own mental ac- oftheir frst appearance,they are examined one by one and intercrossed respec
‘tivity or, more precisely onthe intellectual operations with which he proceeds in tively with each ofthe three levels ofthe triad to generate specific rules.
his architectural praxis “Thhus,in the course of the successive chapters, the reader learns the rules
From the opening ofthe first chapter ofbook 1 devoted to the figure of according to which a healthy and pleasant locality or rei is chosen,taking into
the constructive act (“de lincamentis acdifionum”),!to that which in itselfhas account the prevailing winds and the system ofwaterways and applying a semi-
‘universal value (“quae ad wniversum opus pertnere videbantut”)® andcan be distin= ology whose signs are borrowed from the natural history of man, animals, and
guished from all materiality, in other words what we would call the concep- plants;the means ofdetermining the aree for building according to the exigen-
tion,Alberti emphasizes the importance ofthe reflexive dimension in his work ics of topography (slope,soil) and geometry; and the means of organizing and
("labore")?2 and the generative value of the architect’ sel-analysis in research- articulatingthe compartition oF parti guided by a rule ofcoherence which in-
ing the rules ofbuilding. ‘tegrates theprogram with natural conditions and even local customs whose rel-
Alberti thus discovers (chapter 2)that the conceptual procedure can be ativity Alberti points out in passing. Next come the rules for determining the
broken down into six parts (partes) or principles (prinipia), with the two terms thickness ofwalls from their base, for distributing stress over roofsupports, for de-
being used interchangeably. These are deduced fom an origin narrative which ploying the windows with an eye to matters of hygiene (air and sun),and for
‘Fecounts in six sequences the genesis ofthefirst human setdement.The economy arranging the doors according to their connective function and the general
of the account indicates that Alberti was interested only in the logic ofthis economy afthe edifice to which they belong.
‘mythic episode. Less importantto him were the details and the circumstances. It ‘Compartition has special status among these six operations. In the narra-
is of no consequence, he says ironically, whether we attribute it to the goddess tive oforigins, itis the only operation that is designated not by its name,but by

~ ~-—
 Cuarren Two
The Di RE AxoiricaToRIA: ALbERtt, OR Dusine AND TIME

2 lengthy paraphrase. Later,in the pages devoted to this operation—book 1,

chapter 9—Alberti stresses that comparttion calls uponall ofthe mind’ powers process ofconstruction,these rules ae infact situated between the general con-
and sums up the whole art ofbuilding.® Tiaum or roofing alone among these ception and its realization.The proposed chronological framework is thus in fact
‘operations isthe object of a value judgment:"roof are the most important ele respected. Is scope is merely enlarged to accommodate a series of procedures
‘ments” ofthe buikling the clements which,along with providing“excellent pro- that concern neither the conception proper nor its execution.The common
tection for the whole building.”?” answer to basic human needs in providing fanction ofthese procedures is to delay°? the moment when the actual work of
shelter agains the night, the sun, the rain,and various enemies. On the other construction begins, favoring a sort ofgeneral maturation ofthe project.Time,
hand, compartition, which is not bound by the pitiless laws of necessity but abettor of erosion and decay, can aso have positive effects for it can afford a
rather is determined by usageis devoted to the play of human diflerences. ‘means ofprotection against error. ForAlberti, to is so fndamental an act
| will not treatin detail the rules generated by the six operations ofthe that it can neither be taken lightly nor commence without the reflection that
axiom ofconception. Their number and variety depend from the system Alberti ‘grants it solemnity In the time between the conceptualization and the realization
<deploys, given his intention to cover all conceivable exigencies. The diversity ofthe edifice,a supplement of reflection on the project and the conditions of
the ensemble ofrules i, nonetheles, unified by a grand structural thematic. Inof its realization occurs.The architect must reconsider all his decisions at length,
effect, the axiom ofthe building as a body continues to function means of reexamine his project not only with the help ofdrawings and paintings, but alo
‘new corollaries acconding to which, as with ving bodies, the part by(niembres) of
models. which alone permit genuine experimentation. He should question
the edifice must be subordinated to the whole and articulated with each other the feasibility and value ofthe program,’test the competence ofhis workers,%
(vet in animante memiba membris ita in aedifio partes parttus respendeant conde- test his own capacities” and, asa final test and last proof, subject his ideas to
er") given that they fulfill specific and different functions. This the judgment of (pritorum)8
structural ap-
proach allows Albert to simplify his task by bringing to light relations Padawebs Wo0 alSt me
by the everyday usage oflanguage. Thus, from the beginning, the cohumn concealed since the rules for using them depend on their particular properties,which are in
similted to the walP” in its weight-bearing role, and the concept is as- ‘urn determined by the laws ofnature. Albert treats each ofthe materials which
‘covers all transitional elements, i.,doors and windows, ako stars,a ofan opening are likely to be used in constructionin the order he supposes they were first
Pipes and channels for evacuation or conduction, such asbut s well as
chimneys and sewers.2
‘used by man. He bases this onder on a brief narrative analogous to that ofthe
Above all, compartition is conceived as a single operation, first human setlement,taking both his typical schematic approach and casual at-
application, whether it involves the city or the house. Any whatever
distinction
its scale of titude with respect to traditional associations.” For each material in euro—
the urban art and architectre is thus eliminated at the very levelof thisbetween ‘wood,stone,earth, sand—he identifies the different varieties, qualities, and rules
tton:"the city is like some large house,and the house isin opera- its we.
iy’! turn like some small Pre thi be a ody to bagi fa book 3 desing with construction il
Book 2 seems to go beyond the subject assigned to it inthe prologue, which i the synthesis ofthe rues for conception (book 1) and matter (book 2)
‘ofenunciating the rules governing the material ofconstr that He presents the univers rules ofbuilding in general, ordering them according
in effect, by dedicating the first three chapters to uction. Alberti begins, to the six operations. Alberts subject here is no longer an intellectual proce-
ate not immediately related to the subject ofmateriamethodologi cal rules which
ls However, in the concrete
‘dure,as it was in book 1.but a project envisaged in its materiality: Nonetheless,
insofar asthe latter is considered from the point ofview ofnecesitythe project

”
 Cuarren Two Tue De Re AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND Time

still retains a certain general character.The rules in question concern building, governs the natural world and by that which underpins the human world.They
independent of its purpose, that is, the particular, contingent edifices to be simultaneously integrate the unconditional imperatives of statics, the physical
‘rected. His rules are addressed “ad universonum aedifcionum opus."® properties ofmaterials,and basic needs, represented in this case by the need for
‘As we quickly leaf through the chapters of book 3,it seems as though shelter.
these rules common to all edifices concern only walls and roofing. Is Alberts ‘As forthe rules concerning the construction ofdifferent types ofwalls and
logic here defective? Has the author,injuxtaposing materials and axioms, omit- roofs and their respective pars iftheir formulation results from the intercrossing
ted four operations? A closer examination reveals that only partiti is truly ex- ofthe five other operations with the rules forthe use ofmaterial, their content
cluded from book 2, whereas the operations concerning locality, area, and is a times deduced by the analysis ofthe buil heritage," and at other times in~
‘openings are in fact included, albeit indirectly. In effec,the problemsoflocality duced by a new application ofthe axiom ofthe building as a body.This s pre-
and area cannot be dissociated from those pertaining to the foundations of sented in book 3 in a new figure, opposing the supporting skeleton (essa) and
walls! Openings are dealt with in the context ofthe treatmentofthe walls? in the connective elements, nerves and ligaments (ner, ligament), to the paneling
which they are inserted.The fact that the text focuses onthe operations con- (omplementa), tha is,to infill and skin ofthe edifice46 Thus the rules for each el-
cerning walls and roofing thus signals the predominance ofthese over the three cement of the wall orroof will be determined by exhausting the fall range of
‘thers. The absence ofcompartition emphasizes, on the other hand,the speci- possibilities in terms ofthe materials to be used.
ficity of this operation and its other status. Nowhere does Alberti comment on “Thus no new principle is introduced in book 3,whichis generated by the
this difference, which is so revelatory of the delicate articulation ofhis system. combination ofue formulated in the «wo preci books onthe atomof
He does no more than signal it with silence whote anomalous presence in the the building asa plying to the plan for the construction ofhis text
text is amplified by the eulogy to compattition in book 1. Although itis ex- same mine pais that he advocated for the built domain throughout apparatus
‘luded from the level of necessity at the time ofactual construction,compart the De re aedfztoria7 Albert has reduced his conceptual and logicalsubordina-
tion remains present in the sense that it is a structuring principle for human toa minimum. This economy ofdiscursive means i achieved by themediation of
space. It designates a specific mental operation. But in its concrete application, tion ofthe other operations to those ofroofand wall, and by the approximate
the operation ofcomparttion belongs to anotherlevel, that ofcommodity its an
the axiom ofthe building asa body. Far from being presented asallowsAlberti
role is to open and adjust built space to the contingent ways in which use may ‘comparison, this axiom constitutes a logical instrument which denomina-to
be expressed, reduce all the types ofwalls and all the types ofroof to a commonroofand the
IFAlberti fails to explain why compartition is omitted from book 3,is ex- tor. and then to establish a transformational relation betweenonethegeneral struc~
clusion nonetheless seems to conform to the logic of the De re aedifcatoria,We wall? and consequently, to enunciate in a unique formula
will see below that in books 4 and 5, the world of compartition—in other tural law,applicable on the level ofnecesity to the whole ofthe buile domain:
words, edifices considered with respect to the differences and particularities of the interrelation ofbones, ligaments, and skin draws the fundamental figure of
their plans—is ako subject to universal rules relative to the city and the house.«3 ‘which walls,openings, roofing, and pavements are merely the superficial figure.
‘But this isan abstract universality, arising from the analysis ofconcrete exam- “The simation changes completely when in book 4 Alberti introduces the
ples, and distinct from necessity with its two-fold relevance to the rules for roof- reader to the level ofcommodity, which is ao the level on which is deployed the
ing and wallsThe latter are simultaneously determined by the necessity that human faculty for perpetually conceiving ofneeds, the level on which ever-new

~
 Tae De aeoiricaTonta: ALDERTS, ON Dasine ano Teme

“objects ofdesire are proposed. [deliberately use this term desire-+-which today is cliborated in the 1920s by progressvist urbanism and the congress ofmodem
heavily freighted with connotations—because it accounts for two important di- architecture, whose repercussions have never ceased to be fet t leads Albert
‘mensions in the thought ofAlberti First ofall, it indicates the open-endedness of {nto an inquiry that is all the more arduous in that here, he labors in virgin te
the level of commodity, which develops in a dialectic relation with the ‘other’. ritory and has at his disposal none ofthe methods offered today by the fields of
‘Second,in a more sexualized sense, atthelevelof the aesthetic, desire (cupiditas) psychology, sociology, or cultural anthropology.
‘Alberti begins by askingiby any chance tradition might not provide the
Base
refers to the pleasure (vluptas), which,like a beautiful body, the beautiful edi-
taxonomy for which he is searching, in the form ofsocal clasifiations handet
‘The rules now no longer concernbuildingin general, but thediversity of down from Antiquity, from the mythic time ofTheseus to that of Plato and
‘Aristotle.A critical examination convinces him that they are all determined for
(asgiaed
possible edifices, and, in particular, che noblest ofthem all, the city: From the be-
Gace seit cpa oat political purposes which ae irrelevant to his own preoccupations. He therefore
eect
ieee Tetonieeimenash decidesto proceed in his own way and with his own means,according to a logic
econ tee
fa Eo harley Fike eran aoes appropriate to the buile domain which constitutes his specific orizon.*?
“This methodological option leads him not only to establish a system of
whichwe are led to believe. The process that transforms (habituated)
demands lasification founded on the analysis ofconventional use and hence ofthe cate- users
and makes them seem to be (natural) needs has falsely labeled them ‘necessary’. ‘ofthe buile world which will function in book 5,but also to assign to the
_gorical opposition univeral/ particular an essential ole in the generation ofbook
tne rellyes dgh ess eatsoe Ld
‘This is why at the moment when, despite everything, Alberti wants to
establish’
4 and is res?
alee uae ‘ofthe operators at
work in the domain of “Thus Alberti begins his personal investigation by immediately introdc-
ing am alternative (“prinpio venit in mentem”).4 which allows him to distin
pci ed/cae wich neoied naeroe nee
necessity. To sure,| at his disposal pairs ofc: ies (universal/particular,
‘gush evo categories ofrules applicable to building on the level ofcommodity.
feedatwace ofparen eface ae
‘with the inexhaustible diversity of uses. But these categories
are powerless in the ) “The observer, he remarks,can study men ether as particular individuals or as
members ofa community5$ In the same waythe objects they produce—no-
‘ably their buildings—can be apprehended eitheras bearers ofdifference or 38
Sanne eee RES.ge toecbing ges pia
‘modity, too relative and too vague. They demand a
complement, the intervention

‘This new operator could be the taxonomy of human

Prologue posed the principle and which itis now necesry uses for which the the second, universal rules. In other words,any built object can be envisaged ci
thevai ther from the point ofview ofthe particular or the universal. The casifcation
ofmchardbaer to
‘Quantity and the variety ofbuildings, itis easy to understand es
pias
isecan only fonction in the domain ofthe particular, in that it involves same
intrin~
holds
that they were not sic differences ofspecific behavior which are mutually exclusive, The
rn oie wos dpepy onit
all developed for this first purpose, nor
indeed for the other but that the for the opposition between public and private, which should not be confused
‘with the universal/particular opposition, athough they are at times proximate.
‘ture."5! This remark, like the entire
Passage in whichit embedded, would In concrete terms, whether we take the case ofa particular city (which
constitute a relevant critique of the architectural
ritect ra
andurbanistic universalism can symbolize public construction) ora specific house (which symbolizes private
 Cuarten Teo
= THE DE Re ABDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND Time

construction),cither can be considered alternately from the universal or the par- and beyond the city,from roads and streets to drainage systems,but also bridges,
ticular point ofview. In che frst case, we will be dealing with rules for all cities arches,gates,public squares,and ports:these openings orpasages these means of
and all houses,of, to followAlbers reasoning a closely 3s posiblethose features communication and conduction simultaneously constitute the keydimension of
‘common to all cites which concern in identical fashion the public life ofall cit- the city and its compartition.
izens,and the features common to all houses which concern in identical fashion In giving these basic rules,Alberti carefully avoids any modeling.What is
the private lives ofall citizens. In the secondcase, we will be dealing with the involved here isa system ofoperations identically applicable to all cites.And if
rules concerning the differences imposed on particular houses ind cities by the 2s it happens, certain public edifices (temples, bslicas, etc.) are mentioned in
diversity oftheir contexts and circumstances. There are four different kinds of the course ofthe exposition, i is exclusively trom a topological point ofview, t0
rules, presented according tothe four categories they indicate how to fix their positon in global space.As for the individual features
tourpuuiealpratparca eve. addres: universal public, and form ofthese edificesthey are determined by other rules linked to the par-
stranaa ne aepart adopted by Alberti in choosing the tion univer-
brypothesis according to which buildings, necesarily differentiated by the con-
ticularity oftheir functions which, in turn, depend on the social sana oftheir
‘occupantsand will not be given until later, in book 5.
<itons oftheir realization, conform to univeral rules.Th ‘Alberti found it necessary to delay the discussion ofthe city for the space
‘elves 2 form ofregulation which, in the word ofuse ande univenality then in ofthree entre books ofhis treatise. Inthe privileged place where it occurs, st-
‘angle 3 necenity inthe word ofnaimate objects and in tha diference, plays the uated atthe very heart ofthe De resedifatori,itspresented 2s the most perfect
ofhoman ‘ofhuman accomplishments. But one should not misapprehend the import of
{eis appropriate to treat the universal this superlave. Ijustifies the priority accorded to the cty on the second level of
‘Comequenty.s soon a the general theoreticalrules before the particular ones.
problems ae reseed in thefe
the triad,commodity, but it does not confer upon ita status different from that
ofother edifices as far a the application ofthe rules ofbuilding is concerned.
chapterbook 4 is devote in is entirety to the rules
‘hat ito say the rules for constructing the city in isofthe public and universal,
universal aspect.
“This parity before the rules implies,on the one hand,that forAlberti there is no
For Albert, the ciy isthe public edifice whose difference between the approach ofthe builder ofbuildings and chat ofthe plan
‘reater than any other” Contrary to his habitual method, import and dignity is ner ofcites,of, in more contemporary terms, between architecture and urban
at he takes care to ism. It ako, on the other hand, exphins why the city does not necessarily
‘maintain it privileged position in the course of the treatise, and why, on the
third level ofaesthetic pleasure, whose rules are equally applicable to the city. ic
Bie ‘an be reduced to a backdrop against which the monuments are £0 be viewed.
‘The fac chat Alberti esentially takes 2 his objective the construction ofan ar~
ticulated system ofrules accounts both for the central position ofthe chapeers
devoted to the city and for their relative brevity: Unlike the treatise writers of
the Clasical Age, who focus on the architecture ofindividual edifices and ne-
lect the city, for Alberti, the city is indeed an integral part ofedification. But it
does not have the exemplary value it kes on in the work of Filarete,®* for
 Cuarren Two Tt De ae aepinicaronsa: Ave

‘whom it isthe aimofall building andthe entity to which all others are subor- which individuate privileged citizens in Albertis taxonomy. He firs distinguishes
inated. That is why Alberti can,in the De ve acdifcatvia, open thatsingle win those who exercise absolute authority, kings and tyrants,from those who share
dow ontothe city power. The latterare divided in turn into priests,senators who exercise legilative
Acconding tothe plan ofthe prologue, book 5 should be devoted to par- ‘power,judges, military commanders,and various kinds ofadministrator.
ticular edifices, that i, according to Alberts terminology, the particular rules for [But these remain empty categories to the extent that their precise con
ccdifices considered fromthe point of view oftheir conerete inscription into the tent—the range ofbehaviors, tasks, and objectives that characterize them and
second level ofcommodity. However,this program is not strictly followed,since ‘which must be accommodated by the buildings whose rules ofproduction are
part of the first chapter and all of the second chapter deal with the universal being formulated—is left indeterminate. The meaning and interest ofAlberts
rules for the construction of houses,established, albeit very summarily in the ‘taxonomy lies in the fact that it furnishes a framework for the expression ofwhat
same manneras those for the cityThis pasage ofthe De re aedifctora presents
certain number ofdifficulties to which I will return below. It should be empha-a ‘one would today call program.This term, whichis not to be found in the Deve
‘edifcatora is used here along with programming and progrommati, to facilitate the
sized, however, that Alberti demonstrates his respect forthe conceptual
ture of the work when he establishes the homology between the cityarchitec reader’ comprehension.The word should ofcourse be shorn ofall cybernetic
hhouse on the level of universal rules, Following this, the remainder of and book 5
the ‘connotations,but given this disclaimer,it adequately designates the articulation
ofdemand fr consocted pcet Ths demand shoalbe ebed in dei.
«an be given over to particular buildings ‘exhaustively as possible, by intercrossing the social agents with the two pairs
‘These rules are given in the order furnished by the taxonomy Alberti de
veloped for the fist chapter of book 4.This system ofclassification, intended ‘operators, eee and sacred/secula,introduced in the prologue. Once
Impose order on the world ofhuman differences and the particularities ofusesto this work has been accomplished,the deduction ofthe particular rules ofbuil-
and edifices, is labored: and, in spite ofwhat the author claims,it remains marked ing, those which at the level ofcommodity concern individual buildings, poses
by ancient Latin literature even whenit manages to transcend being no problem.All chat is necessary is to successively imtereros each category ofde~
Alcction ofthat tradition. Nonetheles, it recalls the organization of aI lib mere re mand with the six operations ofthe axiom of conception, which are always
famigliaAlberti begins by proposing a classification that divides humans della ‘enunciated in the same order.
three hierarchic categories which correspond to three types oftalents rankedinto “The extent and meaning ofthe programming can be measured with ref
cording to their diminishing status: the powerof reason,s in the arts, and ac- ‘erence tothe passage in which Alberti details in succession—and with equal a~
‘capacity to accumulate wealth. Observing that those whokill excelin
the tention and clarity—the programs of the city of the good prince and those of
‘egories are few in number, however, Alberti transforms all three cat- the tyrant. Here,the difference of exigencies responds to thedifference in
{nto a binary opposition between the small elite of“thehisfewinitial triadic division
important
space. The task ofthe architect is precisely that ofsuccessfully matching 2 de-
andthe many less important ones." Afier thishis attention is ewentially citizens” ‘mand and a building. It is evident that Alberti as a mora individual, prefers the
tered on the frst group. However, ther than going on to clasify cen~ ‘good king to the tyrant, and in fact when,at the end ofthe De re sedificatori, he
the
bers ofthe elite according to their talents—that is, according to psychological mem vols the moral obligations ofarchitecture, he makes i lear tha i thea
<riteria—Alberti is led through a sequence ofsubtle shits in meaning chitect’s responsibility to know how to choose his clients and his programs.
them according to political and socal criteria. It is the functions theytoperform
clasify But such questions arise in a register other than that ofthe generation ofrules
for buildingThe order ofthe genesis ofbuil spaces has nothing to do with the

lt
 Cuarren Two THE DE RE ABDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TOME

‘onder ofthe ethical. ts only requirement isto respond to the program,to meet structed,hough these constitute mere illustrations ofAlbertiS method and the
the demand ofthe client Thus, when Albert undertakes to determine the rules functioning ofhis rules°7 Michel thus comes to detect a utopian dimension in
for the production the buile domain in accondance with the various demands of the De re aeifcatoria, However, unconcerned about contradicting himself afew
‘human beings, he evinces no more concern for theinterest or the value ofthese pages further on Michelcriticizes Albert fo filing to take apolitical postion,
demands than does the modern linguist necessarily judge the content of the and remarks—again with reference othe passage on the two princer—that “ily
«enunciations which serve to establish the laws ofdiscursive production. While (11 ches [Alberti] ne sort dopportiome qui.pat relever deapienesre
the practicing architect can, and indeed should, take a stand with respect to the i pus que des éritsit de Platon™* In fact, there is no opportunism.
bien
Program he is asked to realize hic et nunc the theoretician is barred from ex edifztoras sitaated outside the realm ofpolitics in an independent domain
Pressing such an attitude. The question to be asked by the latter is howand not whichAlberti attempts to give a rational foundation.
‘why. This how sums up in a word the projectof the De re auifatria, Understood in this way, the comparison with ees ime
Far from wanting to privilege one program over another, whether urban Nevertheles, this imprecision leads Michel to notice an authentic
‘monumental, Alberti on the contrary intends to suggest the infinite diversity or Albers intrt in he solar wd and psi pce eines om hems
‘constructions which may be proposed tothe architect, and which—whatever theirof sources as Aristotelian, and despite ll dhe atempes a ‘recuperation’ by
‘ontent-—he can realize by means ofthe same limited set ofuniversal rules.This Landino and members ofthe Platonic Academy at Careggi. postions Alberti
desire to deal with edification in and ofselfas an autonomous domain has, how- epposion to Platonism. ;
‘ever, been more or less misunderstood by critics. Eugenio Garin himself suc- Indeed it is this pasionate interest in Aristotelian tehne—in Latin cermi-
‘cumbed to ambiguity on this poine.The “ideal city’which he atributes to Albert nology arteof which architect tthe noblest ofall—which permis Aber
‘indeed proposed in work ike Iii delafamigs and the Taygnio But tospeak to attempt a exten of
{2 le avoopalcomsidenions and ener cae mae
(ofthe‘Albertian city’apropos ofthe De ve cedifatriais to ignore the icin which he egiemen fr building are
‘that gives this work its unique resonance andsignals is determinatiothen to‘neutrality’
teatthe opposition prin hs
cliborte a theory ofthe progam. The binarytheory: each
‘ules ofedification in the strictframework ofn autonomous discipline indepen two aspects ofthis theory: socal actor Tool
us dicnguish an rte ie which
dent ofthe theoreticians own positions. I is surprising chat one ofthe pro- iis
Seah pl ean profesional will allow us to fllow analy
found analysts ofthe Italian Renaissance, and one ofthose most carefulmost
cane npn an cee wana orf
to personal dwellings Three examples
the abridgements and displacements that humanist scholars imposed on the textnoteof
‘Antiquity, was led—probably because he accorded too mach importance
Alberts borrowings from Plito for his socal eaxonomy/S—to consider adventi-to demand of
tous the manifesto-ike passage on the dwelling ofthe good prince versus that of
the tyrant. Ignoring it, he centers his attention on the position ater acconded
on knee ns ne web
= Cones, begin with the society ofpret in ight ofthe
(God, which takes plac inthe tpldhe exec ofpiety andthe aqui
certain edifices lke the suburban house,although Alberti arf to indicate thatto divin and human knowledge, which has 2sei n te monarythe BN
these correspond to a personal inclination and carry only illueative value. heir eng the so andthe hoi wil
‘ment ofscales which have of cl
‘The same misunderstanding leads Paul-Henri Michel to accord an ab- not into detail here about the different types oftemples

|
program,
solute value to Albertis classification and to the edifices it allows to be con- vatiee to pint oot ee importance accorded inthe formulation ofthe

nll. ll,
 Cuarren Two THE De RE ApDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND That

to the impression these edifices should make on those whofrequent them, and ticularly numerous and detailed set ofrules. Rather than the urban house,Alberti
the role therefore played by the operations concerning, respectively locality and ives priosity tothe rural form ofprivate domicile, the ill,” because i sie
‘openings, which ensure through the selectionof an appropriate locationin the ofthe constraints imposed by urban life and can be freely extended on its sit.
city and thejudicious placement ofapertures a movingview and evocative plays ‘Afier having applied the rules for determining the locality in relation to winds
‘oflight. Nor need we speak of the various sorts ofmonasteries whose situation, and irregubaites ofthe terrain, Alberti comes to the buildings which workers. are to howe
for example,will differ according to the degree ofseclusion desired and the sex ‘on the one hand the landowners, and on the other hand the farm
ofthe inhabitants. As for hospitals,” theirtypology responds to a chssifcation of “The later are at once guardians and agricultural producers who pose must be
‘maladies.We must, according to Alberti, distinguish between contagious diseases, able to conserve the fruits oftheir labor.They will therefore s (a sendem
‘treated at a certain remove fromthe city, and non-contagious diseases, which buildings, one for the family and the other forits instrument ianship, i
‘can be treated intta murs.The latter, in their turn,can be classified a either cur- a and the products ofits harvest.The function ofguard ker’ hae
able orincurable. According to the distinction between women and men, crossed with the operation ofsituation, requires thatthe house farm-wor
‘ypes ofurban hospitals are envisaged which differ in their ste, cheir form,eight and located near the dwelling of his master. The worker's should allow
their plan. For schools, finally, ifAllerti takes his inspiration from the rules ob- nourished with commodit y. and to recaperate
peasant family to be warmed and intersecti on of the pgr=
served by the Ancients in building theirpalestue, he adds a whole is strength in the mos rational wy.To this endthe
plements concerning, in particular, the choice ofa setting shieldedseries from
ofcom-
noise,
construct
tions ofcomparion and openings will demand the nd ducts permitng We ion of vas =
foul odors, idle citizens,and crowds. an oven,a
proofed kitchen furnished witha hearth be devoted to rex.cach
‘Another problem, whichles this time in the domain ofthe secular mag- evacuation ofwaterAn autonomous sace wilo the means ofaccess to a>
‘sera is the prison. Albert begins by establishing a typology ofcrimes analogous sleeping in the greatest posible proximity
{0 that ofdiseases. A the intererossing with the operation oflocality. certain ‘el tored in three types of spaces.78 The products
‘oners are not to be confined within the city; others, onthe contrary are topris- ‘offrm culture (for consumpt will be stored
ion) in specific sheds eat
kept precisely in the center. Housed in different locations, be they will contain — Os a
and uncomfortable according to the nature and more ot less solitary signed and differentiated aceording to whether good ventilation and an ar
in seven categories) or plants, which require
they occupythe urban prison which must satisfygravity oftheir wansgresions,
to be obtai ned by apply ingt he principles ofopening and
honest citizens, prisoners, and wardens.7? The security
simultaneously the needs of mosphere,both effect
be provided by means ofthe operations pertaining to demanded bythe first will
s, it must satisfy the requirements of
Part, openings. The operations for opening, again,as well ams, wall, roofing and, in aes or the dwelling ofthe land-owmerlives iving, guests, the respon
tion, will provide the prisoners with a minimum of hygiene as those for comparti- the various activities that comprise their ie(rece rest,g rooming) clase ere
(venation, light, and taking ofmeal, intellectual work sexu al
‘evacuation ofwaste) physical comfort (heating, fxciltes for outdoor ost public to the most private Thes e activi ties are in turm intercross a
and moral well-being (private celk), and will facilitate surveillance exereise), rank ed according 6 tr
‘dens (apertures permitting the observation the interior of individ cell by the war, diversity ofthe members ofthe househokl, who are rappo rt with it (various wi=
‘status within the family (parental relations) orin
Mylast example is drawfrom private life the family dwelling so
tors or domestics) Allberti devotes muchattentotion to the influence ofthe great
the theoreician of | in delfang, whose construction is the object deat to ately dichanged ach
ofa par. utara ths and cycles on private life: be adequ
 Cuarren Two Tut De Re avoiricaroRta: ALbEnti, OR Destine AND Time

activity calls on specific operations of locality and openings,but the orientation ‘The same ambivalence manifests isein the case ofthe house,in which
and apertures which follow fromthis will vary according to the seasons.Thus, for certain rooms are used by all the occupants (“aedium partes alae unieronan”),®
‘cxample, there will be different dining rooms for winter and summer.The con- others by many ofthem (“plurimonum”),*! while still others only serve particular
ccern for detail and the desire for exhaustiveness that these programs reveal stand individuals (“sinulonum")#2The word ‘univer’ indeed designates the public pars
48 the extreme opposite oftheideology ofuniversal needs, which since the eigh- ofthe house,or at least those which concern the greatest number ofpeople. For
‘centh century—but above all since the beginning ofthe twentieth century—has the pairing ofthe operators public/private is essentially relative: it can easily desig-
sarked the theory andpractice ofplanning. Moreover,and contrary to the re- ‘nate antinomic terms applicable alternately to the same space, and thus turns out to
ceived idea that a real concern for commodity emerges only in the eighteenth ‘be as complicated for Alberti as for architects today who continue to use it.
‘century, no aspect ofpractical life seems too trivial or negligible to Alberti: the Moreover, theclassification ofhuman uses as Alberti finally chooses to es
pages he devotes to cellars, pantries, and cesspools all testify to this ‘tablish it testifies, as we have seen, to the consideration ofa problem too complex
It would be easy to give additional concrete examples from the programs to be formalized conceptually in the Quattrocento,Alberti finally reintroduces the
and rules formulated in book 5, which vividly describe the day-to-day existence political categories ofAntiquity which he wanted to avoid. His citizens of dif-
of the privileged classes ofthe Italian Quattrocnto,but that is not our purpose ferent categories are closer to thecitizens of the classical polis or wrbs than to
here; nor is it my intent to show how Alberti shifts constantly between the analy- those of theItalian cities of his own time.They are classed hierarchically ac~
sis ofcontemporary Italian life and the ancient models which humanists discov- <conding to the nature ofpower implicit in a given regime,the oligarchy,a choice
ered in Latin literature and subsequently interpreted (not without a certain which reveals Alberti’ own preference.**
touch offantasy). Our object here is rather to show how books 4 and 5 are ar- But whatever its limits, this taxonomy whose relativity is signalled by
ticulated in the De re aedifiatoria, and how independently oftheir content and Alberti himselfis the operator thatintegrates the binary oppositions at the level
the particular factors that determined them, the new operator and the rules it ofcommodity. Its content matters little, forit can be modified later; whatis im-
helps generate by intercrossings with the preceding operators are integrated into portant is that itis imposed as a classification and it functions. It functions in the
the architecture and economy ofthe work. ‘same way as the binary opposition universal/particular, which permits the con-
‘That is why,in the preceding pages, have minimized a certain number of ception of a specific mode of production of the built domain;it also works like
difficulties which do not impinge on the structure and functioning ofthe oper- the second kind ofnecessity, the one which is operative in the works of human
ators ofthe De ve aedifcatoria. But these difficulties nonetheless exist, as Alberti desire for which there was as yet no name in the Quattrcento,In spite ofmarked
bimselfrecognizes atthe beginning ofbook 5 when he warns us that the subject difficulties, Alberti has thus been able to specify the operator that has
been in-
he will treat is a“large and complicated matter."7”Thus, as we have seen,I un- dispensable to the formulation of the rules of building which operate
on the
ambiguously interpreted the universal rules ofcommodity as necesury and com- level of commodity.
parable to what we call today cultural universals, and I have stressed the identity It remains true that all of the initial operators are indispensable and con-
coftheir Functioning in the two cases ofthe city and the house.Alberti docs have tinue to be utilized systematically. We have seen that binary opposition pub-
somedifficulty in conceiving the homology ofthese two terms from the point lic/private, which had not been invoked since the prologue, is called
on at all
‘ofview ofuniversal law,7* and he sometimes confuses the two concepts ofpub- levels ofthe programmatic analysis ofthe city and the house. The six operations
lic and universal.?? of the axiom ofconception serve the transcription ofthe programs into space

Mr
 Cuarran Two De Fe AUDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND ThatE

and determine its chronology. The axiomof the buik ng asa body permits the Este.This hypothesis, interesting as it may be, seems to us to be unnecessarily
a new metaphor to guide con nattition, one which is organized complicated and incompatible with the contents ofthe present prolague.Above
around 2 central organ of privileged status analogous tothe heart: the atrium for all these three inital chapters seem to us to be in complete accon withthe gen
the h us, the fonumfor the cityThe process of reduction to the same struc cral approach ofthe treatise which,fomstart to finish, connects the narration of
tural denon ly isthe city/house homology repeated the different stages ofedification with an accountofthereflected thought which
and developed part by pat, "the“monastery isa constructs it, rendering the theoretical time ofthe builder concurrent with the
formof religious 1 d the military camp is“lke a cityin embryo" actual time of the author’ construction ofthe text. From this perspective,and
Dedicated to commodity and centeredonthe city, books 4 and 5 thus re given that we know the editing ofthe De re aedifatris took many years,ofis itis
spect the logic and economy ofAlbertis project. They constitute a masterful ar~ not surprising that Alberti should have signalled his temporal dimension
ticulationofits architecture between the level of necessity andthat ofaesthetic project, in one way oranother, and thathe should have spoken ofthe anxieties
pleas They differ fromthe three preceding books in that they do not form a ‘and intellectual dificulties which were the cost ofelaborating the rules presented
«closed unit, and, evenif reduced to a minimum, could by definition be devel- i inl ofthe De re aedifiatria.
‘oped indefiately. It is pethaps in terms ofthis potential thatthe value atributed. ° am ‘cond seria than the first, is identicallyanddivided into
by Albertito space and to the activity of buildingis best read: the former is al- three parts:a biographical narrative ofthe intellectual conquests speculative
‘ways submited to the Inter, which occupies it, differentiates it, and specifies it difficulties encountered by the author (6.1);a definition ofandtheeulogy to beauty
interminably asa function ofthe requirements or demands ofindividuals. (6.2): and finally, an origin narrative and an introduction to problematic of
Bur the level ofcommodity constitutesjust one stage in the process ofed- beauty (6.3)from which the plan ofthis concluding section ofthe De re sedif-
ification. Baile spaces attain their true completion only in a higher register. In <catoria will be deduced.
‘other word, we must add to the rules allowing the demands ofcommodity to be Ithe eulogy to beauty, the supreme achievement ofnaturealsoandreveals ofthe arts
satisfied other rules respondingto the desire forbeauty: aesthetic pleasure and enthusiasm, it nonethcles 2 still
the beauty whichis its cause are the aim and the crowning achievement ofedi- (ames)testifies to an almost religious the thin! part ofthe De we acd-
covert ambivalence which will weigh heavily on
fication, and abo of the Dee aedifaoria, whose lst and longest sectionis de~ that
ificavria, In effect, Alberti begins by demonstrating ignorant “gh impeitibeauty .equally re
voted to them. ceivable everyone, fromthe learned," peri" andsch3 the
However, before beginningin book 6 what he himself speaks ofas the shen che pr esein works ofmature utilized, the safle she 35
third part ofhis work,*” Alberti signals a pause. In the first three chapters ofthis well as in the works ofhumankind . The terminology in particular the
book,he steps back from his tsk to redress the balance between efforts ventured verb to feel (sentie), which appears no less than three times on a single Page,
and results achieved,to point to the challenges still unmet.In fact, he is catching shows that this is not a matter ofrational activity but rather ofa sort ofuniver-
hhis breath before the last, most perilous stage of his work;** and this pause, sal instinct whose nature is as dificult © apprehend as that of beauty: Thus,
‘unique in the unfolding ofthe De re aedfctoria, takes on the character ofa new ‘Alberti offers only an abbreviated and provisional definition: “Beauty is that
prologue. For Richard Krautheimer this isa preface Alberti had written for a (cera ratione) harmony (concinnats) ofall the parts within a body, so
reasoned but for the worse"! Divine
first version ofhis reat, in a moment ofdisappointment after having given up that nothing may be added, taken away, oF altered,
the project to write the commentary onVitruvius suggested to him by Leonello in nature, as marvelous as it is rare and thus different from ornament, which
 Cuarren Two Tue DE RE ABDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI. OR Destine AND Tine

represents a form of auxiliary and artificial beauty,?? beauty is inherent in the ‘The formulation and enumeration ofthe basic rules are thus left until the
beautiful object.” And despite the opinions of those whoassign it only relative ‘end of the third part ofthe De re aedfatoria.This procrastination is surprising,
and contingent value,Alberti vigorously reaflirms the existence ofabsolute rules and in effect reveals a genuine embarrassment ofwhich Alberti’ long résumé of
of beauty. These belong—andthis is the crux ofthe ambivalence mentione the ‘second prologue’has given us a sense. We observe him being hindered by
above—both to the realm ofinstinct and to that ofa rationality proper to all thed ‘wo main difficulties. The first concerns ornament. Whereas ornamentation is
arts (thatis,techniques) whose origin Alberti establishes in a brief narrative of initially depreciated and dissociated from architectural beauty, later itis estab-
three phases: the arts (artes) were born of chance, and then, in the course ofa lished on the same level as—if indeed it is not identified with—architectural
ong process ofmaturation,they were perfected: first by the observation ofna- beauty! Furthermore,itis ornament and not beauty which is honored by di-
ture,then by experimentation, and finally by reasoning(ratio-cinatio), rect reference in the titles ofthe four books ofthe third part ofthe De re aedif-
In the realm of the particular technique (an) ofedification, these three ‘catoria.The second difficulty concerns the status ofthe ‘philosophical laws’ of
Phases occurred successively in Asia, Greece,and Italy. In other words, insofar beauty and their rapport with necessity and commodity.
‘edification fully realizes its concept only at the ukimate level ofaesthetic plea-as In particular, how is the specificity ofthe third level and is laws compat-
sure,itis in Italy that it attained absolute beauty: In effec, Allberti tells us that ible with the conception ofbeauty as perfect adaptation? Ifthe beauty ofaa ed-
the Etruscans and the Romans were the fist to assimilate the imitation ofnature ifice, ike that ofan animal,resides in its adaptation to is purpose, then there is
to that ofthe living creature and, realizing thatthere is no beauty which is not re= no need for the laws of beauty to be formulated in a register of their own.
lated to utility and commodity, they applied the term beauty to the perfect mor- Moreover, this concept ofadaptation’ scems to be in contradiction not onlywith
phological adaptation ofthe animal to its purpose.By virtue ofthe economy of the philosophical conception ofarchitectural beauty, bt also with the notion of
‘means thus achieved, and by their intellectual work and their prodigious activity ‘ornament whichit excludes.
as builders, they broughtarchitectural beauty to a high degree ofperfection. Itis thus clear that the problems which troubled Alberti athe threshold of
In this history—in fact, not so historical—ofarchitecture,Alberti evinces a the third part ofthe De re acdfatoria were not minor ones. Unable to givewhen them
nonchalance™ comparable to the tenor ofhis origin narratives. It serves asa bass explicit formulation, and after having deferred the fundamental moment he deit
for his assertion that certain laws exist (“praccepta probatisima)” with respect to would be necessary to treat the philosophical hws ofarchitecturalbooksbeauy.
beauty and are deduced from a perfect knowledge (“absolutssima copnitione”% votes the frst and by far the longest”? section of the “aesthetic to tech
‘which i is his tak to discover.These laws are divided into two categories:These i for ornamentation.
principles either direct every aspect of beauty and ornament throughoutthe
building oF relate individually to its various parts. The former are derived from cre ing te deta fhe rales pice to the dierentbyte com-
philosophy, and are concerned with establishing the direction and limits to this gories ofornament as they appear in the particular edifices programmed ret
mots book 6Abert ets the geere tawe iF
XY| art (ofedification);the latter comefrom the experience ofwhich we spoke, but fication. This
are honed, s0 to speak, to the rule ofphilosophy and plot the course of this
art"?Alberti announces that he will begin with the more technical rules ofthe thet wath theerconcn (ok 3cmncned fore heya at
pendently a
beauty can
second category,while the others (“quae univeriam rem prehendant”)¥ will serve to workin addres ing the specific problems of {books 4 and 5. Since hand (acer
result from activities of the mind (eleto,di tibutio, collate), ofthe
as an epilogue. be obtained by
sutio,afftio, expolte), and of nature itself, the general rules will
 Cuarren Two THE De RE AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND Trae

Iintercrossing these different kinds of activities with the six operations ofthe will be the exclusive issue until the treatment ofthe philosophical rules. Finally,
axiom of conception. the rules of this rational beauty, which appear for the first time only in the sec-
But on the level ofbeauty, the later are governed by a new equikibr ‘ond part ofchapter 12 dedicated to openings, will henceforth always be formu
‘The first and second operations, treated with considerable eaedata lated in the subjunctive and the imperative, unlike the preceding rules,feature which
at great length in the first part ofthe De re aedifcatori, are not very productive are explicated and enunciated in the present indicative. This linguistic
“justifies my decision to subsume them under the concept ofdagmanica system asthe|
here: locality and area offer limited possibilities for aesthetic intervention.As for imposes of
compartition, whose privileged status we observed in the second part ofthe trea- ‘Without rational justification, without discussion, Albert
‘ise, it now occupies a single paragraph."This brevityseems surprising arithmetical proportions. In fact, as he himself says atthe end ofbook 6,Albert
fom the
lance,but is nonetheless explicable. For ifbeaury comes in part fom the nae borrowed the standard for his dogmanc aesthetic trom Andquity.notmonuments, ruined oF
adaptation ofthe edifice to its purposes, then compurtition, which had precisely its
{always contestable) writing ofis author, but ffomwhich will phy a key role
this as its function on the level ofcommodity, can hardly generate new rules at rot, which he tirelesily studied and measured, and
particu
this point. In fact, even though the word concinnitas does not appear in the sec~ fom the beginning ofbook 7, the moment when the rules concerning
‘ond part ofthe De re acifcatora, its precisely an accord ofthis kind among the Lar edifices, already informed by commodity, are introduced.
parts ofthe edifice which is demanded ofcompartition by the‘organic’corollary in conformity with the generative logic of the Deve aedifouni, the onder
of topics adopted is that ofbooks 4 and 5: However, although the categories of
ofthe axiom ofthe building as a body. practically the same (cred public?
‘On the other hand,the ornamentation ofwall, r008,or openings calls for edifices to which the aesthetic rues apply are
importance ana the exaniples chen ifr. This is
4 number ofrules concerning, for example, revetments!4 and columns.The col- Secular public), cheitrelative for commodity do not all eal for
‘umn, which so far has beenenvisaged as a weight-bearing element (0s), is now because, on the one hand, the edifices built gives abuadant cstimony of thi),
presented as the most significant ornament:“In tot aediftoriaprimarium cere cnamentation (Alberts negative aesthetic
demand dhe analy=
cemmamenturn in columnis est.""It embellishes crossroads, public squares, theaters, ‘omthe other hand, the norms ofthe dogmatic aesthetic ions oF
‘commemorative monuments, and trophies. : sis of & minimum 1 number ofedifices belonging, along, with their funct
‘The set of rules in book 7 calls for three comments which also ses, to Antiquity backstop for the see
the subsequent books.First ofall, far fromdealing exclusively with the uy Thasthe avers iy, which in any ase fo thencient ally a9ont of «
beauty of ornament, they also deal equally withthe intrinsic beauty ofedifices, ‘ondpart ofthe erate, Tonger evok ed other
ncunns tances. The #0
This ‘anomaly’ with respect to his announced intentionsisthe result ofAlberts sense of dy, !and in surprising and rather hetero of elon
almoxt obsessive application of his principle of economy, which comes in the thetic rules that apply «@ in bear fist ofall on the quantifiation
end (o generate what we might call a'negutive aewhetic} For one thing, when= dnhabuanes,! whic eros ab pane. Newt come encaratio
‘ever he can,Alberti rules out the use of ornament andelaborates lists of proce- ‘techniques, whieh ay of the choven arealanal complete
city Foe Alte
«dures that should be avoided. On the other hand, the notion oflos ts more Heads
Alberti to give priority 10 omunic beauty, which is inherent to perfect adaptation,
‘This beauty, whichwe can also call alaprive natundl beauty, will occupy in the
whole ofAlberti’ aesthetic a place equivalent to that of rational beauty, which
 between two parts each af which demands a dif erent aesthetic the indicative describing the procedures of the Ancientsdirectly." as if the inten
cone band, ation and divociation of urban functions; 0 hand, sw ace he eyft po ng wh a
their asin me another, The two a
qual term, along the lines of the comparison between the ns ate evoked thew ps cami of book 4 snd
ve secular public edifices
spon ito thmleg
a
of the tyrant
hat ofthe goodprince in book 4
vr hey bgt pages which hu peed wh Ani
Beppe thm wocgi cand ofc
AAs forthe aesthetic rules ofthe particular the m
‘of sacred public edifices which occupy most of hook 7. But the
'§ not superimposed on that of book 5: Alberti the
hospitals. Clearlyit would not be appropriate tsuppdeslementnot mention schools and rnc
any beauty other than that which is confeeredon them when theserules edifices with
‘modity are observed. Onthe other hand, observance of boththe of come rae eon oc same ancisbin On ee te
thereligious preoccupations ofhis own time, Alberti spends classic al Fae a he ine mg pet Ah
much time on
of prese ed acety and peste comemporny cy a :
walls (which the Ancients believed to be sacted), basilica liege of ancient customs leads to an
, comme morative arpa open
[programs are strangely abser iam the booksdod oD
ent, and aboveall the churches always designa analysis
subject discussed rapidly ina few pages of bookted5 asnowfompla 10
t thirteen whole chapters andpart theee othersThe comes to don sep ent his alpaca
the number of pages devoted tochurches andth imbalance between
os allotted toother categories is bumsae pai cee nemnsitateths the ancient
mag ic 20
all its splendor, his negative
Ton Throughes 4 series
at of recur
e
ofeifies is justified by the ambiguity ofthe termte mplum: but infact. t ako re, achees him to cond
a sor m a n i f e s t o , Alber
thorns engender
‘veal the influence—nowhere more present in Albert ting and interelatedincidents consti tuting
architec, which effectively prioritized these s work—of Vituvius’ De
aoaanteh ery an hsrecon
{ins andsinging therpraises Albert expoundsedifices Afce racing thir on
tyr sipmonaseen ftperl| fn ew n 1
{cts manifested by diffrent kinds of church the rules for heightening the ef.
de es ee Whereset ok ae
en, the exposiion fllowsthe order oftheessixonthe soul offical!" Once
operations of conception. And, Jeo pn a
2sin the preceding book,the natural aesthet maintai
Bee ofthe dogmatic ahi which doesnoticbegin ns ts postion!in the iano
iea ele m com k mon g op tnin
ne must sacrifice ornament
a “ch n
tntdhe second halof chapter 5 with respect to the col, to impose is prescipions
Only then, inch Secoany ph a Mow pe .d go
fer 5 to 12, does Alberti treat the rules concer the onders.
pers Cm
cates
p rieng
How: ‘not oe
fowl e
of beauty which
thing he teas,from wall, openings, and roofingning
es a kind
As with every
es
whatsoever possess

wr ca lo .in>-
tothe
terminologywhich would establish the lndmarks ofarchitectur
‘evoluely ops the atieude ofthe acha
elabor aion of specie
al theory Alberd Cnnis er
slete icreasepsf he
acy ners
t. Furthermore, the measurements
25° not exclusively formulated on the model, butare
ise of imple observations inthe presen ere, of, more sometimes akogiven in the Terwhere em ohreceive ehe ae
places, and that why in domestic edifices its legitim

d,and its importance and

tobe r ofuc deed i PPO
fen, inthe imperfect house guests are
 Re ABDITICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

leis above all these organic rules that illustrate the aesthetic ofprivate con- building asa body already introduced in book building is very like an ani-
struction, represented by the “hortus" or suburban house so dear to the author smal (ese veut animal aedifiiu)."!* In other words is beauty has the same na~
thatit was “a topic passed over in previous books, and saved until now"!23 49 ture as that ofthe animal. To understand and produce it one mast imitate nature,
thatit could be presented in leisurely detailThe charmofthe suburban house, ‘Under his own aegis,!3? and in the present indicative, Albert then begins a re~
«extolled in Antiquity byTerence and Martial,derives fromthe way in whichit is ‘markable analysis.The works ofnature, he says, exhibit great aesthetic diversity.
integrated into its natural surroundings and the means by which it captures ‘Beauty is precisely the common denominator which, when we see three beatt-
lighr,12 the extent and generosity ofits ground floor!25 rather than its height, tifal women ofdifferent types,one ofwhom we prefer over the other two, still
and above all, the openness ofit plan,!2 which brings the greatest pleasure by leads us to felcertain that independently ofour personal opinions each one is
virtue ofwhat Alberti already describes as an“architectural promenade!"!27 ‘equally endowed with beauty. How,then,can we define beauty? Evident i isa
This exaltation of organic beauty naturally brings us back to the philo- matter ofourjudgment, governed by “reasoning faculty that i inborn in the
sephical problem ofbeautyin general “universa pulchriudinis omamcwonunque gen mind (aninis innata quaedam ratio)."!®"The elucidation ofthe functioning ofthis
7a"? which has been progressively taking shape en abyme in analyses and receptivity (“anim sensus") is a task that Alberti refuses to undertake.This is by no
technical prescriptions. But this “extremely difficult inquiry"! put offuntil the ‘means surprising. Avoiding the snares of Neoplatonism,he has in efetatica-
middle ofbook 9,will nonetheless be ofsurprising brevity.Alberti fis i into the lated the problem in the same terms as would Kant three centuries iter. Not
space ofthree chapters (5,6, and 7), where it forms a sort ofenclave between ‘wanting (or able) to consider the question of beauty internally, chat i, in terms of,
the lengthy elaboration ofthe aesthetic ofprivate edifices and thefour terminal the mental structuresof the producingsubject, Alberti attempts to apprehend it
chapters, which as we will ec, exceed the level ofbeauty and constitute a sup
plement to the program ofthe two prologues. from the exterior,according to criteria belonging to the produced object,
He discovered these criteria through a[negative approach]according to
From the start, the reader is struck by the singularity of the three
and crucial chapters ofbook 9.They ae ofextraordinary complexity, yetcentral hich he secks to identify that which ifeliminated or altered negates the beauty a
to a disconcerting haste which is manifested in abrupt shifs.!%° And, oddly
testify of a beautiful object. Three things (Alberti does not designate themandwith
‘enough, above all they are continually justifed with appeals to the authority of ‘generic term) turn out to be essential: the number (nmmens) ofdistinct sim-
the Ancients. No doubt we should view these anomalies as a consequence of ir pars ofthe objet. thir proportion fn)an the arrangement(ola)
the difficulties Alberts ambitious undertaking caused him. For here, in theheart ofthe objec selfand fs pars in elton o one another. Frm theconnie a
‘of book 9, he formulates a theory ofbeauty which no longer deals exclusively tion ofnumenss,fintio, and cllcatio is derived concinnitas, theseegreat
ta thse a
and absolute lw ofmature and ofhuman protons We
‘with architecture. It seems as though he wants to resolve the difficulties and in- are
compatibilities foreshadowed in book 6 and underlying the books that follow results ofthree operations comparable to those ofconception,bur they henceforth |
duced explicitly from the observation ofnature. will refer to them
itcthe respective roles ofinstinct and reasonin the production ofbeauty, the te .
lations between natural and cultural beautyand the relationof reat to the tra-
dition that governs the dogmatic aesthetic nee
‘operations the axiom ofeoncinnitas
aceo npar hi poet heingenon
in the
a
pre~
these operations and their implications. But, instead ofproceed
Acthe beginning of his treatment,Alberti adopts—attributing it to the lee —
Ancients ("pertssimis veterum")—the aesthetic corollary ofthe axiom of the ‘ent indicative, a this point he assimilates all the relevant
the Ancients} ‘on
tative in the perfect tense, where the protagonists are
 Cuarren Two ‘Tue De RE AeDrFICATORIA: AtoERTI, OR Desine AND Time

with the diversityof the works ofnature,they transposed ("“manstulrant”) its laws to teriori confirmation ofAlbert's dogmatic aesthetic, which is, as we have seen,
‘the works ofmenand discovered in particular thatedifices, according to their pro that ofthe ancient orders.
‘grams(fine et off") should conformto three great ornamental figures (“figuras Ik only remains for Alberti to deal with collocitio. He discharges this task
seis exomandse”):these have been cilled Doric, lonic, and Corinthian, and rapidly, in a passage that is not without ambiguity: cllocatio goes beyond ratio~
are presented in purely qualitative terms. The general rules of the architectural “ nality, coming to rely on intuition (“ea magis senttur.quam intelligaturperse")!
aesthetic should result from the intercrossing ofthese three figures with the op- | andat the same time it“also has much in common with the rules for outlines
rations of concnnitas. But Alberti does not adhere to the logic ofhis premises. (finitio)"2 Alberti then abruptly ends both his ‘philosophical’ inquiry into
For one thing, he pays scant attention to the “figuus aedis exomanda” except at ~ ‘and chapter 7.1
the last moment, and in extrematthe beginning ofchapter 7.Furthermore,he iv alas loxiani naa wn cay oars pags envied
Privileges fit." the discussion ofwhich is taken up at the end ofchapter 5 the two prologues. Rather, deliberately abandoning the closed realm ofbeauty
and ends in the middle ofchapter 7,a the expense ofmumenis and wllxatio, which book 10 was to have delineated,Alberti sums up,or more precisely, reca-
Thisfinito manifests, in effect, the signal advantage ofpermiting numer- pitulates in the form ofa set of negative prescriptions what has been accom
ical expression.! The Ancients, Alberti tells us, discovered that it obeys three plished thus fir in the De re aedifiaoria, He enunciates the precepts for avoiding
Kinds of rules in architecture. Rules ofthe first kind are induced from the ob- those errors for which the architect must assume responsibilty:Thus, what is in-
servation ofnatureall ofwhose domain, whetherit engages vision or hearing volved here isneither corrections nor reparation (Which are foreseen and rested
governed by a single set of laws. This is why the rules can be bortowed fromis
‘musical theory:The proportions ofstrings which give rise to the different kinds in book 10) but ratherprevention. And among the preventive rules that deal with
ofchords in masic are directly transposable to edifices.!9” The the three levels ofedifcation—and not exclusively that ofpleasure and beauty—
‘not inherent in “harmonies and bodies (non innata armoniisetcosecond kind are prominence will be given to the negative aesthetic, the denunciation ofsuper-
poridus).”
“may be derived from other sources (aiunde)."!8 Alberti does not specify these but ‘luous ornamentation, and the application ofthe principle ofeconomy. Finally,
“other sources’, but it can be assumed that he means the human Albert insists on two other factors: on the one hand,the time necessary for the
of a set ofarithmetical, geometric, and musical rules which can mind, creator maturation ofprojects," which one must avoid developing too quickly at the
be
under the term means or mediators," which lke the first kind are applicable subsumed expense ofpreliminary experimental work with models;on the other hand, con-
<cdification. Finally, illustrated by its application to the column to sultation at each step ofthe proces ofefication with interlocutors whose ad-
and
ng with the three figures (the orders), there i a thitd hybrid type whose
simulancouslystem from three sources. Fist there is the
its intercross.
observation
rules
vice
"unops pyemnce
it the architect to avoid error.
cee
hebook afk sod
9 oteifices.
‘ure, and in particular of the proportions ofthe human body of a. able to the corrective precepts of 10, which concern existing
Alberti for the frst time here in chapter 7, But these measurements refered to by Insofar as the former pertain to a phase prior to realization,they have positive
to be incommensurable With turn out value and an authentic generative function. For this reason,they intrinsically be
our innate sense of beauty.'" They must be cor
rected, on the one hand by the application of
mathematical rules, and on the
long to the process ofedification, constituting its true epilogue, which is also
‘other by observation ofthe world ofbuilt edifices, that ofthe De re aeificatovia
‘cation ifnot correction This ls kind ofrule du,which always demands ver-
in a sense, pronids & por ‘This concluding dimensionofbook 9 manifests itselfim particular in the
pages that invoke for the first time in the Dew aedioatria the problems faced by

sot
 —
Cuarren Two Tue De Re APDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND Time

the architect as individual. For itis on his competence and qualities that the part co his awarenes ofhis task and his responsibilities, but above all to the force
in all his
quality of the buile object depends, His person and personality are the hidden and acumen of his intellect.'*8 The arrival on the scene of the builder
briefly dur-
foundation of the built world. Thisidea yields twoastonishing chapters (10 and. glory (echoed in the itinerary of the book), the figure we glimpsed
conclusion, and
11) inwhich Alberti draws, inthe formof rules,a moral and intellectual profile ing the first eulogy 10 architecture, should indeed be read as the
‘of the architect as an individual whois exceptional because of the range ofac- the semantic ifnot the formal,closure ofthe De re aedifcatori. Iti also the inal
Livities he has the capacity to perform, Edification is indeed a paradigm of scene of the treatise,the symmetrical counterpart of the frst scene, where Alberti
thuman creativity, and it can be the prerogative only ofsomeone whois himself und his .
‘exemplary: This is the point in the De we aedifatria at which, finally and in spite from book 1 to
pe eroaes rules of his activity have unfolded,
‘of everything,ethics enters. Ethics only comes into the process ofedification the
the middle of book 9, and immediately following a brief recapitulation,och
through the mediation ofits agent, the architect, whose candinal virtue is pru= other, and the
architect can at last be introduced as the counterpart, the
with the tri-
dence. At the intersection ofmorality and learning, appealing to both prudence of the I who presents the prologue. Alberti’ trajectory ends
and knowledge, what we would call architectural culture gives rise toa longdis of the hero: this third person justifies and authentica tes the first
‘umphal he
‘cussion by Allert The architect, he says,does not proceed froma talula naa (this
is confirmed
‘would be the height of imprudence). His whole approach,like that ofthe man. PermTat book 9 i de ert coachsion ofthe De re aedificatoria
‘of letters,'45 must be based onthe knowledge ofthe corpus ofexemplary edi book 10.To be sure, the later can be somewhat misleading.
by an analysis of of errors,
fices already existing. He must know the works ofhis predecessors, with whom the correction
Ie ereats the two subjects announced in the prologue: book, time
hie enters into a double relation,critical and dialectical, which will incite him to by edifices. For in this final
land the repair of damages sustained the passing seasons
surpass them through innovation. continues to unfold. However, whether it isthe ittimenowofoperates
(Only afer this does Alberti inventory the other kinds ofknowledge that and natural cataclysms or that of human beings,
negatively,
ate necessary to the formation of the architect. In this he stands in opposition by corrosion and destruction. Thus, the spectacle of the ruined condition
toVitruvius, wholike most clasical authors demands encyclopaedic learning. paths. He de-
of ancient edifices leads Alberti once again onto unchartedn when he secs
For the Florentine, only mathematics and painting are truly necessary, rnounces the damage caused by man, and expresses indignatio they allow
‘even for these two ficlds, a practical knowledge is deemed sufficient A finaland ‘ith what negligence, or to put it more crudely, by what
avarice
ical note ends book 9 with an analysis ofthe relations between the builder eth= and the ruin ofthings that because of their great nobility the barbarians , the rag~
his partners, chat stosay, the people whom he encounters in the practice ofhis ing enemy have spared: orthose which ll-conguering, al-wining time might
discipline: his cliens,'©7 who are his primary intelocutors on the level ofeom- easily have allowed to stand for ever”"!® From
he draws remarkable con-
this,
‘modita; his peers, whose expertise is indispensable on the three clusions. Fins of all, in strict keeping with his principle of economy,
there is
tion, and inparticular, that ofaesthetic pleasure; and finally, his evel ofeifica-
workers, whose the rule concerned with the repair and maintenan ce of edifices, which his
‘competence determines the quality ofhis productions. successors will takefive centuries to rediscover. 151 Alberti
proceeds to =
‘Thus, toward the end ofbook 9, figure is disclosed whois once cap- edifices —
‘ciate what I have called the rule of the ‘protection of ancient all
tive ofand victorious over the grids oftime which both limit andatground to works
Power: the Figure ofa hero.The extraordinary powers he posesses are owinghis spired by historical interest and by a respect accorded
to ancient monuments,
in architecture. In terms of the historical value assigned
 Cnarten Teo The De me seurricaronsa: ALHERTH, OR DESIRE AND Tose

this rule reflects the atitude of contemporary humanists. But its invocation ‘Alberti explicitly designates,with the wordsprincpia,parte, rationes,ony a subset
‘of the respect due to the works ofpast generations anticipates the nineteenth ‘ofthe operators he uses. However, by applyinga functional analysis we can iden
century approach of Ruskin. 152 tify the whole set, which I will present synthetically in a formulation that is rel-
However it must be admitted that book 10 does not respect the rules atively free compared to that ofthe De re aeifiatoia and employing,once again,
textual construction ofthe Der aedifatoia It goes beyond the contents whichof my own terminology.
the prologue had assigned to it and sacrifices the rule-governed function ofthe ‘Although this distinction was not made byAlberti, we can divide the op-
textual operators to picturesque anecdote and a long, dsertative digresion cerators ofthe De re aedifiatoria into two categories: theoretical and practical. 1
‘pired by Vitruvius concerning water and hydraulic works, which occupies call the former, ofwhich there ae five (along with their corollaries)axioms, and
‘than two-thirds ofthe text.The tenth book,in fact, turns to bea eatchal.more the latter,whichare three in mumber,principles.
‘might compare it to a blind window that gives Alberts out We
edifice a Vitruvian ap- I have chosen to call the theoretical operators axioms because they are
Pearance, or, we might view it asa mete appendix ofmediocre quality, super- presented a8 propositions which are indisputablefundamental, and posessed of
fluous to Alber textual construction whichi so imposing in alls pars {generative power.This axiomatic foundation is, moreover,free of any depen-
virtue ofthe rigor and coherence ofits architecture. by
dence upon visual media tis striking that, alone among Occidental mata,
11 A TuEoRy oF Evirication
Alberti deliberately declined to illustrate his treatise or to rely on the use of
‘geometric figures. In a pasage ofbook 3 whose importance seems to have been
‘overlooked, Alberti explains this decision, which has also been ignored by
his editors from the sixteenth century (with the Italian translation of Bartoli
and the French translation ofMartin) up to our own time (where Orlandi as
well as Rykwert have retained their illustrations) in opposition to the spirit of
the text. fin period dedicated to the hegemony ofvision and its relationship
to truth (and given his own profound contribution to the theory ofperspective
sified by the mature ofAlberts second lve’ which is deployed i and cartography),Alberti asserted that illustration was “foreign” to his project
withthe cancion ofthe demanda (ab insite ana").yet freely admitted the difficulties ie would cause him to
it cannot be dissociated, For this reason,nddr
when
e mat a ohanet explicate his points “using words alone (verbs sol),"!S his decision mast in-
deed be seen 38 one charged with meaning. I will return to this point some~
what later.
‘The firs axiom ofAlbertitriad can beformulated in this way:"edification
‘consists in three parts involving respectively necessitycommodity,and pleasure’.
‘This axiom estblishes the three levels (each one simultancously logical, chrono
logical, and axcologial) ofarchitectural activity, and determines three types of
"ules. Italo serves to establish the tripartite division ofthe De re erdiatoris and
iis deployed throughout the treatise by intercrossing with the other operators,
 Cuarren Two Tue De Re ABDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DEsine AND TIME

We see it at work in the prologue, where it functions to structure the eulogy to the other axioms, the whole set ofrules edification.They aso determine the
architecture. ‘consecutive order of the chapters of books 1 and 3, and help to structure and
The second axiomcanbe formulatedthis way:"every buildingisa body’. orderthe treatment of the contents ofbooks 4 through 9.
‘Overthe course ofthe book it exhibits three supplemental variants which can “The fifth axiom,the axiom ofconcinnitasconcerning aesthetic pleasure, is
be consideredis three corllaries:nethodologica’,'strucuraand ‘onganic® rendered the homologue of the preceding one by its introduction somewhere
‘The first corollary posits that,'like every body,every edifice is indisiociably cont be formulated
‘other than in the prologue and is division into operations. Itofcanthree
posed ofform and matter’. It determines the formof the first part of the De re thus:'the beauty of an edifice esuls from the intercrossing operations
cdfcatoria (he sequential onderofthe frst three books)and it allows, by inter= dealing with the number of is pars,is proportions, and its arrangement’
Its
crossing with the fit and third axioms, a portion ofthe rules for building to be the aesthetic
formulated in book 9, chapter 5, and it retrospectively clarifies only
generated. The second covollary (structural ) specifies that,‘ike every(living) ‘books (6, 7, 8, 9, chapters 1 to 5) which precede
it; but in fact,it actually
therein.
_- body,the edifice is composed of a skeleton (the support)oftendons Tiga- ‘generates the plan of chapters 5 through 8, and the rules contained
7 ments(the connective elements) and a skin (infilling and reveiments)'. This ‘As for the three practical principles, which Albert is content to use under
<owollary appropriately intercrosed, permits the generation ofthe aructural rules various formulations without designating
them as abstract entities for the
of construction in book 3. Finallythe third corollary (organic), according to reader, they first appear in the prologue and are at work all
throughout the De
which themembers are articulated with one another and subordinated to the
(© organization of the entire body, permits generation when intercrossed
with a “Thus the principleof orfragality) thatoptimalsolution
Portion ofthe rules ofthe second and third parts ofthe text. accounts both for at the least cost should always be sought : and the edific e must consist of
the adaptation ofthe edificeto its purposes and itsharmony. SS hat whichcannot beeliminated, whether itis a matter of materials on the level
‘The thirad xiom can be formulated thusthe diversity ofhumans andof. of construction, or ornam ent on the level of the aesthet ic mealsae Oar
their demands i unlimited’ ty oder for such diversity to be intellectual expenditure, in the form ofthe work ofconci eption auto-cri-
aged in the programming process, it must be integrated into effcaciouly m=
an arbitrary taxo- true encouraged unconditional As we ave seenth princi ple ys par
omic framework. It involves a declaration of whatI have called the negati ve aesthet ic ofAlb ert
pallaives. We can take as corollaries ofthis axiomimpotence which legitimates ticularly important role in al-
the binary oppositions uni ‘As for the construction ofthe text itself,applica tion ofthe princi ple offrug
versal/particula, public/private saced secular, urban/rural, leisure/Iabor which ity is manifested first with a remark able econo my oftheo retical and conce p
serve to define the program, the fundamental operation of the second tion, we find a set of —
the sametime as they determine the sequential order ofthe chapters ofthe level, at tual means.!55 Next, arising from the same motiva and
cond and third parts ofthe De re acai sec- seructural equivalencieswhich alocontribute reducing the.theoretical and
textualexpendi ture: doors, windo ws, conduits forthe evacuation of smoke
In contrast to those whichprecede it,the fourth. axiom of conception ‘waterare all subsumed under the denomination of ‘openings’,
: just as ceilings
does not figure in the prologue. It opens chapter 2 of book 1, and can be for- ‘ 4.6 and floors are both subsumed under that of ‘coverings’. Similarly, as we have
mulated in this way."edification consists of six operations dealing with the lo- " Jycem, he iyi asimiated to a lange house and,inversely, the house is con-
«ality the area, the compartition, the walls, the tof, and the apertures of the 4 4/4ered as a city in small, move that renders both subject to the same rules of
projected buildings’These sixoperators serve to senerate,by intercrossing with dh compartition. ae
i

106 Pa
 ge
THE DE me anpirieaToRta: Aus

‘The principle of duration requites that edification be inscribed time,as ust obey the laws of mechanics andphysics!s? as wel a a logic imposed by
n duration. Its not only a matter of a proper inscription of Iuman mind: wo-fold dependence, which for the — Re recalls
ng. intothe cycle of the seasons, but ako of the temporal 1 of phonic substance, the foundation for the construction scours,
lectual work: every project must be brought to maturation, wh inmbjec wo the re of phoned a well a the ofphonology. Whi
recomsdered, questioned. There is no greater enemy for the architect than pre~ the physics of materials indeed occupies the whole of book 2,Alberti devotes
<ipitousness or haste. This principle gives the De ve aeifcatori its metaphorical an origina part ofhis work, one which owes nothing to any predecessor, o the
value and determines both the depth and the sequential orderingofthe text, delineation ofthe six basic operations ofconception in the domain ofbuilding
Finally wall use the term dial! to stipulate the principle according It treats an innate power of formalization which, being specific to the human
to which the process ofedification implies the existence of various actors or brain, patakes ofthe same necessity asthe laws ofnature. Ie both allows the a-
‘9pss of actors who interact verbally The experts (pert),thatis, other architects ticulation ofmaterials (book 1) and the formulation ofthe rules ofthis articul-
and humanists are called uponto intervene on thethree level ofedificatio nin tion (book 3).These six irreducible operations thus inform pliant matter,which
fonder to evaluate and critique the decisions of the architect. The lent (orpa~ is subject to its own specific laws not susceptible to any human intentionality.
tron) plays an essential role on the second level, in the formulation “They ensure its integration into the primary system, which constitutes the pre-
‘of the program. Finally, the social community as a whole must haveandisdiscussion
say. In a condom and inturntheater fom which tebe wold an Bedeve
word, theothers full partner ofthe architect in producing the buile world, ‘expressed. For the system of construction is a necessary,
in discussion ofthe program and in judging is conformity to physical lawsboth ofcian,apes the wy vo mesg bit 90 Mow
aesthetic rules, whereas lau (praise) becomes the crowning achievement andand es-
orm cccnon
permits meaningful structures to be articulated than the phonological sytem
sentially the aim ofedification. In the construction ofthe
‘ofthe dalogical principle is manifested by theinsistent andteat, the application alone allows meaningfl propositions to be constructed. That is why the rules of
2 second person,the familiar you, which as we saw above isthe indelible presence of theirs prt ofthe Dee aftr do not dea with the aid wold fey
the FoFAlbert. silent auditor of ‘This world is only inscribable at a second level ofarticulation (books
‘Aside from the five theoretical axioms and the three and 5)Itdepends on a second system ofrules which transfers the built from the
‘other operators ofa diferent kind introduce the prologue andpractical principles, semiotic to the semantic domain. But this second articulation is not comparable
each ofthe
‘major parts of the De re aedifcatori. Iwill call them meta-mythiThey servethree to that which characterizes verbal language.It appeals tothe external semiotic
‘establish and generate Alberts entie project as well asthe set ofaxioms; to system of language.The first system, thatofconstruction,canonly bedeployed Q
they are presented in the form ofbrieforigin narratives freely consructed by and, in space on the condition that it isintegrated into the Neely server(2)
“gystem ofverbally expressed demand ordeste.Whereas current attempt
Alberti I will hve the occasion to analyze their functioning
their meaning atthe end ofthis chapter.
and to interrogate rianchitcvae pli bytheambosandsien0-
For the moment, lt i slfice to note (and this isthe object ofour sy tion offnction,% Alberti materily asserts the consubandal link between
‘tematic recapitulation)the fact thatthese operators llow Alber the activity ofbuilding and desire, and the unlimited potential ofthe latter.
serine dheory of edification, whicharticulates thie independto and construct3 Moreover, he avoids filling into the trap ofdogmatism, and from the start a-
chical systems. At its bass, the system fgmunazovolves materia, herr sues that demand and desire for built space are only conceivable by means of
which arbitrary taxonomic categories.The sytem ofprogrammatic rules he develops in
D

ry
 Cunrren Two Tue De ne anoiricaronta: Auaaati, on DEsine ano Time

book 4 is presented as one possible solution among others. Its value lies in its IIT. THe BEAUTIFUL AND [Ts ANTINOMIES
functionality and it draws upon the work ofrationalization which precedes it.
‘Thus, throughout books 4 and 5,far from being a mere interpreter,’ language ve seen, however,that the level ofbeaury does not evince the same ho-
's primary, and verbal discourse at the very origin of thebuilt text,constitutes, cer 1s the others and disturbs the unity which otherwis e characterizes
above all a ranscription before it can become a foundation. Albert’rejection. ‘Albert's scheme. This is because in spite of his knowled ge of the culture of
of drawing and illustration signalled above confirmed this regal status of verbal “Antiquity and its archacol ogical remains as wells his grasp ofcont emporary at
language. One could also interpretit 3s a means ofdefending the generative ts),A
and its leading ideas (remarkable in the Quattecen le) which wouldlberti did mot have access
value ofthe rules and of the Albertian method aginst the reductive power of to the concepral instrume nts (develop ed only mach he
terms the problem o
the image. allowed him,if not to resolve, at least to pose in clearer as my analysis fee

g
In its turn,the second level is assimilated to the rules of a third aestheticsA synthetic summary ofthe difficulti es which,
system,
A that of beauty!the source of pleasure (books 6, 7,8, 9). For us today, this third 9 has shown, prevented Albert fom maintaining thecontribu perfect coherences is
level is that ofpoetics" wherein architecture is subordinated to and ordered treatise, will allowus to specify precisely his original that aretion to a theory
by the system oflanguage and the semanticsof verbal dicourseand art’and to reveal the origin ofthe misunder standing s habitual lyperpe-
is thereby relations ofthe De atri a 0 ancien though 6
‘equipped to signify with its own specific means. Thus, lacking access tothe fal- trated rgadin g the
luciou analogies fashion as sometimes sugested to our contemporatcs, yet re- nal and Neoplatonism in particular. will employ my ownter minology , on
rmembering Horace,Alberti positsfr the frst time in history the where— as with the operator s—it helps to designat e
‘one hand, in those cases specific denomin ation (such ss
what we would call a semiology of built space.!6) ideas Alberti appropriated without giving them
‘The conception of these three interconnected strata thus organic beauty), and on the other hand, whenit can furnish interpretive con-
‘major contribution to the theory ofedification. Its importance represents a
“7 Gehmeenw Ar tansy wei
has never been (uch as tive aesthetic).
fully recognized. This misunderstanding is explained in part by the
fact that the beauty to su
‘De re acdifcatoria
bas traditionally been read as a new De arditectun,
an original theoretical work.Is also clear thatthe repercussions ofmodern
rather than as are opposed in pairs. On the one hand, he opposes intrinsic other hand, natural er
mental beauty er ornament(is terminol ogy)on the
sues on other branches ofanthropological research allow een eainglin,of ‘organic beautyis oppose d to cultural or dogmat ic beauty (my termino logy).
the text today. This reading, deliberately anachronistic,
is nonetheless rendered - rst appears, infact,
[Organic beauyfi infact at the level of commoditas, a. where it eet
eee results
Possible and legitimated by the intrinsic qualities ofAlberts ecusre.Thus, the De the successful aday ‘of an edifice to its purpose. It
1 sedfatoria indeed appears tolay down the prolegomena—not superseded
2nd ths sl wats ory we comewhch weal pa eae ht habe mony of whose Pars
In either
is achievednature coextensivly with the adaptation to its functions. ible
conceptual instruments for treating the specificity and the
‘levels of edification: Alberti wasable to peer eeie thre ‘case, thatofthe edifice or that ofthe animal,its beauty > universally percepa
n
coffntegration = toll in modern terms, we could say thatitis eeedee.
and
| status ofthethird
indissociability a che same time ashe sy
eo!
privileged “This is Albertfirst discovery anditisintegral the have been no third part
- But ifAlberti had stopped with this, there would
to the De re aedifcatoria. The third part is entirely based on the hypothesis of a
 Cuarren Two Tus De ae anoiricaronsa: Atpenti, On Dasine ano Tite

supplementryarticulation, possessingits ownlaws, which belongs to the world ideas!” which give them new perspective and development.However, this'po-
of culture and constitutes a poetics ofedification byvirtue ofwhich architecture tics ofthe body’is more speculative thannormative.
the strict sensean ‘artistic language’! in contrast to banal construction or (On the other hand,the second aesthetic,‘mathematica’ one,does indeed
jatural language’. Thus, the poetics ofthe temple,for example, is governed by propose a system ofstylistic norms. But, as the dogmatic form ofits exposition =
‘wosets ofrules. The rules ofthe first set deal with the exterior and allow it to shows clearly, chis system is borrowed from Greco-RomanAntiquity in its nu- )
‘express divine transcendence and the majestic gravity ofreligion by means ofits
installation in a natural ste or urban contextand by the treatment ofis walls." merical expression, whichassumes the force of law, and from the Pythagorean
connotations it evokes. It is precisely this mathematical aesthetic which is re-
‘The others apply to the interior space ofthe temple,the goal being to arouse sponsible forthe interpretation not only of the third part,but ofthe entire trea
religious terror,contemplation,'®7 ora sense ofmystery" through the dis-
Position ofplan,and the articulation ofroof and openings. tise as a work of Neoplatonist inspiration. Most historians of architecture, and
Witckower in particular, neglecting the naturalistic concinitas inherited from |
|

However, this poetics which the De re aedifcatoria so cleanly identifies as

‘the domain of man, is dramatically split between two tendencies. Aristotle's ‘physiologism’,'7! have focused on the mathematical concinnitas and

hand Alber remains obsessed with the principle ofeconomy, which On has
the one
inspired
the dogmatic system it supports; they have too readily taken Alberti to be the
his negative aesthetic and which, by extension, would move him to consider promoter of an exclusively mathematical and Neoplatonic theory ofarchitec
form an adequate ideal. He more or less unconsciously relates cultural beautygood ture. For us, on the contrary, the dogmatic aesthetic appears to be a momentary _

cormament. Ornament (experienced 36a threat) is consubstantial with poetics, to Adrift away from the spirit and logic of the De re aedificatoria. Certain formal_
On the other hand, Abert attempss to esabliss owe homologous pills ofra. anomalies seem to dawn in this hypothesis: the verb tenses utilized to express
{onal laws on cither side ofthe intermediate the laws of the dogmaticaesthetic, and the locus of the origin narrative which
commodity apply:to the necessity ofthe lawslevel on which the aleatory rules of
ofnature
follows instead of precedes them.But the thesis 1 am defending is supported
Senscoseendthe equully rigorous constraints ofonthethemathematical frst level ofed above all by therole and the unexpected authority granted to the Ancients, in
‘nthe third level. is howhe is leto elaborate su laws contradiction with the whole of the rest of the book, as well as by the limited
sets wich formated in prin he couseebook etcompeti ‘0 space given in book 9 to the theory of the orders, which furthermore is sub-
One aesthetic, sill natural but not reducible that ofgood form sumed under the category of ornament. Finally,it is supported by the blocking
the fact ofits universality, is based not on the bodytoofthe despite
animal but rather om
of poetic creativity which imposes on a theory ofcreative time the adoptionof
the human body. thich fanctions simultaneously as actor and model. The plew.
the Greco-Romanstylistic system.
sur engendered by architectural beaury If, then, as my analysis has shown,Alberti postulates thar beauty presents
Person whe experiences enjoyment in thebrings into play the whole body of the”
perception ofthe beautifl edifice as
‘two visages, one universal,the other contingent, and if this second face is for
* another body governed by the same proportions (demonstrated in the example
him a function of time andhistory, how are we to explain the partial drift of
ofthe architectural promenade). This aesthetic role atwibuted to the body and
book 9 Alberti is confronted here with an insurmountable difficulty stemming,
the sexual resonances ofits interpretatior Suggest, especia from the fact that he grants autonomy to the level ofpoetics, and confers on this.
of Filarete treated below in Chapter Fout,a comparison with llyin light of the texts dissociation not a heuristic value, butrather a normative function ants
certain of Freud’ attribute necessity to give thestatus of universal laws!7? to those rules which are
‘not what we would callcultural universals but rather stylistic rules Bound to
 Cuarren Two Tue Dé Re AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR Desine AND Time

«contingent values. By definition,then, he must look for themin the historyof mas which the dogmaticaesthetic and thelaw of the orders”
architecture. But history can provide themonly if't has already producedara- disturband warp Alberti’projectthus calls into question hisrelation to the past
‘tonal system. That this absolute reference exists follows fromthe schematic his “and to history in general. It opens the question of his relation to Vitruvius, the
tory of architecture (book6,chapter 3) which Alberti bases on the brieforigin. ‘Roman architect who virtually embodies the authority of the Ancients and from
tarrative ofthe arts (ats) (book 6, chapter 2):“the arts were born ofChance whom Alberti borrowed not only archaeological information butalso a number
and Observation, fostered by Use and Experiment, and matured by Knowledge _ ‘ofhis narratives concerning the past. This is why, before attempting to elucidate
and Reason"!Thus the work of the Romans marksthe end ofalong devel- the role ofhistory and of narrative in the De re aedifcatori,the time has come t0
opment and the poetics ofarchitecture is realized in truth, ‘confront Alberti’s treatise with the De architectura. In this context, I shall be
able to
bere’ argument mast be sought beneath the surface,behind the words respond to the question posed in Chapter One of whether Alberti’ book is ef-
that contradict and collaborate in its masking: the invasive presence ofthe natural”
fectively inaugural, or does that status in fact belong to the De architecura.
aesthetic that infiltrates all che chapters concerning ornament; the gaps and ex- |
ceptions Alberti forcefully maintains with a dogmatism that contac his sen| IV. Avaenti AND ViTRuvius:!76
ofbecoming. OF SUPRA-STRUCTURAL BORROWING
Ieisall the more important to situate the precise point where the drift
the De ve aedificatovia manifests itself,because it should be seen as a decisive turn=of Did the De architecuna serve as Alberts model or his springboard? Are the na~
ing pointfor the aesthetic theory ofarchitecture,asthe origin ofpostions whose l? On the
ramifications are felt even today, and which for centuries were adopted by merous commonalities betweenthe two texts superficial or structura actual or merely
level ofform,is the identity ofproced ures and expressiv e modes
‘Western architects: the privilege of the truth accorded to ancient architecture, apparent?Is there room fordifference between two books, both written in the
itsconsecutive bracketingin historical styles, the prerogative that devolved on
sanall group of clerics to enforce the rules ofthis poctcs henceforth as disoci-a”)(Z) first person singular,both written by architects sharing the goal ofdefining their
ated from building itselfa from a natural aesthetic. art and establishing all ofits rules (“omnes disciplnaeratones” writesVitruvius)177
‘Mythesis finds supplementary confirmation in Paul Frankl’ analyses of| both articulating these rules using gerundives, subjunctives, verbal adjectives,or
‘verbs ofequal appropriateness, and both supplementing them with explanations
in the presentindicative and narratives or anecdotes in the past tense? On the
“postomedieval” architecture,'”4 which he characterizes as having that/sel-<on-
Sciousnesswhich seems to me to be at the basis of Albertian instauration.
‘According to Frankl,the inventiveness manifested by the architecture of the level ofcontent, what use doesAlberti make ofthe borrowings that his succes
_Quattrocento and marked sors—as well as present-day historians!”"—consider important?
in particular by itscorporeality 175 depends from
the
ps im the archeological knowledge of is promoters. Archaeology would steril-“ ‘Alberti not only drew from Vitruvius, or the authors likewise used by
ize architecture at the moment ofits constitution as a scientific disapline,as is 4 Vitruvius, most ofhis historical information and the anecdotes concerning ar~
‘witnessed by the synchronic advent of Neoclasicim. However, in the case of chitecture,construction techniques, the typology ofancientedifices, the orders,
Alberti, we must invoke with equal emphasisthe determinate role of his natural ~ and even climate, meteorology,and the relations of living things to their envi
aesthetic,
iapartial a itis, which is founded precisely
precise on the axiom om oofthe ronment,!7?but he also familiarized himselfwithVitruvius’advice on the edu-
f building.
building cation of the architect.!® Alberti owes some ofhis fndamental operators to
the Roman architect, ike, for example,the triadic structure!and the binary

us
 Cuarren Two Ths De ke AnDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

‘oppositions public/private, sacred/secular, and most ofthe concepts of his acs- In the De re aedificatoria, on the contrary, the three notions are presented as
theticlike that ofinitio."82 ‘early as the prologue in their relation to temporal and hierarchic succession,
Ics significant, however,thatinspite of the magnitude of his debe,Alberti which then serves both to construct the book and analyze the three successive
adopts in the De re acdifcatria a resolutely critical attitude toward the ancient and hierarchicallyarticulated levels ofthe architectural process.W
ith Alberti, the
author. He mocks himfor his use of language, the imprecision ofhis concepts,!®3 three levels underlie an approach which aims to establish a meaning and then to
his superstiions, and his eurgid digressions."' A comparative reading ofthe two elucidate a genesis: solidity (which is, furthermore,integrated within the more
texts will confirm the legitimacyof Alberti§judgment. encompassing term necesity) appropratenes (a subtler notion thanutility),and
and
But these are still no more than superficial deficiencies, and ifAlberti beauty are invested with dynamic value. They full a structuring finetion
had done no more than emend,clarify, orbring order to the work ofhis pre- play a constructive role that contrasts with chit inertia in Vitruvius text, where,
decessor, we would have to place the De re aedificatria in the same textual cat- far from designating a hierarchy oflevel, they serve at best to reorder rules, orto
‘gory a8the De achitecura, where it would merely be a more tenable avata.To organize knowledge of a craft, but by no means to generate it. The Vieruvian
the extent that he docs in fact utilizethe ancient text,Alberti does not submit triad is not functional. It is anecdotal, contingent,and could be eliminated with~
the treatise to mere amelioration, but rather mutation. He does not restore cout altering anything in the organization and scope ofthe De archittura. by
the ancient author’s construction, he demolishes it and uses the materials from “We can say as much for almost all of the theoretical notions utilized
thesite ofdemolition to construct a new edifice, a textual architecture never ‘Vitruvius. Consider, for instance, the constitutive principles
of architecture enu-
before seen. This method of reuse can be illustrated by the example of the merated in book 1. Not only do they lack precision, "" and
even at times rele-
triad. vvance,}®2 but they serve dual purposes as for example in the case ofexnythmia and
‘Thetriad appears inVitruvius in chapter 2 ofbook 1. After explicating its symmetra: they superpose themselves onthe three concepts analyzed earlier;1**
‘constitutive elements,""§ the author divides architecture into three Gelds:acdif- moreover, they are used neither for the construction ofthe text nor for the pro-
‘ati,gnomenice, machinatio.¥° Acdfatio itselfis subdivided into two categories: duction ofarchitecture.!95 They have neither a foundational nor
a generative role.
the first concerns private edifices,the second, walls and public buildings.” [Neither can a productive role be assigned to the Roman author’ asertion that
Public buildings ae in turn grouped in three relative categories pertaining symmetra originates with the human body and its dimensions. "°° WithVitruvius,
defense, religion, and opportunity (“epportunitatis”)."*8 Vieuvius then indicatesto this asertion is merely explanatory and cannot be assimilated to the axiom ofthe
‘that public buildings should be realized with an eye tofirmitas, wltas, and venus- building 2s a body, which is systematically applied by Albert to the production of
‘as, and he briefly defines these concepts"? making reference to dspesitio for rules on all ofthe levels of the De re acdificatoria. These differences do
not mean
utility and to symmietra for beauty. But after this analysis, the three terms only that we muse deny the existencein the De architecun ofoperational concepts. But
"reappear incidentally, even rarelyand only on one occasioninthe sameplace. these in fact support static taxonomies (the division ofthe fields ofarchitecture, of
‘The reason is thatthey have no effect on the organization ofthe textthey do construction,of edifices, oftemples), dictated by tradition or opportunity, and are
‘not determine a chronological order or precedence in the treatment ofthe var~ ‘not the resule of any interrogation ojustification, not to mention foundation.
fous subjects. It is impossible to asign a logical order to the chapters dealing “This difference in the functioning ofthe same concepts leads to a differen
with techniques of construction or with utility. As for beauty, Chude Perrault ‘organization of the two works and a different ordering relation among the books.
correctly cbserved its omnipresence inthe De ahitetur, that comprise them. The one, with its random connections and sequences which

6 "7
 Carter Two Tue De Re AEDIFICATORIA: ALoERT!, OR DEsine AND Time

sustain no relation to the chronology ofthe operations of building, isa discon- At no time does Vitruvius offer his reader such a global view of the un-
tinuous collection of parts. The other, with its rigorous and irreversible se- folding text ofhis treatise.The reader is condemned to a succession offragmen-
‘quencing evinces a plan established from the outset and intended to unfold in tary glimpses. One after another, the proemia and the exaunes recite goals
conformity with the generative design ofAlberti’ project. accomplished and announce new intentions, but never give an overview ofthe
Each ofthe ten books ofthe De architecura begins with a proemium,a sort whole.Vitruvius manages—ifonly on two occasions—to articulate links among
ofliterary introduction,and concludes with an exaursus ofa less decorative nature the four books: retrospectively, in the proemium ofbook 4,and prospectively in
which serves to sum up the contents ofthe book,and above all to situate it with the conclusion ofbook 5, but from then on he speaks only oflocal and consec-
respect to the book which will follow it as well a in the context ofthe work as utive relations from book to book.The Roman architect does indeed, from ex-
whole. But while the excunes are integral parts ofthe De architecura, fanction~ cursus to excursus, affirm the deployment ofan organizational logic and claim that
ing to elucidate its arguments, he procmia, while they indeed serve to introduce there are essential links that tie one book to the preceding and/or following one,
«ach book individually, have above all an ornamental value and a digressive func- butin the end, the order in which the books succeed one another has never
tion. They constitute ten autonomous fragments, bits of literary bravura ad- been explained.'” It is not explicable because there is no dynamic relation to
dressed directly to Augustus—to whom the work was dedicated—and intended forge an organic whole out ofthe ten individual parts. Book 2 can only be in-
to charm and distract him in the manner ofinterludes, before returning him to terpreted as a parenthesis, and book 7,dealing with water,can only be inter-
the subject at hand with renewed interest. Thus, while the economy and logic of preted as a supplement.The positions ofbooks 9 and 10 could be reversed, and
the De re sedficatoria make it impossible to remove any part ofa treatise where these two books mightjust as well have preceded those devoted to aedifistio.
each section and most ofthe anecdotes are necessary to and indiswociable from No explanation justifies either the preeminence ofreligious edifices over all oth-
the whole, no stnall part ofthe De architecura could be suppressed without the
slightest compromise ofthe author's intentions. 1s, or the priority accorded to beauty in relation to solidity and utility, or, cor-
In spite of appearances, the first procmium is not really different from the relatively, the inordinate amount ofspace given in the text to the harmonious
‘others. True, it provides Vitruvius with the occasion to present himself construction oftemples. It is impossible to represent the organization ofthe De
to the architectura with a diagram analogous to the one I have proposed for the Dr re
‘emperor, reminding Augustus ofthe family tradition and services that bind the <edifcatoria. One must rely on the conventional tables which outline the con-
architect t him,and to introduce a work intended to furnish the emperor with
<criteria forjudging the architect’s accomplishments as a builder. Bue the autobi- tise.
‘ography ofVitruvius, in which he situates himself socially and emphasizes his srr eydagen expecthe Sunctoning of he oper 8 wl athe
connection to Augustus, is external to the theoretical text of which, moreover, function of time, which, in Alberti’ treatise, permits the deployment of the
the first premium gives only a fragmentary view limited to the contents ofbook whole and brings into accord the Bildung ofthe author, his book. and the built
|.This section is therefore not comparable to the prologue ofAlbert, domain.The chronological axis is on the other hand utilized byVitruvius only in
founded on and orders his entire text,on the one hand by means ofhiswhich is
biogra-
an incidental manner, for the (realistic) presentation of certain sequences of
phy.which is fre ofany mundane or social connotations and reduces to a purely rules!
intellectual enterprise,and on the other hand by virtue ofthe introduction of ‘The difference between the textual organization of the De re aedifcstoris
his operators and the plan ofthe work. ‘manifests the difference—equally irre
petraviesirehrereerhyyirematdiemar aie ie

a8
ne
 I

Cuarren Teo Tas De ae AepiticaTonsa: ALBERTI, On Dasine Aun Time

Both claim to present the reader with a set of rules. Butthe theoretical I of term. Ifhe did not manage to liberate the demiunge sleeping within him.2” if
Albers, who addresses and challenges an anonymous and universal you,!% has his attempt at synthesis fails with his postulation ofan order and a logic that are
decided to begin with a tabula rasa and to progressively discover and formulate in fact cking, that is because his epoch did not provide the conceptual means
the rues ofedification withthe help ofoperators for which his ownjudgment which would have allowed him to realize—much less to define—his project a
will be the evaluative criterion. On the contrary,forthe social I ofVitruvius, such.Thee interconnected elements are lacking: the objective of afoundation,
who addresses Augustus, whose you dates and locates the text,the problem of the hypothesis ofthe autonomy ofthe act ofbuilding, and the concept ofavative
discovering and determining these rules does not arise. It suffices to borrow time. The space ofthese absences defines two historical moments,two mentali-
them from an already given corpus, to which its only necesary to bring order ties, evo relations to knowledge and expertise. Moses Finley has projected this
and light. Vitruvius does not proceed from a radical interrogation, but rathera ‘2p onto the economic plane,showing thatVitruvius the technician, whose prac
tacit acceptance of tradition:2™this pertains to the rules themselves as well 25. tical knowledge he admires, finds his practicelimited by the horizon ofa con-
the principles?”he uses to clarify them. This attitude is particularly explicit sumer society which ignores the notions of productivity and profit.** This
when he describes the diferent categories of temples*? or the typology of analysis can be adopted metaphorically on the levelofthe book and is textual
Greck edifices Atthe time he was writing. it was not posible forVitruvius to ‘economy,Albertis treatise becomes, then,the machine which the Roman archi~
speak as an autonomous theorist of an autonomous discipline of building,2™ tect could not even imagine constucting, the machine in which no gear i inert
The moment had not yet arrived to question wadiion, o imagine a spatial order and which is designed for perfect functionality.
never before seen. Ritual and custom were sill the bass ofarchitectural practice. In writing the De re aedifcatoria, Alberti is doing something other than
The issue for the Roman architect was neither to promote reason as an insru- Vitruvius Whatever the importance of his borrowings, he transforms their
‘ment for the organizationof space nor to liberate—and thereby to discipline— meaning by changing their order, thie figutetheir functioning. The similarity of
the architect's creative spontancity; it was rather to assemble, order, and content and the haunting presence ofthe ancient urban landscape in the De ve
sometimes comment on a set ofbuilding practices.Vitruvius occasionally rec= cdifatri are in effec oflitle importance,since Alberti as banished tradition,
‘ognizes this himself when he assumes the task of explaining the traditional imposed his own order derived exclusively from reason, and proposed a general
rales" In this sense,as Krautheimer correctly observes,the De arhitetur is till and universal method.This is why,even ifhis nial intention was diferent,even
2 manual. Pierre Gros convincingly angues that iti instead 1 popularization of ifhis teats had its origin in a commentary onVitruvius suggested by Leonello
traditional knowledge withoutany practical purpose. °F, ts impossible to define Allertis work only in relation eo the De ardi-
(Our acknowledgment ofthe limitations oftheVitruvian enterprise need
not be interpreted as a depreciation ofis value. My goal isto situate Alberti in tectura and not see it 28 an authentic beginning. Krautheimer, even though he
his proper place, not to minimize the originality ofan author whose book was ‘wat unable to decipher the mutation to which Alberti submitted the text of
‘unique in its genre in the ancient world.Vitruvius has the signal honor ofbeing Vitruvius,continues nonetheless to envisage the De re aedifiatria only through
the fint to gather together a mass ofmaterial which had und then been widely the optic of humanist erudition, as the work of a “counsellor-at-antiquity"2”
scattered, and to attempt to make an organized whole ofit. In this sense,André For him,the De achiteura isan edifice ravaged by time which must be recon
‘Chastel is justified in seeing him as ‘hero’2% But only in this sense,for the structed anew by the interpretation ofis remains. Albertis an archeologist of
Roman architect is not a creator in the Albertian or Renaisance sense ofthe genius, whose work is that ofreconstructive restoration. But why refuse t0 see
that this restore, even ihis most andent deste had been to reconstruct the actual

1»
 Cuarren Two
THe De Re ABDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR Destine Ano Tims

approach of Antiquity, never fails to oppose to it his own theory, from which
new practice can be developed. Moreover, Alberti hinwselfdefined his a are absent altogether in thefirst ofthe three books. How, then,can wejustify all
positio
with respect toVitruvius when,in book 2 of his De pictuns2"0he indicates th n the references to ancient sources, all the narratives and anecdotes in the second
the Roman architect transmits practical instructions concerning, for example treatise? Why ate there so many perfects, pluperfects, and even imperfects, when
place where one can procure the best pigments for making colors, but , ii the present indicative ofobservation andthe various modes ofrule-giving—the
‘other hand isincapable of enunciating the method and the rules for combinonthe future,the imperative,the subjunctive,the gerundive,and the verbal adjective—
these colors, Why not chen admit that,in the De re aedifiatoi, Alberts in, ‘would have sufficed?
Problem ofedification with the same assurance,the same ntematicins the ‘One explanation would consist in interpreting all this material as non-
terms ot se rvoltnaya hoe employed ni enh onngen and i structural, as superfluous and ornamental. With his narratives ofmythical or an-
cient events, with his borrowings from classical literature, Alberti might have
theorizes about matters in which Antiquity had been no more success
oMycom eparis son ofthe two treaties does indeed dem jonstrate the inaugu
fal ‘wanted to make a dull journey more pleasant, to display his humanist learning,or
fcatoria, 1 also confirms th 1¢ interpretation I have svenralit,
, to give the appearance ofconforming to theVitruvian model—as when he bor-
and farther emphasizes by contrast the singularity ofa text rows from the Roman architect the division ofhis work into ten books.
into a whole and are functionally articulated.Finally. it will help whose parts cohere However, have already asserted that this isnot the ease,and that no part of
vestigation I will now undertake after having deferred itthe inquir to clarify the in- the De re acdifiatoria is superfluous orself-contained. This assertion must now be
function exercised bby the the past in the
= the histori
historic:cal narratives and anecdo
y into th proven,and the proofwill involve a systematic comparison ofnarratives and their
edotes ofthe De. role in the texts ofthe two authors. Such a comparison will show that, unlike the
narratives ofVitruvius, those ofAlberti are not dissociable from his treatise.
V. ALBERTI AND VITRUVIUS: NARRATIVES AND In order to define precisely the status of these fragments within the two
INTHE Di RE AnDiEIcATORIA
HistoRigs treatises, | have borrowed a certain number ofconcepts from thelinguistic study
of meaning. In particular, | have taken up the distinction drawn by Emile
Atthe besining ‘ofthis analysis, we were astonished by the abundance ofrefe Benveniste between disours (discourse) andhistoire (historical narrative or
‘ences to the past and to the testimony of ancient authors in a treatise wl r- story).2!2 In his prolegomena to a linguistics ofutterance (or semantics), Benveniste
scored to be reduce tt princiesnd thecommenicg notes that “the tenses ofa French verb are not employed as members ofa single
‘This profusion appears particularly embarrassing when confront the ‘but “are distributed in tw systems which are distinct and complemen
De re acdifcatoria with the De picura, which I have taken (not we withou and which correspond to two different levels in the we of language:
to be its theoretical homologue.For,i the De pina claims, like the Det rereason)
acdif- ‘one being designated as the level of discourse, and the other, that of history or
‘atoria,to make a tabula rasa ofthe past ifthe authorclaims even more forcefl narrative.
ly
and insistently the exclusive paternity of his work,2! if, from a small set ofdef- Discourse (dscoun)is characterized by the presence ofthe speaker, in other
initions and principles comparable to those ofbuilding, he formulates in identi- ‘works, by the use ofthe fist person, by the relationof the subject,and by the use
«al fashion the rules ofa specific practice, it must nonetheless be recognized that ofall the tenses except for the preterit, with the present playing a dominant role,
historical anecdotes are much Jess numerous and elaborated in this work, and Historical narrative (histoin),on the other hand,excludes the first and its correlative
second person,in favor ofa third person who, as Benveniste has convincingly
 Cuarren Two Tue De xe acorricaro 4: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND Tate

ii really the absence ofanyperson;2"it eschews the use ofthe present in by King Ptolemy ofAlexandria to adjudicate the games he had insted22fe~is
favor of thepreterit (supported by the imperfect, the pluperfect, and the not found in the De re acdifcatria The other two types, however,ngsarefrom
eet future), which situates the narrative outside of the discourse, in an. quently used by Alberti, either as personal anecdotes, oF 28 borrowi
other spac ne. In later studies215 Benveniste was led to define‘discourse’ eeeas Vitruvius, some of whose stories seem at first glance to have been simply tran-
anytext co caning shin thatlements which relate the textthe station scribed from the De architectura into the De re aedifiatoria. es ofVitruviusall
br saea neo ‘oF narrative as any text without shifters. However, With a few rare exceptions.2¥ theillustrative narrativ ts that could
thesteriae nt evant in ein cases whet theoreti contadtory borrowed from historicaltradition, are brief, autonomous fragmen or even its =
co ‘lements appear, such as the basic present andthe third person be eliminated without altering the formof his ‘theoreticalalstext’ which inspire the
ind the preterit and the first person,and also where shifters do f sential content. In effect, centered on exploits of individu
historical texts and moralize ,thei relation to the theoreti cal content
“mee Roman architect to digress of the De aritect ua de~
This is why,y: in in the contextcontext of of d developments in linguistics given ofthe treatise is often very weak. Thus,the chapters hies of, respectively,
os placed on the notion ofén oF enunciation, and mS sale voted to the selection ofsites are illustrat ed by the biograp
tebe heed otutterance, Jenny Simonin-Grumbach?!” has reformulated Marcus Hostiius, who moved the town of Salapis tooctagon get it away from the
ewes shes in different terms,allowing the concept ofthe ‘theoret- ‘marshes, and ofAndronicus of Cyrtha, whobuilt onan materialsalvaunts tower corre-
tal texto defined and anew epology of uncrance tobe developed Book 2 the a4-
sponding to his clasifcation ofwinds225 palace walls buile ofbric k.2%°
aannies - difficulties raised by the use of the criteria of tenses and ventures ofthe wealthy Mausolu s, who had his
Peon sonsa associated with Benveniste’ shifters”? Hermogenes, who invented proportions, and Agaturi us, who painted the fres~
du Gur) tne wn heereece 2" 5 Simonin-Grumbach
Gr na 0
cos for the city ofTrlles, are the respecti ve heroes of stories embedd ed in the
ose relation tothe situation d'énonation (= Sit €), and histo(history chapter s on symmetri a and ornamen t.
ma ).those texts where no such context is effected in relation to Sit €, of ‘On the contrary,the illustrative narratives in the De e adifato ria are closely
in relation tothe tex itselfthat isthe smaton dona (= Sit We but and much more numeroas
tied to their context.The y are conside rably varied,
will refer to these definitions in the following discussion oes than those ofthe De architecura, but shorter and, grantin g little importa nce to
ooieee pee location in the typology of semantic systems, the De y. They cannot be dissocia ted from the
cachexia esse to ctegoriation character ofthe hybrid. their protagonists assume no autonom absorbe d by the
I text ofthe treatise into which they are integrat ed and literally
cemstclydicoune and thor text. and frhermor its punctate ys) tion as well as to
playof shifters which refer to the situation d’énonia of the past, whether bor- the situation
eset
series autonomous fragments fragments that exhibit the characteristics
= a sgments can be classed in three categorie: originanaties ics oth
ofhistorical nar=: Wénonce, Alberts references to historyhis citations -~
sce illusnative namatives
chitecture, for ar rowed direcly from ancient literature ot reconstructed by him as an archaeol hend the
it whose purpose is t t0 support the ‘eis either to help compre
sume nding nats pela the pean ne theori gist working with material evidence,” serve
‘motivation and thus the meaning ofcertain forms, or tojustify andofhuma explicate
direct link with the objectives ofthe treatise. — certain rules. In the former case,he is led to evoke manifol d aspects n
This last type,illustrated
illustrated in particular by the story of the s
Antero andy Sa ofriephnes eneceed pagpeed appoit
behavior down through history, describ ing the ceremo ny ofcomm
catly Christianity22 the hospitality policies of certain Taian princes.2” the
union in

ns
 Tus Dene anorercaronsa: Atnantt, om Dasine AND TIME

aa ofwaeler sing the ancient roadsor the foundationries ofan- and, wanting to communicate with each other aboutthis, they invente d lan
ee Inthe latter case, whichi the more frequent, the examples cho= guage and thus socity4 ) inte,th ey profited from these new capacitie s 0 ee-
i are alternately postive and negative. This seeming indiffere ate various kinds ofshelter (helters made ofleaves, caves dug into the ground):
signals the critical distance he adopts with respect to a past uken to be not nce 5) finll, by virtue ofprogress, they built the fist hut. After thed fifth sequence,
oes tut rather illuminating The vlofthe rales ofthe De wanders the story is interrup ted by an‘ethno graphic’ parenthe sis intende to confirm the
's confirmed as much by the invocation (and condemnation) ofthe excess which testimony of the legendary or mythical tradition of sequenc es (4) and (5)
lth bg fhe sel fueere ntening tt Following this, che lst sequence (6) recounts the refinement ofofarchi building with
Sennen aeraee
streets of Rome ordered by Neroas it is by re e
by the way the architect ofthe Panthcon conceptslzed the contructionathe
x the invention ofsymmetry’—in other words,
strico sensu.The narrative
Vitruviu s tackles the subject
ends as
ofhis
abruptly
second
2s
book,
it
with
began,
the
the advent
and,
material
with
s
no
ofconst
tecture
transitio
ruction.
n,
walls ofthat temple 2 “The second narrative, presented in book 4, accountsforth e origin of
sia precedi ng story, and assigns histor
then, in linguistic terms, theillustrative anecdotes of Vi Its more complic ated than the
sensAlen tn peoPeraicene the orders
ical priorityand superiority to the Doric order ("prima et antiguitu
reigned
s
over
Doria cst
Achaia
Pasioges ae an integral part ofAlberts discourse ata")2 It can be divided into eight periods: 1) Dorus
the enunciative sovereignty ofthe text whose author’entirely subordinated to
we ofthe prea vomse and the Peloponnese; 2) he ereted a temple in Argos dedicatedto toserve Juno, which
dominates thei pec and ners This dependence stoveose
ea e o
Aber itseatvenarcaives n
hve anche
eees ‘was by chance consinated with a type ofcolu mn which
for many other temples that still however,lacked ‘symmetry’;3) the Athenia
came as model
ns
anon thy amokha
shoike tnte damn “founded thirteen colonies in Asia,an d lon, thei leader. ated cities (Ephesus ,
lene
uv. in whose ow Alberts textual enterprise and tha ofbaton oxy ‘Miletus, Priene, Samos, etc.) which would constitu te lonia;t hese cities ered
called them
are simultaneously inscribed, sanctuaries on the model ofthose ofAchaia and for that reason t because their
sense ‘Doric’, But these sanctuar ies were neverthe less differen
This double role played the subject (symmetr ia) based on the male human
tengo he Dre tammy ona taSeep (the fist
font Alberts origin mratives with those ofViruvis from which theyderoe
columns used a system ofproportions
body; 5) a column ofthe same type, but built accondingtorsthe proportions of
the female human body, was invented next; 6) the successo ofthese inventors
‘The De arhiuane contsnsthece origin naraiveThe fr which is more slender; 7) finally the Corinth ian col-
bith ofachtctreIeaanounced a the end ofthe promitobook terre ‘cated the lonic column,
‘umn appeared, aeated in imitation of the body of a young girl; 8) the
wieVi ew ni having browk fou enn be sna
plain why he locates Corinthian capital was invented by Callima chus after the death ofa Corinth ian
the narrative28 atthe beginning ofthis book on materials itl. This second origin narrative ,alo credited to tradition ,differ s from the
We can summarize this narrative as consisting ofsix sequences connected to of adapted to its context, since it is placed
another by temporal aderbia: 1) ten ved in fre ike wl rina ar first in two respects. Firs, itis better order (at the
foo):2) one day ir ws srtby lighningand caused them w Bee3) when in the fist chapter ofbook 4, following a section on the lonian beginni ng of
‘end of book 3) and a comparison ofthe three orders (at the
they returned,after the blaze had died down, they discovered the uility offire, 4). Second,i t no longer refers ( anonym ous protagon ists
chapter 1 ofbook

a
 Cuarren Two Te De ne anpiricaronia: Aw om Destine ano Tote

in imprecise settings, bu rather specific characters (from mythology or {generators of organic beauty by the application of the chird corollary of the
to1y)in a specific place, Greece. axiom ofte building as a body.
‘The third and last narrative ofVitruvius is located in the~ second chapter of
.
{As forthe fourth schema,located atthe end ofchapter 2 of book 6, the
the same book 4, and deals with the originofthe ornamentation rly feature it shares withthe sixth sequence of Vitruvius sits connection with
NewsSonetan Preceding ones, its not presented a the legacyofcapital oftradi-
,
the origin ofsymmetry’,or, in Allertian terms, thefnti which symbolies the
9. Neither does Vitruvius claim tohave invented i,even rational aesthetic and completes edification, Albertgives his schema more get
fae deduced i fom hit nas ofwood comenct though ne he seme? ‘eral and abstract scope. It concerns all ofthe artes, ofwhich architecture isjust a
. Sais -‘%o origin narratives found inViruvius were, in part, reused particular example; and he substitutes forthe six legendary stages of develop
Aaa‘Alberti.ce
and only atthe expense oftransformations mations wl which altered their, fanc- ‘ment three abstract factors: chance, observation and experiment, and rational
ization.This triadic schema thus seems to be intended as justification for the
From long first narrative,= Which which tak takes us from the dawn ofsoc specific operator ofbook 9 (theih axiom) and as support for‘te history ofat-
shear oftheacter aan at.Alert othe theo se
bevnning which he split into four bietwok
chitecture’ (book 6, chapter 3) which provides the basis for Alberts dogmatic
iga aesthetic.
tonomous and located at crucial points ints in the space ofschemas which are
the text.Theef first, In comparison with Vitruvius’ fist origin narrative, the four schemas of
bo ho-
smologou tothe fis dre sequence ofVirus sinated,t the De re aedifatoria are distinguished by their abstraction, by the way in which
‘hehe ofthe poop By lating ection athe rgweofam have seen, at
[Alberts appropriates them, and above all by their active role and the functions
etin an original gesture Alberti begins witha justification and foundation a they perform in the text. have already pointed to the dryness ofAlbertis originto
for
the project enunciated and realized in the De re aedfiatoria ” narratives. Nothing remains of the picturesque and the detail so dear
dhe enom tli chem, sated atthe beginning ofthe fn part of Vitruvius The forest fires, the pantomimes, the divenity of the first attempts at
mSotermnarcartacn eee!
(book 1, chapter 2), i not actually homologo us with sequences 4
‘nthe the innovative behavior ofthefrst builders the sx seps ofthis proces ae-
constructi on are all gone. The original men occupy s i t e s , divide space into
lic and private placeserect walls: these are protagonists so theoretical it would be
pub-

‘count for the six operations ofthe fourth axiom, and lay the foundation tempting to conceive ofthem as a single individual, Man. The word prinapie,
whole fit part ofthe De raed, fo this"in the beginning’with which each ofthe four fragments begins saoan in
‘The third and shortest schema, 1a, which ae principle” Moreovera the cate ofthe illustrative narratives,Albert takes over
lol ated which opens chapter of his etiological schemas, integrates theminto a situation d'énondation, ane! in 40
bt on agenadh the ith
equecr ofVesaThese ws
doing, strips themof their status as historical narratives, However, this ine the
ni fw sae
‘terms motivations, according tothe desire and demand which the De w aed. appropriationis accomplished not by an appeal tjudgment,but by a chim to
esa es ast very devifof eifcaton paternity. Not without condescending totradition™of ironically invoking the
Ke deawithe rg
works which satisfy not jus commoditr but also vlupta, ‘schemasVitruvius copied uncritically into is treatise,Alberti exphiciy states that
forthe cod putote wet whe es he a <b the isthe inventor of these four narratives. He thus banishes the mythvcal di-
re also infact ‘mension which the Roman architect introduced into the De architecture wath

om
 S———
Tie De Re AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, O& Desine AND Trae

anovert appeal to tradition transmitted by the Latinliterature throughauthors acknowledges the tradition transmitted by Vitruvius, he adopts a self-effacing
like Ovid of Lucretius in particularIn the schemas he derives from the first posture?by deferring tothe Ancients andhe goes sofar as to atribute ro them
Vieruvian narrative, Alberti replaces the mythical time ofbegin ngs with the the axiomofthe building as a body: Not only is this the case, butit is oferucial
abstract andahistorical dimension of operative analysis, Finally, as we have seen, importance that the long narrative on the origin ofthe orders performs no fnc~
«cachetiological schema is located earlier thanthe sectionof the text for which tion. It is divisible into seven episodes” distributed between chapters § and 7,
ie—along with its operators—serves a foundational function, This functionality where they are interjected very oddly into the theoretical discourse,in contrat
of the narratives stands stark contrat withthe inertia ofthe origin nar with the other origin narratives ofhis treatise, And, this narrative is situated after
in the De aching, whichare dssibuted mon oele randomlyber ae the rules for the orders of which it speaks. Furthermore,its protagonists are not
‘occur posterior to the textual field with which theyare related. the abstract homines—man—of the other schemas, but above all maiones nost-—
Weare thus justifiedas I suggested abovein takingthe origin narratives ‘our ancestors—and then architeti, predecessors which derive from historical
«tological schemas ofAlbert as constitutive ofa second type ofoperator whoseor times. Far from being a meta-mythic operator in the text,this narrative —which
function isto give legitimacy to the fit type, which could be alled “logical aftera fashion historicizes the legendof Vitruvius—reveals in the same way 28
and which are constituted by the axioms. | have called these operators of the the ‘history ofarchitecture’ the theoretical difficulties that Alberti faces in the
second type meta-mythic™ because they function both to contest the myth and part ofthe De re scifzatoria devoted to aesthetic pleasure.
to preserve—no doubt parodically—its form. Thus,the meta-mythic operator “Thusthis comparative study ofthe narratives inVitruvius and Alberti con-
appears in Alberti as an epistemological instrument,2intermediate between firms my preceding analyses. It brings out the ambiguous and decisive role played
ncicnt etiological myth and what our contemporaries—afier centuries theof by a history ofarchitecture which does not—cann ot—yet dareto «all nelfsuch,
searching for frst causes—imagineto be ‘cultural univers’. and which comes to disturb the relation ofthe De re aedifcarori a to the past
_ This reading brings out thedifferent satusin the Der acdfatra ofthe It is now clear that Alberti treatise is undergirde d by the irreducible opposition
history of architecture’ constructed in three stages modeled the schema of between a time which isthe locus ofarchitectural creation and an abstract time
the anc. Ie differs from the etiological sketches in that,fr fromongenerating cre~ in which this creation, in a permanent state ofbecom ing, is founded in theory.
ative time, it virtually occupies space and time itself. In spite ofits form, it does In spite ofan identical use ofpast tenses, only theillustr ative narratives refer to
not belong to the meta-mythic operators: Alberts history of architecture is real duration in time. They evoke the past not to valorize it as such, but to
merely a pseudo-operator, which helps him tojustify the ruth he atib- and restated, almost as a the-
tutes to the aesthetic ofthe Greco-Roman orders. This selectivevalue exalt the creativity of time itself, which is stated
n is necessary for the
history?” which does not yt really warrantthe denomination‘hisand ‘cultural sis, hroughout the De re aedifcaovia. The axis ofduratio is repeated, systematica lly
tory’, cannot activity ofedification to be deployed, This message
in any evert be asimilated to the legendary narratives ofVitruvius, which are transmitted from the beginning ofthe book to the end by numerous references
‘essentially inspired by the Hellenistic tradition, " to the past. But we have seen that, a8 soonasi is uttered, this past have i $0 (0 speak,
In fact, only the second origin narrative in the De amhitecten has a defused by the Albertian enunciation. It loses the status it would in a truly
cho in the De re aedfcatoria the story concerning the ance Sef historical text.The author's watchfal J appropriat es it so successfull y that he re-
book 9. Not that Alberti renders it more any more faithfully than he does other aces it to no more than a dimension of his own constructio n, in other words,
preceding examples,but whereas he simplifies and rationalizs it, he nonetheless of his treatise.

onan
 VI. THe Agcuitect-Hexo But what status are we to assign to the De re aedifcaoria,given that it
appears not only to be unified by the enunciation (énondaton) ofan authori
‘but alo to be structured by the telling (énoncé) of his story?a Can we still
speak ofa discourse ofa theoretical text? Ori it, more precisely. discourse on
introduces his own history into his treatise. However, we have seenthatit is ‘only ‘a theoretical text, discursi ve category of whichAl berti has produced a canon-
jeal example with his De piaun? The De we aedifcatoria can in fact be compared ©
vie nc bout Th ty eplcinctinpel open enn this work, ako unprecedented and distinct from all earliertre atises on painting,
and in which
play in the text are those related tothe situation d'énomcé, whether they concern which exiles the creative power of the artistas deus in matura25? imposing his pet-
the authoris constantly present in thefirst person singular ?
—— reference which is proper to theoretical texts, and is to be sonal viewpoint on the reader, expressin g his pride 2s innovator. Comparis on
under-
‘would be even more relevant,perhaps, with another example ofa discoursedonthea
Didmdisbesmes ate
48 a reference to interdiscourse’2 of whichin this
case we can consider
theoretical text, the Discouns de la méthode of Descartes 254 who assimilate
sontepiSle das decienoee presentation ofhis philosophy to an account of his intellectual enterprise and
se
Serr naan They ft sabeae even certain circumstances ofhis ife.
However,in the De pictur as well as in Descartes’ Discours,the speakers
“reermg pcran aice insistent reference to himself as a concrete historical person,text,affirming “una
Pcas en ain a ae metafica delluome creatore”®5 does not affect the form ofthe and does not
ae odkfy itestatus a a discourse on 2 theoretical text. On the other hand,al though
{ganization of the etiological schemas as well as the choice
Heath sy 6 dy hed om hry nt ofhh
historical - the De re sedifcatria does indeed express the goal ofdemonstrating that “'atie~
uae ita umana,che si esplia nella costuzione della citi i dominio proprio dell'wome:
e un data, ma
iering tte i cen ey aeaa
2 theoretical investigation and the construction.
s: =i aor guid ate, @ causa, ¢ Dio, lsu sgnfcato&, nom nel contemplarecstasy
relfre, nel produrre% its form reveals somethin g other than the ofcre~
onsef etree eA oe
Iss, the whole generative project ofthe De we
sedynanry 4 ation and the affirmation of individual power. The critical approach of the author|
speakingin the frst person,and that second person who is constantly addressed
now poced assimilates his persona as writer
by the firs;the weight ofthe present indicative, which i the basic tense ofthe
cn ot ntth whe pete"Bt
that a
w
oa
eae text, and the future indicative, subjunctives, and imperatives which appear al
ternately in the formulation ofthe rules ofedification; the firm expression ofa
‘tions,describing it as though we were ourselves
about. to comstruct the. SS eee

The ecofie ica

termined by the
theoretical project: the whole impressive apparatus paradoxically conceal a his-
torical teat that shelters, behind the J ofthe authorand theoretician,the he ofits
penonl hry afthe wrt I doce natn nt hero.Whereas the De pictur and the Discours de la méthode both present a theory
tory is compressed and reduced, and that references
bang sxceday sepeligapcchu ined eee eee (0 es pordic a which from time to time happens to be pointed up orclarified by a reference t9
the situation d'énondation o the past ofthe speaker, the De re aedifcatora tells how

im ws

ia,
 Cuarren Two
Tue De RE ARDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

shesaici rules ofedification

after having fist reinforced theie foun
ripiatierres when his power ‘To interpret this secret flaw, this obscure face ofa masterwork without
intra ofthe prologue and isa its height and he constructs
booksand 6, ‘shades’, we must attempt to re-enter the period in which Alberti devoted his
treatise to the task ofintroducing reason,imagination, and desire into a domain
sys holetlhea
yasi-g a
mythic dimension i
from which they hadpreviously been excluded as long as that domain was gov-
renee the great onererof the De rese ‘erned by the commands of the gods ofthecity. To abolish these ancientlimita~
abercmerted in theln chapters ofthe textr ibe ledson tions, to free oneselffrom all transcendent or unmotivated regulation, was not
are tt esdvelingouside human timeand He ian exceptonal and an anodyne gesture. What was possible (albeit not withoutrisk)” in the figura~
ary ofAlber who metaphorically assum ye immersed in ts sb ~~ sive domain ofpainting, proved to be impossiblein the real-life domain ofbuild-
of the the book, discoverer ofthe rules ofedification, es his role a the edie, jing, which engages a practical human activity. Alberti did not have at hit”)
and fabricaroe of the origin command the means to effect the emancipation ofthe act of building, which
| was in effec stil associated with sacrilege.Hisunprecedented project,thecon:
ception ofa generative program oflaws for building. could only be uttered as
an FxorcismThat is why heinvents and construct, by his own particular means,
1 secular foundation narrative inthe first person whose builder-hero simultane-
‘ously escapes from historical time, dominates it, and is able to recognize its fe~
ccundity:The transgression Alberti committed when he providededificationwith
its own legislation is thus symbolically exorcised by means ofthis odd historical
text simulating a foundation myth: a derisory, but indispensable, concession in.
the service ofdelivering the sovereign theory ofthe De re aeifctoria,

nated toa a deeperde per stratu

stratmum, whereupon by virtue of a heroic le narra
narrative we ean