Tim Maher

Arch 6131
Tuesday
Sept 9, ‘03

Alberti Response

Leon Battista Alberti makes it quite obvious that his work On the Art
of Building in Ten Books is primarily in response to Vitruvius’ The Ten Books
on Architecture. The titles of the two books alone suggest that Vitruvius had
much influence on Alberti and his ideas and theories of architecture many
centuries after Vitruvius’s time. Alberti holds Vitruvius in high regard even
in the very beginning of his book, “the architect Vitruvius has already listed
[the effects of lineaments] in a most learned and elegant manner.” Actually,
Alberti hardly ever disagrees with the line of thought that Vitruvius
established in his ancient work. From the very start, Alberti establishes the
basic elements of architecture much like Vitruvius. Alberti lists locality,
area, compartition, wall, roof, and openings as those beginning characteristics
as opposed to those of Vitruvius; order, arrangement, eurythmy, symmetry,
propriety, and economy. Alberti’s basic elements are much more concrete and
become increasingly more specific through the list than those of Vitruvius
which focus on a general idea and theoretical concept each seemingly separate
from the other. For the most part, Alberti generalizes that the area
surrounding the building will determine the order and arrangement of a building
whereas Vitruvius summarizes that a standard order should be determined first
and then applied to the surroundings.
Both men state that climate is one of the most prominent determining
factors in not only building design and construction but also in human
development. Both state that people from colder regions tend to be stronger
than those from warmer regions as well as that people from warmer areas are
considered to be much smarter than those from colder areas. After citing this
behavioral change due to climate, both agree that architecture must differ from
region to region in order to remain in harmony with itself.
Another factor that ties Alberti and Vitruvius together is the way in which
they present themselves. Both use stories, real and myth, to form relevant
examples to their ideas. One of the more obvious and frequent of these stories
is the proposal of Dinocrates to Alexander for the establishment of a city in
the hand of a statue carved out of Mt. Athos. They use this story in order to
defend their ideas that the location of a city is of primary concern to the
city planner. They state that a city cannot flourish unless basic provisions
for sustaining life can easily be acquired in the surrounding regions. A city
on top of a mountain cannot possibly flourish if water and food cannot easily
be supplied to the inhabitants. Other points the two share in common is the
layout of their respective books. Both talk of the winds and position of a
city in reference to health. Both describe in detail, construction methods
employed during their times as well as the ornamentation of distinct orders and
types of buildings to which certain decoration is expected.
One of the primary factors in common with both authors is their contempt for
the architects of their own times. Alberti states that architects of his day
rely on shoddy construction methods which actually leave a home more
susceptible to fire. Alberti takes it one step further by speaking directly to
the builders of his time, “There is no reason why we should follow [previous
architects’] design in our work, as though legally obliged; but rather,
inspired by their example, we should strive to produce our own inventions.”
This is actually one of Alberti’s and Vitruvius’s differing points. Vitruvius
stops just short of saying that completely new methods and designs are needed,
only that the past must be improved through current architecture.
The differences between Vitruvius and Alberti become apparent later in
their books. Vitruvius directs his book to the attention of the emperor in an
attempt to establish a name for himself in much the same way that Dinocrates
appeals to Alexander in his story. The only reference Alberti has toward some
form of appealing to a higher class is right before the book’s prologue, in
which another man writes to present the book to Lorenzo de’ Medici which
Alberti may or may not have had something to do with. Alberti’s writing itself
does not seem to be directed to anyone in particular. Whereas Vitruvius makes
constant references to the Emperor, Alberti seemingly writes for “to whom it
may concern.” At times, Alberti’s writing appears almost Machiavellian
especially in sections devoted to the planning of cities with many topics
diverting to defenses, military roads, and whether a ruler is considered
tyrannical or not. This may be dependant on the times in which the books were
written, however. Vitruvius existed in a time of the large Roman Empire where
military trouble only occurred near the empire’s boundaries. Alberti, on the
other hand, lived in a time when smaller regions were controlled by many
different leaders, most of whom were under constant border disputes with
neighboring states.

Discussion question: Even though it seems Vitruvius is more focused on

improving his reputation, was Alberti purposely being less direct in order to
strive for the same goal of making himself look good?

Tim Maher
Arch 6131
Tuesday
Sept 9, ‘03

Alberti Response

Leon Battista Alberti makes it quite obvious that his work "On the Art
of Building in Ten Books" is primarily in response to Vitruvius’ "The Ten Books
on Architecture." The titles of the two books alone suggest that Vitruvius had
much influence on Alberti and his ideas and theories of architecture many
centuries after Vitruvius’s time. Alberti holds Vitruvius in high regard even
in the very beginning of his book, “the architect Vitruvius has already listed
[the effects of lineaments] in a most learned and elegant manner.” Actually,
Alberti hardly ever disagrees with the line of thought that Vitruvius
established in his ancient work. From the very start, Alberti establishes the
basic elements of architecture much like Vitruvius. Alberti lists locality,
area, compartition, wall, roof, and openings as those beginning characteristics
as opposed to those of Vitruvius; order, arrangement, eurythmy, symmetry,
propriety, and economy. Alberti’s basic elements are much more concrete and
become increasingly more specific through the list than those of Vitruvius
which focus on a general idea and theoretical concept each seemingly separate
from the other. For the most part, Alberti generalizes that the area
surrounding the building will determine the order and arrangement of a building
whereas Vitruvius summarizes that a standard order should be determined first
and then applied to the surroundings.
Both men state that climate is one of the most prominent determining
factors in not only building design and construction but also in human
development. Both state that people from colder regions tend to be stronger
than those from warmer regions as well as that people from warmer areas are
considered to be much smarter than those from colder areas. After citing this
behavioral change due to climate, both agree that architecture must differ from
region to region in order to remain in harmony with itself.
Another factor that ties Alberti and Vitruvius together is the way in which
they present themselves. Both use stories, real and myth, to form relevant
examples to their ideas. One of the more obvious and frequent of these stories
is the proposal of Dinocrates to Alexander for the establishment of a city in
the hand of a statue carved out of Mt. Athos. They use this story in order to
defend their ideas that the location of a city is of primary concern to the
city planner. They state that a city cannot flourish unless basic provisions
for sustaining life can easily be acquired in the surrounding regions. A city
on top of a mountain cannot possibly flourish if water and food cannot easily
be supplied to the inhabitants. Other points the two share in common is the
layout of their respective books. Both talk of the winds and position of a
city in reference to health. Both describe in detail, construction methods
employed during their times as well as the ornamentation of distinct orders and
types of buildings to which certain decoration is expected.
One of the primary factors in common with both authors is their contempt for
the architects of their own times. Alberti states that architects of his day
rely on shoddy construction methods which actually leave a home more
susceptible to fire. Alberti takes it one step further by speaking directly to
the builders of his time, “There is no reason why we should follow [previous
architects’] design in our work, as though legally obliged; but rather,
inspired by their example, we should strive to produce our own inventions.”
This is actually one of Alberti’s and Vitruvius’s differing points. Vitruvius
stops just short of saying that completely new methods and designs are needed,
only that the past must be improved through current architecture.
The differences between Vitruvius and Alberti become apparent later in
their books. Vitruvius directs his book to the attention of the emperor in an
attempt to establish a name for himself in much the same way that Dinocrates
appeals to Alexander in his story. The only reference Alberti has toward some
form of appealing to a higher class is right before the book’s prologue, in
which another man writes to present the book to Lorenzo de’ Medici which
Alberti may or may not have had something to do with. Alberti’s writing itself
does not seem to be directed to anyone in particular. Whereas Vitruvius makes
constant references to the Emperor, Alberti seemingly writes for “to whom it
may concern.” At times, Alberti’s writing appears almost Machiavellian
especially in sections devoted to the planning of cities with many topics
diverting to defenses, military roads, and whether a ruler is considered
tyrannical or not. This may be dependant on the times in which the books were
written, however. Vitruvius existed in a time of the large Roman Empire where
military trouble only occurred near the empire’s boundaries. Alberti, on the
other hand, lived in a time when smaller regions were controlled by many
different leaders, most of whom were under constant border disputes with
neighboring states.

Discussion question: Even though it seems Vitruvius is more focused on

improving his reputation, was Alberti purposely being less direct in order to
strive for the same goal of making himself look good?