A
Architect
Elizabeth Merrill
Art and Architectural History, University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Abstract
In Renaissance Europe, the role of the architect
was unfixed. Unlike painting, sculpture, and met-
alwork, where there were organized systems of
apprenticeship, for the architect there was no
established curriculum of training or standard
mode of practice. Every one of the period’s lead-
ing architects – individuals like Filippo Brunel-
leschi, Leon Battista Alberti, Donato Bramante,
and Michelangelo Buonarroti – assumed a differ-
ent role, both in relation to his patrons and in the
technical and design work he undertook. As
reflected in contemporary commentaries and
municipal records, the appellation “architetto”
was inconsistently used to refer to a range of
individuals involved with the building
process – from patrons to construction adminis-
trators to material suppliers – even when they
were not necessarily involved in building design.
Beginning in the fifteenth-century, learned
practitioners became increasingly vocal about
the need to elevate the status of architecture.
Spurred by the rediscovery of Vitruvius’ recon-
dite De Architectura, architecture was recast an
intellectual endeavor, requiring science, math,
# Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2015
M. Sgarbi (ed.), Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_50-1
and innate talent (ingegno), and as such, was
said to belong within the realm of the liberal
arts (artes liberales). Distinct from the anony-
mous master masons and building supervisors of
the medieval period, the Renaissance architect
was to assume the position as authorial,
supremely learned master in the art of building.
This new conception of the architect was articu-
lated in a series of architectural treatises – those
of Leon Battista Alberti, Antonio Averlino
“Filarete,” Francesco di Giorgio, and Andrea Pal-
ladio, among others – which taking various
forms, sought to structure the modern profession.
Synonyms
Architect; Chief of works; Engineer; Mechanic
Essay
In fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe, there
was no distinct profession of architecture, and as
reflected in the contemporary commentaries,
municipal records, building patents, and treatises,
the conception of the architect varied consider-
ably depending on context. Patrons, building
administrators, on-site supervisors, and crafts-
men often received the appellation “architetto”
even if they were not necessarily involved in
building design. Such was the case with Lorenzo
de’ Medici, who was often referred to as architect
2 Architect
due to his great interest and investment in build-
ing (Brown 1993). There are also numerous
examples in which an individual who was work-
ing as an architect was referred to by another
title – painter, sculptor, engineer, or chief of
works (pittore, scultore, ingegnere, or
capomaestro) (Hollingsworth 1984). Luca
Fancelli, for example, was accustomed to sign
himself “lapicida” or “squltor” (“stonecutter” or
“sculptor”) even when working on building
design (Vatovec 1979). Similarly, in his contract
for the position of operaio dei bottini, overseer of
Siena’s extensive system of aqueducts, Francesco
di Giorgio is designated as pittore (Weller 1943).
The undefined nature of the early-modern
architect was in part the manifestation of the
contemporary cultural shifts and the extraordi-
nary degree of social mobility of the Renaissance
period. It was also a product of the desire to
impose an idealized, classical conception of
architecture on a discipline which for centuries
had been ruled by unlettered practitioners. Begin-
ning in the first half of the Quattrocento, learned
practitioners and humanists became increasingly
vocal about the need to elevate the status of
architecture. Leon Battista Alberti was among
the first and most notable proponents of this
reconception of the profession, writing a theoret-
ical tract which presented architecture as intel-
lectual endeavor, requiring science, math, and
ingegno, and placing it in the realm of the artes
liberales. The heightened status of architecture,
Alberti asserted, meant that the individual archi-
tect also gained prominence. But unlike its sister
arts, painting and sculpture, where organized sys-
tems of apprenticeship prevailed, there was no
established mode of architectural training or
even a universally accepted definition of what
architecture entailed.
As the first published and widely circulated
tract on architecture in the Renaissance, Leon
Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria (c.1450)
had a marked impact on how architecture was
conceived in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centu-
ries. Alberti took as his model Vitruvius’ De
Architectura (c.15 BC), the only surviving tract
from antiquity dedicated solely to the art of build-
ing (Krautheimer 1969). Rediscovered in 1414 by
the Florentine humanist Poggio Bracciolini, De
Architectura was considered the definitive text on
architecture in the Renaissance; its abstruse
Greek-Latin prose was thought to hold the secrets
of superior classical building design. The tract’s
proposed program – to reformulate Roman archi-
tecture, liberating it from what he considered an
inferior position in respect to Greek
architecture – also resonated with the early-
modern practitioners (Pagliara 1986; Vitruvius
1999). Although Alberti did not accept Vitruvius’
theory in full, and was considerably less dog-
matic on the extreme breadth of the architect’s
education, he was equally emphatic that the
architect was to be distinguished from the crafts-
man or builder. The architect, according to
Alberti, was a learned individual, who used his
ingenuity, along with his knowledge of site con-
ditions, building materials, classical building
forms, and social practices to conceive and
design beautiful structures suitable for the
“noble needs of man.” The Albertian architect
was all authoritative and controlled the entirety
of the building’s design. The craftsman, by con-
trast, was a manual operator, nothing more than
the “hand of the architect.” He implemented the
building concept but was not involved in ques-
tions of design (Alberti 1998).
Alberti supported his lofty vision of the archi-
tect using examples drawn from the texts of
ancient authorities – not only Vitruvius but also
Democritus, Archimedes, Theophrastus, Hippoc-
rates, Servius, Pliny, Plato, and Aristotle, among
others. In taking up these models, Alberti gave
architecture a learned, theoretical foundation but
also one that was highly idealistic and in large
part devoid of practical applications. In content
and prose, Alberti’s erudite Latin De re
aedificatoria was far better suited for the
humanist patron than for the working architect,
and ultimately the text had limited impact on
fifteenth-century architectural practices.
With few exceptions, architectural design and
construction practices in the Renaissance were
largely the same as those of the medieval period.
The typical Renaissance architect rose from the
ranks of artistic and building trades. Educated in
abbaco, or practical geometry, he received the
Architect
appellation of architetto late in his career, after
demonstrating his excellence in design and his
ability to administer and supervise large building
projects. Although the architect possessed greater
cultural and artistic authority than his artisan
peers, his training and skill sets were much the
same, and in keeping with the highly conserva-
tive, entrenched modes of construction, his work
as building designer remained highly collabora-
tive in nature. Rarely, if ever, did the Renaissance
architect assume the consummate authority
Alberti bestowed upon him (Ackerman 1991;
Goldthwaite 1980; Trachtenberg 2010).
Following Alberti, learned architectural prac-
titioners of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries
continued to seek to define the diffuse profession.
The outpouring of architectural treatises and
Vitruvian commentaries written in the
vernacular – those of Antonio Averlino Filarete,
Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Cesare Cesariano,
Pietro Cataneo, Sebastiano Serlio, Andrea Palla-
dio, Philibert de l’Orme, and Vincenzo
Scamozzi – reveal the continued desire to bestow
order and prestige to architecture where it
remained absent (Cataneo 1985, Filarete 1972,
L’Orme 1981, Martini 1967, Palladio 1997,
Scamozzi 1997, Serlio 1996, Vitruvius 1981).
At their core, every one of these tracts questions
the essential definition of architecture, offering
rules and formulae that might structure the archi-
tect’s training and practice. Although the books
vary considerably in breadth and content, taken
together, they uphold a set of fundamental prin-
ciples. Good architecture, it was unanimously
agreed, was that which applied classical building
forms and proportions. All the Renaissance
authors read Vitruvius, and although like Alberti
they may not have followed his theory in full,
they all relied upon De Architectura in
deciphering the difficult parts of architecture
(Kanerva 2006; Pagliara 1986). In order to be a
successful architect, it was said, it was necessary
to study ancient Greek and Roman building
models, both in text and firsthand. The Renais-
sance theorists were also in agreement on the
importance of geometry and drawing (disegno).
Drawing was considered the fundamental tool of
the architect, by which he studied the works of
3
others, developed original designs, tested inven-
tions, and communicated his ideas with workers
and patrons. Knowledge of the natural environ-
ment, and the ability to modify a building design
according to the local topography and site condi-
tions, is another major theme which runs through-
out the writings.
In their diversity, the Renaissance treatises
testify to the degree to which architecture
remained uncodified. There is no consensus, for
example, on the dimensions of the columnar
orders, and the authors do not agree on a curric-
ulum of architectural education. Moreover, the
tracts reveal significant discrepancies in regard
to the essential duties and design responsibilities
of the architect. Whereas Francesco di Giorgio
and Pietro Cataneo assign to the architect projects
involving defensive and mechanical design, such
technical works are entirely absent from the trea-
tises of Serlio and Palladio (Cataneo 1985, Mar-
tini 1967, Palladio 1997, Serlio 1996). The design
of fortifications became increasingly specialized
in the sixteenth-century, and as delineated in
Giovanni Battista Belluzzi’s Trattato di
Fortificazioni (c. 1550), there was an increasing
distinction between military and civil architects
(Lamberini 2007). For others, however, the dif-
fuse definition of the architect as general “master
builder” endured. In Tomaso Garzoni’s widely
popular La Piazza Universale di Tutte le
Professioni del Mondo (1585), a text which
sought to order all early-modern social functions
into distinct professional categories, architects
are still defined as “masters of buildings, fortifi-
cations and fortresses, and masters of machines,
mechanics and engineers” (Garzoni 1996). Over
a century after Alberti’s De re Aedificatoria,
therefore, the definition of architecture remained
uncertain; the qualifications and duties of the
architect still largely determined on a case-by-
case basis.
Cross-References
▶ Andrea Palladio
▶ Antonio Averlino Filarete
▶ Cesare Cesariano
4 Architect
▶ Francesco di Giorgio Martini
▶ Giovanni Battista Belluzzi
▶ Leon Battista Alberti
▶ Luca Fancelli
▶ Philibert de l’Orme
▶ Pietro Cataneo
▶ Poggio Bracciolini
▶ Sebastiano Serlio
▶ Tomaso Garzoni
▶ Vincenzo Scamozzi
▶ Vitruvius
References
Primary Literature
Alberti, L.B. 1998. On the art of building in ten books.
Trans. J. Rykwert, N. Leach, and R. Tavernor. Cam-
bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cataneo, P. 1985. L’Architecttura. In Trattati di Pietro
Cataneo, Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola: con l’aggiunta
degli scritti di architettura di Alvise Cornaro,
Francesco Giorgi, Claudio Tolomei, Giangiorgio
Trissino, Giorgio Vasari, ed. E. Bassi, 165–498.
Milan: Edizioni Il Polifilo.
Filarete, A.A. 1972. Trattato di Architettura, ed. A.M.
Finoli and L. Grassi. Milan: Il Polifilo. 2 vols.
Garzoni, T. 1996. Degli Architetti in Universale, overo
Maestri d’Edificii, e Fortificatori di Fortezze, e Maestri
di Machine, et Mecanici in Commune, overo
Ingegnieri. In La Piazza Universale di Tutte le
Professioni del Mondo, vol. 2, ed. G.B. Bronzini,
923–931. Florence: Olschki.
L’Orme, P. d. 1981. Architecture: oeuvre entiére
contenant unze livres, augmentée de deux & autres
figures non encores veues, tant pour desseins
qu’ornemens de maisons; avec une belle invention
pour bien batir, & à petits frais. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Vitruvius. 1999. Ten books of architecture. Trans.
I. Rowland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martini, F.D.G. 1967. Trattati di architettura ingegneria e
arte militare, ed. C. Maltese. Milan: Il Polifilo. 2 vols.
Palladio, A. 1997. The four books on architecture. Trans.
R. Tavernor and R. Schofield. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Scamozzi, V. 1997. In L’idea della architettura universale
di Vincenzo Scamozzi, architetto veneto,
ed. W. Oechslin. Vicenza: Centro Internazionale di
Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio. 2 vols.
Serlio, S. 1996. Sebastiano Serlio on architecture: Books
I-V of Tutte l’opere d’architettura et prospetiva. Trans.
V. Hart and P. Hicks. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Vitruvius. 1981. De Architectura. Cesariano edizione
1521, ed. A. Bruschi. Milan: Il Polifilo.
Vitruvius. 1999. Ten books of architecture. Trans.
I. Rowland. New York.
Secondary Literature
Ackerman, J. 1991. Architectural practice in the Italian
renaissance. In Distance points. Essays in theory and
renaissance art and architecture, 361–384. Cam-
bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Betts, R. 1971. The architectural theories of Francesco di
Giorgio. PhD Diss. Princeton: Princeton University.
Biagi, M.L.A. 1965. Vile Meccanico. Lingua Nostra 26:
1–12.
Brown, B.L. 1993. An Enthusiastic Amateur: Lorenzo
de’Medici as Architect. Renaissance Quarterly 46:
1–22.
Carpo, M. 2003. Architecture in the age of printing: Oral-
ity, writing, typography, and printed images in the
history of architectural theory. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Ettlinger, L. 1997. The Emergence of the Italian architect
during the Fifteenth Century. In The architect: Chap-
ters in the history of the profession, ed. S. Kostof,
96–123. New York: Oxford University Press.
Galluzzi, P. 1996. Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento da
Brunelleschi a Leonardo da Vinci. Florence: Giunti.
Goldthwaite, R. 1980. The architect. In The building of
renaissance Florence, 351–396. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hale, J.R. 1977. Renaissance fortification. Art or engi-
neering? London: Thames and Hudson.
Hart, V., and P. Hicks (eds.). 1998. Paper palaces: The
rise of the renaissance architectural treatise. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Henninger-Voss, M. 2000. Working machines and noble
mechanics. Guidobaldo del Monte and the translation
of knowledge. Isis 91: 233–259.
Heydenreich, L.H. 1967. Federigo da Montefeltro as a
Building Patron. In Studies in renaissance and
baroque art presented to Anthony Blunt on his 60th
birthday, 1–6. London: Phaidon.
Hollingsworth, M. 1984. The architect in sixteenth-
century Florence. Art History 7: 385–410.
Kanerva, L. 1998. Defining the architect in fifteenth-
century Italy. Exemplary architects in L.B. Alberti’s
De Re aedificatoria. Helsinki: Suomamalainen
Tiedeakatemia.
Kanerva, L. 2006. Between science and drawings: Renais-
sance architects on Vitruvius’s educational ideas. Hel-
sinki: Finnish Academy of Science and Letters.
Krautheimer, R. 1969. Alberti and Vitruvius. In Studies in
early christian and renaissance art, 323–332. New
York: New York University Press.
Lamberini, D. 2007. Il Sanmarino: Giovan Battista
Belluzzi, architetto militare e trattatista del cinque-
cento. Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore. 2 vols.
Lefaivre, L., and A. Tzonis (eds.). 2003. The emergence of
modern architecture: A documentary history from
1000 to 1810. New York: Harper and Row.
Architect
Pagliara, P.N. 1986. Vitruvio da testo a canone. In
Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana, vol. 3, ed.
S. Settis, 5–82. Turin: Giulio Einaudi Editore.
Pellecchia, L. 1992. Architects read Vitruvius: Renais-
sance interpretations of the atrium of the ancient
house. Journal of the Society of Architectural Histo-
rians 51: 377–416.
Schlimme, H. (ed.). 2006. Practice and science in early
modern Italian building. Milan: Electa.
Tafuri, M. 2006. Interpreting the renaissance: Princes,
cities, architects. Trans. D. Sherer. New Haven. Yale
University Press.
Toker, F. 1985. Alberti’s ideal architect: Renaissance – or
Gothic? In Renaissance studies in honor of Craig
5
Hugh Smyth, ed. A. Morrogh, 666–674. Florence:
Giunti Barbèra.
Trachtenberg, M. 2010. Building-in-time: From Giotto to
Alberti and modern oblivion. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Vatovec, C.V. 1979. Luca Fancelli, Architetto. Florence:
Uniedit.
Weller, A.S. 1943. Francesco di Giorgio 1439–1501.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilkinson, C. 1977. The new professionalism in the
renaissance. In The architect: Chapters in the history
the profession, ed. S. Kostof, 124–160. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wittkower, R. 1952. Architectural principles in the age of
humanism. London: A. Tiranti.