Nexus Network Journal (2020) 22:169–190

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-019-00449-0

RESEARCH

Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare

Beretta

Anna Marotta1   · Ursula Zich1   · Martino Pavignano1 

Published online: 20 May 2019

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2019

Abstract
Looking at the past, among the main modalities of transmission of knowledge
(alongside with manuscripts and printed treatises and with respect to the various
‘precepts’) we would have found also various professional figures. This is even
truer with regard to the training and dissemination of knowledge among military
engineers, who used to be real ‘living vehicles’ in national and international cultural
systems. This is also true for what concern that circumscribed set of knowledge
of geometrical-mathematical theories, including their application to the codes
of architectural Representation and Design. This research aims to investigate
the example of the military engineer Gaspare Beretta (Milan 1620–1703), whose
theoretical production both on architectural graphic and on various applications of
Geometry is still unpublished. With the aim of developing the relationship between
geometry, architecture and the transmission of knowledge, we will go through his
practices of the regular fortress tracing on ‘paper and ground’, in order to verify the
resulting connections between geometric reconstruction and Author’s intentions.

Keywords  Gaspare Beretta · Military engineering · Historical treatise · Euclidean

geometry · Geometric analysis · Geometric thinking

Introduction

Starting in the fifteenth century, the massive usage of gunpowder as an ‘instrument’

of war radically changed the approach to the art of war (not only) in Europe. Thanks
to the use of better, more powerful firearms and their ever increasing power to
devastate and disrupt, field battles (Chase 2003) and defense structures—on both
an urban and a territorial scale—needed to be adapted to respond to these military

* Martino Pavignano
martino.pavignano@polito.it
1
Department of Architecture and Design, Politecnico di Torino, viale Pier Andrea Mattioli, 39,
10125 Turin, Italy

Vol.:(0123456789)
 170 A. Marotta et al.

innovations (Hogg 1982; Fara 1989, 1993) that highly characterized the so-called
First Military Revolution (Childs 2000: 20).
In this context, the formal transition from medieval fortifications to the bastion
forts (alla moderna) benefitted from—and in part was possible thanks to—
the ‘rediscovery’ of an important number of classical authors’ ancient texts on
mathematics, physics and mechanics. At the same time, if we focus our attention
on the European panorama, it also took advantage of the communicative innovation
allowed by the introduction of the movable type press (Severini 1994: 49). These
issues led many authors to write treatises regarding different disciplines, which
found a common thread in the new relationship between theoretical speculation and
empirical observations (both supported by careful analysis of natural phenomena).
Moreover, starting in the sixteenth century, the adoption of the so-called
‘mathematical reason’ made it possible to overcome the distinction—almost
atavistic—between science and technology. In military science, and specifically in
the theory and practice of fortification design, this new approach took advantage
of the confluence between ‘knowledge’ of both science and technology. This issue
was reflected in the search for a ‘logical order’ of the ‘inner dialectic’ of fortification
design (Severini 1994: 50–51).
An example of this strong nexus between military culture and mathematical
science can be found in the metaphor that unites the dagger (symbol of war) to the
compass (symbol of the art of construction, including measurement). In 1529 the
Pope Clement VII commissioned a relief model of the city of Florence to Benvenuto
della Volpaia and Niccolò Tribolo in order to be able to follow the siege from Rome.
Benvenuto should have owned a dagger-shaped divider or compass and he should
have used it to solve the difficult task, which had to be carried out in secret, as it
was real act of espionage. In this recalled episode, the metaphor has the measuring
instrument originate directly from a technical reinterpretation of the physical
shape of a dagger, thus representing the use of a technical tool in a warlike context
(Camerota 2012: 150–151).
First, this present contribution aims to situate the papers of Gaspare Beretta
(1620–1703) within the broad panorama of the transmission of specialised
knowledge in the seventeenth century. Next, it highlights the role of mathematics
in the military context of this period. Furthermore, it develops the relationships
between geometry and architecture, with specific regard to the transmission of their
‘technical knowledge’, as they appear in the draft of the military architecture treatise
assembled within the school of Gaspare Beretta (and attributed to him): Maître de
Camp or Tenente di Mastro di Campo Generale of the State of Milan (Perin 2008:
44). In particular, it identifies the tools of geometry that can be used for the study
and definition of fortifications, as Beretta intended to show to a possible reader of his
theoretical work. Finally, the contribution aims to analyze the specific implications
and different applications of geometrical praxis that Beretta described in order to
trace his regular fortifications design ‘on paper and on ground’.
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 171

Models for Training in and Transmission of the Scientific

and Technical Knowledge in the Seventeenth Century (MP)

Training

To begin the discussion of Gaspare Beretta’s draft treatise, it is fundamental to

delimit and to define the context in which military architects and engineers were
trained and worked in the seventeenth century. It is important to keep in mind
that this century was a period of transition for both the study and the design of
military infrastructure (Marotta 2012) and for methodologies of the transmission
of technical scientific knowledge (Karp and Schubring 2014). In particular,
progress was made regarding the training of military architects and engineers,
as well as for the dissemination and teaching of mathematics and other sciences.
Moreover, these disciplines were confirmed as the structural framework for many
kinds of professions, while they were also defining the fortification designer’s
job. It is also useful to remember that in the first half of the seventeenth century,
mainly because of the Thirty Years’ War, most of the governments of different
European countries did not consider education—either civil or military—a major
issue and thus invested resources and forces in other economic and political
actions (Karp and Schubring 2014: 136–137).
Between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it is therefore known that—in
the context of professionals dedicated to war—the training of military designers
who would have dealt with fortification design and construction basically followed
two paths that went hand in hand with the transformation of the practice of warfare.
The first one path imposed a study, even at an academic level, based on delving
into multiple subjects. This path was preferred by young nobles, who would enter
the various armies with command duties (Valleriani 2010: 72). This path was also
followed by the sons of professionals, who belonged to their respective guilds,
especially in Italy (Scotti-Tosini 2012). The second path, growing out of the late-
medieval corporate tradition, was the one most followed by commoners. Here the
art of war in all its facets was learned mostly through ‘field practice’, without of any
kind of specific ex-ante ‘cultural training’ (Molteni et al. 2018: 165).
The first type of training in the art of war and fortification may have an initial
confirmation in the works of Galileo Galilei, who at the turn of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries held the profession of private teacher in Padua. There,
among the many subjects he used to teach, he offered a couple of courses on
fortifications. Galilei also proposed specific in-depth analyses of the application of
mathematics to fortification design (Valleriani 2010: 71–75). A practical example
of this path can be found in Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban’s youthful training
(Barde 2006: 13–15). This approach would evolve into the institutionalization of
schools for nobles, the so-called colleges, or the royal schools of application for
military engineers in the eighteenth century (Karp and Schubring 2014: 138), and
would ultimately give birth to the polytechnic schools of engineering.
On the other hand, an example of the second path is found in the figure of
Gaspare Beretta. Born in Milan, he was the son of a mason and his family
 172 A. Marotta et al.

probably came from the canton of Ticino (Viganò 2009). There is not much
information about his early years of life and some aspects of his biography still
remain obscure (Viganò 2009: 3; Marotta 2017: 176). Beretta entered the military
engineering corps at the age of sixteen with the rank of a simple soldier. During
his career in the Milanese–Spanish army, he performed many roles, rising rapidly
in rank and earning the esteem of both his superiors and the King of Spain
(Roncai 1990: 66–67). During the first years of his career, Beretta collaborated
with the military engineer Francesco Prestino as his assistant. He then succeeded
Prestino (Dameri 2018: 681) and was awarded with an appointment as ‘Chamber
Engineer’ (Ingegnere Camerale). This led to a dispute between Beretta and the
professionals of the Milanese Richino and Barca families, whose members had
belonged for generations to the College of Chamber Engineers and who did not
recognize Beretta’s new role because he had not been trained inside the College
(Roncai 1990: 67). Thanks to this dispute, we are able to verify that Beretta
built his professional career by ‘paying his dues’ in the field and not in a formal
academic setting.

Transmission

Among the main modalities of the transmission of artistic, scientific, and technical
knowledge, together with treatises (both manuscript, such as that of Francesco di
Giorgio Martini, and printed) and various ‘precepts’ (precetti), there were also
the various professional figures. In this case, people had to be understood both as
‘master instructors’ of the techniques, as well as ‘teachers’ of theoretical knowledge,
who laid the bases for professional practice. This is even truer with regard to the
training and dissemination of knowledge among military engineers. Indeed, they
were genuine ‘living vehicles’ in the national and international cultural systems of
the seventeenth century, due to the nature of their specific job (Viganò 2009). In
fact, military professionals were one of the main vehicles for the transmission of
the set of knowledge dealing with geometric-mathematical theories, including their
application to the codes of architectural representation.

Gaspare Beretta’s Treatise Draft (AM)

This paper is the development of research on Gaspare Beretta that started in the early
1990s (Marotta 1993a, b). It is well known that Gaspare Beretta, as well as other
professionals of his time, left a vast collection of papers, drawings and projects, now
kept in different libraries and archives spread all over Europe (Roncai 1990). The
present analysis makes use of references set by a series of documents and drawings
by Beretta and his contemporaries that have been collected and published since the
early 1990s preserved at Milan’s Archivio Storico Civico e Biblioteca Trivulziana,
Fondo Belgioioso (ASC-BT_FB).
Systematic examination of these materials—especially those contained in folder
269—allows the partial reconstruction of a draft of treatise on military science.
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 173

These written documents and drawings are composed of sections both purely
theoretical–speculative as well as pages of practical applications. For example, a
first chapter deals with the calculation of regular polygons (De calcoli delle figure
regolari, fols. 2–3), various problems on fortification science (Problemi Varij
per la Fortificat.e, fols. 4–14), the way to measure angles (Modo per misurare
l’inclinazione de li Angoli di qualsivoglia sorte, fols. 15–17), combined with many
graphical representations of fortress design. A second chapter contains a collection
of memoirs on fortifications by Vauban and other important authors (Raccolta di
varie memorie toccanti alla fortificazione moderna del Sig. di Vauban Ing.e generale
di Francia; ed altri Autori di grido. Il tutto preceduto da un discorso che serva
per la conizione esatta de siti; secondo le regole della sola Teorica, fols. 77–98)
(Marotta 1993b: 128–129).
Nowadays, studies that deal with Gaspare Beretta are mainly organized around
the events of his professional and personal life (Roncai 1990; Chiodi 2005; Perin
2008; Viganò 2009; Viganò 2011; Marotta 2017) but tend not to analyze the
cultural background and heritage. New investigations of Beretta must begin by
studying the corpus of drawings and papers. To do this, analytical methodologies
need to be based on critically defined parameters. Among the many possible issues
related to this documentary heritage, we can mention those concerning attributions
and validations of individual papers, or those regarding Beretta’s references and
theoretical–cultural matrices/background (Roncai 1990). The analysis presented
here examines the rediscovered papers contained in ASC-BT_FB folder 269, which
consists of about 300 sheets.
This  collection is an ensemble of heterogeneous and incomplete materials. The
original structure of this collection has either been lost or was never defined, but
some interesting files have come to light, such as Memorie delle Piazze dello Stato
di Milano e per la difesa dé Fiumi (memoirs on the fortifications of the State of
Milan and the defence of rivers), which includes precepts in geometry and the art of
the military engineer (Precetti di Geometria ed Arte di Ingegneria Militare). These
pages, which are ascribable to Beretta, include some drafts of treatises by Francesco
Prestino (Beretta’s mentor) and Carlo Giovanni Battista Formenti (one of Beretta’s
assistants).
An example of Beretta’s geometrical thinking appears in the very first statement
written on a folio of folder 269, entitled De Calcoli delle figure Regolari et di soli
Angoli (Fig. 1). We provide a translation here:
Chapter Six Having thus in the sixth axiom of the preceding discourse
determined that the fichant line [of defense] according to the method of
Holland does not exceed the firing range of the musket, which if it is an
ordinary musket will be 360 Milanese cubits, but if the musket is heavy will
be 480 [Milanese cubits]. According to the aforesaid determination the parts
of the fortification will have suitable proportions among themselves by setting
the face of the bastion at 144 of the aforesaid cubits and the curtain as a
sesquialteran of that, that is, one time and a half, and the angle that determines
the flank is 40°, the angle subtended to the complement of the curtain, that
is, the angle of the razant [line of defense] to the flank is 50°. However, the
 174 A. Marotta et al.

Fig. 1  De calcoli delle figure regolari. Chapter from Beretta’s Precetti di Geometria ed Arte di
Ingegneria Militare (ASC-BT_FB, folder 269, fol. 2r)
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 175

flank being perpendicular to the curtain, the angle of defense or the angle
of the bastion shall be equal to half of the angle of the figure plus 15° or at
most 20, that is, three parts of it. The angle of the figure increasing, that of
the bastion will become right but no larger. From the following calculations it
can be seen what angle of the retracted figure of the defended angle, acute, is
right. Therefore, to know the angle of the figure it is done as follows, that is,
summed together are as many right angles as there are sides of the figure of
which the angle sought, and from the entire sum of the aforesaid right angles
are taken away four, and the remainder is divided by the number of the sides of
the proposed figure, and the quotient will be the angle of the figure sought …
(ASC-BT_FB, folder 269, fols. 2r-v).
As we can see, Beretta, basing his reasoning on the Dutch system (even if he
preferred the French one), highlights the interconnection between the physical
characteristic of an ordinary or heavy musket (its firing range, respectively 360 and
480 Milanese cubits) and the basic dimensions of a fortification design (the face of
the bastion being 144 Milanese cubits and the curtain being 216 Milanese cubits).
We will find this specific issue again in Beretta’s papers and we will discuss it below.

Beretta’s Geometrical Sources (AM)

If we consider the possible training methods of a military engineer of his time,

discussed earlier, an important issue concerns the sources that Beretta could
have used, both in his career development and in the critical formalization of his
‘personal’ art (and his treatise too). Although we do not know other chapters of
Beretta’s draft, on the recto of folio 261 (Fig. 2) there is a list of texts and references
that were without a doubt used by the author as the main sources of his treatises.
This list contains references on perspective, mathematics, and physics/
mechanics. In particular, he cites Guidobaldo del Monte’s Perspectivae libri sex
and Mecanicorum liber, too; the works of Archimedes and Apollonius of Perga
as analysed in Federico Comandino’s Commentarii (with a specific attention for
the Liber de centro gravitatis solidorum); some selected chapters of Evangelista
Torricelli’s De sphoera et solidis sphoeratibus. Moreover, he highlights Giovanni
Alfonso Borelli’s ‘two volumes’ (which might be the Euclides restitutus, sive prisca
geometriae elementa, brevius, & facilius contexta or to De Motu Animalium), and
Vincenzo Viviani’s De maximis et minimis, geometrica divination: in qvintvm
Conicorvm Apollonii Pergaei. The list also contains references to Galilei opera
omnia and some unspecified Opere di Caramuelle (probably Juan Caramuel
y Lobkowicz’s Arquitectura civil recta y oblicua, containing also a Discurso
Mathematico by José Chafrion). This folio is written in two different hands,
suggesting that Beretta probably completed a list started by someone else. On the
other hand, this reference list might be derived from another letter, which appears
to be addressed to Beretta by an anonymous sender (ASC-BT_FB, folder 269, fols.
29r-32r). The author of this letter, which is undated but is ascribable to the last
decade of the seventeenth century, seems to answer some Beretta’s questions on the
 176 A. Marotta et al.

Fig. 2  List of Gaspare Beretta’s mathematical and mechanical references (ASC-BT_FB, folder 269, fol.
261r)

study of mathematics and, in particular, on the mathematical and physical and thus
theoretical background for the training of military engineers.
It is interesting to note that the author of the letter is generous in listing a large
number of reference texts. Among them, almost all the references noted on fol.
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 177

261 are cited. The letter enumerates the works of Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius
and Pappus, which, for example, were also considered by Guarino Guarini to be
fundamental epigones for mathematical studies (Roero 2009: 418).

Beretta’s Military Sources (AM, MP)

Of course, Beretta had military references as well. Among his papers, even if
not explicitly highlighted, it is possible to mention the unpublished military
architecture treatise by Pompeo Robutti, whom Beretta probably encountered in
Alessandria between 1648 and 1649, during the first phase of his military career
(Chiodi 2005; Dameri 2016). We can mention also many treatises of the Milanese
school of military architecture, which proliferated from the second half of the
sixteenth century and which Beretta cites in many of his papers. They include
Girolamo Maggi and Giacomo Castriotto’s Della fortificazione delle città of 1564
and Alessandro Capra’s La Nuova architettura militare of 1683. Beretta also takes
into account the ‘non-Milanese’ Buonaiuto Lorini’s Delle fortificationi of 1596 and
Pietro Paolo Caravaggio’s In geometria male restaurata of 1650 (Coppa 2004).
The comparison with another fundamental document of that period, José
Chafrion’s treatise on mathematics and military art entitled Escuela de Palas o
sea curso mathematico (1693), makes it possible to highlight how the privileged
relationship between mathematics and architecture became closer and closer,
starting from the theoretical support which was necessary for an architecture
professional (Marotta 2017).

Beretta’s Geometrical Intentions (MP)

Going deeper into his papers, we notice that Beretta does make clear links between
mathematics and fortified architecture, in particular through numerous references to
Euclid’s propositions. For example, in folio 13 of folder 269, the author points out
that, in order to calculate how many right angles correspond to the sum of the angles
of a given polygon:
…Havendo Euclide dimostrato che tutti tre gli angoli/d’un Triangolo rettilineo
sono eguali ai due retti/ne viene in conseguenza, che facilissimamente/si po’
fare il calcolo per sapere a’ quanti angoli retti/s’eguagliano tutti gli angoli di
ciascuna figura/rettilinea insieme uniti; imperoché ponendosi/ciascuna figura
rettilinea dividere in Triangoli…. (ASC-BT_FB, folder 269, fol. 13r).
… Euclid having demonstrated that the sum of all three angles of a right
triangle are equal to two right angles, it follows in consequence that it is very
easy to do the calculation to know to how many right angles is equal the sum
all of the angles in each straight-line figure [polygon] taken together, thus
setting each straight-line figure divided into triangles…
 178 A. Marotta et al.

In Beretta’s papers it is also possible to find ideas for practical applications of the
mathematical knowledge required by the professionals of fortifications. He shows
that he knows the principles of proportionality, derived from the propositions VI.2
and VI.4 of Euclid’s Elements (Valleriani 2010: 28) and possesses the complex
knowledge of the military compass conceived by Galileo Galilei on the basis of
some of Euclid’s propositions.
Even if no explicit references to Guarino Guarini’s work are to be found in
Beretta’s papers, another interesting issue of reflection is given by the fact that in
Beretta’s writings, we find an approach to mathematics that apparently follows
applicative prerogatives presented by Guarini in the introduction to Euclid’s Fourth
Book (shown in his Tractatus VII):
Usus verò huius Libri pernecessarius est, tum solidis in sphaera inscribendis,
& circumscribendis, tum comparationem externae figurae solidae, cum
interna, ex qua Archimedes soliditatem, sphaere adinvenit, tum ad lineas,
chordasque arcuum inveniendas, & tandem ad Militares delineationes
fortalitiorum (Guarini 1671: 83).
The use of this book is very necessary, for inscribing and circumscribing
solids in spheres, for comparing inscribed and circumscribed solid figures,
which Archimedes found from solid spheres, as well as for lines, arcs, the
determination of chords, and finally for the delineation of military fortresses.
It would be very unlikely to find a direct link between Beretta and Guarini, since
Beretta was called to duty by Vittorio Amedeo II of Savoy only between 1690 and
1697, after being consulted to provide his technical opinion on the Citadel of Turin
in 1687 (Viganò 2011: 102), years after Guarini’s death. However, it is known that
shortly before his death Guarini was in Milan, in February 1683, when Beretta was
imprisoned. It is also known that in 1671 Beretta worked for the Duke of Savoy,
since ‘he did several secret missions to Piedmont’ (Viganò 2011: 102). Thus, there
may have been kind of contact, even if limited, with the architect of the Savoy court,
who might have somehow inspired Beretta.

Beretta’s Practical Thinking (MP)

As mentioned earlier, this contribution analyses some sections of the Memorie di

architettura militare, in particular the first sheets containing the precepts of geometry
and the art of military engineering, in which he probably intended to provide easy
summaries of the fundamental concepts of geometry, such as the dimensions of
the internal angles of various regular polygons and the concepts of the relationship
between angles, lines and segments (parallel, perpendicular, etc.).
First, it is possible to deduce the geometric, graphic and architectural
terminologies used by Beretta. Regarding the architectural terminology, obviously
applied to military constructions, it is useful to visualize all the information available
on the sketch of a fortification type (Fig. 3).
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 179

Fig. 3  The nomenclature of Beretta’s school, as cited in the parametric tables. a Beretta’s original
drawing (ASC-BT_FB Folder 269, f. 11v, detail); b graphic elaboration by Martino Pavignano (color
figure online)

Here we can see how Beretta deviates from the conventions of his day and
is apparently never interested in the definition of inscribed and circumscribed
polygons, but only in the respective sides. On the contrary, he uses a terminology
that includes many of the names of those parts of geometric constructions that do
not give rise to portions of built shapes, even if they are not as precise as Formenti
(as can be seen from the documents contained in the same Fondo Belgioioso).
Entering into the merits of the relationship between geometry and architecture,
Beretta proposes a chapter entitled De Calcoli delle figure Regolari et di soli
Angoli (On the calculation of regular figures and only angles). Here he defines
the geometrical properties of regular polygons, including the square, the hexagon,
and the nonagon. A second chapter on various problems for the fortification
(Problemi Varij per la Fortificat.e) deals with a series of ten problems that lead to
the definition of the geometric layout of the fortifications with a regular polygonal
base (Fig. 4).
The solution to these ten problems are found in the next chapter, where Beretta
submits to the reader a set of three tables containing the calculated values of
angles and lengths related to the construction of fortifications (alla reale maggiore
e minore) based on the geometric construction of regular polygons (from four
up to twenty sides) (Fig.  5a). These tables, probably borrowed from the similar
elaborations of Francois Blondel presented in the Nouvelle manners de fortifier les
places (1683), actually allow the author to define a parametrized system, containing
a considerable number of possible geometric solutions (Fig. 5b).
A first examination of the ten problems leads us to hypothesize that Beretta had
not been able to verify some of his proposals, that is, he had not taken into account
information on the starting point of the geometrical construction. A careful comparison
with the sources will probably suggest better solutions to the unsolved question. For
example, Beretta bases the entire construction on the use of a 40° angle to define the
dimension of the flank, but he apparently did not specify this choice. Solving the ten
 180 A. Marotta et al.

Fig. 4  Beretta’s ten geometry problems. a, b Data written in the texts of the Precetti di Geometria ed
Arte di Ingegneria Militare, Capitolo Sesto; c–l graphical analysis and resolution of the ten problems
proposed by Beretta in the Precetti di Geometria ed Arte di Ingegneria Militare, Capitolo Settimo.
Drawing: Martino Pavignano (color figure online)
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 181

Fig. 5  Fortification design and parametric tables. a Beretta’s tables (ASC-BT_FB, folder 269, ff. 6r, 7v,
8r,). b Table des Agles de la Fortification nouvelle du Sieur Blondel (Blondel 1683: 93)

problems allows us to highlight that this 40° is the only one that has no construction but
a given dimension.
An interesting issue of the reconstruction of drawings that follow in the next
paragraph is the explication of the units of measurement. In Chapter Six, the author
uses the cubito Milanese, probably referring to the Milan cubit, conventionally equal to
0.594936 m. and used to measure the length of the fichant line of defence (360 or 480,
depending on the size of the musket). On the contrary, in the tables, the same author
refers to a non-specified verga as the reference unit, perhaps interpretable as the roede
(roe) of Amsterdam (Bevilacqua 2015). By comparing the two measures of the ascents
the author imposes an equivalence of 6 cubits to 1 verga, which results in 360 cubits
being equal to 60 verghe.
 182 A. Marotta et al.

From Thinking to Tracing on Paper: Graphic Investigations

of a Square‑Base Fortress (UZ)

Dealing with the geometric construction of a fortress requires linking its design
to its construction in the field. This intersection determines the evolution of
the fortress shape. It is not easy to find instructions for tracing on paper the
design of a fortress according to precise textual indications with the support of
illustrative representation (Spallone 2016). Usually, to accurately redraw the
images that are included in Beretta’s documents, it is possible to carry out the
representation using two different approaches: by starting from numbers, which
are contained in the tables (Fig. 5a), or by looking for a geometric sequence that
can connect the single parts together, in order to define on paper a set of data that
are coherent with those present in the tables. The first approach involves not only
the representation of the data but the search for the possible relationships among
them. The second one provides the possibility of finding the set of sequential
constructions used to draw the fortress on paper, which might also be used to lay
out its ‘Vitruvian’ intention of icnographia formally on the ground.
Laying out a bastion (and symmetrically the others to complete the fortress
with a square plan) using the two aforesaid methods allows one to compare the
relative results and to find confirmations in the interpretations of the author’s
instructions. Starting from the information in the tables, given the square
containing the outlines of the curtains, the 40° angle that determines its side was
used as the only numerical element, as mentioned above.

Fig. 6  Graphic analysis of the geometric construction hypothesis with ruler, goniometer, compass
(AutoCAD model), first hypothesis. a–d construction of the razant line starting from the square; e–g
constructions of flank and face; h square fortress completed by symmetry. Drawing: Ursula Zich (color
figure online)
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 183

The First Geometric Hypothesis

1. Plot the square ABCD of side l (Fig. 6a), plot the diagonals AC and BD and
identify the centre O.
2. Proceed to identify E as the midpoint of the semi-diagonal AO obtained as the
intersection of the same with its axis determined through constructing the arcs of
radius equal to the semi-diagonal and centres in O and in A and then identifying
the conjunction of the points of intersection of the aforesaid arches (Fig. 6b).
3. Given the intersection F of the arc of centre A with the perimeter of the square,
define point G by the intersection of the circumference of radius AE and centre
A with the extension of the diagonal of the square (Fig. 6c).
4. The connection FG is the razant, the construction line for determining the face of
the bastion which is thus inclined by 15° to the side AB, the curtain (Fig. 6d).
5. It is at this point that the table data of 40° of the flank angle that is used for
constructing he line segment r with starting point in A and with an angle of 40°
with respect to the side AB (Fig. 6e).
6. Line Segment r identifies on segment GF the point H from which to determine
the orthogonal to side AB and identify point I (Fig. 6f).
7. In this step, we see the 30° angle FGA (Fig. 6g).
8. By symmetry, the drawing is completed which highlights in each bastion a 60°
angle (Fig. 6h) and the curtain lc.

The Second Geometric Hypothesis

1. Starting from the dimension of the curtain lc, with endpoints J and K, we
proceed to identify midpoint L obtained as the intersection of lc with its axis
determined by arcs of radius equal to lc and centres in J and in K and the
consequent joining of the points of intersection of the aforesaid arcs (Fig. 7a).
2. Similarly, opening the compass to a length of 1/2 lc and with centres in J, L and
K, we construct the axes of segments JL and LK to find midpoints M and N
(Fig. 7b) in order to determine the partition in quarters of the initial segment.
3. With a radius of 1/4 lc (JM, for example) and centres in J and K we draw the
extension of the side lc up to the intersection with the last circumferences to
find P and Q. These points are useful to individuate the radius LP of the new
circumference of centre L which identifies point R on the axis of segment AB
(Fig. 7c).
4. Draw the circumference of radius RP and centre R, extend RP and RQ to the
circle and find the diagonals of the inscribed square PQST (Fig. 7d). The square
is the connection with the constructive sequence previously described and with
which it integrates.
5. The first four steps of Fig. 6a–d are then used again in Fig. 7e–h.. Here it is
possible to link between Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, reference is made for the specific
description A ≡ P, B ≡ Q, C ≡ S, D ≡ T, O ≡ R (Fig. 7e).
 184 A. Marotta et al.

Fig. 7  Graphic analysis of the geometric construction hypothesis with ruler, goniometer, compass
(AutoCAD model), second hypothesis, starting from the dimension of curtain lc. a–d construction of
the square on which the curtains are positioned; e–h repetition of steps 6a–d for the construction of the
razant line; i–k) flank and determination of the face starting from constructions (a–d); l square fortress
completed by symmetry; m–o comparison with the data in Beretta’s tables; p comparison with the
fortress system from Chafrion’s Escuela de Palas. Drawing: Ursula Zich (color figure online)

6. Proceed to identify E as the midpoint of the semi-diagonal AO≡PR obtained as

the intersection of the same with its axis determined through constructing the
arcs of radius equal to the semi-diagonal and centres in O ≡ R and in A ≡ P and
then identifying the conjunction of the points of intersection of the aforesaid
arches (Fig. 7f).
7. Given the intersection F of the arc of centre A ≡ P with the perimeter of the
square, define point G by the intersection of the circumference of radius AE and
centre A ≡ P with the extension of the diagonal of the square (Fig. 7g).
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 185

8. The connection FG is the razant, the construction line for determining the face
of the bastion which is thus inclined by 15° to the side AB, the curtain (Fig. 7h).
In this case, for the sizing of the face, the table data of 40° from the previous
construction is not used (see Fig. 6e).
9. The perpendicular to JK is drawn through J up to the intersection with GF at
point U (Fig. 7i).
10. Draw the Line Segment r with starting point in A and crossing point U: Line
Segment r it is drawn with an angle of 40° with respect to the side AB (Fig. 7J).
11. Comparing Fig. 7J with Fig. 6f, it is possible to see the remarkable coincidence
of point H (hence H ≡ U in Fig. 7k) and, subsequently, I ≡ J, thus closing the
constructive sequence for the completion of the layout of the single bastion
(Fig. 7k).
12. By symmetry, the drawing of the entire fortress with a square base is completed
(Fig. 7l).

In Fig.  7 m–o the comparisons with the numerical data in the table are made
evident. Starting from curtain lc, equal to 36 verghe, and already verified the
coincidence of the 40° angle (as in the table to determine the size of the flank and the
face) (Fig. 7m), in Fig. 7n it is possible to identify the measure of the bastion face as
23.25 verghe. It can be compared with the 24.00 verghe of the data table. In Fig. 7o,
it is possible to read the razant line measure of 60.04 verghe to be compared with
the 60.80 verghe of the data table. Lastly, we propose an superposition between the
construction of a half of the squared fortress system as represented in Construccion
VII - De Francisco Florencia of Chafrion’s Escuela de Palas (1693: 35) (Fig. 7p).

Beretta’s School and the ‘Second Flank’ (AM, MP, UZ)

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw the rise and the development of some
of the most important debates on fortifications theory and design, concerning not
only geometry but also physical structures (Severini 1994: 23–25; McQuillan 2014:
615–619). Here we will highlight some specific remarks about the ‘second flank’.
This element was at the centre of a European debate in military architectural culture,
‘which opposed two schools of thought’, the one supporting its validity and the other
which ‘condemned it’ (Fara 2014b: 786).
The second flank, widely used by Vauban, for instance, but cited by many
authors, such as Porroni (1676), Rossetti (1678), and Ozanam (1694) amongst others
(Fara 2014a: 307–308, 310, 315–317), was theorized and implemented to effectively
enforce the first flank, especially that of bastions with orillons and concave wings,
creating the system of ‘double flanks’ (Pasley 1822: II, 347). This expedient allowed
the doubling of defending fire directed from the wing of the bastion (when needed).
As Guarino Guarini wrote in the Axioms and fundamental and universal principles
of fortification design (point 12), the second flank was important because:
Non si deve giamai lasciare l’ala, ò fianco secondo. Perche essendo l’ala
prima per una gran parte occupata dalle arteglierie; se non vi fosse
 186 A. Marotta et al.

l’ala seconda pochi sarebbero i moschettieri, che starebbero alla diffesa

dell’opposta parte; onde restarebbe in grave pericolo (Guarini 1676: 40)
The wing, or second flank, must never be left out. Because the first wing is
for the most part occupied by the artillery, if there were no second wing,
there would be few musketeers to see to the defense of the opposite flank;
and thus they would be in grave danger.
Probably, it is possible to assert that the second flank was the result of the
necessity to create bastions with a wider (and stronger) shoulder and with
a retracted flank, in order to provide better passive cover to defensive and
offensive artilleries. Possible proof of this idea can be found in the works of
Niccolò Tartaglia (1554), Pietro Cattaneo (1554) and Carlo Theti (Theti 1569:
8v) (Severini 1994: 21 n. 53, 64, 66). Furthermore, the origin of the second
flank could have been drawn from a reinterpretation of the faussebraye system,
in which a portion of this last element had been added to the structure of the
flank of the bastion (Pasley 1822: II, 346). The second flank was designed to be
at a lower level than the first flank, but at the same height of the crest of the
glacis, and thus at the same height as the faussebraye (Pasley 1822: II, 346). As
far as our research has deduced, we cannot prove that Gaspare Beretta expressed
his personal idea on this issue, but we have noticed some elements in his papers
that refer to this matter. For example, we know that, if an emergency occurred,
Gaspare Beretta usually reinforced existing fortifications with faussebraye:
in a document dated 28 October 1688, entitled Mio solo Parere Economico di
tempo e spesa (My brief opinion about time and expense) (ASC-BT_FB, folder
267, fol. 35r) about the project of reinforcement for the city of Alessandria, in
Piedmont, he suggests the use of faussebraye rather than orillons: ‘to save money,
the terrain designated with +, lying inside the razants of the bastions, is for the
faussebraye’ (ASC-BT_FB, folder 267, fol. 36r). Thus, he did not use the second
flank, probably for financial issues.
On the other hand, a drawing dated 15 October 1686, attributable to Beretta,
entitled Parere sopra Valenza (Opinion about Valenza) might highlight his interest
in the second flank matter (ASC-BT_FB, folder 266, fol. 48r). This document
contains a project for an important redesign of the fortification system of the city
of Valenza, in Piedmont, and it is clear that the new bastions were to be constructed
with orillons and double flanks. Again, another drawing by Beretta for the same
city (ASC-BT_FB, folder 266, fol. 46r), datable between 1680 and 1690, clearly
exemplifies Beretta’s interest in Vauban’s design solution for bastions and orillons
(both drawings were published in Barghini et al. 1993: 22 and 84).
Gaspare Beretta and his School might have discussed the second flank and the
use of orillons, but we have no direct evidence that Beretta himself liked this system.
We may assume that he did, however, because of the aforementioned drawing and
because Beretta stated that:
Il metodo francese moderno,/incominciando da quello del/celebre S. di
Vauban, è il più/facile per il disegno in carta, e/il più addatato, e spedito/
per la pratica. L’Olandese, il più/difficile, e nel teorico, e nella/pratica; …
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 187

sendo/le delineazioni di questi, lo più/astruse, senza che vi sia/il bisogno …

(ASC-BT_FB folder 261, fol. 78r).
The modern French method, introduced by the celebrated Mr. Vauban, is the
easiest one to draw on paper and the fastest one to put in practice. The Dutch
method is the most difficult, both in theory and in practice … because its
delineations are too abstruse without any need to be so.

Conclusions (AM, MP, UZ)

It is important to remember that Beretta lived and worked during a historical

moment that, a few years after his death, would lead to the first reform of the
“Chamber system” of the professions of architect, engineer and land surveyor
(1717) (Brambilla 2012). Beretta himself can be considered, with good reason, an
important precursor of this reform, by virtue of the fact that his professional ascent
was not tied to family merits, but, above all, to merits for actions on the battlefields
and therefore closely related to his way of understanding the profession (Roncai
1990).
A diachronic re-reading of the documents discussed here can support a first and
partial reconstruction of a couple of chapters of Beretta’s treatise. This fragment,
however, is extremely significant because it allows us to highlight the fundamental
contribution that mathematical disciplines have made to the art of military
architecture (Scotti Tosini 2012), especially to the systematic design of the most
modern fortifications alla Reale. Among Beretta’s papers it is even possible to find
some hints declaring his interest in the second flank, although these do not provide
evidence of his direct personal opinion.
From the work of critical rereading between text and image, there appears
to immerge from between the lines an interpretative margin aimed at the
contextualization of the different constructions in actual real situations, even
though the rigor of numbers and fractions is densely structured in tables that, on the
contrary, fix the values of the constructions in an almost dogmatic way.
However, the pages we have analysed allow, among other things, the
reinforcement of the well-established belief that Beretta was technically prepared
and open to continuous personal growth, equally conscious of technical and
theoretical innovations. This can only increase the value that, just recently, in
Beretta’s figure and his School has been recognized, both technically and militarily,
with a huge cultural baggage, aimed at the practice of architectural fortifications.
The exercise of re-drawing the square-based fortress allows us to extend all the
redrawn constructions to the geometric definition of other fortress designs, based
on regular polygons. Furthermore, it is clear that Beretta’s intention was to propose
a logical reinterpretation of Euclid’s Elements, easily applicable to the fortification
design.
Based on what has been discussed, the key role played by drawing becomes the
discovery of geometry, thus identifying both drawing and geometry as duplicate
expressions of a ‘privileged observatory’ of mediation between thought and practice,
 188 A. Marotta et al.

between the mental and structural model, between visual communication and the
mathematical foundation of forms, opening the way to the comparison with works
performed by Beretta and his contemporaries.

Acknowledgements  Images in Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 5a belong to the Archivio Storico Civico e Biblioteca

Trivulziana, Comune di Milano, all right reserved. We warmly thank the Archivio Storio Civico e
Biblioteca Trivulziana, Comune di Milano for granting us the permission for publish these materials. For
Martino Pavignano, the contribution was developed within the research project MAG.IA.: Mathematics
Architecture Geometry. Interconnections and Applications.

References
Barde, Yves. 2006. Vauban ingénieur et homme de guerre. Précy-sous-Thil: Éditions de l’Armançon.
Barghini, Andrea, Comoli, Vera, Marotta Anna eds. 1993. Valenza e le sue fortificazioni. Architettura
e urbanistica dal medioevo all’età contemporanea. Alessandria: Cassa di Risparmio di
Alessandria-SOGED.
Bevilacqua, Marco Giorgio. 2015. Le scale grafiche nella trattatistica europea di architettura militare tra
Cinque e Settecento. In: Amelio Fara, Giuseppe Ignazio Bertola (1676–1755). Il disegno e la lingua
dell’architettura militare, 95–101. Firenze: Angelo Pontecorboli.
Blondel, François. 1683. Nouvelle maniere de fortifier les places. Paris: Nicolas Langlois.
Brambilla, Elena. 2012. Tra acque e “fabbriche”, cascine e canali: gli ingegneri e gli architetti lombardi
dalla fondazione del Collegio al primo Settecento. In: Formare alle professioni. Architetti, ingegneri,
artisti (secoli XV-XIX), Alessandra Ferraresi and Monica Visoli, eds., 59–72. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Camerota, Filippo. 2012. When the dagger became a compass. In: Festungsbau. Geometrie. Technologie.
Sublimierung, Bettina Marten, Ulrich Reinisch and Michael Korey, eds., 147–158. Auflage: Lukas
Verlag.
Cattaneo, Pietro. 1554. I primi quattro libri di architettura. Venezia: Figliuoli di Aldo (Manuzio).
Chafrion, José. 1693. Escuela de palas. Tomo II. Tratado XI del arte militar. Milano: Marcantonio
Pandolfo Malatesta.
Chase, Kenneth. 2003. Firearms: A Global History to 1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Childs, John. 2000. The Military Revolution I. The Transition to Modern Warfare. In: The Oxford History
of Modern War, Charles Townshend, ed., 20–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chiodi, Elisabetta. 2005. Prime annotazioni sull’attività piemontese di Gaspare Beretta ingegnere dello
Stato di Milano. In: L’architettura degli ingegneri. Fortificazioni in Italia tra ‘500 e ‘600, Angela
Marino, ed., 63–76. Roma: Gangemi.
Coppa, Alessandra. 2004. Trattatisti e trattati « milanesi » di architettura militare (XVI-XVII secolo). In:
La difesa della Lombardia Spagnola, Graziella Colmuto Zanella and Luciano Roncai, eds., 37–61.
Cremona: Ronca Editore.
Dameri, Annalisa. 2018. Al servizio del re di Spagna: Francesco Prestino, ingegnere militare. In: History
of Engineering. Storia dell’Ingegneria, Proceedings of the 3nd International Conference. Atti
del 7° Convegno Nazionale, Napoli, 23-24 April 2018, Salvatore D’Agostino, Francesca Romana
d’Ambrosio Alfano, eds., 675–683. Napoli: Cuzzolin.
Dameri, Annalisa. 2016. Ingegneri in guerra. Pompeo Robutti e Gaspare Beretta al servizio della Spagna
(1657). In: History of Engineering. Storia dell’Ingegneria, Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference. Atti del 6° Convegno Nazionale, Napoli, 22-23 April 2016, Salvatore d’Agostino, ed.,
627–634. Napoli: Cuzzolin.
Fara, Amelio. 1989. Il Sistema e la città. Architettura fortificata dell’Europa moderna dai trattati alle
realizzazioni 1464-1794. Genova: Sagep.
Fara, Amelio. 1993. La città da guerra nell’Europa moderna. Torino: Einaudi.
Fara, Amelio. 2014a. Giuseppe Ignazio Bertola (1676-1755). Il disegno e la lingua dell’architettura
militare. Firenze: Angelo Pontecorboli.
Fara, Amelio. 2014b. The Citadel of Alessandria: Giuseppe Ignazio Bertola’s architectural infraction
of the hexagon’s geometrical regularity. Nexus Network Journal 16(3): 777–793. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0000​4-014-0215-7.
Fortification Design and Geometry in the Papers of Gaspare… 189

Guarini, Guarino. 1671. Euclides adauctus et methodicus mathematicaq universalis. Torino:

Bartholomaei Zapate.
Guarini, Guarino. 1676. Trattato di fortificatione che hora si usa in Fiandra, Francia, & Italia. Torino:
Carlo Giannelli.
Hogg, Ian. 1982. Storia delle fortificazioni. Novara: Deagostini.
Karp, Alexander and Schubring, Gert. 2014. Mathematics Education in Europe in the Premodern Times.
In: Handbook on the History of Mathematics Education, Alexander Karp and Gert Schubring, eds.,
129–152, New York: Springer. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9155-2.
Marotta, Anna. 1993a. Disegno e geometria per i collaudi delle fortificazioni. In: Valenza e le sue
fortificazioni. Architettura e urbanistica dal medioevo all’età contemporanea, Andrea Barghini, Vera
Comoli and Anna Marotta, eds., 126–128. Alessandria: Cassa di Risparmio di Alessandria-SOGED.
Marotta, Anna. 1993b. Progetti per Valenza di Gaspare Beretta e del suo entourage. In: Valenza e le sue
fortificazioni. Architettura e urbanistica dal medioevo all’età contemporanea, Andrea Barghini, Vera
Comoli and Anna Marotta, eds., 128–131. Alessandria: Cassa di Risparmio di Alessandria-SOGED.
Marotta, Anna. 2012. Geometria e costruzione: modelli mentali e tipi realizzati nel territorio della difesa.
Disegnarecon 9(5): 161–166. https​://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1828-5961/3164.
Marotta, Anna. 2017. Disegni di Gaspare Beretta nel territorio europeo per la difesa, nei secoli XVII
e XVIII. In: Defensive architecture of the Mediterranean XV to XVIII Centuries, Victor Echarri
Iribarren ed., 175–182. Alicante: Publicacions Universitat d’Alacant.
McQuillan, James. 2014. The Treatise on Fortification by Guarino Guarini. Nexus Network Journal
16(3): 613–629. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0000​4-014-0209-5.
Molteni, Elisabetta, Pérez Negrete, Alberto. 2018. L’esperienza di guerra nella formazione degli architetti
e ingegneri militari nell’età moderna. In: Defensive Architectures of the Mediterranean, Vol. VII,
Anna Marotta and Roberta Spallone, eds., 165–172. Torino: Politecnico di Torino.
Ozanam, Jacques. 1694. Traité de fortification, contentant les méthodes anciennes & modernes pour la
construction & la déffense des places, et la manière de les attaquer, expliquée plus au long qu’elle
n’a été jusques à present. Paris : Jean Jombert.
Pasley, Charles William. 1822. A course of elementary fortification, including rules, deduced from
experiment, for determining the strength of revetments; treated on a principle of peculiar
perspicuity, 2 vols. 2nd. ed. London: John Murray.
Perin, Antonella. 2008. Beretta Gaspare, Beretta Giuseppe, ad vocem. In: Architetti e ingegneri militari
in Piemonte tra ‘500 e ‘700, Micaela Viglino Davico, Elisabetta Chiodi, Caterina Franchi and
Antonella Perin, eds., 44–50. Torino: Omega Edizioni.
Porroni, Annibale. 1676. Trattato universale militare moderno del marchese Annibale Porroni general
maggiore del regno di Polonia, diviso in sei libri. Venezia: Francesco Nicolini.
Roero, Clara Silvia. 2009. Guarino Guarini and Universal Mathematics. Nexus Network Journal 11(3):
415–439. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0000​4-009-0012-x.
Roncai, Luciano. 1990. Note in merito a un fascicolo di “Memoria di architettura militare” dell’ingegnere
Gaspare Beretta. In: Architettura fortificata in Lombardia. Atti del seminario, Milano 1987, Luciano
Roncai and Piergiorgio Allevi, eds., 66–79. Cremona: Editrice Turris.
Rossetti, Donato. 1678. Fortificazione a rovescio di Donato Rossetti canonico di Livorno, dott. In.
Sac. Teologia, già lettore di filosofia all’università di Pisa; e or professore delle matematiche
nell’Accademia di Piemonte: e matematico di S.A.R. Torino: Bartolomeo Zapata.
Scotti Tosini, Aurora. 2012. Ingegneri e architetti tra Cinquecento e Settecento: libertà professionale e
chiusure corporative. In: Formare alle professioni. Architetti, ingegneri, artisti (secoli XV-XIX),
Alessandra Ferraresi and Monica Visoli, eds., 73–94. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Severini, Giancarlo. 1994. Progetto e disegno nei trattati di architettura militare del ‘500. Pisa: Pacini
Editore.
Spallone, Roberta. 2016. The ‘Regular Fortress’ by Guarini and the Citadel of Turin. Nexus Network
Journal 19(2): 255–277. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0000​4-016-0327-3
Tartaglia, Niccolò. 1554. Quesiti et inventioni diverse. [Venezia]: presso l’autore.
Theti, Carlo. 1569. Discorsi di fortificationi. Roma: Giulio Accolto.
Valleriani, Matteo. 2010. Galileo Engineer. Dordrecht: Springer.
Viganò, Marino. 2009. Gaspare Beretta ingegnere maggiore dello stato di Milano (Brissago? 1620 –
Milano? 1703). Retrived from: www2.arc.usi.ch/en/ra_2009_09.pdf.
Viganò, Marino. 2011. Ingegneri militari ‘ticinesi’ nel Piemonte sabaudo. Opere di fortificazione tra XVI
e XVIII secolo. In Arte e storia 19(2): 88–113.
 190 A. Marotta et al.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Anna Marotta  architect and Ph.D. in “Preservation of Architectural Heritage”, is former Full Professor of
Drawing and Survey (ICAR/17) at the Department of Architecture and Design (DAD) of Politecnico di
Torino. She teached disciplines related to drawing and representation, including Visual Communication
and Laboratory of Drawing and Architectural Survey. She was part of the teaching staff of the 1st level
Master in Interior, Exhibit & Retail Design; since 2019 she is external expert of the teaching staff of the
Ph.D. in Architectural and Landscape Heritage at Politecnico di Torino (regual staff 2006–2018). She
is member of ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Site) and of UID (Unione Italiana
Disegno). Since 2012 she is member of the Scientific Committee of the Gruppo del Colore and she is
a member of the Presidential Committee of the Associazione Nazionale Colore. For years she handled
international relationships with other faculty, including Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes
(Mexico) and Moscow University Friendship of Peoples, as well as with countries like Egypt.

Ursula Zich  architect and Ph.D. in “Drawing and Survey of Architecture and Landscape”, is Confirmed
Assistant Professor in Representation (ICAR/17) at the Department of Architecture and Design of the
Politecnico di Torino. She teaches Laboratory of Architectural Drawing and Survey in the same University.
Her scientific interests are: critical analysis of architectural representation, research in experimental
didactic for Architecture and Mathematics through representation techniques and by physical modelling
of tangible and intangible objects, interactions between architecture-art-city-color-user.

Martino Pavignano Registered Architect, currently Ph.D. Candidate in the Ph.D. programme in

“Architectural and Landscape Heritage” at the Department of Architecture and Design of the Politecnico
di Torino. Since 2014 teaching assistant (ICAR/17) for the Laboratory of Architectural Drawing and
Survey in the same University. His scientific interests deal with: historical architectural drawing and
survey, critic analysis of the connections between drawing, images and texts in historical architectural
librarian production/press, interactions between architectural form design and mathematics. UID adherent
fellow.
Nexus Network Journal: Architecture & Mathematics is a copyright of Springer, 2020. All
Rights Reserved.