THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA: A L B E R T I , OR DESIRE AND TIME

Alberti explicitly desi g nates, with the words principia, partes, rationes, only a subset
o f the operators he uses. However, by applying a functional analysis we can iden-
tify the whole set, which I will present synthetically in a formulation that is rel-
atively free compared to that o f the De re aedificatoria and employing, once again,
my own terminology.
Although this distinction was not made by Alberti, we can divide the op-
erators o f the De re aedificatoria into two categories: theoretical and practical. I
call the former, o f which there are five (along with their corollaries), axioms, and
the latter, which are three in number, prindples.
I have chosen to call the theoretical operators axioms because they are
presented as propositions which are indisputable, fundamental, and possessed o f
generative power. This axiomatic foundation is, moreover, free o f any depen-
dence upon visual media. It is striking that, alone among Occidental trattatisti,
Alberti deliberately declined to illustrate his treatise or to rely on the use o f
geometric fi g ures. In a passage o f book 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 o f Bartoli
and the French translation o f Martin) up to our own time (where Orlandi as
well as Rykwert have retained their illustrations) in opposition to the spirit o f
the text. If, in a period dedicated to the hegemony o f vision and its relationship
to truth (and given his own profound contribution to the theory o f perspective
and cartography), Alberti asserted that illustration was "forei g n" to his project
(" ab instituto aliena"), 153 yet freely admitted the difficulties it would cause him to
explicate his points "using words alone (verbis solis)," 154 his decision must in-
deed be seen as one charged with meaning. I will return to this point some-
what later.
The first axiom ofAlberti's triad can be formulated in this way:'edification
consists in three parts involving respectively necessity, commodity, and pleasure'.
This axiom establishes the three levels (each one simultaneously logical, chrono-
logical, and axiological) o f architectural activity, and determines three types o f
rules. It also serves to establish the tripartite division o f the De re aedificatoria and
it is deployed throughout the treatise by intercrossing with the other operators.

105
 CHAPTER T w o

We see it at work in the prologue, where it functions to structure the eulogy to

architecture.
T h e second axiom can be formulated this way:' every building is a body'.
Over the course o f the b o o k it exhibits three supplemental variants which can
be considered its three corollaries: 'methodological', 'structural', and 'organic'.
The first corollary posits that, 'like every body, every edifice is'indissociably com-
posed o f form and matter'. It determines the form o f the first part o f the D e re
aedificatoria (the sequential order o f the first three books), and it allows, by inter-
crossing with the first and third axioms, a portion o f the rules for building to be
generated. T h e second corollary (structural ) specifies that, 'like every (living)
body, the edifice is composed o f a skeleton (the support), o f tendons and liga-
ments (the connective elements), and a skin (infilling and revetments)'. This
coroll a r y , appropriately intercrossed, permits the generation o f the structural rules
o f construction in b o o k 3. Finally, the third corollary (organic), according to
which the members are articulated with one another and subordinated to the
organization o f the entire body, permits generation w h e n intercrossed with a
portion o f the rules o f the second and third parts o f the text. It accounts both for
the adaptation o f the edifice to its purposes and its harmony.
T h e third axiom can be formulated thus: 'the diversity o f humans and o f
their demands is unlimited'. In order for such diversity to be efficaciously man-
aged in the programming process, it must be integrated into an arbitrary taxo-
nomic framework. It involves a declaration o f impotence which legitimates
palliatives. We can take as corollaries o f this axiom the binary oppositions uni-
versal/particular, public/private, sacred/secular, urban/rural, leisure/labor which
serve to define the program, the fundamental operation o f the sec9nd level, at
the same time as they determine the sequential order o f the chapters o f the sec-
ond and third parts o f the D e re aedificatoria.
In contrast to those which precede it, the fourth axiom o f conception
does not figure in the prologue. It opens chapter 2 o f b o o k 1, and can be for-
mulated in this way: 'edification consists o f six operations dealing with the lo-
cality, the area, the compartition, the walls, the roof, and the apertures o f the
projected buildings'. These six operators serve to generate, by intercrossing with

106
 THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

the other axioms, the whole set o f rules o f edification. They also determine the
consecutive order o f the chapters o f books 1 and 3, and help to structure and
order the treatment o f the contents o f books 4 through 9.
T h e fifth axiom, the axiom o f concinnitas concerning aesthetic pleasure, is
rendered the homologue o f the preceding one by its introduction somewhere
other than in the prologue and its division into operations. It can be formulated
thus: 'the beauty o f an edifice results from the intercrossing o f three operations
dealing with the number o f its parts, its proportions, and its arrangement'. It is
formulated i n b o o k 9, chapter 5, and it retrospectively clarifies the aesthetic
books (6, 7, 8, 9, chapters 1 to 5) which precede it; b u t i n fact, it only actually
generates the plan o f chapters 5 through 8, and the rules contained therein.
As for the three practical principles, which Alberti is content to use under
various formulations w i t h o u t designating t h e m as abstract entities for the
reader, they first appear in the prologue and are at work all throughout the De
re aedificatoria.
Thus the principle e f economy o r frugality stipulates that the optimal solution
at the least cost should always be sought: and the edifice must consist only o f
that which cannot be eliminated, whether it is a matter o f materials o n the level
o f construction, o r ornament o n the level o f the aesthetic as well as cost. Only
intellectual expenditure, i n the form o f the work o f conception and auto-cri-
tique, is encouraged unconditionally.As we have seen, this principle plays a par-
ticularly important role i n what I have called the negative aesthetic o f Alberti.
As for the construction o f the text itself, application o f the principle o f frugal-
ity is manifested first with a remarkable economy o f theoretical and concep-
tual means. 155 N e x t , arising from the same motivation, w e find a set o f
structural equivalencies which also contribute to reducing the theoretical and
textual expenditure: doors, windows, conduits for the evacuation o f smoke and
water are all subsumed under the denomination of'openings',just as ceilings
and floors are b o t h subsumed under that o f 'coverings'. Similarly, as we have
seen, the city is assimilated to a large house and, inversely, the house is c o n -
strued as a city i n small, a move that renders both subject to the same rules o f
compartition.

107
 CHAPTER T w o

The principle of duration requires that edification be inscribed in time, as

possessed o f its own duration. It is not only a matter o f a proper inscription o f
the activities o f building into the cycle o f the seasons, but also o f the temporal
deployment o f intellectual work: every project must be brought to maturation,
reconsidered, questioned. There is no greater enemy for the architect than pre-
cipitousness or haste. This principle gives the De re aedificatoria its metaphorical
value and determines both the depth and the sequential ordering o f the text.
Finally, I will use the term dialogica/ 15 6 to stipulate the principle according
to which the process o f edification implies the existence o f various actors or
types o f actors who interact verbally. The experts (periti), that is, other architects
and humanists, are called upon to intervene on the three levels o f edification in
order to evaluate and critique the decisions o f the architect. The client (or pa-
tron) plays an essential role on the second level, in the formulation and discussion
o f the program. Finally, the social community as a whole must have its say. In a
word, the other is a full partner o f the architect in producing the built world, both
in discussion o f the program and in judging its conformity to physical laws and
aesthetic rules, whereas laus (praise) becomes the crowning achievement and es-
sentially the aim o f edification. In the construction o f the treatise, the application
of the dialogical principle is manifested by the insistent and indelible presence o f
a second person, the familiar you, which as we saw above is the silent auditor of
the I o f Alberti.
Aside from the five theoretical axioms and the three practical principles,
other operators o f a different kind introduce the prologue and each o f the three
major parts o f the De re aedificatoria. I will call them meta-mythic. They serve to
establish and generate Alberti's entire project as well as the set o f axioms; and,
they are presented in the form o f brief origin narratives freely constructed by
Alberti. I will have the occasion to analyze their functioning and to interrogate
their meaning at the end o f this chapter.
For the moment, let it suffice to note (and this is the object o f our sys-
tematic recapitulation) the fact that these operators allow Alberti to construct a
genuine theory o f edification, which articulates three independent and hierar-
chical systems. At its basis, the system o f construction involves materials, which

108
 THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

must obey the laws o f mechanics and physics 15 7 as well as a logic imposed by
the human mind: a two-fold dependence, which for the modern reader recalls
that o f phonic substance, the foundation for the construction o f all discourse,
which is subject to the rules o f phonetics as well as those o f phonology. While
the physics o f materials indeed occupies the whole o f book 2, Alberti devotes
an original part o f his work, one which owes nothing to any predecessor, to the
delineation o f the six basic operations o f conception in the domain o f building.
It treats an innate power o f formalization which, being specific to the human
brain, partakes o f the same necessity as the laws o f nature. It both allows the ar-
ticulation o f materials (book 1) and the formulation o f the rules o f this articula-
tion (book 3). These six irreducible operations thus inform a pliant matter, which
is subject to its own specific laws not susceptible to any human intentionality.
They ensure its integration into the primary system, which constitutes the pre-
condition and in its turn the 'matter' from which the built world can be devel-
oped o r expressed. For the system o f construction is a necessary, but not
exclusive, condition o f edification. It opens the way to meaning, but it no more
permits meaningful structures to be articulated than the phonological system
alone allows meaningful propositions to be constructed. That is why the rules o f
the first part o f the D e re aedificatoria do not deal with the varied world o f edifices.
This world is only inscribable at a second level o f articulation (books 4
and 5). It depends on a second system o f rules which transfers the built from the
semiotic to the semantic domain. But this second articulation is not comparable
to that which characterizes verbal lang u age. It appeals to the external semiotic
system o f lang u age. The first system, that o f construction, can only be deployed
in space o n the condition that it is integrated into the hierarchically superior
system o f verbally expressed demand or desire. Whereas current attempts to the-
orize an 'architectural semiotics' are polarized by the ambi g u ous and elusive no-
tion o f function, 15 8 Alberti masterfully asserts the consubstantial link between
the activity o f building and desire, and the unlimited potential o f the latter.1 5 9
Moreover, he avoids falling into the trap o f dogmatism, and from the start as-
sumes that demand and desire for built space are only conceivable by means o f
arbitrary taxonomic categories. The system o f programmatic rules he develops in

109
 CHAPTER T w o

book 4 is presented as one possible solution among others. Its value lies in its
functionality and it draws upon the work o f rationalization which precedes it.
Thus, throughout books 4 and 5, far from being a mere interpreter, 160 language
is primary, and verbal discourse, at the very origin o f the built text, constitutes
above all a transcription before it can become a foundation. Alberti's rejection
o f drawing and illustration si g nalled above confirmed this regal status o f verbal
language. One could also interpret it as a means o f defending the generative
value o f the rules and o f the Albertian method against the reductive power o f
the image. 161
In its turn, the second level is assimilated to the rules o f a third system,
that o f beauty, the source o f pleasure (books 6, 7, 8, 9). For us today, this third
level is that o f poetics, 162 wherein architecture is subordinated to and ordered
by the system oflanguage and the semantics o f verbal discourse, and is thereby
equipped to si g nify with its own specific means. Thus, lacking access to the fal-
lacious analogies fashion has sometimes suggested to our contemporaries, yet re-
membering Horace,Alberti posits for the first time in history the conditions o f
what we would call a semiology o f built space. 163
The conception o f these three interconnected strata thus represents a
major contribution to the theory o f edification. Its importance has never been
fully reco g nized. This misunderstanding is explained in part by the fact that the
D e re aedificatoria has traditionally been read as a new D e architectura, rather than as
an original theoretical work. It is also clear that the repercussions o f modern lin-
guistics on other branches o f anthropological research allow a different reading o f
the text today. This reading, deliberately anachronistic, is nonetheless rendered
possible and legitimated by the intrinsic qualities o f Alberti's oeuvre. Thus, the D e
re aedificatoria indeed appears to lay down the prolegomena-not yet superseded
and thus still r e l e v a n t - o f a theory to come which would have access to new
conceptual instruments for treating the specificity and the hierarchy o f the three
levels o f edification: Alberti was able to demonstrate in general terms their means
o f integration and indissociability at the same time as he si g naled the privileged
status o f the third.

110
 THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA: A L B E R T I , OR D E S I R E AND TIME

I l l . THE BEAUTIFUL AND ITS ANTINOMIES

We have seen, however, that the level o f beauty does not evince the same ho-
mogeneity as the others and disturbs the unity which otherwise characterizes
Alberti's scheme. This is because in spite o f his knowledge o f the culture o f
Antiquity and its archaeological remains as well as his grasp o f contemporary art
and its leading ideas (remarkable in the Quattrocento),Alberti did not have access
to the conceptual instruments (developed only much later) which would have
allowed him, if not to resolve, at least to pose in clearer terms the problem o f
aesthetics. A synthetic summary o f the difficulties which, as my analysis o f book
9 has shown, prevented Alberti from maintaining the perfect coherence o f his
treatise, will allow us to specify precisely his original contribution to a 'theory o f
art' and to reveal the origin o f the misunderstandings that are habitually perpe-
trated regarding the relations o f the De re aedificatoria to ancient thought in gen-
eral and Neoplatonism in particular. I will employ my own terminology, on the
one hand, in those cases w h e r e - a s with the operators-it helps to desi g n ate
ideas Alberti appropriated without giving them specific denomination (such as
organic beauty), and on the other hand, when it can furnish interpretive con-
cepts (such as the negative aesthetic).
We have seen that Alberti subsumes beauty under four categories which
are opposed in pairs. O n the one hand, he opposes intrinsic beauty to supple-
mental beauty or ornament (his terminology); on the other hand, natural or
organic beauty is opposed to cultural or dogmatic beauty (my terminology).
Organic beauty first appears, in fact, at the level o f commoditas, where it results
from the successful adaptation o f an edifice to its purpose. It then comes from a
particular concinnitas, analogous to that o f the animal, the harmony o f whose parts
is achieved by nature coextensivly with the adaptation to its functions. In either
case, that o f the edifice or that o f the animal, its beauty is universally perceptible
to all: in modern terms, we could say that it is a matter o f good form (Gestalt).
This is Alberti's first discovery and it is integral to the logic o f his treatise.
But i f Alberti had stopped with this, there would have been no third part
to the De re aedificatoria. The third part is entirely based on the hypothesis o f a

111
 CHAPTER T w o

supplementary articulation, possessing its own laws, which belongs to the world
o f culture and constitutes a poetics o f edification by virtue o f which architecture
is, in the strict sense, an 'artistic language', 1 6 4 in contrast to banal construction or
'natural language'. Thus, the poetics o f the temple, for example, is governed by
two sets o f rules. The rules o f the first set deal with the exterior and allow it to
express divine transcendence and the majestic gravity o f relig1on by means ofits
installation in a natural site or urban context and by the treatment o f its walls. 16 5
The others apply to the interior space o f the temple, the goal being to arouse
religious terror, l 6 6 contemplation, 1 6 7 or a sense o f mystery 16 8 through the dis-
position o f plan, and the articulation o f roof and openings.
However, this poetics which the De re aedificatoria so clearly identifies as
the domain o f man, is dramatically split between two tendencies. O n the one
hand Alberti remains obsessed with the principle o f economy, which has inspired
his negative aesthetic and which, by extension, would move him to consider good
form an adequate ideal. H e more or less unconsciously relates cultural beauty to
ornament. Ornament (experienced as a threat) is consubstantial with poetics.
O n the other hand, Alberti attempts to establish two homologous pillars o f ra-
tional laws on either side o f the intermediate level on which the aleatory rules o f
commodity apply: to the necessity o f the laws o f nature on the first level o f ed-
ification correspond the equally rigorous constraints o f the mathematical laws
on the third level. This is how he is led to elaborate surreptitiously two competing
aesthetics which are formulated in parallel in the course o f book 9.
One aesthetic, still natural but not reducible to that o f good form despite
the fact o f its universality, is based not on the body o f the animal but rather on
the human body, which functions simultaneously as actor and model. The plea-
sure engendered by architectural beauty brings into play the whole body o f the
person who experiences enjoyment in the perception o f the beautiful edifice as
another body governed by the same proportions (demonstrated in the example
o f the architectural promenade). 16 9 T his aesthetic role attributed to the body and
the sexual resonances o f its interpretation, suggest, especially in light o f the texts
ofFilarete treated below in Chapter Four, a comparison with certain o f Freud's

11 2
 THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

ideas 17 0 which give them new perspective and development. However, this 'po-
etics o f the body' is more speculative than normative.
O n the other hand, the second aesthetic, a 'mathematical' one, does indeed
propose a system o f stylistic norms. But, as the dogmatic form o f its exposition
shows clearly, this system is borrowed from Greco-Roman Antiquity in its nu-
merical expression, which assumes the force o f law, and from the Pythagorean
connotations it evokes. It is precisely this mathematical aesthetic which is re-
sponsible for the interpretation not only o f the third part, but o f the entire trea-
tise as a work o f Neoplatonist inspiration. Most historians o f architecture, and
Wittkower in particular, neglecting the naturalistic concinnitas inherited from
Aristotle's 'physiologism', 1 7 1 have focused on the mathematical concinnitas and
the dogmatic system it supports; they have too readily taken Alberti to be the
promoter o f an exclusively mathematical and Neoplatonic theory o f architec-
ture. For us, on the contrary, the dogmatic aesthetic appears to be a momentary
drift away from the spirit and logic o f the D e re aedificatoria. Certain formal
anomalies seem to dawn in this hypothesis: the verb tenses utilized to express
the laws o f the dogmatic aesthetic, and the locus o f the origin narrative which
follows instead o f precedes them. But the thesis I am defending is supported
above all by the role and the unexpected authority granted to the Ancients, in
contradiction with the whole o f the rest o f the book, as well as by the limited
space given in book 9 to the theory o f the orders, which furthermore is sub-
sumed under the category o f ornament. Finally, it is supported by the blocking
o f poetic creativity which imposes on a theory o f creative time the adoption o f
the Greco-Roman stylistic system.
If, then, as my analysis has shown, Alberti postulates that beauty presents
two visages, one universal, the other contingent, and i f this second face is for
him a function o f time and history, how are w e to explain the partial drift o f
book 9? Alberti is confronted here with an insurmountable difficulty stemming
from the fact that he grants autonomy to the level o f poetics, and confers on this
dissociation not a heuristic value, but rather a normative function. He wants to
attribute necessity, to give the status o f universal laws 17 2 to those rules which are
not what w e would call cultural universals but rather stylistic rules bound to

11 3
 CHAPTER T w o

contingent values. B y definition, then, he must look for them in the history o f
architecture. But history can provide them only i f it has already produced a ra-
tional system. That this absolute reference exists follows from the schematic his-
tory o f architecture (book 6, chapter 3) which Alberti bases on the brief origin
narrative o f the arts (artes) (book 6, chapter 2): "the arts were born o f Chance
and Observation, fostered by Use and Experiment, and matured by Knowledge
and Reason."173Thus, the work o f the Romans marks the end o f a long devel-
opment and the poetics o f architecture is realized in truth.
Alberti's argument must be sought beneath the surface, behind the words
that contradict and collaborate in its masking: the invasive presence o f the natural
aesthetic that infiltrates all the chapters concerning ornament; the gaps and ex-
ceptions Alberti forcefully maintains with a dogmatism that contradicts his sense
o f becoming.
It is all the more important to situate the precise point where the drift o f
the De re aedi.ficatoria manifests itself, because it should be seen as a decisive turn-
ing point for the aesthetic theory o f architecture, as the origin o f positions whose
ramifications are felt even today, and which for centuries were adopted by
Western architects: the privilege o f the truth accorded to ancient architecture,
its consecutive bracketing in historical styles, the prerogative that devolved on a
small group o f clerics to enforce the rules o f this poetics henceforth as dissoci-
ated from building itself as from a natural aesthetic.
M y thesis finds supplementary confirmation in Paul Frankl's analyses o f
"post-medieval" architecture, 174 which he characterizes as having that self-con-
sciousness which seems to me to be at the basis o f Albertian instauration.
According to Frankl, the inventiveness manifested by the architecture o f the
Quattrocento and marked in particular by its "corporeality"175 depends from the
gaps in the archeological knowledge o f its promoters. Archaeology would steril-
ize architecture at the moment o f its constitution as a scientific discipline, as is
witnessed by the synchronic advent o f Neoclassicism. However, in the case o f
Alberti, we must invoke with equal emphasis the determinate role o f his natural
aesthetic, partial as it is, which is founded precisely on the axiom o f the building
as a body.

114
 THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

The manner in which the dogmatic aesthetic and the law o f the orders
disturb and warp Alberti's project thus calls into question his relation to the past
and to history in general. It opens the question of his relation to Vitruvius, the
Roman architect who virtually embodies the authority of the Ancients and from
whom Alberti borrowed not only archaeological information but also a number
of his narratives concerning the past. This is why, before attempting to elucidate
the role of history and of narrative in the De re aedificatoria, the time has come to
confront Alberti's treatise with the De architectura. In this context, I shall be able to
respond to the question posed in Chapter One of whether Alberti's book is ef-
fectively inaugural, or does that status in fact belong to the De architectura.

IV. A L B E R T I AND V I T R U V I U S : 1 7 6

OF SUPRA-STRUCTURAL BORROWING

Did the De architectura serve as Alberti's model or his springboard? Are the nu-
merous commonalities between the two texts superficial or structural? On the
level of form, is the identity of procedures and expressive modes actual or merely
apparent? Is there room for difference between two books, both written in the
first person singular, both written by architects sharing the goal of defining their
art and establishing all of its rules (" omnes disciplinae rationes," writes Vitruvius), 17 7
both articulating these rules using gerundives, subjunctives, verbal adjectives, or
verbs of equal appropriateness, and both supplementing them with explanations
in the present indicative and narratives or anecdotes in the past tense? On the
level of content, what use does Alberti make of the borrowings that his succes-
sors-as well as present-day historians 1 7 8- consider important?
Alberti not only drew fr m Vitruvius, or the authors likewise used by
Vitruvius, most o f his historical information and the anecdotes concerning ar-
chitecture, construction techniques, the typology o f ancient edifices, the orders,
and even climate, meteorology, and the relations o f living things to their envi-
ronment, 17 9 but he also familiarized himself with Vitruvius' advice on the edu-
cation o f the architect. 18 0 Alberti owes some o f his fundamental operators to
the Roman architect, like, for example, the triadic structure 18 1 and the binary

11 5
 CHAPTER T w o

oppositions public/private, sacred/secular, and most o f the concepts o f his aes-

thetic, like that o ffinitfo.182
It is si g n if icant, however, that in spite o f the ma g n itude o f his debt,Alberti
adopts in the De re aedif,,catoria a resolutely critical attitude toward the ancient
author. He mocks him for his use oflanguage, the imprecision o f his concepts, 183
his superstitions, and his turgid digressions.184 A comparative reading o f the two
texts will confirm the legitimacy o f Alberti's j u d g m en t.
But these are still no more than superficial deficiencies, and i f Alberti
had done no more than emend, clarify, or bring order to the work o f his pre-
decessor, we would have to place the De re aedif,,catoria in the same textual cat-
egory as the De architectura, where it would merely be a more tenable avatar. To
the extent that he does in fact utilize the ancient text,Alberti does not submit
the treatise to mere amelioration, but rather mutation. H e does not restore
the ancient author's construction, he demolishes it and uses the materials from
the site o f demolition to construct a new edifice, a textual architecture never
before seen. This method o f reuse can be illustrated by the example o f the
triad.
The triad appears in Vitruvius in chapter 2 o f book 1.After explicating its
constitutive elements, 185 the author divides architecture into three fields: aedif,,-
catio, gnomonice, machinatio.18 6 Aedif,,catio itself is subdivided into two categories:
the first concerns private edifices, the second, walls and public buildings.187
Public buildings are in turn grouped in three relative categories pertaining to
defense, religion, and opportunity (" opportunitatis"). 188 Vitruvius then indicates
that public buildings should be realized with an eye to firmitas, utilitas, and venus-
tas, and he briefly defines these concepts, 189 making reference to dispositio for
utility and to symmetria for beauty. But after this analysis, the three terms only
reappear incidentally, even rarely, and only on one occasion in the same place.190
The reason is that they have no effect on the organization o f the text; they do
not determine a chronological order or precedence in the treatment o f the var-
ious subjects. It is impossible to assign a logical order to the chapters dealing
with techniques o f construction or with utility. As for beauty, Claude Perrault
correctly observed its omnipresence in the De architectura.

116
 THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA: A L B E R T I , OR D E S I R E AND TIME

In the D e re aedifi-catoria, on the contrary, the three notions are presented as

early as the prologue in their relation to temporal and hierarchic succession,
which then serves both to construct the book and analyze the three successive
and hierarchically articulated levels o f the architectural process. With Alberti, the
three levels underlie an approach which aims to establish a meaning and then to
elucidate a genesis: solidity (which is, furthermore, integrated within the more
encompassing term necessity), appropriateness (a subtler notion than utility), and
beauty are invested with dy namic value. They fulfill a structuring function and
play a constructive role that contrasts with their inertia in Vitruvius' text, where,
far from desi g nating a hierarchy oflevels, they serve at best to reorder rules, or to
organize knowledge o f a craft, but by no means to generate it. The Vitruvian
triad is not functional. It is anecdotal, contingent, and could be eliminated with-
out altering anything in the organization and scope o f the D e architectura.
We can say as much for almost all o f the theoretical notions utilized by
Vitruvius. Consider, for instance, the constitutive principles o f architecture enu-
merated in book 1. Not only do they lack precision, 191 and even at times rele-
vance, 1 92 but they serve dual purposes, as for example in the case o f eurythmia and
symmetn·a; 193 they superpose themselves on the three concepts analyzed earlier; 194
moreover, they are used neither for the construction o f the text nor for the pro-
duction o f architecture. 195 They have neither a foundational nor a generative role.
Neither can a productive role be assi g ned to the Roman author's assertion that
symmetria originates with the human body and its dimensions. 196 With Vitruvius,
this assertion is merely explanatory and cannot be assimilated to the axiom o f the
building as a body, which is systematically applied by Alberti to the production o f
rules on all o f the levels o f the D e re aedifi-catoria. These differences do not mean
that we must deny the existence in the D e architectura o f operational concepts. But
these in fact support static taxonomies (the division o f the fields o f architecture, o f
construction, o f edifices, o f temples), dictated by tradition or opportunity, and are
not the result o f any interrogation or justification, not to mention foundation.
This difference in the functioning o f the same concepts leads to a different
organization o f the two works and a different ordering relation among the books
that comprise them. The one, with its random connections and sequences which

11 7
 CHAPTER T w o

sustain no relation to the chronology o f the operations o f building, is a discon-

tinuous collection o f parts. T h e other, with its rigorous and irreversible se-
quencing evinces a plan established from the outset and intended to unfold in
conformity with the generative desi g n o f Alberti's project.
Each o f the ten books o f the De architectura begins with a proemium, a sort
o f literary introduction, and concludes with an excursus o f a less decorative nature
which serves to sum up the contents o f the book, and above all to situate it with
respect to the b o o k which will follow it as well as in the context o f the work as
a whole. B u t while the excurses are integral parts o f the De architectura, function-
ing to elucidate its arguments, the proemia, while they indeed serve to introduce
each book individually, have above all an ornamental value and a digressive func-
tion. T h e y constitute ten autonomous fragments, bits o f literary bravura ad-
dressed directly to A u g u s t u s - t o w h o m the work was d e d i c a t e d - a n d intended
to charm and distract h i m in the manner o f interludes, before returning h i m to
the subject at hand with renewed interest. Thus, while the economy and logic o f
the De re aedificatoria make it impossible to remove any part o f a treatise where
each section and most o f the anecdotes are necessary to and indissociable from
the whole, n o small part o f the De architectura could be suppressed without the
slightest compromise o f the author's intentions.
In spite o f appearances, the first proemium is n o t really different from the
others. True, it provides Vitruvius with the occasion to present himself to the
emperor, reminding Augustus o f the family tradition and services that bind the
architect to him, and to introduce a work intended to furnish the emperor with
criteria for judging the architect's accomplishments as a builder. B u t the autobi-
ography ofVitruvius, in which he situates himself socially and emphasizes his
connection to Augustus, is external to the theoretical text o f which, moreover,
the first proemium gives only a fragmentary view limited to the contents o f b o o k
1. This section is therefore n o t comparable to the prologue o f Alberti, which is
founded o n and orders his entire text, on the one hand by means o f his biogra-
phy ; which is free o f any mundane o r social connotations and reduces to a purely
intellectual enterprise, and o n the other hand by virtue o f the introduction o f
his operators and the plan o f the work.

118
 THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

At no time does Vitruvius offer his reader such a global view o f the un-
folding text o f his treatise. The reader is condemned to a succession o f fragmen-
tary glimpses. O n e after another, the proemia and the excurses recite goals
accomplished and announce new intentions, but never give an overview o f the
whole.Vitruvius m a n a g e s - i f only on two occasions-to articulate links among
the four books: retrospectively, in the proemium o f book 4, and prospectively, in
the conclusion o f book 5, but from then on he speaks only oflocal and consec-
utive relations from book to book. The Roman architect does indeed, from ex-
cursus to excursus, affirm the deployment o f an organizational logic and claim that
there are essential links that tie one book to the preceding and/ or following one,
but in the end, the order in which the books succeed one another has never
been explained. 197 It is not explicable because there is no dynamic relation to
forge an organic whole out o f the ten individual parts. Book 2 can only be in-
terpreted as a parenthesis, and book 7, dealing with water, can only be inter-
preted as a supplement. The positions o f books 9 and 10 could be reversed, and
these two books might just as well have preceded those devoted to aedif,catio.
N o explanation justifies either the preeminence ofreligious edifices over all oth-
ers, or the priority accorded to beauty in relation to solidity and utility, or, cor-
relatively, the inordinate amount o f space given in the text to the harmonious
construction o f temples. It is impossible to represent the organization o f the De
architectura with a diagram analogous to the one I have proposed for the De re
aedif,catoria. O n e must rely on the conventional tables which outline the con-
tents o f the treatise.
M y diagram represents the functioning o f the operators as well as the
function o f time, which, in Alberti's treatise, permits the deployment o f the
whole and brings into accord the Bildung o f the author, his book, and the built
domain. The chronological axis is on the other hand utilized by Vitruvius only in
an incidental manner, for the (realistic) presentation o f certain sequences o f
rules. 198
The difference between the textual organization o f the De re aedif,catoria
and that o f the De architectura overtly manifests the difference-equally irre-
ducible, i f less evident-between Alberti's motivations and those o f Vitruvius.

119
 CHAPTER T w o

Both claim to present the reader with a set o f rules. But the th·eoretical I of
Alberti, who addresses and challenges an anonymous and universal you, 199 has
decided to begin with a tabula rasa and to progressively discover and formulate
the rules o f edification with the help of operators for which his own jud g m ent
will be the evaluative criterion. O n the contrary, for the social I ofVitruvius,
who addresses Augustus, whose you dates and locates the te.xt, the problem o f
discovering and determining these rules does not arise. It suffices to borrow
them from an already given corpus, to which it is only necessary to bring order
and light. Vitruvius does not proceed from a radical interrogation, but rather a
tacit acceptance o f tradition; 2 0 0 this pertains to the rules themselves as well as
the principles 2 0 1 he uses to clarify them. This attitude is particularly explicit
when he describes the different categories o f temples 2 0 2 or the typology o f
Greek edifices. 2 0 3 At the time he was writing, it was not possible for Vitruvius to
speak as an autonomous theorist o f an autonomous discipline o f building. 2 04
The moment had not yet arrived to question tradition, to imagine a spatial order
never before seen. Ritual and custom were still the basis o f architectural practice.
The issue for the Roman architect was neither to promote reason as an instru-
ment for the organization o f space nor to liberate-and thereby to discipline-
the architect's creative spontaneity; it was rather to assemble, order, and
sometimes comment on a set o f building practices. Vitruvius occasionally rec-
ognizes this himself when he assumes the task o f explaining the traditional
rules. 2 0 5 In this sense, as Krautheimer correctly observes, the De architectura is still
a manual. Pierre Gros convincingly argues that it is instead a popularization of
traditional knowledge without any practical purpose.
Our acknowled g m ent o f the limitations o f the Vitruvian enterprise need
not be interpreted as a depreciation o f its value. My goal is to situate Alberti in
his proper place, not to minimize the originality o f an author whose book was
unique in its genre in the ancient world.Vitruvius has the sig n al honor o f being
the first to gather together a mass o f material which had until then been widely
scattered, and to attempt to make an organized whole o f it. In this sense, Andre
Chaste! is justified in seeing him as a 'hero'. 2 0 6 But only in this sense, for the
Roman architect is not a creator in the Albertian or Renaissance sense o f the

120
 THE DE RE AEDIFlCATORlA: ALBERTI, OR DESIRE AND TIME

term. If he did not manage to liberate the demi urge sleeping within him, 207 if
his attempt at synthesis fails with his postulation o f an order and a logic that are
in fact lacking, that is because his epoch did not provide the conceptual means
which would have allowed him to realize-much less to define-his project as
such. Three interconnected elements are lacking: the objective of a foundation,
the hypothesis o f the autonomy o f the act of building, and the concept o f creative
time. The space o f these absences defines two historical moments, two mentali-
ties, two relations to knowledge and expertise. Moses Finley has projected this
gap onto the economic plane, showing that Vitruvius the technician, whose prac-
tical knowledge he admires, finds his practice limited by the horizon o f a con-
sumer society which ignores the notions o f productivity and profit. 208 This
analysis can be adopted metaphorically on the level o f the book and its textual
economy.Alberti's treatise becomes, then, the machine which the Roman archi-
tect could not even imagine constucting, the machine in which no gear is inert
and which is desi g n ed for perfect functionality.
In writing the De re aedificatoria, Alberti is doing something other than
Vitruvius. Whatever the importance o f his borrowings, he transforms their
meaning by changing their order, their fi g u re, their functioning. The similarity of
content and the haunting presence o f the ancient urban landscape in the De re
aedificatoria are in effect o f little importance, since Alberti has banished tradition,
imposed his own order derived exclusively from reason, and proposed a general
and universal method. This is why, even i f his initial intention was different, even
i f his treatise had its origin in a commentary on Vitruvius suggested by Leonello
d'Este, it is impossible to define Alberti's work only in relation to the De archi-
tectura and not see it as an authentic beginning. Krautheimer, even though he
was unable to decipher the mutation to which Alberti submitted the text o f
Vitruvius, continues nonetheless to envisage the De re aedificatoria only through
the optic o f humanist erudition, as the work o f a "counsellor-at-antiquity." 209
For him, the De architectura is an edifice ravaged by time which must be recon-
structed anew by the interpretation o f its remains. Alberti is an archeologist o f
genius, whose work is that o f reconstructive restoration. But why refuse to see
that this restorer, even i f his most ardent desire had been to reconstruct the actual

121
 CHAPTER T w o

approach o f Antiquity, never fails to oppose to it his own theory, °from which a
new practice can be developed. Moreover, Alberti himself defined his position
with respect to Vitruvius when, in book 2 o f his De pictura, 210 he indicates that
the Roman architect transmits practical instructions concerning, for example, the
place where one can procure the best pi g m ents for making colors, but on the
other hand is incapable o f enunciating the method and the rules for combining
these colors. Why not then admit that, in the De re aedificatoria, Alberti poses the
problem o f edification with the same assurance, the same systematicity, and in
terms just as revolutionar y as those employed in his treatise on painting when he
theorizes about matters in which Antiquity had been no more successful.
My comparison o f the two treaties does indeed demonstrate the inaugural
role o f the De re aedificatoria. It also confirms the interpretation I have given it,
and further emphasizes by contrast the singularity o f a text whose parts cohere
into a whole and are functionally articulated. Finally, it will help to clarify the in-
vestigation I will now undertake after having deferred it: the inquir y into the
function exercised by the past in the historical narratives and anecdotes o f the De
re aedificatoria.

V. ALBERTI AND V I T R U V I U S : NARRATIVES AND HISTORIES

IN THE DE RE AEDIFICATORIA

At the beginning o f this analysis, we were astonished by the abundance o f refer-

ences to the past and to the testimony o f ancient authors in a treatise which
seemed to be reducible to a set o f principles, rules, and their commentaries.
This profusion appears particularly embarrassing when we confront the
De re aedificatoria with the De pictura, which I have taken (not without reason)
to be its theoretical homologue. For, i f the De pictura claims, like the De re aedifi-
catoria, to make a tabula rasa o f the past, if the author claims even more forcefully
and insistently the exclusive paternity o f his work, 211 if, from a small set o f def-
initions and principles comparable to those o f building, he formulates in identi-
cal fashion the rules o f a specific practice, it must nonetheless be recognized that
historical anecdotes are much less numerous and elaborated in this work ' and

122
 THE DE RE AEDIFJCATORIA: A L B E R T I , OR D E S I R E AND TIME

are absent altogether in the first o f the three books. How, then, can we justify all
the references to ancient sources, all the narratives and anecdotes in the second
treatise? Why are there so many perfects, pluperfects, and even imperfects, when
the present indicative o f observation and the various modes o f rule-giving-the
future, the imperative, the subjunctive, the gerundive, and the verbal adjective-
would have sufficed?
One explanation would consist in interpreting all this material as non-
structural, as superfluous and ornamental. With his narratives o f mythical or an-
cient events, with his borrowings from classical literature, Alberti might have
wanted to make a dull journey more pleasant, to display his humanist learning, or
to give the appearance o f conforming to the Vitruvian m o d e l - a s when he bor-
rows from the Roman architect the division o f his work into ten books.
However, I have already asserted that this is not the case, and that no part o f
the De re aedificatoria is superfluous or self-contained. This assertion must now be
proven, and the proof will involve a systematic comparison o f narratives and their
role in the texts o f the two authors. Such a comparison will show that, unlike the
narratives ofVitruvius, those o f Alberti are not dissociable from his treatise.
In order to define precisely the status o f these fragments within the two
treatises, I have borrowed a certain number o f concepts from the linguistic study
o f meaning. In particular, I have taken up the distinction drawn by Emile
Benveniste between discours (discourse) and histoire (historical narrative or
story).212 In his prolegomena to a linguistics o f utterance (or semantics), Benveniste
notes that "the tenses o f a French verb are not employed as members o f a single
system," but "are distributed in two systems which are distinct and complemen-
tary,"213 and which correspond to two different levels in the use o f language:
one being desi g n ated as the level o f discourse, and the other, that o f history or
narrative.
Discourse (discours) is characterized by the presence o f the speaker, in other
words, by the use o f the first person, by the relation o f the subject, and by the use
o f all the tenses except for the preterit, with the present playing a dominant role.
Historical narrative (histoire), on the other hand, excludes the first and its correlative
second person, in favor o f a third person who, as Benveniste has convincingly

123
 CHAPTER T w o

shown, is really the absence o f any person; 2 14 it eschews the use o f the present in
favor o f the preterit (supported by the imperfect, the pluperfect, and the
prospective future), which situates the narrative outside o f the discourse, in an-
other space-time. In later studies, 2 1 5 Benveniste was led to define 'discourse' as
any text containing shifters, that is, elements which relate the text to the situation
d'enonciation, 2 1 6 and 'history' o r narrative as any text without shifters. However,
these criteria are n o t relevant in certain cases where theoretically contradictory
combinations o f elements appear, such as the basic present and the third person
and the preterit and the first person, and also where shifters do in fact occur in
historical texts.
This is why, in the context o f developments in linguistics and given the
emphasis placed o n the notion o f enonciation, o r enunciation, and on its relation
to the enonce, o r utterance, Jenny Simonin-Grumbach 2 17 has reformulated
Benveniste's hypothesis in different terms, allowing the concept o f the 'theoret-
ical text' to be defined and a n e w typology 2 1 8 o f utterance to be d e v e l o p e d -
thus resolving the difficulties raised by the use o f the criteria o f tenses and
persons associated with Benveniste's shifters. 2 1 9 Simonin-Grumbach proposes to
call discours (discourse) those texts in which the author establishes context o r lo-
cation in relation to the situation d'enonciation (= Sit £), and histoire (history o r
narrative), those texts where n o such context is effected in relation to S i t £ , but
rather in relation to the text itself, 2 2 0 that is, the situation d'enonce (= Sit E). We
will refer to these definitions in the following discussion.
W i t h respect to its location in the typology o f semantic systems, the De
architectura exhibits a resistance to categorization characteristic o f the hybrid. It is
alternately discourse and theoretical text, and furthermore, it is punctuated by a
series o f autonomous fragments that exhibit the characteristics o f historical nar-
ratives. These fragments can be classed in three categories: origin narratives for ar-
chitecture, illustrative narratives whose purpose is to support the theorist's
argument, and edifying narratives typically situated in the proemia and having n o
direct link with the objectives o f the treatise.
This last type, illustrated in particular by the story o f the shipwreck o f
Aristippus 2 2 1 and by that o f Aristophanes, one o f the learned judges appointed

12 4