1. Delphicus Apollo Socratem omnium sapientissimum Pythiae responsis est professus. Is autem memoratur prudenter doctissimeque dixisse, oportuisse hominum pectora fenestrata et aperta esse, uti non occultos haberent sensus sed patentes ad considerandum. Utinam vero rerum natura sententiam eius secuta explicata et apparentia ea constituisset! Si enim ita fuisset, non solum laudes aut vitia animorum ad manum aspicerentur, sed etiam discipliarum scientiae sub oculorum consideratione subiectae non incertis iudiciis probarentur, sed eet doctis et scientibus auctoritas egregia et stabilis adderetur. Igitur quoniam haec non ita, sed uti natura rerum voluit, sunt constituta, non efficitur ut possint homines obscuratis sub pectoribus ingeniis scientias artificiorum penitus latentes, quemadmodum sint, iudicare. Ipsique artifices pollicerentur suam prudentiam, si non pecunia sint copiosi sed vetustate officinarum habuerint notitiam; aut etiam gratia forensi et eloquentia cum fuerint parati, pro industria studiorum auctoritates possunt habere, ut eis, quod profitentur scire, id crederetur.

Translation

1. Delphic Apollo, by the replies of the Pythian priestess, declared Socrates the wisest of all men. He is recorded to have said with wisdom and great learning that the hearts of men ought to have had open windows so that they might not keep their notions hidden, but open for inspection. Would that Nature had followed his opinion, and made them explicit and manifest! For if it had been so, not only would the merits or defects of human minds be seen at once, but the knowledge of disciplines also, lying under the view of the eyes, would be tested by no uncertain judgments; and a distinguished and lasting authority would be added both to learned and to accomplished men. Therefore since these things have been ordained otherwise, and as Nature willed, it is impossible for other men, when talent is concealed in the breast, to judge how such deeply hidden knowledge of the arts really stands. Yet those craftsmen themselves would offer their skill who while they lack wealth yet have the knowledge based on workshop experience; or indeed when they are equipped with the graceful eloquence of the pleader, they can gain the authority corresponding to their industry, and have the credit of knowing what they profess.

2. Maxime autem id animadvertere possumus ab antiquis statuariis et pictoribus, quod ex his, qui dignitates notas et commendationis gratiam habuerint, aeterna memoria ad posteritatem sunt permanentes, uti Myron, Polycletus, Phidias, Lysippus ceterique, qui nobilitatem ex arte sunt consecuti. Namque ut civitatibus magnis aut regibus aut civibus nobilibus opera fecerunt, ita id sunt adepti. At qui non minori studio et ingenio sollertiaque fuerunt nobilibus et humili fortuna civibus non minus egregie perfecta fecerunt opera, nullam memoriam sunt adsecuti, quod hi non ab industria neque artis sollertia sed a Felicitate fuerunt decepti, ut Hegias Atheniensis, Chion Corintius, Myagrus Phocaeus, Pharax Ephesius, Boedas Byzantius etiamque alii plures. Non minus item, pictores, uti Aristomenes Thasius, Polycles et Androcydes Cyziceni, Theo Magnes ceterisque, quos neque industria neque artis studium neque sollertia deficit, sed aut rei familiaris exiguitas aut inbecillitas fortunae seu in ambitione certationis contrariorum superatis obstitit eorum dignitati.

Translation

2. Now we can best observe this in the case of ancient statuaries and painters; for of these, those who have a recognised dignity and the influence based on commendation abide to after times in an everlasting remembrance: Myron, Polyclitus, Phidias, Lysippus and others who from their art have attained renown. For they got it by working for great states or kings or famous citizens. But those who had not less eagerness, and were distinguished by talent and skill, but being of humble fortune executed for their fellow-citizens works not less perfect, gained no reputation. For they were left behind not in perseverance or in skill but by Good Fortune: for example Hegias of Athens, Chion of Corinth, Myagrus the Phocean, Pharax of Ephesus, Boedas of Byzantium and many others also; painters also not less, such as Aristomenes the Thasian, Polycles and Androcydes of Cyzicus, Theo the Magnesian, and others to whom neither industry nor craftsman's zeal nor skill was lacking: but their reputation was hindered, either by scanty possessions, or poor fortune, or the victory of rivals in competition.

3. Nec tamen est admirandum, si propter ignotitiam artis virtutes obscurantur, sed maxime indignandum, cum etiam saepe blandiatur gratia conviviorum a veris iudiciis ad falsam probationem. Ergo, ut socrati placuit, si ita sensus et sententiae scientiaeque disciplinis auctae perspicuae et perlucidae fuissent, non gratia neque ambitio valeret, sed si qui veris certisque laboribus doctrinarum pervenissent ad scientiam summam, eis ultro opera traderentur. Quoniam autem ea non sunt inlustra neque apparentia in aspectu, ut putamus oportuisse, et animadverto potius indoctos quam doctos gratia superare, non esse certandum iudicans cum indoctis ambitione, potius his praeceptis editis ostendam nostrae scientiae virtutem.

Translation

3. Yet we must not be surprised if excellence is in obscurity through the public ignorance of craftsmanship. But we ought to be specially indignant when also, as often happens, social inflence beguiles men from exact judgments to a feigned approval. Therefore, as Socrates thought, if human notions and opinions and knowledge increased by study were manifest and transparent, neither influence nor intrigue would avail; but commissions would be entrusted to such persons as had attained the highest knowledge by their genuine and assured professional labour. Since, however, these things are not conspicuous nor apparent to the sight, as we think they ought to have been, and I perceive the ignorant excel in influence rather than the learned, I judge that we must not rival the ignorant in their intrigues; but I will rather display the excellence of our knowledge by the publication of these rules.

4. Itaque, imperator, in primo volumine tibi de arte et quas habeat ea virtutes quibusque disciplinis oporteat esse auctum architectum, exposui et subici causas, quid ita earum oporteat cum esse peritum, rationesque summae architecturae partitione distribui finitionibusque terminavi. Deinde, quod erat primum et necessarium, de moenibus, quemadmodum eligantur loci salubres, ratiocinationibus explicui, ventique qui sint et e quibus regionibus singuli spirant, deformationibus grammicis ostendi, platearumque et vicorum uti emendate fiant distributiones in moenibus, docui et ita finitionem primo volumine constitui. Item in secundo de materia, quas habeat in operibus utilitates et quibus virtutibus e natura rerum est comparata, peregi. Nunc in tertio de deorum inmortalium aedibus sacris dicam et, uti oporteat, perscriptas exponam.

Translation

4. Therefore, your Highness, in the first book, I set before you our craft and its excellences and the studies by which the architect should improve himself; I furnished the reasons why he ought to be skilled in them; I analysed the methods of architecture generally, and assigned their limits by my definitions. Then, as matter of prime necessity, I explained by argument with reference to walled cities, how healthy sites are chosen and showed by geometrical figures the various winds, and the quarters from which they severally blow. I taught the way to distribute in an accurate manner the main and side streets within the walls, and so completeed my first book. In the second book I dealt with the employment of materials in building and with the excellences which they naturally possess. Now in the third book I will speak of the temples of the Gods and will set them out in detail in a proper manner.

COMMENT

The prefaces of the 10 books can be read as an independent story. It all has to do with the building programme of the emperor Augustus who decided to rebuild Rome. Indeed, when Augustus took the power, he found Rome as a poor city, when he died, he left a marble Rome. It was clearly Vitruvius' great frustration that he had no part in this programme. He served under Caesar as a war engineer and now, when he is an old but experienced architect who looks back to the past, he hopes to be appreciated by the emperor for his merits. Great is his disappointment when he sees younger architects with new and progressive ideas.
The whole series of prefaces is a fulmination against these younger architects.
Let's have a closer look to the text. In the first three sections he proves again that he knows more than architecture alone with his references to painting and sculpture. His enumeration of (even until today) known artists in contrast to lesser gods must show that he has a great knowledge of art in general. His aim is clear: he wants to prove his intellectual supremacy against his younger colleagues. With a jealous eye he saw how young, and in his idea unexperienced, flatterers and braggarts pinched the new commissions of the emperor, at the expense of more skilled men. Since at the time of the redaction of the 'De Architectura' Vitruvius was already an old man, it was maybe not his purpose to get commissions himself. He only wants to warn Augustus against these flatterers and in the same time he urges the emperor to choose talented and well trained architects for his building program.
Only in the fourth section he comes finally to the point when he gives a short reference to the previous books. The length of these quotations proves in my opinion the importance which Vitruvius himself gave to these books. The first is clearly worth while: the various sections of this book are again enumerated. This fits completely in the aim of the work. Indeed, in the first book, great emphasis is laid on the intellectual capacities of an architect. Of the second (materials) he gives only a quick mention without going in details. The last sentence announces the contents of book III. He promises that he shall treat in detail about the construction of temples. And, as we shall see in the many entries to come, he kept word. In fact: books III and IV are completely devoted to temples. But since Vitruvius made no distinction between Greek or Roman temples and he clearly had only greek sources at his disposition (before him nothing of the kind had been written in Latin) we learn here all about Greek architecture.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Les dix livres d'architecture de Vitruve, Corrigés et traduits en 1684 par C. Perrault, Paris, 1684.
Vitruvius, De Architectura libri X, ed. F. Granger, London, 1962.
Ton Peters, Vitruvius, Handboek bouwkunde, Amsterdam, 1999.
H. Knell, Vitruvs Architekturtheorie, Versuch einer Interpretation, Darmstadt, 1985.

Chapter 1
Back to contents Book III
Home

Suggestions and remarks?
don't hesitate to send me a message