E S S A

SUR

L'ARCHITECTU RE.

A PAR.IS;
Chez D ue H E 5 N E, rue S. Jacques . au
Temple du Gotlt.

M. D ec. L Ill.
Avec Approbation &- Privilege du Roy.

\ /1

I. \J(III (lF1

l\ rchitcClllre

arc hit ~'Ct . I CHnna t speak wit h su fficient knowledge. This,

surd}', is t he least of all diHiculties: every time we watch a
tra ged y, we judge it without eve r ha ving written a single
word . Nobody is bar red from knowing the rules, although to
apply them is given only to a few . One should not cite
respectable but by no means infallible authorities as ev idence
against me, since to judge what should be by what is would
spoi l everything. The greatest men have sometimes gone
astray- to take their example always as a rule is therefore not
a safe way to avoid errors. No o ne should try to check me in
my course on th e pretense of fancied diHiculties; idleness
finds many . where rcason sees none. I am convinced that
those of our architccts who are genu inely eager to bring their
art to pcrfL'Ction will be grateful for my good intentions.
They ma y find in this essay thoughts that hl:ld not occu rred to
them befo re: if they consider them to be sound. they should
not be too proud to make usc of them : th is is al l I ask .
[TilereJore to see ollly with regret that arl alien 11a1ld carries
tile torch oj trllth i1l to mysteries 1Iot yet TJeFl etrated. to reiect
out oj repugnance to tile source Jrom wllich it comes a light
wh/ell is offered. to meet with blilld c01l tempt Ofl amateur
eager to try (HId Jlnd rOlltes lead/rig to the goal missed by
other fOutes. to be pa~101lately ago/rlst the success which lIis
efforts cou ld (Jttajrl out oj fear of fllllllll g thereafter critics
more attentive and judges more severe, such a frame of mbld
is merely IIlat of artists devoid oj taiellt and fee/ltlg. JI

'1'ltMages set In Ihl les lind en d Cl6Cd in brac kets are addition s made by
Laugle r for th e k'OOud edition of l iSS.

10

Chapter I
General Principles of Architecture
It is the SiWle in architecture as in all other arts: its principles

arc founded on simple nature , lind naturc's process clcurly

indica tes its rules. Let us look at man in his primitive state
wit hout lmy aid or gu id ance other than his nat ural instincts .
I-I e is in nCt.--d of a place to rest . On the ba nks of a qu ietl y
now in g brook he notices II stretch of grass; its fresh grccllness
is pleasing to his eyes, its tender down in vites him ; he is
dmwn there and , stretched ou t at leisure Oil this spa rkling
carpet. he thinks of nothing else but enjoying the gift of
nature : he lacks nothing. he d ocs not wish for an ything. But
soon the sco rch in g hea t of the sun forces him to look for
shelt er. A nearb y forest draws him to its cooling shade; he
runs to find a refuge in its depth . and t here he is content . But
suddenly m ists are rising, swirling round and growing denser,
until thick clouds co"er the skies; soon. torrential rai n pours
down on t his delightfu l forcst. The savage, in his leafy
shelter , does not know how to protect himself from the
unco mfortable damp that penet rates everywhere; he crccps
into II nearby clwe and. finding it dry, he praises himself for
his discove ry. But soon the darkness and foul air surrounding
him make his sta y unbellrnble again . He leaves and is re
solved to make good by his in genuity the careless neglcct of
nature . He wants to make himself II dwelling that protects
II

All Essay on Arcll itecture

but does not bu ry hi~ . Some fallen branches in the forest are
the right ma teria l for his purpose: he chooses fou r of the
strongest , raises them upright and arranges them in a sq uare:
across their top he lays four oth er branches: on these he hoists
from two sides yct another row of branches which , inclining
towards each other, meet at th eir highest point. He t hen
covers this kind of roof with leaves so closely packed that
neither sun nor rain ca n penetrate. Thus, man is housed .
Admittedl y, t he cold and heat w ill make him feel u ncomfort able in this house which is open o n all sides but soon he will
fill in the space between two posts and feel secure.
Such is the cou rse of simple nat u re; by imitating t he
natural process, lirt was born . All the splendors of lirchiteclure ever co nceived have bccn modelcd on t he little rustic hut
I have just described . It is by approachin g the simplicity of
t his first model th at fundamental mistakes are avoided and
true pe rfection is a ievf!d . The pieces of wood set upright
have gil'en us t h idea of t he colu mn, the pieces pl aced
horizon tally on 0 15N: em t e i ea
entablature, the
inclining p ieces forming the r
This is wha t all masters of art have r~trni
of this: never has a principle been more fert ile in its effect .
from now o n it is easy to distinguish bctw(..'C n th e parts which
are essential to the composition of an architectural O ~ and
t hose which have been introduced by necessity or have been
added by cap rlcenhe parts th at a re essential are the cause of
beau ty. t he parts introduced by necessity cause every license,
the parts added by caprice cause every fau lt . Th is calls for a n
ex plan ation; I shall try to be as clear as possible.
Let us never lose sight of ou r little rustic hut. I can only see
columns, a ceiling or en tablatu re a nd a pOinted roof forming
at both ends w hat is called a pediment. So far there is no
va ult , still less an arch , no pedestals. no attic, not even a door
or a wi ndow. I therefore come to t his concl usion : in an
architectura l Order onl y the colu mn . t he entablature and the
12

Ceneral Principles oj Arcllitecture

ped iment may form an essenti al pa.rt of its composition . If
each of these pa.rts is suitably placed a nd suitably formed .
nothing else need be added to ma ke the work perfect .
We still have in France a bea utiful ancient monu ment ,
which in Nlmcs is called the Ma LsOFl Ca rree. Everybody,
connoisseu r or not, admi res its beauty. Why? Because everything here accords with the true p rinciples of architecture: a
rectangle where t hirty columns support an entablature and a
roof- closed at both ends by a pediment - that is all ; t he
com bination is of a simplici ty and a nobility which strikes
everybody. {The au thor oj the Exa men ' disapproves oj my
intention to establish a strict relation between all paru oj ou r

buildings and those oj the rustle hut . fie sllould lIave explained to us in detail the la ws w hich make tll is rela tion
Jewlt y becauJC iJ it is based on solid grounds, as I main tain
and as all masters oj tile art have suggested , then no w ay
exisu any longer oj attacking the rules w hich I establisll in
tile articles that Jollow. They are all necessary consequences
oj tll is simple principle. IJ I am to be reJuted , the wllole line
oj actlO,1 amoun ts to this: either sllQw tllat the princi ple is
wrong or tllat tile conclusion does not Jollow Jrom it . O ne
will strike in vain as long as one does not use one o r the otller
oj tllese two wea pons against me. All declamatioFls, even all
ins tills w ill be to rlQ purpose. Th e iudiciolts reader w ill alw ays
come back to this questio,l: is the principle wrong or the
conclusion? l 'he only reaso n brollgllt up against tile pro oed
re/atiO'1 between our buildings and the rustic hut is that we
should be allowed to move a little away Jrom tll is coarse and
sllapeless in vention . We IIa ve, jndeed , moved Ja r away Jrom
It tllrougll tile gra nd gou t oj tile decoration which we ha ve
Pllt in place oj tile careless Jau lts oj such cTude composition,
but the essential must rema in - th e rough sketch which na
ture offers us. Art must only make use oj its resources to
' Eta men d 'un eual I ur /'archifectunl, l'Irb, 1753. See p . 148. (T rlIl5111'
tor', not e. )

13

All Essay

0,.

Architectu re

embellisll , smoothe arid polisll the work without touchlrlg the

substrwce of the plan . ]
Let us now consider in detail the cs.scnti al parts of an
architectural O rder .

Article I
The Column
(1) The colu mn must be strictl y perpendicular, becausc,
being intended to support the whole load, pe rfect verticality
gh'es it its greatest strengt h . ( 2) The column must be freesta ndi ng so that its ori gin and purpose arc exprcs..%-d in a
natuml way. (3) The column must be round becau5C nlltur~
makes nothing square, (4) The colum n must be tapered frorn
bott om to top in imitation of nature where this diminution is
found in all plants. (5) The colum n must rest directly o n the
noor as the posts of the rustic hut rcst directly on the ground .
All these rules Hnd their justiHcation in our model ; all
deviations from this model without real necessity must. therefore, be co nside red as so many faul ts.
I . Fault : when columns. instead of sta nding free , are
engaged in the wall . The colu mn certainly loses much of its
grace when even a small obstacle obscures its outline . I admit
t hat circumstances frCCluently seem to rule out the use of
free-standing columns. People want to live in closed spnces,
not in open halls. Therefore, it becomes O(:ccssary to fill in
the space between t he colu mns and conSC<luently to engage
them . I n th is casc, an engaged colu mn will not be regarded
as a fauit, but as a license san ctioned by m.'CCSSity . It should .
however, always be remembered that a ny license points to an
imperfection and must be used cautiously and only when it Is
impossi ble to find a better way. If, therefore, the columns
ha ve to be engaged , the degree of engagement should be as
sm all as possible- a q ua rter at most or even less so that , even
14

Tile Coillmn
when constrained , they retain some quality of the freedom
and case which gives them so lIluch gracc . W e must avo id
gettin g into the awkward situation where engagt.."<i columns
have to be employed, It wou ld be best to reserve the use of
columns for peristyles w he re they can be co mp letely freesta ndi ng and to omit them altogether whenever necessity
compels us to back them onto a wall. After all , even though
we have to su bmit to bierlsc(Hl ce why should we not disen gage the colu mn so t hat it can be secn in the round? Would
the facade of SI. Cervais not be im proved if the Doric
columns were free-standing like lhose of the UppeT O rden? Is
there anything impossible in this? [Til e arcllitect, w llo to
justify til ls fatllt sllelters behind tile argu ment ilwt the part of
tile arci,it rave over the center door lookeli too wellk to carry
tile ell/obiatllre and tile croumillg pellime nt, docs llOt lIo tice
that instead of IJreventing Olle irregularity lie sets up t wo
which li re co nsiderably worse, W/la t lIecessity is there fo r a
CO ml)/ete entablature if its weight caliliot be carried by the
architrave? Will he even have us main tain that the f irst
pedi ment is Wlt/lill the ru les? Had the columns of the f irst
Order been free-~' talldillg . th e uplJer Orders would have had
rlOncthe1ess all ti,e lIecessary dimirwtio n because of their
smaller module mill grea ter lightness. ]
To dare criticize a work which the public commonly takes
for a fault less masterpiece suggests that one defers little to
public opin ion . However, poi nting ou t the dcfc..'Cts of th is
building giv(.'S me the ri ght to be unsparing in my criticism of
any other building without hurting anybody's pride. Th at is
why I sha ll speak bluntly. Afte r what I have said, it will be
less surprisi ng that the co nnoisseurs set so little value on t he
Chu rch of the Jesuits in the rue SI. Antoine. Without cou nting other faults , o f which there are ma ny, the effect of the
thrcc Orde rs of engaged columns is most disagreeable. Th is,
as M . de Co rdemoy so lIdroitly says. is no more than architecture in relief to which the eycs of enlightened people will

-15

1\ " E ,SSllY 0 "

ArcJril ectll rc

never be reconciled . I have often bemoanl.."<1 the craze of

a rc hitects fo r e ngaged colum ns. but I should never have
believed tha t it cou ld occu r to the mind of a thinking person
to e ngage one colu mn into the other . No fa ult is more
u nbearable, more shocking t ha n this. Even t hose new to
architect ure will agree on this. a nd yet this fault is repeatedly
comm itted on all fou r sides of t he inne r cou rtyard of t he
Louv re. Such a gla ring blunder o n suc h a magnificent work
of a rt ranks among the degradatio ns of the human spirit.
2. fault : w he n instead of round colu m ns pil asters a re used .
Pilasters arc onl y a poor representat ion of (:o lu mns. Their
corners indicate a constraint of art and deviate noticeably
from the simplicit y of nature ; their sharp and awkwa rd ed ges
hu rt the eye, th ei r surfact:s. not being rounded, ma ke the
w hole Orde r Sl..'C 1ll flut. They are not adaptable to that
di minution w hich makes columns so attractive. Pilasters a rc
never necessary: w he rever they lire used . columns could be
app lied just as advantageously . T hey must. t herefore . be
rega rded as a bizarre innovatio n, in no wa y founded on
~ ature or authorized by any nccd , w hich ea n onl y have bt:en
adopted ou t of ignorance and is st ill tolerated only by habit.
T he fashion for pilaste rs has t riu mphed everyw he re : alas.
w he re a rc t hey not to be found? Ye t to realize how distasteful
they are, o ne only nl..ws to think of t he gra nd effect whieh
colum ns alwa ys ma ke, a n effect that is unfaili ngly dest royed
by pilaste rs. Cha nge the (."Ou p!t.d (."O\u mns of t he ColOll nude
of the Louv re into p ilasters and you t ake awa y all its bea uty.
Compare the two w in gs or t his supe rb facade w ith the
pavilions at both corners : w hat a differencel Eve n valets and
maidservan ts wa nt to know w hy the pa vilions arc different
fro m the rest. This vexation is aroused by the taste for true
beauty, a taste that is natura l to everybod y. The ide ntical
architectural Order exte nds over the w hole facade , but th e
main pa rt has columns. t he pavili ons have pilaste rs: this
diffe re nce alone is e nough to disturb the pl ea~ ure that a more

Tile Column
unified whole would have given . [It is of

avail to say tliat

diversi ty. so precious in art . de mands va riation in ti,e decoratloll of tile IJa vilions. No doubt one mllst , If 1>ossible. make
variatiorlS. but w ithou t d eparting from the laws of nature.
Otl.crwise w ho w ill 1>revellt all artist . inter.t 011 even more
variatioll . froll! replacing round COI""IIIS w ith oval olles or
IJris m-slllJped ones or w ith pilla rs IllJoillg Jive . six or eiglll
f aces? By wll icl. princi ples would it be 1Jossiblc to fo rbid him
these extravagances (bizza rre rics)? It is evcn less reasonahle to
1>lead ill excuse the impossibility of IlOrmollio llsly linking the
f llemle of the porticoes w ith tile one faci ng tlw river. The
pi/asters 0 11 tile seco nd fa cllde rwed ollly he suppressed to
oisrw/ize oll e of hetter taste. I
O n e nt e r ing the nave of the C hapel of Versa illes everybody
is st r uck b y t he beaut y of its colum ns. by th e pictu resque
vista ( ilprete) through its inh:rcolumnia t ions: but us soon as
oll e approaclll..'s the apse. the re is not a person w ho doc~ not
notice wit h regret the stupid inte r ruption of the beaut ifu l row
of colum ns by a dep ressing pilaster . O ne can . therefore , be
q uite cert ain t hat t he usc of pilaste rs is one of the great abuses
t hat have fou nd t heir wa y into a rc hitecture. a nd since a n
llbusc ne \'er co mes alone we h ave been p resented w it h fo ldl..-d
pilasters in corners, w it h curved p ilasters in circu lar buildings. w ith pilasters lost in t he confused interpene tration of
one into the oth e r. T he p il aster is a frivolous orna ment which
has been p ut to all sorts o f uses: it has even bt..-ell ma rried to a
colum n which . it seems, is there as its inseparab le com panion . Has there ever been a more ridiculous matc h ? \Vha t does
the e ngaged column mean behi nd a fr ee-st andin g column?
Honestly. I do not know and I defy anybod y to expla in it.
Does it make se nse to un ite two thi ngs which a re quite
inco mpatible? Th e colu mn has its diminution , whereas th e
pilaster cou ld not ha ve any w hic h is the reason t ha t the latte r
w ill alwuys look eith er too narrow at t he botto m or too wide
at th e top . Whenever th e re is a void to be fill ed . one fills it

16

110

17

All Essay

O Il

Th e Column

Architecture

with a p ilaster: whcncvcr there is a fau lt to be covered up o r

a place to be embellishcd , one cuts out onc half or onc
q uarter of a pilaster. The a ncients were not mo re scrupulous
about t his mattcr. at ti mes cven less particula r. t han t hc
moderns, since they built colonnades where they mixed col.
u mns and pilasters. In sho rt . the pilaster is a t hing I cannot
bear . This is an inborn a\'ersion . The more I st ud ied a rch itec
ture. t he more I found in its truc principles the justification
for my own a\crsioll . (Besides. w lrile on the subject. it is 1I0t
at all my l)ersollal taste wlllch J set up as nIle; it wou ld be
quite wlfair to affege llrat J on ly cOll demll pilasters becallse of
my hfiml overs/oil . 1'lle rea.fOllS 1 gave f or it 11rove tlrat my
hatred is well f oullded .]
It will be said that pilasters ure uscd so as to avoid the
excessive cost of columns. To that I answer: if the column i~
barred o nl y for reasons of <.'.(.'Onom y. all that is needed is "decision to suppress architectural Orders alt oget her. Beautiful
buildin gs can be crcllt <..'!1 without t hei r help . but if one wants
to employ the fi ve Orders I shall never fo rgive cu tting out the
colu mn w hich is t heir most essenti al part .
3 . Fau lt : to give a swellin g to t he shaft at about the third
of its height instead of tapering the column in t he norm al
wuy. I do not believe t hat nat ure has ever p rod uced an ythin g
that could justify this swellin g. Let us do justice to our art ists
who a long time ago have gh'cn up spindle.shaped colu mns
wh ich are not to be fou nd on a ny recent work. Rusticated
colu mns arc no less faulty t han spindleshaped columns.
Philibert d e 1'0 fln e had a high opinio n of rusticated colu mns
and cove red t he Pal ais d es Tuileries with them . His tastc,
however. W IiS not sufficie ntly rcfi llt.'O to make them admi ~.
sibl e on his authorit y alonc . T h i.s great man deserves to be
highl y praised und will ulways be counted am ong the great
masters of archit ecture . We owe to him the rebirth of th is
beautiful art in our cou ntry, yet his work still savors of the
depra\'<..-d taste of the preceding <"'enturies . Hu.sticated columns

are only a capricious fan c), : we do not see a whole column

bll t various drums of a d ifferent scale p iled up one above t he
ot her, producing a n effect wh ich is rather mcan a nd infi
nitel y harsh . The beautiful Palais de Luxembourg is q uite
disfi gured by these rusticated colu mns. Fa r wo rse a rc spiral
colum ns. Whoever thought of them was certainly skillful
1x.'Causc it needs much skill to make them well : bu t had he
h"d jud iciolls taste, he would surely not have taken so much
ca re in carrying out such II foolis h in vention . Spiral columns
arc to a rchitecture what the band y legs of a cripple a re to t he
human body: yet at first their pl.'Cullar apl)Ca rlince plea5{.-d
some peopl e who were enem ies of the natural and who
belicved t he work to be beaut iful because it was difficult .
O thers. mo re cccentric still . ha ve offered us stumps of
straight columns on which th ey had mount ed in a most
mise rable manner two+th ird.s of a spiral co lumn : others
again . prompted by the same taste b ut defeated by pract ical
difficu lties. wa nted at least the satisfa ction o f twistin g the
flutings of st raight column.~ . These absurdities have been
reserved mainly for altars. I ad mire the ba ldachins of St .
Peter's in Rome, of the Val d e CrAce a nd of the In valides . but
I shall never forgive the grea t men who designed them for
using twistl.'<i colu mns . .Do not let us be deceived by false
jewels: th ey only demonstrate the failin gs of II genius. Let us
keep to the simple and natural : it is t he only road to beauty.
(Agaillst th is it is said tlrat ill light alld elegallt cOrls tnlctiOrls
wll iclr do II0t demalld g reat solidit y spira l columns. f or Jro m
IlUrling tile eyes. "will always give pleasu re" and be willin gly
accepted . T il e reasoll 011 w llidl th iJ o llinion iJ based Is tlrat oj
(liversity. But. ollce more, does the w ish for di versity au llra r
i:.e every kirld of fall ey? Wo uld COlll lllllS fill ted in tw isting
spirals be p roper f or a light and elega nt coust rll ctiQlI cvell
tllOllgh solidity wo uld IIOt be affected? Urldoubtedly lrot ,
becclllse tlrey WQuid be c,olltrary to lrature. Th erefo re. Olle
must always co me back to nature to f orcstall JIIglrt.s of fall ey
19

18

ATI Essay o n Architecture

and must not believe one has given unanswerable prooj oj It

when saying: "Thi.! i.! accepted practice, therejo re it is good;
this is irregular but has gained the right to please, therejore
one m ust be very carejul abollt banning it." One day ,
somebody said to me: "Moruiellr, why do you condemn
tllings w hich please mer I answered : "For the sa me reason,
Monne llr. that you condemn the fo rces oj the charlotan$
w llich "lease ma ny people. "
4. Fault : when th e columns, instead of resting directly on
the ground, are raised on pedestals. ~ in ce the columns are, if
I may say so, the legs of a build in g, it is absurd to give them
another pai r or---Iegs. The pedestals I am speaking of have
been invented out of misfortune . If columns were found 10 be
too short , it was dt.'Cided to put them on stilts in order to
make up for the lack of height. The sa me difficulty led to
having rt..'Course to double pedestals when a single ped estal
was not su ffi cient. Nothing makL'S a bu ildi ng look more heavy
and clumsy than these huge angular masses which serve as
subst ructures to the columns. The colonnade of th e Hotel
Soub ise is unbearable beca use of t hese hideous pedestals: but
if t he colu mns were rising from the grou nd , it would be a
charming buildin g. Colu mns may rest on a massive, continuous wa ll , that is to sayan a sim ple socle without base,
without cornice and of medium height : and th is will be done
whenever a colonnade is being built and the level of the inner
noor is h igher than t he su rrou nd in g ground . Fa r fro m criticizing this practice. I am convinced t hat it will always be
successfu l. Sometim es too, when the intercolu m niations are
filled by a balust rade as at t he bay of the C hapel of Versailles
and of th e Colonnade of the Louv re, each column may rest
separatel y on a sma ll socle, This second manner is less perft.'Ct
and would even be defective if it wert: not justified b y the
necessit y of hav in g a balustrade on a colonn ade which is
erected on th e fi rst noo r: but to place pedesta ls under columns at ground level Is an inexcusable fault. Nearly all the

20

Til e Column
altars in our churches p rescnt t his ridiculous sight. Colu mns
are needed here but they wou ld cost too much if they were
on a scale la rge enough to make them rest directly on the
noor- hence one needs pedestals, This is th e reason wh y t he
colu mns at t he main altar of the C hu rch of the Jesuits in the
rue St . Antoine are set on two pedest als, o nc above the other.
O nly this once shall I cite this shocking work . AU o ne ca n say
about it is that none of t he gla ring blu nders t ha t architects
can make h as been (orgotten hcre . [Objections are raised
against tile ridiculous effect oj columns placed o n the jloor as
"art oj the altar table. Never, I reply , has it been my
intention to make use oj sham columns w ith w hicli m le
deco rates retables. Ij , however, one insists on suell a deco ration, I think that a dem i-dome w here columns, placed o n the
j loor . liave their en tablature su rm ounted by a demi-cu1JOla
with tile altar standingjree in tile ce nter wo uld be prejerable
to all those columns on stilts w llicli make the altar table look
like a miserable stylobate. J In short, pedestals a rc on ly good
(or ca rrying statues and to make them serve any other
pu rpose is essentially bad taste . However much it is said that
pt.-dcsta ls ha ve been adm itted at all tim es, that Vit ruvius and
all his com ment ators assign to each O rder its part icular
pedesta l a nd t hat they are to be found on the most beautiful
buildings of a ntiqu ity, I have Illy pri nci ple wh ich I shall
never give up . An y device- even if approved by great menwhich is either contrary to nat ure or ca nnot be convinci ngly
explaint.-d is a bad device and must be p roscribed ,
I Til e author oj the Examen opposes thi3 principle by saying
tha t we shou ld not approach natllre too closely and lose the
o,J,Jortll nity oj making o ur en;oy ment more lively through
thejo rtunate ejfect oj an approved irregu larity. "Let us not, "
lie SClYS , "be slaves to prim itive practices; let liS not demand
too strict a correla tion with them In our jormatiotls when the
lenglh of tim e and the force of lln ancien t habit have
aut horized these," This meorls Owt irregularities can in time
21

An Essay on ;\ rchitectll re

beco me legitimate. and that w #lerem the ancients had the

right to co nde", n certain abuses w illie they were novel. we
are 1I 0 t affowed to proscribe tllem . rince tlu:y have been
sanct/orleli by tile length of time and the Jorce of habit . l 'his
way oj tllinkill g which makes what Is rigllt simply dependent
on custom seems to me a very easy expedi ence Ja r ignorant
011(1 lazy (lrt ist.s bllt It obst ructs tile progress oj Ole arts too
muell to be genera ffy adopted . I have alway.s believed that
wlwt is originally all abuse does rIO t cease to be OFIt! by having
become cllstoma ry. /11 matters oj reason alld taste, w hat hm
once been cOlldemrled shou ld always be condemned . /n this
sphere good and bad produce t wo hlllel/bIe (Iualitics the
essence oj which neither le ngth oj time tlor prolorlged habit
can change o r destroy. IJ o nly arbitrclnj rules are wanted for
the arts O Il C c(m insist O il Cll stom , but If the processes of art
must go back to Jixed prin ciples it is necessary to al)peal to
reaso n against custom and to sacriJice to the light oj on e the
Jo rce and sway oj tile otller.]

Article II
The Entablature
T he ent ablatu TC is t he second pa rt which appears in the
model of the rustic hut. The pit..'CCS of wood which rest
form a
' are rc re
horizonta ll y on the \'crtical posts
sented by wh at ~e.. call the ent a bla ture. Adhering to our
model we come to these conclusions: ( I)that the enta blature
must always rest on its colu mns like a lin tel (en plate-bOlid e);
(2) t hat in its whole length it must not have an y corllt:r o r
pro j(.'Ction . From t here follows condem nation of the follow ing
fau lts:
l. Fau lt : instead of giving t he entabl at ure th e fo rm of a
true belllTI carriL'(l solel y by frt.t:-standing colum ns, to support
it by wide a rches, a far too com mon p ractice in our churches

22

Til e Erl tabfllture

and elsewhere. Arches a re fa ult y: ( I) Because they retluire
massive piers and im posts w hich. backed aga inst colu mns.
take Invay t he air of light ness (tlcgllgement ) wh ich is the main
bea uty of co lulllns and make the whole st ructure look heavy .
(2) Becll use with t hese p iers we IIrc back to pilasters and t heir
drawbacks. Piers present us with squ ares, angles lind corners.
t hat is, wit h forms which stray fro m t he nat ural a nd savor of
constmint ; t heir appea rancc could not have t he u nspoilt..'<l
grace of c:tquisitely rounded colum ns. (3) Because arches arc
uscd here fo r a purpose ~ n@1!lre . Arches a re vaults .
Vnu lts must nlways be ca rried a nd ca n never serve as supports . Now . here, they serve no ot her !.Ir~th an 1"0 carry
the entabla ture. fo r if t his is not thei( function of what use
Cll n they be? (4) Beca use arches by thd r- th ust force the
colu mns to give lnteral su ppo rt which , again , is agai nst na
ture, since columns are made to give ve rtical support on ly,
T herefore, arches a re undou btedly defective .
1 go furt her: arches are entirely useless. An entablature
extended ell platebande over columns does not need a rches
for sup po rt. I know tha t when a li ntel is to bridge an
c.'(cessivcly large span , it will not stay lip because its supports
arc too wide apart. But w hll t need is there to make arch itraves spun d istlill Ces so grellt th at the sight would be frightening? Wh y be spllri ng with colum ns when II judicious
increase in nu mbers w ill always give singular pleasure?
Archit(.'Cts know how fa r one ca n extend t he width of intercolum nlations without reducing in any way t he solidit )' of a
building. T he ancients h ave left us in fallible ru les_o n the
su bject ; t he moderns have d iscovered t he secret w hich ~,s
mo re room to move: t hey thought 0Gu plin g columns, a
delight fu l idea which had never occu rred to t he ancien .
Why wish to go beyond it at the risk of replacing delicate
elegance b)' massive heaviness? If it Is stil l m ainta ined that
stra ight II rch itrllves (erl plates-barllles) nrc incompati ble wit h
solidity, then I refe r to the evidence of t he pe ristyle of the
23

A/I Essay

01 1

A rch itecture

Louv re and t he C hapel of Versa illes. two exam ples that are
remarkable fo r gh 'ing conclusive proof to t he cont ra ry. One
docs not nt.'t.'d 10 be It conno isseur to adm ire these t wo
bea ut iful bu ildings w hich are bold a nd yet rcfint.-d , delicate
:lOd yct soli d . Their bcau ty strikcs cvcrybod y bcca use it is
natural. b(:causc it is truc. It is surprisin g t hat. with these
models u nde r thcir cyes, our a rc hitt.'Cts always come back to
t heir miseru ble a rcades.
(It seem.! tllat tlley are determ illCd to stick to tI,elll : we are
warru:d that they have oil revolted agolnst a system w hich
telld.! to suggest
Gs~ of arcade.!. A persoll w ho
l)relfmtis to be their protector ami doe.! IIo t always merit tile
title decillTes fla tiy that they arc all cOllObl ced that arcades
make {I hett cr effect tha n strai ght ellt(Jhlatll rt:s. 1 do II Ot
helieve III all tlwt th is is tlieir opinioll but thi"k IIwt th ose
wlw are rca ff y c" fightened hear W itll thc arcades o ll ly bccalise they belif.'Ve them to be necessary fo r tile sake of
soficlit y. 1'lIis. however. is precisely W/Ill t s/wu/d 1M examined
1Ja tiel.tly (lIId ill good faith . No th i1lg eQuid /)e more im por.
tan t thall tl) f/rld lIIeallS by w hich to avoid thc arl/lOyirlg /I ced
of using. instcad of colu lllrls , thick piers with arcades wll ich
lire reaffy arches of a b ridge. Wlm tcver the author oj t i ll;
Examcn ,WAy S about it . such //I CW IS arc i ll 11 0 way impossible;
mill I sllO u/ll rIO t til /Il k muc}, of lI is skill If "i~' great expe rlcrlCe
does rIOt rII(lke Il im f illd arl y.]
2. Fault : when t he li ne of the e nta blatu re is not straigh t
bul is broke n by angles and projt.'Ctions. The e ntablat ure
repI.CSC.l)ts the lo ng pit.-ce of wood mcant 10 curry the roofing.
Would a nybody ever have the idea. an extremcly ridiculous
one. of mak ing th is pic.-ce out of projections and ret:t:sscs?
How unnt.'Cessa ry! How b iza rrc! I sa y t he same of t hose
e nt abllt turt.'s t ha t a rc made to jut out over the colum ns and to
Tt.'CCdc over thc intercolum nia t ions. T his mass of protrudi ng
and reced ing anglcs certa inl y makes it marc d ifficu lt of
exccut ion. but p resents only a med ley w it hout taste or design ,

",e

24

l'Iu: l'edim cn t
These irregu la rities on a conti nuous entabla ture a re only
exc usable at the ju ncture of a pavilion where it is sensible to
have an interru ption . But the general use of pavilions is. if I
am not mista ken , nothing less than a rbit ra ry . T he only
legitim ate pavilions I know a re dist ribu ted ovcr It lengt h of u
facade li ke so man y sm ull bu il d ings scpara te fr om t he main
bod y: all t he othe rs arc purely cap r icious. [It is said tllat t llis
rcasolling has not yet cnten:tl tile mind of an y architcct . If
this is so, tlwu I am sorry. bu t it does /lo t at all prove that the
reaslHlill g is bad.]
Beca use it has been noticed th at t he pavilions I have just
me ntioned look well on a la rge bu ild in g, it has bcen bclievt.-d
that one cou ld indu lge one's fancy in pavilions wi thout
rest ra int. In t he hands of med iocre archit ects th e pavilion has
bccomc an orn a me nt , a n exped icnt fo r all occasions. w hc n
e"cr thcy wisht.-d to a void monotony . T his is a n a buse. I
always comc back to m y ma in pri nciple; nCYf>t...1o put any
t lti.!!....i nto a bu ild ing fo r w hic h one ca nnot give It sou nd
.l:l!ason"') The idca held by many 1}(.'Ople tll a~a tters of taste
the re is no nt.'t.-d for the a pp lication of a severe ra t iona l test l..
the most fata l of all p reiud iet.'s.
----=-..

Article III
The Pediment
T he last pa rt of the build ing is the pt.'<iimenl. It represe nts the
ga ble of t he roof and . thcrefore, can nc"er be anyw he re
cxce pt ac ross t he w id th of a bu il d ing. Its-.inhcrcnt ~ is
t ri a ngula;,ynd its place must alw a ys
above Ihe cntabla
ture. T he concl usion to be d rawn from all th is is to rejcct t he
followi ng fu ults .
1. Fau lt : to e rect th e pedime nt on th e( lo ng side of a
Imilding . Since thc ped iment represent~ t he ~ ble of a r~f. it
must be p laced so as to confor m to the thing i\ rep rese nts ~ t he

be

25

An Essay on Architecture

The Different Stories of a BUilding

gable. however, is alway~ set across the width and never

along the length of a building. If only our architects would
think a little about this rea~oning, which i~ ~implicity itself, it
would not occur to them to place in the center of a long
facade sham pediments which do not signify anything. They
believe th e facade is made more attractive by thus interrupting uniformity but they should know that in all the arts It is a
sin against the rules to use supernu ou~ things. [It " pointle"
to argue about the difficulty of recondllng the height of the
pediment prescribed by good ,-ule w ith the height which roof'
need in a climate (l$ rainy as ou,.,. An ordinary $lonemO$on
would not be checked by this alleged difficulty. There" no
need to apply ped/menu: but if one wonLf to make u.te of
them It" nece"ary, and even quite ean;. to place them along
the w idth of the bUilding. J I always notice with regret that
the great man who made the design for the peristyle of the
Lou vre was so thoughtless as to erect a large pediment In the
middle . This pediment is even more misplaced than the
balustrade which. extending all along the top of the entablature. nt.'Cessarily indicates a building covered by a nat roof so
that anything suggesting the idea of a pointed roof becomes
extremely shocking here . [Yet , the author of the Examen
undertakes to jmt/jy thil pediment. Not content to declare It
legitimate he averts that according to my prin ci ples it Is
absolutely necessary . This" a very peculiar logic which J
honestly confess J do not understand at all. The pediment in
qucdion Is reprehensible became the roof is omitted over the
w hole length of the facade (l$ Is proved by the balmtrade.j
Even more awkward is the fact that the pediment cuts Into
the balustrade, a mL'>Crable way of joining them . At least we
have bt.'e n spared the horrible fault which some architects
have committed , namely to make their balustrade climb up
the inclines of the pediment. What shall I say of that long
line of pediments which crown the great gallery of the
Louvre? What a dull imit ation of roofs in the German style!

26

Almost the o nly pediments which, in my view, are admissible

are those that cover the facade of a chu rch. There they are at
their right place. Everywhere else they are usually misplaced
since high- pitched roof~ are not the fashi on anymore .
2. Fault : to make pediments that are not triangular . The
roof always ends in a more Or less acute angle, and the
pediment which is its representation must strictly imitate this
shape . Accordingl y. curved pediments are unnatural ; all the
more detestable are broken pealmenti'"-because- they presuppose a half-open roof. while for even stronger reasons scrolled
pediments are of all follies the most consu mmate ones .
3. Fault : to pile pediments on top of each other. Nothing is
more absurd than this practice. The pediment below Implies
a roof, the pediment above again implies a roof; so there are
two roofs one over the other. The facade of St. Gervais has
this fault , which greatly d etracts from its merit. However
strong the bias of this building. I do not believe. aft er the
reasons I have given, that any se n.~ible person could approve
of a double pediment, one at the top. the other at the
bottom . It is even wOrse when the pediment is placed under
the enta blature. Using it in th is way is like putting the roof
inside the house a nd the ceiling over the roo. Yet how many
ex amples of it exist I How many doors . how many windows
are surmounted by a ridiculous pediment I

Article IV
The Different Stories of a Building
Sometimt.'S it is necessary to place several architectural Orders
one above the other. either because the b uUding under
comtruciion must have several stories o r because. even with
one floor o nly, bierueance or some other motif demands an
elevation for which a si ngle architectural Order is insufficient. In .such a case, Orders one above the ot her become a
27

A" Essay

0 11

A rchitectrlre

license. authorizcd by m.'CeSSity. and will in no way be

reprehensible prov idc..'<.1 the following rules are observed .
I . Everything which rep resents the idea of II. roof must be
elimi natcd from the lower Ordcrs because to build on top of
the roof would be absurd . Consequently. pediments should
above all disappear a~ well as modillions. dentils. triglyphs
and Illutules which in the opinion of all masters of art
rcpresent the terminal sections of different pieces of carpe ntry. T o admit them here is an offense against good rules
and a blunder the more glaring since there is no compulsion
to commit it . I go further and say that onc must also
elim inate from the lower Order the whole portion of the
entablature which is called frieze and cornice so as to leave
only a simple architrave . The reason is this: the great projec.
tio n of corn ices was only in vcntc..'<i to serve as support for the
overhan ging roofs which arc there to kcep the downpour of
wnter awa y from the walls. Thcrefore, it is certain that any
cornice rc..'Ca lls the idea of a roof and . consequently. it should
ha ve its p lace only at the uppermost story. Besides. thc great
project ion of cornices int errupts too abruptl y, disturbs har.
lIlon y and pn.'Sents only separate parts which together do not
result in a whole . The column and thc whole entablature
make a complete building. Therefore. giving each story a
whole cntablature is like placing several buildings on top of
each other. H. o n the other hand. each story has just a simple
archit rave. the com plete entabl ature is rcscrn.'<i for the
uppc rmost story; then there will be coherence and unity and
the different pa rts will really compose a whole . The projection of th e co rnice is in itself very inconvenient. Rainwater
stays 011 top a nd in time works havoc . Const:quently the
cornice becomcs heavy so that the construction must be
esse ntiall y IlHi.s.~ i ve or it will without fail fall in ruins. The
new facade of 51. Sulpice proves o nl y too clearly the truth of
my statement. The Doric entablature over t he first Order with
its enorm ous projc..'Ctio n of t he cornice is ex posed to all t he

28

Til e Dijjereut

Storl e.~

of a Build/rig

inCO Il\'enienccs I have just mentio ned . The two towers with
complete entablatures on eaeh fl oor do not resemble towers
at all: the two cornices interrupt . separate, and disfigure the
whole . Thlls, even though practice to the contrary is almost
u niversal. it would be d ..:slrable whenever O rdcr is placed
above Order to terminate the lower Orders b y a simple
architrave which . represcntin g a ceiling. quite naturally
marks the divisions of the stories. At most, it would be
permissible to add to it some parts of the corn ice such as an
ovalo. a fillet. and a cymu in order to incr e a.~e the distance
bctwc..'Cn the bases of the upper and the capitals of the lower
colu mns. (The Critic asks what the effect wou ld be of a
simple architrave over a facade (J.f long a.r the Tulferles.
especially if the same Order had been used Orl the extelISion
to the "alace OJ on the center part. To this I reply that raistllg
such difficulties always sllrprisC!l me when coming from an
architect. If I were cQ1lSulted about the deco ration of a
facade as long as that of the Tu/lerl es. I wou ld T/lahr/y
reco mmend t wo thingt: first, to treat the architectural
com,>Osltioll on a grand scale and. second, to vary it CO rlsit/crably a nd take great ca re not to let the sam e memlJer.
wllt/tever it may be, rim from olle e,rd to the otlrer. I wo uld
want advancing pav ilions. with some parts Idglrer and so me
lower. with great IInity and still greater variety . In thiy way ,
I wo uld succeed ill avo/ding all faults w hich, It is said, tire
inevitable in my $fjstem and would ,Jrove to tire Critic w ho is
willing to grant me the talent of w riting well IIwt. w hatever
Ire stlys . J understand w hat J write. I
2. Care should always be taken to place the heavier Order
below the lighter one. Nature dictates th is rule and, in
general. p ractice conforms to it. In this way one can . if
necessary, make compositions of two. thrc..'C . four , or even five
Orders. But when finall y the last Order has been reached
which alone shou ld have its complete entablatu re. I ca nnot
sec wh at significance th e usu al add ition of a superfluous

29

All

Essay

O r!

Architecture

half-story, calkod attic. cou ld ha\'e . No other part has proportions mo re irregular and more faulty th an this att ic story. It
gives the rat her mean image of a few do rmer wi ndows cut
into the roof, since there i.~ only the roof above the (.'Ornice.
The attic story ca n therefo re onl y spo il the whole building by
crowning it in a way that is p itt.'Ously wretched . The great
ga rden front of t he C hateau de Versailles is irritating bt.'Cause
of t his misera ble attic wh ich runs along its top from one end
to the othe r. The attic on ly needs t"O be taken away and t he
balustrade to be placed directly above the cornice to satisfy
eye and taste. Shou ld it be sa id that without an attic story a
facade of such length wou ld not have had sufficient height .
my answer is that a St.'COnd O rder only needed to be added
ove r the first and all the n ccc.~ ar y height would have hct!n
there .
3. Whenever there ure several ~ t o ri es to a building, it n ced.~
as ma ny Orders as there a rc storics. because if a single O rder
com prises several storics. t hey w ill in errcct be only mezza nines. a miserable state of affairs. Tile archit rave alone
colH'eys the idcll of a ceiling . t herefore each ceil ing needs a
new archit rave and conseq uently a new Order. This rule has
been exactly followed in t he faca des of the inner court yards
of the Louvre and of the old palace of th e Tuileries, but it is
rid iculolls to have departed from it in t he pavilions added to
the old pa lace and in the buildin g which, on the .~ id e fa ci ng
t he river, forms the grea t gallery. It is strange t hat. wishi ng
to lenbrt hen the facade of t he T uileries by means of the
pllvilions, preference has been given to an architectural sys
tem which has no rel ation to that of t he old bu ildi ng. It only
needed so llle com mon sense to avoid such a peculiar and
shocking cont rast. There have been architects, not satisfied
with extend in g one and the sa me O rder over two storics, who
cur ried foolishness to the point where they plaC(.'(i the slllall
Order below a greater one wh ich is like bu ildin g one house
inside unother . The facade of 51. Peter's in Rome provldt.'S an

30

Til e Differen t Sto ries oj a Built/ing

ex ample of thi~ bad taste; it is found again at the great choir
scn .-cll of St. Sulpice and at man y other places.
4 . When placing two Orders one abo\'e the other. one must
avoid the portea-Jaur which of all defects is t he most contrary to nature. It is. therefore. necessary that the axes of the
uppcr and lower columns correspond verticall y, form ing only
one perpend icul ar line . So metimt.'S there is a large column at
the groun d n oor carrying two smaller ones. This is o ne of the
most glarin g faults: the number of columns of the upper
Order must be neit her more no r less than that of t he lower
Order. Here I am forced to raise my vo ice against domes with
which so mally people seem to be in love. However much is
said in their fa vo r, it will still always be true th at it is a
dreadful thing to see a whole pe ristyle of columns supported
by four great arches which provide it with a fou ndation that
is unsound bt.'Ca use it is hollowed out. [It is a venJ poor

eXl)edient to replace the columns here w ith pilasters. TIle

po rte-a.- fa ux Is not at all changed through tllis disagreeable
substitutio,,; a towe r built over tlie ou ter surJace oj a vault is
always extre mely SllOckhlg.] All arch itecl~ agree that void
shou ld be over void a nd solid over solid . Yet d rums of d omes
wit h a n a rchitectural O rder always place the solid over t he
void. If domes are to be built , t hey shou ld be made differentl)' fro m the present ma nner. An arch itect would give proof
of his gen iUS H he invent ed a way of const ructing domes
which. while avoiding t he intolerable porte-a-Ja ux, still retai n their attraction. If that is not possible, it is m uch better
not to build them at all. I must lliso point Ollt thllt , if domes
arc bu ilt , t he roo f mu st not appear at all on the outside.
because it is extremely rid iculous to show a tower built over
the Fra mework of a roof. In th is respect . not to mention a
thousand other fau lts, the C hurch of t he Jesuits in t he rue St .
Antoine sins in a most atrocio us manner . (That oj the III
vaffdes is not so disagreeable because no part oj the rooJ is
seen around it . Til e ou tside oj tills dome. alld also that oj St.
31

All Essay o rl Arcllitecture

I'eter'! ill Hom e. is a very satisJactory sight bec(lIIse it seems 10

rcst Ofl tile JOfmdlltioll . It is not the lam e inside; if! both
clwrches th e po rte-ii -fau x is venj noticeable. III reply 10 this it
is Iw id tilal un e do e~' rlO l wish to clw uge (l custo m with w hich
o ne is well s(jf /sJied . Thai is all rig /If . bul iJ olle il1wgillf:s to
prove tllCreby that my system is in every respect deJective.
orle is m istake" . ]
Spcll king or !JOrle-a-Jaux 1 shou ld not forget to conde mn
those pieces of architect ure t ha t rest on not hing. Such a rc
ranc}' colu mns held up by collSQlcs. a rc hes wh ich lire not
supported by II pie r and ot her simila r daring feats which only
dllzzle fools . I was one da y shown a rood SC H..'Cn in a ch urc h
set on top of three arches which were held prL'clIri ously in
rni d ai r by supports in t he fo rm of corbels. I WIIS told : " Look,
t he re is II prett y da ring p ie<.-e.' "Th is is true.' I replied , but
if your arc hitect had mllde this SC Tt.'t! 1I w ith a plain lintel in
pill ce of thesL' frightful co rbels, his wo rk . w ithout hL"ing less
d a ring, wou ld h{l\'c been morL' natu ral : it wou ld hll'e had
fewe r llC1r9 ire rs. but t hey wou ld ha ve been ma rc disti n
gu ishcd.:iJ.n short , e"e ryth ing t hat goes <gai nst nat u re ma y
be pt..'C ulia r but w ill nevcr bc bL'autifuY [,'c ry part of It
building m ust be supported from t he foundation upward .
lI e re ;s a rule from which it is never pe rm itted to dcpart.

Article V
Windows and Doors
A buildi ng of free.standing columns ca rrying an c ntablat ure
nct:ds no doors o r wi ndows: but , being open on all Sides. it is
un inhabita ble. Th e need for protection fro m th e inclemencies
of th e wc uther und othe r morc e ngagin g moti ves for cc us to
fill in the int e rcolum niations und o consequclltl y, doo rs lind
w indows ure needed . T heir shapes ure de tc rmincd by w hat Is
con ' cnien t: it would hL" well also to make the m elegant. The

32

Windo ws aflti Doors

sq ua re is the simplest and the most convenient shape becUU5C
t he lea ves o f doo rs and w indows ope n w it h perfect ease a nd
do not necd molded recesses ( arri i! rc vOl li~s ' lfes ) , the work of
w hic h sa vors of art and constraint , nor do thL'}' need casi ngs
w hic h also UTC hu rdl y naturaL It is thou ght that c urving the
top of doo rs and windows givcs th e m more grace. But w hat
happens? This c ur\'c Icavcs irregular sha pes o n eithe r side of
t he wa ll. that is a righ t-angled t riangle/ of which two sides a rc
regu la r

fo r triulllpha l arc ht..-s w here custo rn hilS sanctioned th e m.

Ever yw hc re else th cy arc out of tunc . Nowadays the re is a
c raze fo r se mici rc ular w indows. but I doubt t hut onc could
fin d exa mples Il mong the good monume nts of antiqu it }'. Still ,
thc), li re more acceptable than window heads of a n cx trL'meiy
nattened segmental arch . \ Vindows of th is kind , wh ich arc
,cr y (.'O lUm O Il today, have nea rl y all the inco nvcnience of
semicircula r windows and stra }' even furt he r from na tu re
bl."c au ~ of the ext reme irregu larit y of their shapc . l1"lw
alltllOr oj th e Examen stallds Jirmly by the lise oj arched

wi,ulows (HIli Ilig hly praise~' moidel/ re(;esse~'. I am J(lr Jrom

belittli ng tile useJulMss oj such 0 bCfHltij ul in vention ; Its
stonecllttill g is subtle an d clever; yet is it necessa ry 10 muke
usc oj this scie rt ce here? \Vh cn molded recesses are absolu tely
ncce,5Sanj tI.e wactice is (le nj good. but to use them repeatedly w itho ut rlCcessity m em.s pedarltlcllfly jlalmtin g ones
kuowlcd ge: tll is dis,Jla y is clllIfllcteN" ic ollly oj a,ooe w ho
luwe no grellt kn owledge. Hec'all gu/ar w irlllow~' lire mo re
,wlllmi than arched w induws; it would be ill vai u to argue
with me (l1) out ,hal. The ide(J oj cooerlug the irregular ~ pa ces
leJt o n I)oth sides oj archeti w iru!ows b y Jigures resth' g 0 11 the
(lfch ivolls- proposed by the Critic arlli GIlly 100 oJten

33

Au Essay

'.

Ofl

A rchitecture

executed - cQnj irms the need to "roser/be this type oj w in dow . It is 011 abuse w hich leads to a st/ll g reater abuse.]
Windows m ust a lways be unde rncath the entablatu re. If
pltlccd ubove the cornice, they are just dormers. It is deplorable to find in almost ull our modern churc hes no win dows othe r thun dormers cuttin g into t he vau lt .
Windows in a row must always have the sa me shape: I
Cllllilot see the basis for the (.'CCCntricit y of some a rc hit(.'Cts
who have made it t heir business to va ry the m .
Because w indows and doors onl y incide ntally ente r into the
com position of an a rch itectural O rde r, they must never en croach on the esse ntial pa rts. Whocver mutilated the a rchitra\'c of th e large side pavilions of the Tuileries in order to
inc rcnsc the hei ght of the windows did not know his proft..ossian . Un fort unat ely. ~I . Pe rrault, once more unthinkingly ,
placed at the foot of his supe rb peri.~ t ylc of t he Louvre a great
scm ici rc ula r a rc h w hich c uts into the upper socle on which
t he colu m ns stand.
So fa r I h ave revie wed all the necessa ry parts of an Order
wit hout meet ing a niche on m y way . What in effect is a
nic he? Whtlt is its use? !-I onest ly. I do not know tit all . J
do not believe th at common sense could put up with the sight
of a statu e plact.'<i in a window w hic h is cut into a c urved
recess ( C11 tOllr creuse). My aversion to niches is unshllkeuble.
and until I ha \'c been show n their nt,'c d and p rinciple. I shall
makc a clean SW(''CP of all nic hes which show up. The only
unaff(.'Cted and elegant p lace for a statuc is o n a pedestal.
Wh y c ram it into the hollow of a wall and there by cfface its
ou tlines? {At tllis POirlt . tile outllor oj tile Ex-a me n bu rsts out
ill to 11I 00t amusing exclamations. He asks me wllere I migll,
have traveled not to have met a niche all my way. How cOllle1
lie have been misled by Olis phrase? Does he imagine tJwl I
IIa ve nol seen ally kind oj niches w l,/cll have been so fa v~' hly
11Jcd a ll huildings? Yes , hldccd. tliis is how he illterprets my
thoug/lt . and lie believes he lillrierstam/s me. At the SOrlie

34

Whld ows and Doors

time, so as to confound me he cites a vast number oj
examples and aslu where my eyes are. I guarantee him that I
keep tI,em w ide open. Til e wa y Ot, w hich I have lIot met
niches i.~ the aile I ha ve traveled when proceeding j rom
prillclples to co nclusions. I have read ami reread all lie says hi
j avo r oj niches and still do II Ot kn ow all w hat their use may
reaso nahly he jounded.]
I should like to have expla ined to me the sign ificance of t he
great volu tes whic h commonly n a nk t he uppe r part of th e
facti des of our churc hes. [In vain. to justify them , are they
called adoucissemcnts desigll ed to jolll III an agreeable way
the lo wer to ti,e upper story . ] Th ese vol utes can only rep resent
butt rc.~ses or flying butt resses. II disagreeable feature whic h
savors too mu ch of toil and labor to bc exposed to the eye ..
Where buttrcs.~cs arc absolutely nt."Ccssary. architecture would
be rendered tin outstandi ng servicc if thcy could be effaced .
1 ft.-el how perilous it is 10 denounce com mon practices .
Our artisL" might well ha te me for ha ving disturbed t hem i.n
thei r present e njoyment of indulging In liberties which I
conde mn . But J beg them not to sacrifice those p rinciples. on
w hic h t he truc pe rfection of their art depends , to not ions
dcri\'ed from prej udice o r indolence . It will be, no doubt,
hard for th e m to admit that they were mistaken; but if onc is
in 11 positio n. as they are, to do things correctl y. suc h
adm ission. w ith P9de humbled a little, w ill serve to e n
cournge emlila ti on~The question he re is not at all of complying sla vi.shl ), wit h custom or of blindl), followin g a routine
but of exam ining whet her my ideas a~ whether the)'
havc...a....ddi nite con nection (liaison lIccessaire) with prin c icl~
act:cpted by c Yt!rybody . These principles I have sta ted truth~'u tl y. J have t ried to draw th e logical conclusions and ha ve
established them as ru les. I ha ve not excl uded exceptions
whic h real n(.'C(;ssity authorizes. I have admitted them as
permi.'iSible licenses provided they arc used in a sober and
judicious mannc r. I havc boldly dealt with faults , that is ,

35

All Essay

Or!

Arcilileclure

with everythi ng which has no con nection with the principles

or is not authorized by nt.:t:d . This is my method . If it is bad
and can be proved to be so. I shall make it my duty to amend
it.
I shall be told : " It therefo re follows that our greatest
architects co mm itted t he most glaring blu nders, t hat each of
them depa rted as u matter of course frolll you r scvere rules
and. if we a rc to believe you, that everything admired by us
as a masterpit.'c c would be fu ll of faul ts." I admit that this is a
strong objection . Nobod y f(.'Cls less inclined to sully the repu
t:ltion of the masters of the art thnn I do. I value their talent.
I respect their memory . and Ill y reverence for them is most
sincere. But , after all, it would be blind prejudice to believe
that eve rythin g they IllIve done is good just bc..'Cause they have
done it. By supposing thut they could havc com mitt cd faults
and Ihut in fa ct th ey have committed t hem. I only recognize
that t hey were men . If the severit y of the rules, which I have
just Set fo rth . gives occasion to criticize their best works . what
will be the conS(.que nce? W e sh all advance beyond them. art
will become mo re pcrft.'Ct. the beauty of thei r works wHfbc
IImta IM:l I~ults I,e avoided . Il ules wh ich make t his
d~!!ti.llg~ment easy arc too l~fu l to be discarded .
Another objc..'Ction will perhaps be made. na mely tha t I
reduce :lrchit(.'C turc to almost nothi ng. since with the exception of columns. ent ablutll res. pedimen ts. doors. and windows 1 mo re or less cut out the rest . 11 is truc that I take away
from archit(.'Cture much thnt is superfl uous. that I st rip it of a
lot of trash of which its ornam entation commonly consio;ts
and onl y leave it its natu rul simplicity . But let there be no
mistake about it : I do not take UWlly anythin g from th e work
or the rCSOllrcc..'S of the architc..'Ct. I force him always to
proceed ill a simpl e and natural Illunner and never to prc..'Scnt
an ythin g that savo rs of art und constraint. Those belonging to
th e profess ion will agrc..'C tll:lt , far frolll redu cing their work. I
scn tf'n ce them to take great pai ns and to work wit h an

36

Windows and Doors

extraord inary degree of preclSlon . Mort.'Over. 1 leavc to the
nrch itect amp le r(.'Sources. If he is gifted and hus a slight
knowledge of geometry he will , with what little I place in his
hands. fi nd the secret of va rying his pla ns ad infinitum and of
regai ning through the d iversity of forms what he loses on
superfl uous parts which I have taken away from hi m . For
mlll1}' centuries we have com bined, alwllYs in a different
mll1lner. t he seven tones of the musical scale and are still far
from having exhau sted all possib le comb inations. I say the
same of those parts t hat arc the csscntial elem ents of an
architt:c tuml Order. They arc small in number yet. wit hout
lidding an ything , one clln com bine them lid infinitum . It is a
~ ign of genius to kn ow how to llvai! oneself of these differcnt
combinat ions . this source of pleaSing va riely . An archit ect
adheres to irrc1eva llcies only because he lacks genius: he
o,'erl oads his wo rk only bc..'Ca usc he is not gift ed en ough 10
make it simple .
Finally. the object ion may be made that II number of my
rules. though admirable in theory , become impossible in
pract it.'C. that for instance columns al one are too weak to
support a build ing and that arch itraves ell pltlte-b(UJ([e lack
solidit y. I have al ready citc..'<1 examples which com pletely
demolish th is objection. What has been done can well be
done again . Anyone who stud ies the peristy le of the Louv re
und the ba ys of t he Chapel of Ve rsailles will st.'C the impossi
bilit y disappear. Besides. w hat a rc the reasons for mn intaining that colu mns are too weak a support ? Have they less
strengt h than pil asters? Is strength linked rat he r to the squa re
than to the rou nd? The proportions of colum ns arc deterrnined by.lliLptinc.iples of solidity. As long as colum ns ure
strictl y vertical , thcy will without eHort curry uvc rythi ng they
should cnrry. \Vhy ma intain thut straight entablalurcs
threut en to co ll apse? Th ey will indeed if the size of the intercolulllniations is greater than the rules all ow: they will , if
again contrary to rules, th e weight of th e massive wa ll bea rs
37

An Essay

O Il

Architeclure

upo n the m . If. howe\e r. the in tercolumnia t io ns a re well

spaced , if abo vc the archit rllvcs is o nl), placed what should be
t he re. !l a m ely the fri eze and cornice and at most a li ght
bal ustrad e. the n the re is nothin g ever to be afraid of. It is the
wa ll tha t CIIU 5es all s u pe rn llo u .~ weight . it is thc wall a gain
t hat deprives architt..'Cture of aU its g race . The less it appea rs.
the more bcuulifu l the build ing will be: a nd whe n it does not
rfl..'Ct. [The C ritic w ho
a ppea r at all t_~hat bu ildin g w Hi be
has taken UI)on Ilimse fj I e las 0 p rovi ng to everybod y IIwt
tile co ntent of tllis chapter is only a tisslle oj errors. f alse
reasonings. pa f,JO /Jle absurditiel'. a .fclioollJoy s blunders. deUOIIIICCS here. w ith his usual moderation. tile blind arrogance
w ll ich Iws m ade ril e fear tile COrisell'Hmces of tile f rallk'l ess
w ith w idell I condemn tile customs dellr to our artistJ . I-I e
tells m e Ilolitely III tllei r lIam e tlwt m y work . dt:servl/l g only
tlleir con tem pt . lias b rougllt upo n me only tlwir indijference.
His language w ould have l)roved to me tile opposite were it
/w t jor suell 011 explicit alld defillite dec/a rlltioll . He repea ts a
luwdred lUul o lle t i lll e! tllat m y idea! w ill 1I0t make allY
cllllllge ill tile established practice. tlwt I should be aslwm ed
ahout Ill y ciisg racejul aberratiOlls and slw uflilea rn to be w iser
ari d morc mOliest. I Iw ve never cill im ed tllal m y Opi llio ll
llio ue should be th e la w to llrcilil(;cts lI or Iw oe J eoer hoped
that th ere wQ u/tl" e marl y am ong tlIC III vllpolJie of restrictill g
tilemse/vcs to the method I propose to them . But J ask tllem
fo r my part 1101 to de mO /ill bUil d lICf/ uicscellce ill tlleir
decisiolls. TlIOI tllcy haoe tile freedom to acl as th f..'1j alw ays
IlO ve beell used to tlo if tile ,mb fic is sa tisfied . to thll t J
conscnt w itll all my Il ea ri . But they hove no rigllt 10 forb id
us freedom of thought or even to spellk abusioe/y of tlllIse
w ho are IIO ( so co mpiaiso/It as to IJe fi f..'Vc tll at olll y llrcllitect.s
are allowed to talk about architectll re. Til e arts COri be !llilier
real o /Jli g(Jli oll to persons olher tlwn ortists: everybod y is
entit fed to propose system s jor the I)erfection of the arts. 1

38

Chapte r II
The Different Architectural Orde rs
T he nu mhe r of a rehit cctu ral O rde rs is not defi nitely fixed .
The G n ..'C ks knew o nl), tllrl..'C. The Rom uns coun ted fi ve a nd
we French mcn w o uld li ke to add a sixth O rde r. As t his is II
matter of tllste a nd talent. it s(:c ms nulU r .. 1 to let artislJi ha ve
com plete freed om in t his rcsp<.:ct. \Ve a re not in Ii worse
posit io n th an the G reeks and Il o m a ns. Since the fo n ner
inventcd t hree Orders a nd the Ilitter c la imed to have added
two more of the ir ow n st yle. w hy should we not be permitted
to fo llow thei r cXllln plc a nd o pe n up ne w routes? \ Ve certainl y ha ve the rig ht to do it a nd . p rovided we usc it as
sliccessfu ll ), as the Grl..'f!ks, we sha ll deserve to sh are t he ir
f(lorious fam e in th is respcet. In actual fact , a ll Ollr eHo rlJi
hu\'e up till now not led to a Tenl inven t io n . One day we shall
pe rh aps see some fo rtu nute Illall of genius rise and lead us
a lo ng un know n routes to the d isco\'c ry of mo rc t ha n o ne
beautifu l composit ion w hic h hlld cscn pcd the ancie nlJi . Lct liS
sct our hope on t he gencrosi ty of na ture wh ic h p roba bly has
no t yet shared out all ilJi gifts.
Ta king th in gs as t he)' arc li t p resent. it s(.'Crns to me t hat we
ha ve rea lly onl), t hree Orders: t he Doric, the Ion ic and the
Co rint hi an . They alone a rc dist ingu ished b)' inventive ness
39

THE WRITING
OF THE WALLS
AHCl IITE<Tl "HAL TIIEOHY
1:-': THE L,~rE E:-':UG I"ITI"S\II"Sr

A:\THONY VIDLER

PR INC ETON ARCH ITECTURAL PRESS

REBUILDING
THE PRIMITIVE HUT
THE RETURN TO ORIGINS
FROM LAFITA U TO LAUGIER

7M fin! ;lffJt'fflor of IN {Ins I:flS ""d. fhe most illpiops of ,,1/ mOJlm find on, c/rov
1'.J50frs tI,., ,Iv ,"Sf /'(11',",d. Tltror.:n (/qr,:n 0/ binlt. os 1-'ll1rl/us IIl1d Pli"y Stili!.
nobd Oil 1M bo" tanlr. SIID",i",t/ from IIv ou/sid, to roId, AumilJiry. 'M b1(NS of
01,," Ixxlia, 5II./f,"IIg Oil IIv iMid,

from

IlIlIIp tIIld Iltinl, (III oj r"irh JIrong/}

;m?"d !tim to sI'II,.,.A for ",",dies. mOil rould II()/ " ",oi" i"orIM for IOtrc. H, I'"~
Itimvlf jxrn/Io sui ",rollS of i'V11/N. fI::/Jidt Iv /OIl11ti (/Iul'Nn f>iYfrruti ill on'''' If)
mob IMr

fISl'

morr rmoin. rag".. OIT" rompku E'Nw ,Iv

,,"ti OroJr flgni".

TAus,

cAm Iv frllllv iIJroftVlmi",rr 0/ roi", '" $LOfT!,," for {/ "". If;, cas
JOIIng u"d tlli" , Iv ;",,,,din,,I, Jou,," (/ CO} to mSll" !t;msrlj 0 !),II,,- ('m:m"g by
bri"ging IN brllluhn log""" o"d illlfftf.;i"illg nnd joi"ing I",", 10 ,/log of 01,," 1m'S
ill onl". to prrxUfl' 0 morr almd,,,. suurr. ontlll.Yjul rooffor !tis f"mily. pfflfJisiQlIS.
ond ftxis. Pi",,!/]. ,/leg oh5nVOhons /tovi"g """ mllltip/i,d. illl/uSlry ,,,,tllIIst,!tt1Vi"g atltl' " somnhing n", tloy by tlay to IMSl' jint t!l."fJ'rim,.",s. ';Ih" Oft bdUl/f oj
""INllisltm"" Of' JOiidi". I"," mtrrgi r.:ilh lim, !llbl sni,s oj prrrtpls r.:, rail Ar,.ltiI",U". o::AirA is 1M art oj making ,Jwllings finn . ronvnti"". " ntl tI,nl.
Abbe Batteux. l LS &aux"rTS rftluils ,) un mf"" prinri/N. 1776 1

for I'XtJmpl,.

T.

H E COMPLEX ALLIA NC E between ant iquity and modernism that

unde rlay the political and social idealism of the Enlightenment and supported the e merging d isciplines of anthropology. natural history. and hislOry.
also informed the so-called primitivism of the eighteenth century and . especially. the understand ing of architectural origins.! In the zealous discovery of
contemporary sa\'agery. whether in the Ame ricas or Europe: in the enq uiries
into the structural and spatial beginnings of dwell ings and monuments: in the
formation of an architectural et hics that saw building and society intimately
linked by functiona l and symbolic necessity: in the refusal of ideas of civilized
progress in favor of a return to natural mores. the fragme ntary texts of Hesiod.
Lucretius. Posido nius. Seneca. and abo\'e all . of Vitfuvius. played a formative
role. These texts were \'alued not so much fo r thei r narrative form s. which
described the origins of building according to a fo rmula often repeated si nce
the Renaissance. nor simply for the ir content . which seemed mythical enough

to a materialist philosophe. but for the authority with which an antique nm ion

of comme nceme nt might invest a modern idea of improvement. For the generations dm followed Claude Perrault. and increasingly aft er 1700. the quarrel
between the ancients and the moderns was less a debate 10 be wo n tha n a relationship to be made. J

VITRUVIUS M.'I ONG THE IN DIANS: I..A Fn:A.U

Th is didactic cont ract between ancient and modern had. in the fi rst place.
been pointed out by Vitruv;us himself as he drew lessons on primitive construct ion method s from those of his contemporaries in Gaul. Spain . Port ugal.
Aquilainc. the Crimea. and northern Turkey. from. that is. the peasant cu ltures
of the late Ro man Empire. By t hese examples. the myth of origins. which
described t he building of the first hut s as a result of the discovery of fire. t he
invent ion of language. and t he establ ishment of society. was endowed with verisi militude." Similar details of primitive building techn iques still in use by the
inhabitants of Marseilles and Athens demonstr:n ed t he relations hip between
diffe rent materials and different regions: they also emp hasized the progressive
improve ment . stimulated by compet itio n and em ul ation. th at had led to the
perfecting of building and its gradual transformation into architcctu re by the
application of the rules of proportion.
Vitruvius's account was of interest to early-cightccnth-ccnt ury writers o n a
number of IcvcJs. It convenientl y joined t he origins of la nguage and building to
that of society, provid ing a model of language-origi n alternative to that of the
book of Gmesis: it outlined a stadial model of civi lized progress. based on the
impetu s given to inte ll igent activity by need. or bf'soi!l: it s careful descript ions
of the primitive form s of habitation -conical huts and square log cabins with
pyram idal roofs. both realistically illustrated by Perrault (plate I) -established
the term s in which the geometries of d we ll in~. primitive and modern . might be
analyzed and compared . Finally . and perhaps most important ly fo r the formation of eighteenth-ce ntury primitivism. t he com pari son of moderns with
ancients was readily reversed. " If."" wrote the Jesuit mission ary Joseph-Fram;ois
Lafitau on his return from Ca nada. "t he ancient authors have gi \'en me the
understanding to support some apt concl usions regarding the savages. the customs of the savages ha\'e gi\'en me t~ e understanding.
to explai n many
thi ngs that are in the ancient authors.~) This realization that . as the hi storian
Arnaldo Momigliano has put it. 'the Greeks were also once sa\'ages." grad ually
invested the classical world with a less shadowy pre-history. In t his way. the
antiquarian became the be nificiary of the explorer, able to interpret the origins
of mythology. religion. customs, morals, and languages according to a more or
less systematic comparison of ancient texts and modern observation. The
parallel was made Jess arbitrary by the general belief that the American tribes
were in any case the descendants of the origi nal in habitants of Greece.
Lafitau illustrated the method in the front ispiece to his ,Uoeurs des solJf)(lges
fl!llmroi"s ro!llPflrets flU;!" !II()(!urs des prt'!IIiers temps (plate 2). According to his
own description. [he frontispiece represented

a person in the attitude of writing. occupied in comparing many monumcm s of amiquity. pyramids. obelisk.s. pamheist ie figur es, medals , and
anciem authors, with many accoums. maps, voyages, and mher curiosities of America. among which she is sitting. 6
' )0 her left, two geni i approach. the o ne carrying a caduceus of Hermes and an
Indian peace-pipe. the mher a symbolic Iroquois tortoise and an oriental sisUllIll. thu s dramat izi ng the comparison between the New World :ind the Old:
in front of her, a figure of Time, "whose function is to know all things and discover them at length ,- directs her gaze toward an allegorical \'ision that appears
o n the rear wall of the study. Here. float ing in the clouds. arc Adam and Eve
with the serpent and, above. surrounded by angels and prophet s. the images of
C hrist and the Virgin o n either side of an altar. Time. explained Latitau, gestures as if "to touch with his finger the connect ion all thesc monum ent s have
with the first origin of men, with the basis of our religion, and with the entire
system of re\'dation created for our first parents after their fall ."7
Beyond the evide nt religious message of this engraving, the w mmon deseem of mankind from Adam and Eve. the destiny of all primitive religions.
:uu ique or modern . in C hristianity. there is perceptible anothe r, more philosoph ical meani ng. Lati tau. transformi ng the traditio nal. Renaissa nce image of
History from one who writes on the back of Time to one who confronts Time
and his effects. has recognized the active rolc of the historian intcrpreting antiquity. In depicting Time referring the writer back to a si ngle primary "origi n,he st ressed the systematic and static nature of the comparison he wanted to
make. As Vidal-Nacquet has remarked. Lafitau found no co ntradiction
between "t he action of 'rime and that of com parison or. as we would say
today. between 'diachrony' and synchron~r .-8
This suspensio n of history is consistently managed throughout Lafi tau's
study. which methodicall y treat s of the origins of thc America n tribes in
Europe , their character. government, politics. marriages, ed ucation, pastimes,
villa,ges, domestic occupations, warfare. illnesses. medicine , death and bu rial,
and. of course. religions (plate 3). In this sense, the Jesuit missionary has
often bee n ehar:1cterized as the father of an ah iSlOrical cth nolot..ry or anthropolo,gy , The spirit of comparison that allowed him. in the words of Mar('el Detienne, "to walk the Laccdcmonians through the Iroquois villages and the
H urons through the Athe ns of Cecrops or Plutarch with an equal indiAcrence,
wit hout wishing in any way at all to ensavagc the Greeks or to hellenize the
American sav a~es,- also allowed him to study rituals. customs, and form s as
systems of signs to be inte rpreted culturally and socially.q His analysis of in itiation ceremo nies, for exam pic. besides authorizing many eighteemh-century
experiments in the foundati on of new societies. anticipated many subsequent
typological surveys of ritual and rites of passage (plate 4).
Central to this comparative analysis of cultures. and part icipat ing in their formatio n on every level. was architecture. In long chapte rs on the form s of
Indian villages, the constructio n of their huts. their tcmples. and their religious
symbolism. Lafitau inserted the received history of antique architecture - the
Vitru\ian account of origins. the Greek and Roman monument s as described in
Pausanius and Denys of Hallicarnassus-into the detailed observation of the

10

hut s and ceremonial buildin h'S of the American Indians . BOIh sets of manumems were interpreted. nm si mpl y as cxprcssh'c of particular religious beliefs
or social habits. but as signs of the nature of the different cu ltures as a whole.
like speech and wriling. The result of Latitau's enquiries. for the understanding
of architecture bOlh primit i\'c and developed, was its integration as one form
among a culture of forms. a specific kind of si~n within a system of related
visual and social signs.
Lafitau's cultural history of shelter thus quickly wen! beyo nd the rudimcnlary descriptio ns of VitrU\,jus. Authors \\'ho. he wrote. "describe for us the first
men as having only the trunks of trees :md cavities in rocks for shelter:' might
well have added that the Eskimos. the S:lV:l~es of Detroit. the inhabitants of
Californ ia all "reHeated into caverns prepared bv nature" in the wi nter or "slept
in the open beneath the trees" in the summer. In Others, like the tribes of the
Orinoco, interweaved the topS of h i ~h p:llm s to form a kind of roof and built
themsctves tree-houses, "which seem made more for \'ultures than for man ."
These "nests" were necessitated by Hoods. crocodiles. enemies. and the perpetual harassment of mosq uitoes . I 1 Half nat ural. half anificial. such shelters
represented a .. tate of sa\'agcry onl y one step abm'e nature.
h was among mo re sedentary peoples that the building of hut s became a
more regular practice. "Wandering nations" who. like the Algonquins. spent little time in one place, -contentcd the msel\'es by making extremely low huts,"
(plate 5) while more stable nations had "dwellings a little more sp:nious and
solid: IZ Even as the ancie nt Egypt ia ns, as recorded by DiodofUs of Sici ly,
built their houses Out of sticks and reeds. so the Floridans, the Caribs, the Brazilians, and the Iroquois used "cane... reeds. the wood and lea\'es of cabba~e
palms and bourbon-palm s, the bark of birches and dms.- u The forms of these
hut s were equally assimilable to those of antiquity: the Floridans and the peoples of Natchez in Louisiana built round houses. "like the tabernaeles or tent s
of the ancients ." or like those of the Gauls as described by VitTllvius. Others.
like the Caribs. built oval houses. shaped according to the needs of their communal li vinp; habits. some sixty to eighty fcet long. their pyramidal roofs sloping to the ground from a ce ntral r i tl~e pole. The Brazi lians similarly canstfU cted large siXTy-person houses in the fo rm of arbors. 14
Of all the tribes studied by Lafitau. the Iroquois were the most comfortably
housed: a long bower or arbor-like shelter . a kind of tunnel. along which were
ranged the fireplaces of the families. each marked by a square of four POStS that
held up the roof and lined on each side by seatin~ and sleeping platforms.
These also carried resonances of antiquity . as. "ha\ing no windows. they were
only lit from above. in the same way as the celebrated temple of the Rotunda:
the Pantheon built by Agrippa. which can sull be seen standing in Rome."])
Lafitau's descriptio ns thus moved between archaeological comparison and
anthropology. Meticu lously recording building, tcchniques and parallels between
ancient and modern. he also established :I spatial phenomenology of dwelling
that corresponded to his understand ing of the mores and custo ms of d ifferent
peoples. The relation between geometry and living pattern s was clearly drawn.
as was the comparison to the rustic constructio ns of contemporary Europe - the
bower and the conical icc-house (plate 6).

Sidc by side with his inventory of the types of domeslic co nstruction.

Lafitau observed the more ceremonial buildings of religious ritual and the symbolic rcprcse mations of divi nities. His history of the "origins and progress of
idol;nry~ traced the emergence of symbol ic for ms. from the simple designation
of a mountain or sacred wood. the erection of :I stan din~ slO ne or altar. the
shaping of Stones into concs, pyramids. and cylinders as memori:tls. to the
sculpting of images and simulacra. as a parallel process in amiquilY, in Biblical
timcs. and in America,16 The sacred symbols of the Lycians and the Druids
were matched by those of the Appalach ians in Florida. who dcdic:tted a "pcrfectly round" mountain to the sun . The tribes of Natchez erected conical
stones in their temples like the Amazons and Orientals or the Egypt ians.
whose obel isks and pyramids "no doubt represented the di vin ity" (plate 7).17
And where he could find no u: mples or symbols among the lruJi:tns. Lafit:tu
com pa red thei r revere nce for fire to that of the Persia ns. who refused all signs
but tire itself. 11:\ The temples of the Natchez e\'en. like that of Vest:t in Rome,
harbored a perpetu:tl fire . sustained by appointed acolytes (plate 8).19 In an
illustratio n that prefigured later histories of "symbolic- architectu re. Lafi tau
dl'picted this history of representation in stone. from the first cubic stone 10
the pyramids. ronas. and Itn7llt!S of later religio ns. lO
But Lafit :1lI's assumpt ion of precise correspondence between the ancients
and the sa\'age modcrns was. like much early-cighteenth-celltury primitivism.
mediated by a strong sense of contemporaneity and progress. ' 10 Ihe French
missionary. the contrast betwcen Ihe Americans and the Europeans \\as salutary: the savages of Ame rica. he wrote. "make a virtue of their idleness: laziness. indolence. and sloth arc the ir taste and the b:tsis of Iheir character-: in
Europe . o n Ihe other hand . "man. born for work. languishes and is bored in
repose :l 1 The Californian s slept in caves to'sa\'(: them the trouble of bu ilding
shelters: the IrO<l uois were ~ alw:tys silting or)ying and never walk about"; most
primiti ve peoples were seen "always with fo lded arms. doing noth ing el sc but
holding meetings. singing. eati ng. playing. sleeping. and doing not hing."!! .
Thus. wilh the Golden Agc of Hesiod. the Bibl ical Eden. and Ih e Icge nd of
the Lotus Eaters situalcd geographically. the modern work-ethic was ratified by
ant hropolo!,,), . In thi s guise. primitivism might ha ve been interest ing to the
scholar . but it was hardly a slate to be envied. T he hul. :t sign of savagery.
was al so a mark of deprivation and povcrty: "t he !lUIS of every nation slill show
the poverty and frugalit y of those born in the infa ncy of the world ... the
savagc nations ha\'c only miserable hovels and thatched hut s, known in Ant iq uity as mlJptJ/;o or Iugurio. names e nt irelv appropriate to give an idea of
pO\'~rty. -B

Voltaire. in his F.s.w; Slir les mrxurs, extended this implication. comment ing
ironically o n Lafit:tu's confinement of Msavagery~ 10 the Americas: -do you
mean by savages. churls livi ng in huts with the ir women and animals exposed
unceasingly to the inclemency of the seasons? ... There arc savages like this
all over Europe:H T his sentiment was echocd by the Marquis de Sade. much
latc r. He summarized the civilized world's disgust with thc rlttJllm;trrs of the
poor:

II

The rustic hovel to which I repair for shelter when. during the hum.
the excessive heat of the sun's rays fa lls perpe nd icula rly upon me. t hat
hut is certain ly nor to be mistaken for a supe rior bu ilding; its worth is
merely circumstantial: I am exposed to some sort of danger: I find
something which aAords protection; I use it: but is it something the
grande r on th at account ? Can it be the less comc mpt ib1c?Z5

In Lafitau's idea of the prim it ive there was littlc sense of t hat princi pled
"retu rn to origins" espoused by philosophes later in the century. As he confessed to the D ue d'Orle:ms in t he dedication to his book, "3 de pict ion of the

mores of the peoples of the New World.

12

. presents only savage exteriors and

b:lrbarous customs." interesting to (he modern reader by virwe of their "contrast" to those of the advanced nation s of Europe. 16 Lafitau's vision of sa\'agcry
was as picturesque as it was ant hropological. He saw the pagan Indians th rough
an aesthet ic of the sublime. as so many "shadows in a picwre" or like the sight
of "certain landscapes in which whatever is fr ightening in nawre is sweetened
by a pleasure that extends to horror itself ... n In the last analysis. his st udies
were integra lly bound (0 the snategies of his mission: how to turn religion to
its nue pat h by means of an int imate knowledge of its errors.
The careful collation of ancie nt and modern examples of primitive life
became, in t he first half of (he eigh teenth century. a com monplace of schobrl y
enq uiry, from Sa muel Pufendorf. whose descript ions of the state of primit ive
man were drawn equall y from Lucretius and travelers' tales, to t hose who. like
Antoine-Yves Goguet and Cornelius De Pauw, extendcd the im plications of
Lafitau's method (0 t he detailed discussion of Eastern and M iddle Eastern
socicties. 18 Wh ile the mass of "evidencc" thu s assembled was less than en lighte ning wit h respect (0 t he hi storical condit ions of primit ive society, it had t he
eflect. important for the history and theory of architecture, of establishi ng a
belief in the intimate, if not instrumental. relationship between social customs
and the fo rms of dwelling, between religious riwlls and the iconography of
monuments. When e ndowed with th e statu s of principle by the mid-ce ntury
philosophes, such a belief was to inform not only the rewriting of architectural
history in term s of it s sy mbolic form and embedded cu ltural mean ing, but al so
the inve ntion of new building types, domestic and public.
FROM T HE TREE T O T H E CAVE: ROBINSON CRUSOE

The idea of begi nn ing at the begi nning was given its parad igmatic expression
for the eighteenth and much of t he nineteent h century in a work published in
the year of L.afitau's departure fo r Canada, The Lifo mill Slrtinge S",prizing
AdrXlllllres of Rob;II.f(m Cro5Oe, of }ork. A/(Jnm'r. 19 In this talc of isolated man.
deprived of civilized comforts. snuggli ng (0 subject nature (0 his needs, and, in
the process. reestablishing on more principled grounds the modern forms of
production. Daniel D efoe esse ntially turned a century of missionary explorat ion
to pract ical account. By reenacting the s(Ory of origins. with all the acquired
experience of life in the wild provided by travelers' tales. Defoe sought. so to
speak. to correct (he errors. moral and econo mic. comm itted by savages and

civilizecs alike . As M:nx poimed out. Crusoe. despite Defoe's knowing rderences (Q the classical trad ition of primitivism. was a paradigm of economic
man . mercantile and colon iali st. He was also a moral dctermininst. who. out of
the conditions of a kind of solitary confinement. managed to reinst :ne a rational
and technological order of the sou l as well as of nature. Fo r Crusoe. as
Rousseau underst ood. was in no way a ~natu ral man ." Imbued with Protestant
mores. educated and completely ci\'ilized. he had sim ply been deprived of the
"strange multitude of little (hings necessary" for daily life. from bread to tools.
He was. in mher words. like the colonial administrator or the to urist. forced (Q
make do. to im prmise in his new surroundings a fair imitation of the home he
had temporarily left.
This sense of transience. of modern nomadism. in an era of agrarian displacements. geograph ic3] exploration. and conquest. was especially marked in
the form of Crusoc's dwelling: a heteroge neous 3m31gam of found and n3turat
objects . And yet. even here . Crusoe exhibited a desi re to improve on his
predecessors by means of a careful application of experientially tested principle .
Indeed it would seem from Defoe's narrative that Crusoe had had a thorough
grounding in the liteflture of architecture. not3bly in Vitruvius and in Sir
Henry Wolton's commentary on the ancient architect. TIl, EJml,nts of AlThi/t'rlu,,~. first published in 16Z-l. From Vitruvius. C rusoe deri\'ed his underst3nding
that 3fchitecturc had a specific origin and development: from Henry Wotton.
who incorporated the tenets of Alberti and ot her Re naissance theore ticians int o
his own brand of common-sense empiricism. Crusoe absorbed the principles of
selecting a si te for reasons of health and ddense. JO
Having spent his fir st night perched uncomfortably in a tree and realizing
the fragility of his makeshift tent. he began to stud y the problem of ~w hat kind
of Dwelling to make . whr.:ther I should make me a Ca\'e in the Earth . or a
' lent upo n the Earth .,,)1 His solution to this dilemma-to build both a cave
and :I tent - already incorporated the historical hindsight of improvi ng on
Vitrm,ius's narrative of origins. aC('ording to which it had takcn ('ountless !!enerations to r.:volvr.: from the cave and the bowcr to the hut. Crusoe's criteri3
fo r the situation of (h is hybrid dwelling were cnti rely modern. dirr.:etl y paraphrasing Wotton's "phvsical," "economic." and "optical" conditions for si ting
buildings. J .! The " moo~ish ground" by the se3 was nr.:ithr.:r wholesomr.: nor provided with fresh \\ ater : a "more healthy and more cOIl\'eniem spot of ground"
would naturally supply the needs of health and security. /\ s if foll owing Wotton
step by step. he looked for a site supplied with fresh water. ventilated by
breezes. sheltered from the heat of the sun. securr.: from ravenous creatures .
and provided with a view toward the sea. The plateau he found. on the side of
a steepl y rising hill . the beginni ngs of a cave alread y hollowed into the clift
below. satisfied all these requirements. On this flat greensward . directly in
front of the cave-cellar he had dug out of the hil l. Crusoc pitched hi s tent and
surrounded it with a semicircular stockade some th irty feet in diameter and
fj\"e-and-a- half-feet hi,gh. Gr3dually. he turned this defensive wall into the wall
of a much expanded house and laid branches from it to the cliffside. covering
them with thatch . As he enlarged the cave. he supported it with posts and partitions. JJ.

14

Thus Crusoc's pnmltlve hut was a decidedly sophi st icated building. relying
on :I sense of progress in architecture and a dc\'clopcd history of that progress:
indeed. it encapsulated all the stages through which nat ural nun was thought
to have developed. 3S Vitruvius himself had it. constructing "better and bener
kinds of huts as time went on ... by observing the shelters of others and
addi ng new details to their own inceptio ns:,3'" Not incidentally, Crusoe also
provided for the exercise of what Wotton had called "the Royaltie of Sight. " a
pleasure parallel to that "lordship of the fect"- thc joy of wal king over onc's
possessions - that was the fir st condition of an aest hetics of property . o ne that
"can endure no narrow circumscription" and -m ust be fedde with extent and
varicty:35 A century after Wonon's territorial \'isio n. the sensi bility for
economic landscape was e mbedded in Crusoe's improving gaze.
Defoc's materialist account of architectural origins. then, was bot h progressive and principled. embodying the si mple and fundamental precept s of all
good building. joined inextricably to economic and social development. Robert
Morris. nco- Pallad ian popularizer and younger contemporary of Defoe .
e nshrined si milar building codes in the less utopian practice of English I:mdlords between 1725 and 1750. Mo rris developed Wolton's laws of lordly sight
into one of the first theories of picturesque landscape design and found suppOrt
for Vitruvius's myth of be1!;innings in rural England and Wales. where. he
noted. o ne could see "hut s ::Ind cottages buih in the same manner lout of mud
w::I1I and thatch!. just as if the inhabitant s had newl y started imo bcin1!: and
were led. by Nature and Ne<:essity. to form :l Fabri(' for their 0\\ n prc:-.cn ation
fro m the inclemencies of thc season or othc.:r. morc pre\:!km rnoti\l':";/' Out
of such experiences. i\'lorris concluJc..:u. de\c.:loped thc COHag,e. :mJ then the
Villa and the Palace. all rooted in thc ... oi l tlut g,J\C their 0\\ ncr . . \\c.llth.
C rusoc's hut. however. only p:!rtiall~ fultlilcd the tcrm:-. of th .... prog,ressi\'c
de"elopment : still tied to the C3\C. thc (fee. Jnd the IlHHablc tem. it
represented a half-way stagt' to indl..'pcndl,nt bu ild ill/-!. Dq)ri\cJ of 3 soci ability
that. Vitruvius held. \\as esscnti:!1 to the . . pirit of cmul3tion. l'Oll) munication.
3nd competition that impelled thc building, of better houses. Cr u. . oe sustai ned
his position as a civil ized being in nature by much dtort and oflcn .. lc nder margins. The line between savagery anJ humanilY was tenuous and held more by
moral determination than by form s of art. His house had a c..lcfensin: rather
than a domestic posture and, unlike the advanced. bourgeois house. it rdf3ined
from displaying its contents on the outside. 37 Rather. it dissembled behind a
facade of thickly interlaced trees, achieving in nature the anonymity later to be
sought by prisons and asylums. those other machines of perfect isolation and
secu rity. This double character of isolation - freedom and imprisonment-found
its architectural figure in what Crusoe was pleased to eall his "Cas tle .~ eert::linly. there was no room either for a free-sta nding hut or for its symbolic
embellishment in a world ruled more by fear than by optimism.

SHElTER S OF SOC IABILITY, ROUSSEAU

Whe n. in 1762, Rousseau looked for a work that he might entrust to the
young Emile as an introduction to the H soli t a~' statc of man in nalUre and .
H

thereby, a "touchstone of all

ot her s,~

he selected Defoe's narrative of Robinson

Crosoe, which, as he noted. provided "the happiest introduction to natural edu

cation ." a preface to the principled behaviur of man in a social state,38
Rousseau. however, impat ient with the morali stic and rel igious O\'ertones of
Defoe's first chapters. wanted to reduce evcn this essentialist story to its essen
tia1s. stripping it of its "nonse nse" in order to concentrate Emilc's anemion o n
the central history of C rusoe. beginning with the wreck and ending with the
arrival of the rescuc ship. Crusoe's talc might then be read as an object lesson
in instructio n for all the needs of a single man at large in the wild. Rousseau
advises Emile to check each of the mariner's practical efforts by emu lation,
the reby e mbodying the experience of reading in the building of his life. Thu s
we might imagine Emile recreating Crusoe's fearful exploration of his territory.
his first experiments in baking bread. his manufacture of prim itivc tools, and,
finally, thc building of his dwelling. Pressed to their logical conclusions. and
no doubt agai nst Rousseau's beSt instincts, Emile's experiments wou ld have
turncd him, like C rusoe, into an agrarian improver, a colonial capitalist. and a
rich man.
With these consequenccs in mind, Rousseau might have put a stop 10
Emile's in nocent ga rnes , for wilh the development of architecture came that of
civilization. a state Rousseau had criticized sharply in his Disrours sur Il!s Scil!llrrS
I'f II'S Arts (1750), which describes in architcctural term s the fatal diff'crence
between natural and civilized man, po rtrayi ng the growt h of luxury and embcll
ishmeO! as supp0rled, if not caused, by the development of building:
One cannot reflect on mores without taki ng pleasure in recalling the
image of thc simplicity of earlier times. It is a beautiful river bank .
adorned by the hands of nature alone, toward which we incessantly
turn our eyes and from which we feel ourselves distanced with regret.
When men, innocent and \'irtuous. loved to have the gods as witnesses
of their actions, they lived together with them in the same huts: but
soon becoming evil. they wearied of these inconven ient spectators and
relegated them to magnificent ' Te mples. They chased them out.
finally. in order to establ ish lhemselves therein or. at least. the
"emples of the gods were no longer distinguishable from the houses of
citizens. This was then the height of depravation; vices were never
pressed further than when one saw them . so to spea k. holding up the
entries of the Palaces of the Great o n columns of marble as well as
engraved on Corinthian capitals. J9
Rousseau did not. it should be noted, dispute the received history of archi
tectural de\'elopment. bUI rather its supposed beneficent effects. The si mple
life on the flowered river bank became an emblem of rustic and natural mores.
which were to be contrasted to the attributcs of high architectu re di splayed in
temples and palaces , signs of luxury and decadence . And yet. as Rousseau
admitted in the second of his twO celebrated diseourees, the Disrours sur
roriginl! de finigtl/;fe ( 1755). even this apparently simple hut had an ambiguous
status in rhe history of morals. Mod ifyi ng the Vilru\'ian narrative. Rousseau
traced rhe e mergence of man from his original. savage Slate, -alone. idle. and
always close to danger,~ gradually forced by necessity and experience to distin

15

16

guish himself from the an imal s. [0 develop selfconsciousncss. to invent tools

and t hereby dwellings:
The more the mind was enlightened. the more industry was perfected.
Soon. ceasing to sleep beneath the first trce or to retire ioto the caves,
they found some kinds of hatchets made of hard and sharp stones.
wh ich served to Cut wood, lO dig the earth. and lO make huts of
branches. which they the n thought of covering with clay and mud. 40
This advance. however. had a double and morally contradictory effect. On the
o ne hand, bringing husbands and wives. fathers and children together in a com
mon habitation engendered "the sweetest sentiments known (0 man. conjugal
and pate rnal lo\'c:' On the other hand. the building of huts immediatelY introduced "a kind of property."' from wh ich originated quarrels and co~bat.H
Thus. whi le in the first discourse we arc led to sec the primitive hut as an
alternative to civilization. in the second we find that the first hut. product of
the inevitable process of perttc/ibi/ity. is morally necessary for awakening the
best of human senti ments. but it is also the cause of the worst. The "state of
nature" depicted by Rousseau was precarious and always thre:llcned by its
opposi tes. savagery and civilization . Only while men "wefe content with their
rustic cabins" did they live "free. healthy. good. and as happy as the)' could be
by their nature ." The instant they discovered the possibilities of the accumu lation of property and wealt h. sla \'ery and misery were born. 4.2 Rousseau saw the
"smiling countrysidc" of agricultural man watered by the sweat of unhapp~
labor and "the walls of cit ies built Out of the ruins of country cQ(tagcs:'4.)
He nce Rousseau's censorship of Defoe. bracketing Emile's readinf..( betwecn
the sh ipwreck and the rescue. withholding the rc\dation of the consequences
of natural experience. and suspendinp; Emile-Cru soe in a moment ht.'ld outside
time and hist ory.
The site of Rousseau's natural societ y might thus be ern l~af..(ed as somewhere bem'een the savage forest and thc ci\ ilil.ed to\\ n; its form was
comprised of a circlc of simple hut s surrounJinp; a communal tire: its rustic festivals took place around an old trce. the tim maypole. In the Ess"i sur /'oligifft
dts InffglltS. Rousseau depicted this SOfiiti dll b(JII/ullr.
In th is happy age where nothing marked the hours. nothing obliged
t hem to be counted: time had no other measure than amu sement and
boredom. Undcr old oak trees. conquerors of the years. an ardent
youth by degrees forgot its ferocity: little by little it became sociable: in
being fo rced to make itself understood. it learned to explain itself.
There the fir st festivals were created: feet boundi ng with joy. eager
gestures no longer sufficing. t he voice accompanied them with passionate accents: pleasure and dl!sire mingled together. made the mselves felt at the same time. 44
From this bucolic vision sprang a host of more or less sentimental. naturali st
utopias at the end of the cemury. somet imes mixed with oriental or savage
exot icism, someti mes. as in de Sade. defining "nature' as a state of unfettered
erot icism. Architects in turn seized quickly on the imagery of rusticity for t he
jabn"ques and hameollx of jordins ong/ois and cottage i!rchitectu re. fo llowing the
tone set by Rousseau himself in UI A'ollvt/lt lIi/oisi-.

AlJrONOMO US ARCHITECTURE: LAUGIER

We who consider ourselves info rmed often need to go to the most

ignorant of peoples in order to learn from them the origin of our
knowledge : for we need this origin above all: we are ignorant of it
because it has been a lo ng time si nce we we re disciples of nawre.
E. B. de Condillac, 1.0 I''"gue des rokuls (1798) 45
While Defoe provided an exemplary illustration of the moral , in the words of
Richard Steele, "that he is happiest who confines his wants to natural necessities:' and while Rousseau drew a convincing enough picture of the life of
savage man and the ensuing corruptions of civilization, neithe r writer full y subscribed to the abso lute empiricism of origins proposed by Condillac and
adopted by d'Alemben as the sign of Encyclopedic methO(I. In philosophical
terms. "origins" referred neither to anthropological nor to historical truth, but
to a logical analysis of the principles and development of knowledge. "The first
step we have to makc ," wrote d'Alembert in the /)isrollf"S prr.liminoirr to the
F.nrydopldi,. "is to examine, if we arc allowed the te rm , the ge nealob,)' and filiatio n of our ideas. the causes that have given rise to the m. and the characteristics that distinguish them; in a word. to retUrn to the origin and generation of
our knowledge. ~46
Accord ing to these criteria. a return to origins would serve to define the
specificity and limits of an area of knowledge, a social institutio n. or an art . It
would also pro\ ide rules of conduct and judgment . principles by which existing
practice might be reformed. A general -genealogy of knowledge:' as proposed
by d'Alembcrt. would establish the nature of and the int errelations among
different branches of learning: the etymology of words would write the history
of the human mind as it sought to name :md reHect o n experie nce; a model of
lanbruage origin would clarify the na[Ure of grammar and provide cl ues to a reasonable and moral rhetoric : a study of the origins of sociability, of laws and
mores, would guide legislators and indicate the conditions of a na[Ural social
contract. H Condillac had posited the "origin of human knOWledge:' drawing a
picture of the birth of language from experie nce and developing what was 10
become a paradigmatic narrative of beginnings as he traced the slow evolution
of speech from thc fir st cries of fear and pain to thei r institut ionalization as
4H
words and their depictio n fir st as pictographs. then as written signs.
It
seemed to him that ~ primitive languages . although limited, were bettcr made
than ours, and they had the advantage of showing clearly the origin and
de\'clopment of acqui red kno\\'ledgc .~4q
Thc origin of the arts, seemingly more concerned with pleasure than with
the severe dictates of need , posed a more complicated problem . lnc abbe Batteux, unwilling to jettison cemuries of classical imitatio n theory, simply
returned the btOIiX- OI1S to a single principle of natural imitation: Condillac himself was more inclined tow~rd an origin in use than in pleasurc, stemming from
thc same root as language. 50 Primitive man, he claimed. waS unable to experience - things of pure pleasure,- bound as he was to what was either useful or
necessary:

17

Poctr), and music were thus only cultivated in order to make known
religion and the laws. and to conserve the memory of great men ....
All ,he monumems of antiquity prove that the arts. at their birth. wefC
intended for the instruction of peoples. 51
Only later. with the development of wealth and leisure. was this moral and
didactic function transformed under the combined influence of climate and
society into the rules for artistic imitat ion. Condi llac's rel:uivistic materialism
saw even these rules 3S ultimatciy stcmmin~ from nature. imit:uing not the
outer forms of the world but its inner processes. "T he fine arts." he concluded,
Mseem to precede observation. and they must have developed to a certain

18

exte nt to ha\'c been reducible 10 a system . The fact is. the" arc less our work
.
.
than n:nures: 51
In this context. the model of architectural origins described by the historian
and philosophe MarcAntoine Laugier might be interpreted Strictly within the
terms of Condillac's method . Writing some seven years after the publication of
Condillac's ssn;. Laugier. in his .ssm' SIIr fll"h;'trI"n'. pressed the reductive
logic of origins to its extreme. 53 Under the unam biguous heading. "Ge neral
Princi ples of Architecture:' Laugier turned the n:urat ive of o rigins into a man i
festo for aesthetic judgment. Utilizing fragments of the traditional accounts
from Vitruvius to Rousseau. he systematically eliminated any references to
social or material causes beyond those of what he called "simple nature:' within
the powe rs. of .man "i n '.lis fir st ~r,iS i n .. wi~h no other. a~s i s tan ce or guide than
the natural instincts of hiS needs. ' H IS picture of thiS first man. ~tretched out
o n a soft greensward beside a tranquil stream, might h:1\'e c.'(:hocd (hat of
Rousseau's Mbeautiful ri\'er bank, adorned by the hands of nature alone:' but
Laugier's primitive. unlike Rousseaus. remained in a stat e of ~a\ age isolation
throughout the build in,!!; of the hut. SS There wc.'re no other beinl!~ in his world,
human or animal: only nature exert'ised an influence. Fir ~( the burning sun .
then the torrential rain. drove Laugier's savage into the coolness of the forest
and then into thc shelter of the cave. It was the ca\'e. with its unhealt hy air
and its darkness. which deprived him of sight. that forced him finally to invent
a dwelling: "t hc man wishes to make himself a dwelling that covers him
without burying him , -56 Thoroughl y imbued with the precepts of Condillac.
Laugier proposed an origin entirely derived from the action of natural
phenomena on the senses. Even the hut itself was a quasinatural construction,
its clements provided prccut . so to speak. by nature. for the usc of a man
witho ut tools or fellowhclpers:
Some fallen branches in the forest are the materials suitable for his
design. He chooses four of the strongest.. which he erectS vertically.
disposing them in a sq uare. On these. he places four others horizontally and. above these. he raises some morc that arc sloped and that
come together at a point on tWO sides. This kind of roof is covered
with leaves. thickly cnou h so that neither sun nor rain can penetrate:
and thus man is houscd. 5

Li ke Condi ll ac's natural man. he brought to nature's materials a rational faculty

of reRection, quite naturally thinking in terms of pure geometry as the rule for

assembling his structure. He also provided an "industry" that "supplements the

carelessness and oversights of nature."'
In this way. Laugier red uced the origi ns of architecture to a "single principle.'" following Condillac's ssoi WI" rOfigine des conn(JWtmreJ hum(J;nrs. -a work
in which everyt hing that concerns the understanding is red uced to a single
principle," and perhaps responding to the abbe Batteux. who. hi mself a friend
of Cond illac. had attem pted to reduce the fine arts '"to a single principle:' but
had excluded archi tecture in the process,58 For Laugier. the hut as origin
assumed a paradigmatic statu s for all architectu re: if art, in general. "imi tated"
nature. then architecture might be demo nstrated to imitate in its turn not the
outer appearances but the inner procedures of nature - the cause and eflen of
physical sensation and need, .. It is the same in architecture as in all the other
arts:' wrote Laugie r; "its principles are founded on simple nature. and in the
procedures of the latter are clearly marked the rules of the former.,,59 Thus the
hut was a "model" for the succeeding "magnificences of architecture."' The
vertical branches gave the idea of columns; the ho rizontal members inspired
the invention of entablatures; the incli ned roof beam s formed the first pediments. As such. the memory of the hut would act as a salutary corrective to all
subsequent additio ns:
It is by bringing them closer. in practice, to the si mplicity of this fir st
model. that one avoids essential fault s, that one grasps the true perfectio ns.60
The "litt le ru stic hut" dramatized the fundamental distinction between three
levels of architectu ral invention: those parts of (he building essent ial to the
composit ion of the Orders. those introduced subsequently according to need.
and those added simply by caprice. Laugier made it clear that onl y the first
category was in his se nse true: ~lEs. t~Jl!.ablature ! and tbe roof
forming a ped iment on twO sides of the building. "If each of these three parts is
fo und to be placed in the situation and in the form suitable to it. there wi ll be
not hing to add for the work to be perfect.,"61
Laugier and his neoclassical fo llowers were well aware of (he "se\Ierity of the
r u les~ he had outlined; respondi ng to Frezier, his fir st serious critic. Laugier
denied that be had '"reduced architecture to almost nothing:6Z Rather. he bad
taken away the supe rfluous. leaving on ly the natural in all its simplicity: tbe
architect was tbereby e ncouraged to work with more precision and d iscipline.
Like the musician. wbo had for centuries been content to combine seven tones
in different ways wit hout exhausting their pote ntial. tbe architect. with
Laugier's three basic clements "and with a light smattering of geometry." would
"find the secret of varying his plans infinitely and of regaining by the diversity
of hi s forms what he has lost by virtue of the superfluities denied to him ."63
A reduced lexicon of structural clements. their combinatio n and recombination according to geometrical permutations "to infinity.'" and the natural
"variety'" of the result . would become the methodological and aesthetic premises of late-cightecnt h-century design. Despite ) .-N.- L. Durand's later scorn for
the obvious impracticality of a modd hut wit hout walls. hi s own diagrammatic
design method owed much to this combinative system. with the added
influence of (he posthumous publication of Condillac's own Longue deJ c(JJcuk

19

20

But Laugier. c \'cn according [Q the logical premises of Encyclopedists and

philosophcs. had left out a great deal. In the first place. he had ignored . or
passed over. the cemral problem of classical aesthetics when confronted with a
si ngle origin: how to account for the introduction or emergence of the ~arC of
architcc{Ure out of a response to purc need ? According to the abbe Banc ux, it
was fo r this reason that architecture could not be reduced to a si ngle origin: it
was and wou ld re ma in a "mixed" 3rt . an ~art of necessity.',6-l D'AlembcTI had
agreed. defining it as "the embellished mask of need.- ind icat ing his prejud ice
in favor of necessity as opposed to embellishment. 6S Another critic of Laugicr .
Guillaumot. concluded that "the whole system is carricd on a hollow foundation that he likes to call nature, because his ru st ic hut is in no wav a work of
naturc, Every work by the hand of man is a work of art ."h(, Deba;es over the
specific relations of art to need would become commo nplace in the late
e ighteent h ccntury, establishi ng the groundwork for si milar argu ments in the
ni neteenth century O\'cr fo rm and fun ction.
Secondly. Laugier, in contradistinction to Rousseau, had chosen to eliminate
altoget her the social rootS of dwell ing. preferring architectural criteria derived
fro m the internal logic of architecture to the external inAuences of customs or
mores. The difference was e mphasized dramatically in the two frontispieces
prepared by the engraver C harles Eise n fo r the second edit ion of Laugicr's
Essni and for Rousseau's o;srours SlJr rorigin' tI, fintfgolil/. designed no doubt in
tandem and published in the same year. 1755. Laugier's frontispiece was
ent irely allegorical. ill ustrating the hut as a litcnl outgrowth of nature (plate 9).
The fo ur branches had become four trees, rooted, accorJin,g to thl.' unJerlying
principles of natu ral form. at the corners of a perfect square: they had grown to
twice the he ight of their spacing anJ, again quite naturally, their branches had
crossed and jo ined together to form gables in the shap'" of "'quil:ueral triangles.
In front of this miraculous work of nature, the Mu se of Architecture pointcd
out its virtues to a young C upid. stude nt of the new principle . As if to reinforce
thc reductive effect . the tvtuse was seated on the ruins of classical tradition ,
fragme nts of capita ls and decorative devices indicating the arbitrary and the
capricious in the face of the true, No human for m dist urbed the birth of th is
pure principle.
Rousseau's frontispiece. on the ot her hand. illustrated a story used in the
[);S/Vurs as a proof of the incompatabi lity of pri mit ive life with civilized morcs
(platc 10). It depicted a Hottentot raised by Dutch missionaries o n the Capc of
Good Hope, demonstrating, to lhe Governor of the C ape and his aides scated
outside the walls of the ir fort . his desire to "return to his fellows," gesturing
toward a group of huts on the shore, his true home. MNot hing.- noted
Rousseau with delight. Mean overcome the in\'mcible repugnance they have in
assum ing our mores and living in our way.- The hut . however rudely bu ilt .
here beca me a principle of social happiness. not of architecture.
Thirdly. as evinced by the ruins of architectural decoration in his fro ntispiece. L3ugier had eliminated all refere nce to the traditional symbol ic and
allegorical meanings of architecture. religious and secu lar. The geometry of the
circle held no cosmological overtones, thc verticality of the column no echo of
a standing stone erected for primitive worship. The origins of religious symbol-

ism , traccd by Lafitau , had no place in Laugier's undcrstanding. For Laugier, if

architccture expressed or commu nicated anything. it was si mply by means of
an appropriate measure of si mplicity or luxury for the task at hand: the de
ments of bu ilding wcre fir st and foremost constructional and logical : the ir
assembly followed a law of geometry: architecture was not a language but a
construct .
Some twe nty years later, JeanFran.;ois Vic I de Saint -~hux , argui ng for the
recognit ion of a continuous symbolic tradition as the true origin of architect ural
form, wou ld scoff' at Laugier's simpl ification: to trace architecture to such a barbaric o rigi n was, he claimed. similar to concehing the origins of music in "t he
first noise he ard by men. whether of the C uckoo. the Owl. the Cock, the Bull.
o r the Ass."67 A similar objection was to be raised to Condillac. Laugicr's
model. it seemed. for all it s later influence, was to be more a point of reference
than a formal principle : architecture manifestly could not survive in iso13t io n
fro m its social rOOl S or detached from its codes of representatio n.
In this regard it is significant that the fro ntispiece to thc English edition of
the E.sstJ;. al so published in 1755. showed. in contrast to Eisen's engraving, a
company of nine builders actively engaged in cutting wood. mixi ng clay and
roofing. returning to the traditio nal iconography of editions of Vitru"ius after
Cesariano. Similarly. C harles Delagardettc's depiction of "The Origin of Archi
tecture," added to his publicatio n of Vignola in 1786, left out the builders. but
showed :1 hut clearly the work of men , not of n:1ture: a rural populat ion stood
before it in admiratio n and. in the background . a cave and other more primitive
huts dcmonstrated the stages of pe rfectio n outlined by Vitruvius (plate II) , OS
Depaning fro m Laugier. Dclagardene emphasized in his text the necessity for
tools, :1nd he even found an origin for the columll base in the "hospit:1ble
bench th:1t our forefather s sometimes placed outside their dwe lling and th:1t hid
the lower part of the tree:,ti9 Quatremcre de Quincy. in his turn . was to admit
the necessity of the hut as principle. but he re inserted it into the canonical
theory of imitation. returning the art of architecture to a sculptural origin . li 10
Winckel m:mn . In this way. for much of the later eighteent h century. despite
the attempts of amiquarians and philosophes to replace it with better founded
texts. the Vitruvi an account of origins contin~ed to assert a quiet supremacy.
oft en under the disguise of the entirely new.

21

1 Claude Perrault. huts of the Colchians (Irji)

and the I' hrygians (fight). illustration to his
uansbliun of VitrlJvius. 1684.
2 Joseph - Fr~n~uis Lafitau. "T he Customs of
the American Indi:tns Compared to Those of
Primitive T imes:' Fromispiecc to his II/oml'S
drs SUIJ(!(JI1'S (JfII~ri({tins. 17.24.

J Latitau. marriage ceremony.

.5 Latit3u. "Journey through the Snow 3nJ

Wimer Enc:unpmem.

4 Latitau. inili31ion of 3 Carib.

(, Latil3u. the manufacture of su~ar.

~!.lU"""

J"h" (h;!!" " .1 11,1 J' r" !!r",, "i

8 Lafilau. "Thc Cult of Vcsta or of thc

Sacred Fire."
jig. I. '!cmplc wilh fire of Vesla on thc ahar;
jig. 2. Temple of the Gaures or Guebrcs.
dcscendants of the ancient Persians; fig. J.
~kdal of Fauslinus. with Vesla represented by
the sacred fire {hal burns on his altar; jig. 4.
Temple of Natchez in Louisiana,

Charles Eisen. "Allegory of ArchiteCl ure

Returning In [ts Natural "'[odel.
Frontispiece 10 M.-A. Laugicr. E.=I; SliT
/'uf(n;lfr/urr. 2nd edilion. 1755.

I)

10 Eisen. " IA HottcnlOtl RClUfIlS 10 His

I'cers:' FrontispiL'i.c 10 j.-j. I{ ou~s<:au. Disrollf'S
J/lr foriginr dr finig(Jlilt: 1755.

13 Workshop of a lathc-worker
From Ihc " Aryrlophlir.

(tofllC!)).

1I

Ch~ rlcs Dcl a~a rdctt e.

Architclturc." 17XCI.

" T hc O rigin of

REBUILDING THE PRIMITIVE HUT

190

I. Charles Ban cux, Us !kllllx-ans ridu;rs iJ II"

",Im,. prillripe. Zd ed. (Par is, 1776), 24-26.
T h is passage was insc:ncd in the second edilion of Baucux's trealise. originally published
in 1746. no doubt as a response 10 the
debates over the origins of architecture Ihal
had occurred since 1750.
Z. For a discussion. wi th translated passages,
of ideas of primitj\' is m in ant KJuit),. see A.D.
Lovejo)' and G. Boas, p,jmiritJism and Rtloud
!(HaS ;11 Antiquity. vol. 1 of A Dorummlory /lisrory of p,jmirifJism and Rr/oltti Idtos (Bal ti mon:.,
1935). Erwi n Panofsky loo ks at the Renaissance manifestation of this complex trad ition
in -The E.arly H istory of Man in 1" '0 Cycles
of Paintings by Picro di Cosimo.- Sluk
i"
/("()fIQ/ogy (Oxford , 1939) ..B - 67.
J. C laude Pcrraul! tried 10 provide convincing
ill ustrat ions to Vitruvius's description of primitive huts. noting that Mthe description of the
building of huts is difficult enough to understand. both from the obscurity of the terms
and the faul ts of the text. M Us dix livres
tf'arrhiurtllff de Vi/1"JlW (paris . 1673). bk. 2,
cha p, I.
4. Vitru\'ius. Dt AIT"iuctlinJ Libn titm. vol.
2. I. The tra nslat ion provided by UJ\'ejoy and
Boas is worth (Iuoting at lengt h: Min the olden
days me n were born like wild beasls in woods
and U\'es and grovcs. and they kept ali\'e by
eating ra"" food. Somewhere, meanwhile, the
dosegrown trees , tossed by storms and
winds. and rubbing their branches together.
caugh t fi re, Terr ified by the flames, those who
were near the spot fled. When the storm subsided. they drew near, and. since the y notice:d
how pleasant to their bodies was the warmt h
of the fi re, they laid on wood: and thus keeping.it alive. they brought up some of their fellows. and. ind icating the fire with gestures.
they showed (hem the use which they might
make of it. When in this mee ting of me n
sounds were breathed fort h with differi ng
intensity. they made customa ry by daily use
these chance syllables. T hen, givi ng na mes to
th ings more freque ntly used, they began 10
speak because of this fort ui tous evem. and so
they held com'ersation among themsel\'es.
Since, therefore. from the discovery of fire a
beginning of human associat ion was made.
and of union and intercourse: and since many
now came together in one place, being
endowed by nature with a gift beyond thai of
the (){ her ani mals, so that ther wal ked, not
looking down. bul erect, and saw the
magnificence: of the un iverse and the stars.

atld, moreo\'er. did easily wi th their fingers

whate\'er they wished: some in th aI society
began 10 make roofs of leaves. others to dig
01.11 ca\'es under the hills; some. imitating the
nests and cOnstruct ions of the swallows. made
places. into whic h they migh t go. OUI of mud
and twigs. Finding. the n. other shelters and
inventing new things b)' their power of
M
thought. ther built in ti me beller dwelli ngs.
Lo"ejoy and Boas. Primirivism. 375. T he long
history of lhe reception and transformation of
this text and its successi"e descript ions of the
houses of the Colchians in the Crimea. the
Phrygians in northwest Turkey, and others, is
traced b)' Joseph Rykwert in ()" Adam 's Hou~
in Par(J(Im: Tilt ''''u of 1M Primilif.x HilI in
Arr"ittftllrol HiYory (New York.
1972);
Rykwen fi nds echoes of Lucretius. Posidonius. and ~s toic doctrine ti nged by peripatetic emp iricism.~ in Viuu\' ius's eclect ic formubtion (I 10),
5. Josep h- Fr a~ois Lafi tau. /;/OOIfr des SlJlltXJgtJ
om6Tcui"s romporm (J IIX mtJnifr tks prrtnin-s
rmtps (paris. 1714). vol. I. 3. Lafi tau, a jesuit
missionary. was born in Bordeaux in 1681; he
visited Canada and sllldied the lives and customs of its Indian tribes between 1712 and
1719. The beSt critical edition of t~ J'fOOlfr
des SlJlltXJgtS is the translation by William N.
Fenton and Eli7.abeth L. Moore. eds .. CltYoms
of Ik Ammcm. l"duulS Comporrd .nl" 1M c.sI()mS of Primilif.x 'limes ( roronto. 1974). For a
fu ll biography. see Joseph- Fra~ois Lafitau.
/;/0011$ des SlJlltXJges umlril:uillS. ed. Edna 'Iindie Lemay (paris, 1983),
6. Lafi tau, AfQnlf'S (1724). vol. 1, 2- 3. An
analysis of th is front isp iece looki ng at its
implications for the met hodology of ethnology
is gi\'en in Pierre Vidal-Naquet. MLes jc:unes:
Le cru. ren fant grec et Ie cuit ,H in J. Le Goff.
P.Nora. cds .. NOIIVI'ollX objm. \'01. 3 of Fui"
de r"is/aiff (paris. 1974). 137-168: also on
method. sec Mic hel de Ccrteau. ~Writi ng
"ersus Time: H istory and Anthropolog-, in the
Works of Lafitau. ~ Yak Frmc" Studies 59
(1980): 37-64, See also. for general treatments of Lafi tau. 1I.Iichtle D uchet, MD iscours
ethnologique et d iscou rs historique: le tex te
de Lafi tau,M Studies 011 J!qIloiff OM 1M
Fig"I""I" Cnt fllry 92 (1976): 607- 623: Edna
Lemay. ~ H is toi re de r ant iquitc et decouven e
du nOU\'eau monde che"t deux auteurs du
X\' lIl c sitd e,M Studies 011 rolluin u"d 1M
fJ'ghltnllh Cnt fllry 93 (1976): 13 13- 1328.
7. Lafi ta u. Jlfonm ( 1724), vol. 1.3.
R. VidalNaquet. ~Les jc:unes. - 139.

9. MarccIDccK-nnc. L'iwvnrm" tk kJ "':lI~

{paris. 19SI). 2 I. 'Ibe: whole lirst (."haptcr is
dcwHcd to the stud)' of myth in thc
cigh teenth and nineteenth cr!\lurics.
10. Lalitau. II/(.ft'fl' (l7!4). \'01. 1. 5.
II. Ibid .. 6.
U. Ibid .. 7.
IJ. Ibid .. 7-S.
14. Ibid .. S.
15. Ibid .. ~Cabanes I roquois.~ 10 et seq.
16. Ibid .. \'01. I. 137 .
17. Ibid .. 146.
18. Ibid .. 158.
/9. Ibid .. 167-8.
10. Ibid .. platc 4 ~Origine et progrl:s dl"
ridol3uie. ~

11. Ibid .. vul. l. 3.

N. Ibid.
l). Ibid .. 5.

14. Voltaire. F.ssoi SIIr In mtJDIfl'. in Onn" rs

rompH/t;S (Paris. I tl7S). \ '01. II. 18.
l5. Marquis de Sade. JMSliwr (Ncw l ork:
Gro\'c Press. 1974).544.
!6. Lalitau. ,\I~lIn (1714). \'01 I. i.

n. Ib id .. ii.

!8. The jurist Samuel l>Ufendorf s Lt tiroil tk

kJ "o/lIrr " tin r/. ld. cd. (Amstcrdam.
1711). was a fa\'()fitc $OlIrcr for Rousseau:
Ant oinc-l"'es Goguct. a Ia",)"cr to the Parle
mcm of Paris. wr(HC I), fori~M tks kJiJ. (In
tilTS " tin Irintm. tt tk Inn progffl (~ In
OIKWs ptllpin n'he HagtlC. 1758). which
assessed the \'eraeity of ancient accounts
ag:..inst modern observations-his history of
primiti\c ar(."hi te(."llIre WOlS thc most (."omplete
study of VitrUlius and his predecessors in the
eigh tee nth ('"cOIUI)' (bk. 3. (."hap. 3): Cornelius
lJe Pauw's Rf('flnyMs pAiltWfJAiquts SIIr In
1I",lrimills Okrlin. 1768-17(9). and Rtf"flnyM
pAi/OJOfIIrH/llrs SIIr It.s FCpritlls" Irs C/rillolJ (Berlin. 1773). pro\idcd a wmprehensi\'e su mmal)' of previous travelers' a(."(."ounts and.
in(."ide nt ally. furnished rnul'h of QU3tremere de
Quirl(."Ys hiSlOri(."al learnin~,
19. The fIJII title was. 7'1tt tijt anti Stmn!!,
.'Utrprnillg AdvrtrfllrrJ of RoIJillSVII Cn.SfI' oj >
&rl-.
Alori"".: ill

(III

,,"iIlNlbilid /sJollti

()II

1M

(,()IlSJ

of II-nro .

IItIJr ,Iv _tit of fM Grro, Rivn- of

1M ~; HoWl, """ rasr QIt SIron- b:l
Sltipern'l. t::J"rri1l oil fM I I/til ptris/Itd bill Ai",

sd!

IPitlt Att tIrt-oMIII .,., At ras 0/ lost lIS

tklnxrit 6, PyroIt;S (London. 1719).
.10. Henry WOlton. TAt fJmmrts of AITAiffY"'"
SInItt~"

(London. 1624).

11. Ddoe, 7'1tt Ujt (1l1li Advm!lIrrJ of RQIli/lSott

er-;". cd . Angus Ross (London. 1965).76.

1!. Wotton. FlnIItIIts. 4.

JJ. Defoe. RfJbittSQII CnlSfI'. 76-78.
34. Viuuvius. TM 7;" /kJob of IIITAi'fYlllfr.
trans. M. H. Morgan
1916).39.

(Cam brid~.

"hss ..

15. \\bnon.4.
36. Robert ,\Ionis. Rllrol ArrltilfY!lI" (London.
17,SO). 12.
17. It is perhaps signilil"llnt that the (."aptured
mUlineers were. at the cnd of the nanali\e.
~(."on\cyed ... to the l"lIle. as 10 a prison; and
it was indeed a dismal place. espc(."ially to
men in their (."ondition .~ Defoe. RoIJill_
CrII.stw (1965). 166.
.38. jean-jacques Roosseau. FmiN (}II tk
fltlurorW" (1762) (Paris: Garnicr l-l ammarion.
1966). 239-140: ~This book II-ill be the first
my Emile will rcad; for a long time it will be
the II hole of his library. ~
J9. jeanJac<lues Rousseau. /);KQllfl' SIIr ks sri
tIIftS if In (Jrts (1750). in OrIlvrt'S (Amplhrs.
101. 3 (paris: llibliothCIIUe de la P1C1adc.
19M). 11.
40. jean-Ja('"IIues Rousscau. /)is(-Qllfl'Slir forigint
tit filli"go/i,1 (1755). in Cbvrrs rompH!rs. I'ul.
3. 167. The: beSt anal ysis of Rousseau's sys
te:m of stadial social de\'clopmcnt is In
Mic-hcle Duc hct. A.tI,rvpologN if ltis lOi" 0"
sikk tin III",iirrs (I'aris. 1971). 164- 313 .
41 . Ibid.
-I!. Ibid .. 171.
:/) . jean-Ja(."(IUCS Rousseau. /)" U.trof RXio/
(1761). in Orrrorts rompH/rs. \'01. 3. 427
44. }can-Ja('qucs Rousseau. F.uoi SIIr foritjllt
drs 10"f,WS (Paris: A. BellO. ISI 7). 525.
45. Etienne Bonnot de Cond illac. /.41 1-II1I",t
tin (oJr"Is. in Georp:s Le Ro),. cd .. ~
p/tjlo.wpllotpvs tN (_tli/lor (paris 194 7-1951).
quoted in I. F. Kn ight. 7'1tt c-,trir Spirit: TAt
AMi dt Co"djllur (llId 1M F,.",,/t fJrliglu",,,,,,,1
(New Ha\en. 1968). 144.
46. Jean Ie Rond d'Alc:mOCn. DisroMfl'
prl/i",illoirr dt rFJlrytlOfNilit' (1750) (Paris:
EditioilS Gonthier. 11)65). 19.
47. For a su(."cin(."t acrount of the theories of
origin in the rJrryrl()pld". sce Renc Hubert.
J~s srinvrs sorinlt.s ,IIII1S r fJrryr/opidi,' (Lillc.
1923). Hubert distinguishes octll'ee n tradilionalist theories. lI'hich based the order of
societ) on the will of the crcator and receil'ed
law. and natura list theories. IIhich sail society
as a reSult of the extension of the famil)' (a
kind of biological determinism ). as l"lIused by
a natural instinn for sociability (thai is. baSC'd
on inna tc ~sympath ics-). as a direet outcomc
of the operation of personal interest (either
di,isi,e. :&(."(."(lfding to DiderOi. Of unifying. as
d'Alcmben held). or. linan~ . as formed by the
priociple of a social rontran. All natu ralist
oonttptS held SOCK-t) to be a fundamentally
natural phenomenon. shaped In response to
need or IJtJDiIl.
4l1. See Hans Aars lcfl:
Tradition of Condilla<': 'I'he Problem of the Ori/i:in of Language
in the Eighteenth Cc ntU r)'.~ in From i.JJfb ro
StlllSSllfP (Minneapolis. 19t1l). 146-109. This

-n)C

191

192

is by far d)C best study of the inu:lkclUal his

tOf)' of linguistK- theory in the: modern period.
49. Condillac. /..0 uJt,gw Iks (01nJ/s. in Knight.
Ctomtrri< Spinl, 144. Sec Aarsldt: - rradit ion
of Cond illac.~ and Kn igfll. Ctomthy Spiril. fOf
extended discussions of the imponllocc of
Condillac"s langullg<: origin theories. For a
compllrison of differem throries of language:
origin in the: mid-cightccmh cenwry. see
H ubert. SrimffS soriolts. ch.!!. E.M. Hine. II
Cliricol SIllily of Cotrdillor's "'Iroiff ria S]Slimt:s"
(The: Hague:. 1979). 167-182. anlll)"1.CS the
reilltion of the: F.uoi to Condillx's later works
and his n eatmcm of the litIS.
SO. Condil1ac. 1ro,li tks systhnts (lne 'Iague.
1749). ch. 7. deals with the ditferem artS: the
f'.ssoi Ifllces the origins of the: arts and the sciences to the: same source as language. 80-82.
See Hine. Co"dilkK's M'Ifoiri tin systbtres. ~ and
Knight. 'I'IIt r-ttrir Spiril.
M
Sf. Condillllc. MEssai sur fOfigine: in Otrtt.ns
phlosoplliquts. \'01. I. SO.
51. Condilb c. 'Iroili til'S S]SlhMs. liS .
SJ. Marc-Amoine: Laugic:r. E.ssoi SIIr (orcllitte
hlrr (Paris. 1753). For a complete: anlll ),si! of
the: E.uoi. as well as of its rc:cc:ption, sec: the:
monograph by Wolfgang Herrman n, UJugin'
m,d Eig/rttf'lltll c",hlry Fmr(1I TIINry (London.
1961j.

54. i..:&ugic:r, F.ssoi SIIr (O((II;ll('hlrr. ld ed.

Waris. 1755).8.
55. Rousseau. DisnJ"rs SIIr Ies srinKts" Ies 11m.
ll .
56. Laugier. E.ssoi SIIr (orcll;ll('lurt. Zd ed., 9 .
57. Ib id .
58. Cond illac. F.sso; SIIr (uri~/" ria fOIfllOis
SOMtJ 1IM_;1Its (1746). cd. Charles Porset
Waris: editions Galilee. 1973): Abbe Chlltles
Bltteux. 11.1 &tIl/xom.
59. Laugic:r. F.ssoi SIIr ( lJ((II;ll('lurr. ld cd .. 8.
60. Ibid .. 10.
6f . Ibid .. I I.
62. Ibid .. 56.
61. Ibid .. 57.
64. Baneux. IA &ollXom. For Baneux.
architecture was at once use:ful and beautiful.
submi lled to the tWO determinants of need or
haoill. which included all the: practical and
social requirementS of soIidit, and comm~
dit~ ,
and pleasure, or ogr/twlll. which
depended on the: am of beaut)". Unlike the
true crafts. architecture could not be he:ld 10
the single crite rion of neceuity: unlike the
fine an s. it could I10t simply please: the: e"es
or ears. ~Iore like: rhetOfK-, anothe:r mixed
art, it formed a third C1Itegol')' that might be
define:d as an art of com'enieoce or comfort.
or rommoditl (27). In Hatteux's \iew. the:
hierarchy thus formed -arts of necessity, arts
of commodity, fine: arts-was natural and
migh t be deducc:d from an examination of ori-

the: ans ,,'ere in,oe med first by need:

some were polished and de,oeloped acrording
10 increasing standards of comfort: others
were raised by the: progress of taSte inw arts
of pure pleasure : -\\'hen the necessary and the:
oomfonable had been provided fOf. there was
only one step left to arrive at pleasore, wh ic h
is a third order of need" (27). The: relations
of e~h art with nature likewise followed this
ascending order: the ans of necessit y Muse
M
nature as il is. uniquely fOf usc: and ser"ice :
the arts of commodit) use nature while -pol_
ishing it for se..... ice and plosure-: tnc: fine arts
M
do not -use natu re at all - they only Mi mitale
it, each according 10 its manne:rM (l8). Bat
leux thus resolve:d his init ial problem. which
was -10 reduce the fint: arts 10 a single priTK'iM
plt: by the technique of exclusion: only those:
arts that imitated nature: were fine: arts: ergo.
the: single prinCIple of the fine: arts " 'as that of
imitat ion. The endless ar~me:ntS O\oer the
hierarchies of Ihe diffe rent arts and their par
ticular rdations 10 social and indi\'idual statuS
are well summarized in PaulO. Kristel1er,
RnwissoIKP TIIoII,IIJ ulld ,''' Am (Princeton.
1965). especililly chap. 9.
65. OAlt:mben. l>iJaJMrs. 49.
66. Charles-Alexandre Guillaumot, Rrmufl/Uti
SIIr
1111
lro" ;11';'111/. "(jIJsn1.!(JrWtu SIIr
(o((lIill("/II(" '" M. rabbi 1.JJllgid (Paris.
17(8).
67. .Jean Louis Vicl de: Saint Maux, IJIITts SIIr
(urrAiltrtlirr 1M:s llIIrinu n alia tits JIOiknus
(Paris. 1787), MSepti~me IelUe.~ 54.
68. C .M. [)dagardellc. Rig/iS (Ies 0"'1 orrlm
l(u((AiItYllirr '" Viglwlt (paris. I 78(1). plate 3.
69. Ddag;ardene, Rigla tits ri/l(/ onins, ld ed.
(Ilaris. 17(7), 15.
gi n~: