1097 MTC Fortified City in Alberti Ghent 2010

10th International Conference on Urban History | City and Society in European History

Ghent, 1st 4th September 2010 Further reflections on urban limits: the fortified city in Albertis De re

aedificatoria and the Vitruvian tradition

Margarida Tavares da Conceio University of Coimbra - Centre for Social Studies, Portugal

1

1 The matter of the wall: city, fortifications and treatises

2 Alberti: the art of building and the city

3 City and fortifications in De re aedificatoria

4 Vitruvius and the gromatic tradition

5 Castrametation and land surveying

6 The urban limit: city and camp

1 The matter of the wall: city, fortifications and treatises

Given the long historiographic tradition surrounding the subject of the fortified city in

classical architecture treatises, the topic of the city wall and its significance would

seem to have been largely exhausted. The very process of defining, classifying and

analysing these texts conceived in the cultural climate of the Renaissance has also

circumscribed the notion of the ideal city (a concept more often used than

explained). However, while it might seem that there is little new to say about the

subject in general terms, some aspects, previously held to be of secondary

importance, are deserving of closer attention. In fact, although the fortified city, as a form of expression, would appear to be a

unitary concept, almost a typological statement, it may nevertheless be

deconstructed into its component terms: the city on the one hand, the fortifications on

the other. This paper looks again at the primary link between them the walls and

explores their significance, distinguishing between their dual function as foundational 1 Translated from the Portuguese by Karen Bennett.

Margarida Tavares da Conceio CES-UC / IHRU

219

limit of the urban space and fortification mechanism, successively renewed and

updated.

Research into the origins of fortification treatises (i.e. texts that codified the

fortified city and/or the link between city and its fortifications) involving known works

produced up to the last quarter of the 16th century2 has revealed a network of

connections between various disciplinary areas. Indeed, the links between them shed

an important new light on certain aspects of the question.

The fortification treatise as a genre is not identifiable until the mid 16th century,

and only really achieves full maturity in the second quarter of the 17th century3. This

means that these texts are a product of modernity. They do not transmit a concept of

the city wall or even of the city itself that is exclusively or truly urban; on the contrary,

the city is conceived as the inner part of a fortress, from which perspective it

becomes a citadel or nucleus within a more complex urban network, part of a

defensive strategy of clearly territorial reach. Over time the wall was modified,

changed its name (to curtain wall) and became a component of a military machine,

just as the city itself could be also be perceived as a (central) part of a geometrically-

calculated martial system. In fact, the complexity and relative specialization of texts dealing with

fortification after the mid 16th century only becomes comprehensible if we perceive it

as the coming together of three essential lines of knowledge: architecture, geometry

and the art of warfare. It is also significant that each of these is governed by a source

text written by an ancient author: Vitruvius De Architectura; Euclids books of

geometry (as the absolute basis for a method of spatial reasoning) and the military

arts (including tactics, the organization of armies and castrametation) of Vegetius,

and before him Polybius, not to mention the numerous reports of the Romans

famous martial strategies. In this context, it is indicative that architecture now appears as an autonomous

2 The first printed books that can be categorised as fortification treatises are: (with some reservations) Albrecht Drer (1527), Etliche underricht zu befestigung der Stett, Schlosz und Flecken. Nuremberg (Latin translation in 1535); and later, Giovanni Battista Zanchi (1554), Del modo di fortificar le citt trattatoVenetia. Before this, there were only the manuscripts of Francesco di Giorgio de Martini (ed. Corrado Maltese,Trattati di architettura, Ingegneria e Arte Militare. Milan, Il Polifilo, 1967) and the printed treatise of Pietro Cataneo (I quattro primi libri di Architettura di Pietro Cataneo Senese. Vinegia, 1554), none of which were exclusively about this subject. 3 The fortification treatise is here understood as a book that presents and compares the various procedures used to construct permanent and temporary fortifications. Such texts usually include general definitions of the defensive perimeter and rampart concept, and compare the various methods in detail, teaching the precepts underlying its design and material construction. There is generally also a discussion of the types of fortification used in various topographic locations and urban situations, and chapters (or appendices) dealing with elementary rules of geometry and the principles of tactical warface (offensive and defensive), troop movements and castrametation (cf. Conceio, 2008: 30-31).


319

discipline, which places it on a new (higher) level between ars and scientia, while at

the same time giving the architect the responsibility of designing the city. Such

disciplinary autonomy presupposes the written recording of knowledge, inevitably

based upon the Vitruvian model and humanistic interpretations of it, but with a new

base, centred upon Albertis treatise De re aedificatoria.

2 Alberti: the art of building and the city

One approach to the walled city that has been particularly fruitful for clarifying

theoretical aspects was a re-reading of one of the most cited treatises in the history

of architecture, the foundational text De re aedificatoria (c. 1450/1485)4 by Leon

Battista Alberti (c.1404-1472). As Franoise Choay (1980)5 has so usefully

established, the De re aedificatoria became a prototype for the whole genre of

architectural treatise, marking the opening-up of a new theoretical field, laying the

foundations for the discipline of architecture, and implicating the city as a field of

construction. However, the Albertian paradigm is rarely associated with the question of the

city walls and military matters. Certain aspects thus need to be re-contextualised to

clarify some of their more specific urbanistic details, particularly as this text is

frequently cited with regard to the theme of the ideal city (an equivocal subject,

which is largely a historiographic construct). While Choays interpretation of this text highlights its almost radical modernity

with regard to the discipline of architecture, other historians6 have raised questions

about the treatise as a genre and how to contextualise it. Indeed, it covers a vast

time frame, extending from the construction rituals used in ancient societies (when it

functions essentially as a synthesis of experience) to the Renaissance (where there 4 The manuscript De re aedificatoria was presented to Pope Nicholas V in 1452 and printed posthumously in 1485 [1486] (Florence, Nicolau Alamari). 5 Albertian historiography is a subject in its own right and deserves more attention than permitted by a mere footnote. The work of reference in the field is Franoise Choays La Rgle et le modle (1980), which characterises the concept of the architectural treatise in very narrow terms. The proceedings of a conference on Renaissance architecture treatises, organized by the University of Tours in 1981 (Guillaume, ed., 1981/1988), is an important collective work, which clearly shows the complexity of the subject, examining the treatises not only in terms of their internal discursive coherence, but also in their historical context. Amongst more recent studies, the most important include: Hart & Hicks, 1998; Carpo, 1998/2001 and Deswarte, 2004. 6 Cf. previous note.


419

was a need to create new knowledge). Thus, treatises of this era inevitably oscillate

between the codification of previous knowledge and the establishment of new

epistemological models.

Architectural discourse in this period needed to define and orient an activity,

and the discursive model that resulted could not have appeared earlier as it was

dependent upon two prior developments, one linguistic (the recovery of Classical

Latin) and the other graphic (design and geometric perspective). Alberti effectively

installed this new paradigm, and was the first to substantiate the principle of design,

not as graphic representation of the architectural work, but as the outcome of a

purely intellectual process of conception. Thus, drawing and design were definitively

distinguished: Let lineaments be the precise and correct outline, conceived in the

mind, made up on lines and angles, and perfected in the learned intellect and

imagination. (Alberti, ed. Rykwert, Leach & Tavernor, 1988: 7). As such, it is nevertheless disconcerting that Albertis work (especially his

masterpiece, De re aedificatoria) did not make much of a mark in the 16th century as

the long-awaited and much divulged treatise7. In fact, it was only translated into the

vernacular after the 1540s8, and its popularity grew in a way that was almost

inversely proportionate to the interest in Vitruvius, the ancient authority. This was in

part because the status and skills of the architect, as we understand them today,

were still developing in the 15th and 16th centuries. With his patrician upbringing and

broad university education, Alberti arrived at architecture via humanist culture, not

through the world of practice. Writing in clear but learned Latin, and basing his assertions on an in-depth

knowledge of Classical culture, Alberti did not include drawings of any kind in his

work, although he codifies graphic representations and the use of models9. The

discipline would have been learned as a set of construction principles and rules,

which were still based upon the three Vitruvian categories of firmitas, utilitas and

venustas, now mutated into necessitas, commoditas and voluptas. However, there is

a social purpose underlying this treatise, as declared in its opening pages the

existence and significance of the notion of civitas.

7 This aspect was noted by Andr Chastel (intr., Guillaume, 1981/1988: 11) and is explained by Mario Carpo (1998/2001: 127-131). 8 First printed translations: by Pietro Lauro (Venice, 1546) and Cosimo Bartoli (Venice, 1550). 9 This absence of drawings is still being critically debated, according to Luciano Patetta (2004: 3-6). The first translation into Italian, a manuscript produced in 1538 by Damiano Pieti (I dieci libri de architettura di leon battista di alberte fiorentino...), contained around 150 illustrations.


519

With regard to this, a frequently cited commonplace is the analogy of the city

with a large house (or the inverse, the house with the small city)10, and therefore the

city as complex public building, an analogy which in itself (as Alberti points out) is

derived from Classical (and Medieval) thought. It suggests that there is no essential

distinction between architecture and town planning beyond the matter of scale, as

indicated by Franoise Choay. The proportional relationship between house and city

therefore justifies occasional intervention in the urban fabric, leading to

transformations in the overall urban layout through subsequent construction, though

without suggesting a rigid urban layout design. This is an important aspect, which

forms an identifiable trend in the long process by means of which the modern notion

of the city was gradually constructed.

In Book IV of De re aedificatoria, which is dedicated to public works

(universorum opus), Alberti makes it abundantly clear once more that the city is first

and foremost a political entity (in the Platonic/philosophical sense of the term). As

polis, it has its source in social differentiation and is dependant on a particular style

of government. From this premise, other principles related with the city are explained. The

configuration of the city depends mainly upon its location, about which he notes two

essential questions the problems of self-sufficiency and provisioning, and the need

for protection through boundaries, in accordance with the place. As sites may vary

considerably, a range of advantages and disadvantages have to be taken into

account, meaning that a standard model cannot be applied in all situations; thus

closed models are rejected in this statement of universal rules. After another

quotation from Plato, Alberti claims: We too should project a city by way of example,

which the learned may judge commodious in every aspect, yet which nonetheless

conform to the requirements of time and necessity. (Alberti, ed. Rykwert, Leach &

Tavernor, 1988: 96).

On this point, as in many others, Alberti remains the learned scholar, who

conceives the city intellectually, refusing to present any single or ideal design:

Everyone relies on the city and all the public services that it contains. If

we have concluded rightly, from what the philosophers say, that cities

owe their origin and their existence to their enabling their inhabitants to

enjoy a peaceful life, as free from any inconvenience or harm as 10 (as the philosophers maintain) the city is like some large house, and the house is in turn like some small city (Alberti, ed. Rykwert, Leach & Tavernor, 1988: 23).


619

possible, then surely the most thorough consideration should be given to

the citys layout, site and outline. Yet opinions vary on these matters.

(Ibidem: 95).

Constantly referring to examples in ancient literature and Classical philosophy,

Albertian theory implies that it is impossible to provide a universal layout that will

give form to the urban space as a whole. Of course, this may be read from a modern

perspective as anticipating planning freedom and favouring a flexible approach to

the urban space. But it may also be interpreted in a more conservative light, as still

related to the culture of the manuscript and the Aristotelian categories of Medieval

Scholasticism (Carpo, 1998/2001: 119-124). Thus, rather than adhering to the notion of the ideal city, Alberti reasons in a

flexible and informed way, going beyond the well-worn metaphor of the city as large

house and the house as small city. In fact, the Albertian city was a fundamentally

political entity, the seat of civitas, community and civilization. This is of course

nothing new; indeed, it is the aspect of Albertis town planning that has attracted the

most attention from commentators.

3 City and fortifications in De re aedificatoria

Albertis reflections on the bond between the city and its fortifications have not

attracted much attention from historiographers, who usually consider him to be more

concerned with civil matters. As he was not a practising architect, he does not offer

any prescriptions that can easily be applied in the daily life of the profession, nor

does he provide solutions to practical problems. However, as far as fortification was

concerned, responses were urgently required. In this aspect, Albertis treatise would

have been of no use whatsoever in 1485-1486, and even less so during the first

decades of the 16th century, the period when the ditch-and-rampart principle of

fortification was being developed in response to advances in artillery. In fact, Alberti is of little importance from the point of view of defensive

technique at the end of the 15th century. The question of defence is dealt with in a

limited and traditional fashion, in general terms, which is why it has often been

overlooked. However, if we look more closely at the problem of the city and

fortification, we will see that Alberti is much more forthcoming on this issue than he is

usually given credit for by commentators, who tend to overvalue the more innovative

aspects of the De re aedificatoria. Very few have examined the theme of fortification


719

in this treatise, and then only in a very summary way, as in the short article by

Brunetti (1986/1988: 391-395), which points out how the architects skills extended

to matters of constructed defences and territorial organization (military roads,

bridges, ports, camps, fleets).

However, from the prologue to Book I, dedicated to planning and design,

Alberti demonstrates that he is able to deal with the whole complex of territorial

features (of the civitas), including engineering works and defence mechanisms11. In

Book IV, mentioned above (on works of public utility), he provides traditional data

about fortifications, discussing the defensive wall as marker of the citys perimeter,

the distribution of its parts in accordance with different types of location and the

layout of the walls, highlighting that there is not one single method of enclosing a city

that will be valid for all sites. He gives special attention to the placement of gates in

accordance with the roads and their respective classification as military or civil. Particularly important, however, is his discussion of the conceptual significance

of the walls. Although he was writing in the mid 15th century, he explains that its

meaning harks back to the rituals used in ancient (particularly Etruscan) civilizations

for the founding of cities. He expressly mentions the originary mark made by the

plough furrow and the sacred nature of the outline of the wall, emphasising that the

ritual did not touch the spaces destined for the gates:

The fathers of the settlement would follow the plough, the cow on the

inside and the bull on the outside, turning any uprooted and scattered

clod back onto the furrowed line, and piling them up to prevent their

being dispersed. When they reached the point where the gates were to

be, they carried the plough by hand, leaving the whole course and fabric

of the walls consecrated, with the exception of the gates, which could not

rightly be called sacred. (Alberti, ed. Rykwert, Leach & Tavernor, 1988:

101).

In fact, what is made explicit in this treatise, from the theoretical point of view,

are the strong connections to an ancient fund of urbanistic knowledge, which is

worth exploring, as it is in keeping with the conceptualization of the city as civitas

and with Albertis own intellectual personality. 11 Nor should you forget ballistic engines and machines of war, fortresses and whatever else may have served to protect and strengthen the liberty of our country, and the good and honor of the state, to extend and confirm its dominion. (Alberti, ed. Rykwert, Leach & Tavernor, 1988: 4).


819

In Book V (which focuses on works of restricted use, singulorum opus) and

with regard to the political power and social zoning, Alberti defines the internal

defences of the city, anticipating the unexpressed principle of the citadel. This

highlights the military basis of princely power, the theme of the princely residence, so

popular in courtly literature. In fact, he defines the urban requirements of the princes

palace, which almost blends with the description of the princes fortress in the centre

of the city, as opposed to the fortress of the tyrant, which was tangential to or outside

the city. Ultimately, he is still rehearsing the Late Medieval theme of good and bad government, updated in the subject of the role of citadels which would become

crucial in certain contexts of modern fortification. After the chapters dedicated to systems of access to the fortress12, Chapters

10 to 12 are entirely dedicated to military encampments, a subject that almost

disappears from printed architecture treatises. Presenting the military camp as a

specialized organization of space and even as the city in embryo, it is worth

transcribing the first paragraph that introduces the subject:

When laying out a camp, everything mentioned in previous books

concerning the planning of cities must be reviewed and considered. For

a camp is like a city in embryo; and you will find that many a city has

been founded on sites chosen by experienced generals for camps.

(Alberti, ed. 10, pp. Rykwert, Leach & Tavernor, 1989: 131).

He goes on to describe the characteristics of each the three types of camp

(temporary, permanent and maritime13), a considerable body of knowledge,

grounded in various Classical literary and historical sources that are mentioned

throughout the text. These include Plato and Aristotle (essential for the concept of

the city); Vitruvius, of course, and Vegetius, alongside names from Classical

historiography, such as Caesar, Straban, Euripides, Herodotus, Pliny, Plutarch,

Polybius14, Thucydides, Varro and Virgil an impressive philological and 12 Layout, dimensions, moat, towers, drawbridges, sentry posts and annexes and even the organization of the interior of the fortress, with water supply and drainage systems (Bk V, Ch. 4 & 5). 13 In the case of the permanent camp, which was circular or square in layout, he goes into detail about the system of ditches, levels, towers, the praetorium (headquarters building), porta quinta (fifth gate), porta decumana (back gate). Then, he describes the siege camp, with its movable turrets and entrenchments, including some notions of tactics. The following chapter is given over to the maritime camp, the fortification of ports and shipbuilding. 14 Polybius, the main codifier of the Roman military camp, is not quoted in that respect, although his name appears occasionally in Books VII and VIII (Alberti, ed. Rykwert, Leach & Tavernor, 1988: 221 and 268).


919

philosophical cast, whose names would subsequently figure routinely in any kind of

treatise.

Alberti expressly quotes Vegetius, but only in relation to ditches (Bk IV, Ch. 3).

However, it is clear that the chapters devoted to the Roman military art of

castrametatio reveal his influence (and that of Polybius), and clearly expound two

important aspects: firstly, the continuous line of transmission of this knowledge, as

Vegetius (Late Roman author and probably Christian) was widely divulged

throughout the Middle Ages; secondly, the demonstration of a fundamental

connection between the fortification and the city through the theme of military camps

and the foundational rites of the city.

There are two essential substrata which demonstrate how two essential

aspects of urban design were linked in the De re aedificatoria: firstly, Albertis

rejection of the drawn model and the closed-town format (a stance that is related to

his political and social conception of the city); secondly, his awareness, as humanist

and scholar, of the existence of an ancient fund of knowledge, according to which

the demarcation and materiality of the urban limit is present at the point of origin, that

is, the moment of founding. However, Albertis interpretation is a modern one in

respect to this, as it takes a historical perspective of the foundation of the

Vitruvian/Roman-Etruscan city. The association between the founding of the city and its fortifications is

ultimately presented as part of an ancient (perhaps even primordial, and therefore

permanent) cultural fund, which is updated in each period in accordance with political

circumstances and the technology available. This fund was expertly explained in

Joseph Rykwerts, The Idea of a Town (1976/1999). Differences between the notions

of the Etruscan urbs, Latin civitas and Greek polis (as regards their physical,

ritualistic and legal shape, citizenship and social freedom) are brought together by

Alberti into a conceptual and non-morphological unit. Alberti thus explains how to interpret the tradition contained in Vitruvius De

architectura. Referring to Etruscan rituals, and particularly the moment of limitatio, he

explains how the foundation of a city was essentially rooted in the operation of

delimiting a space for protection and territorial belonging, creating a boundary line.

But, paradoxically, when the theme of castrametatio (which Vitruvius excluded) is

inserted into the broad spectrum of architecture, it coincides with his urban analogy.

That is to say, the military camp is perceived as a mobile city, which makes it explicit

that the city may dispense with the wall, but not with the limit and the order. Thus, the

wall constitutes the materialization of a foundational limit.


1019

4 Vitruvius and the gromatic tradition

Vitruvius De architectura, the ancient prototype of the architecture treatise and the

disciplines foundational text, was not totally unknown in the Medieval period15.

However, in the Renaissance, it was subjected to detailed exegesis and became a

source text of architectural knowledge, inspiring the De re aedificatoria, which

presented itself as a modern treatise (indeed, the first printed edition of De

architectura coincided with the publication of De re aedificatoria in 148616). Of

course, the development of the printing press and techniques of illustration

contributed to significantly expand the study of Vitruvius as a basis for the learning of

architecture. Despite the complexity (and obscurity) of Vitruvius text, it was very widely

diffused, translated and commented upon as it contained the foundational principles

of urban planning. These principles incorporate and summarize previous traditions,

and were still relevant, particularly as regards the choice of site, delimitation of

boundary or perimeter, the wall as material element of demarcation and as

fortification, and the organization of the layout around a central point. These aspects

are, therefore, almost timeless, and featured in various periods, mostly in connection

with ancient cosmogonic representations17. Despite this, they have always included

the delimitation-foundation of any city, and although more systematized in modern

town planning, are undoubtedly present in what has conventionally been called the

ideal city and in the military city of the fortification treatises.

Right away, in Book I of De architectura, the basic principles of the discipline

are laid out, along with the knowledge necessary for the profession of architect,

described in the chapters devoted to the city. Chapter 4 is dedicated to the salubrity

of the site, while Chapter 5 focuses on the construction of walls, towers and

15 The Vitruvian codices are all Medieval. See Pagliara (1986: 14-15) on the incorporation of Vitruvian knowledge into Medieval writings, such as in Isidore of Seville or even St Augustine. 16 It may have been printed in Rome in the summer of 1486 (Carpo, 1998/ 2001:152), although commentators do not agree about the first printed editions of Vitruvius text. Pagliara (1986: 32), for example, dates the Sulpicio edition between 1486 and 1492. The most important editions are: first illustrated edition, still in Latin, published by Fra (Giovanni) Giocondo (Venice, 1511); first translation into the vernacular, also illustrated, by Cesare Cesariano (Como, 1521) and soon afterwards the translation by Giovan Battista Caporali (Peruggia, 1536). The translation with commentaries by Daniele Barbaro, illustrated by Andrea Palladio (Venice, 1556), appeared in another cultural context. 17 Both Western and Eastern representations, a subject broached by Giuseppe Muratore (1975/1980) and also explored in some depth by Joseph Rykwert (1976/1999) with relation to the Etruscan-Roman legacy.


1119

fortifications, as well as the delimitation of the circular perimeter wall, from which the

urban perimeter is deduced. Chapter 6 of this first book deals with the disposition of squares and streets

inside the walls. After defining the walls, the inner surface is marked out, oriented

around a central point in accordance with the four cardinal points of the compass

and marked using the gnomon. This would have involved, firstly, tracing the

circumference, which was then divided into equal parts corresponding to the

directions of the eight main winds, forming an octagon shape. There is, therefore, an ambiguity, caused by verbal and visual omission,

between a radial and square-shaped layout within the walls. The outline of the

squares and streets is aligned by indicating the angles between the two wind zones,

and then the divisions-directions of streets are drawn in, and the squares accurately

situated. The site of the forum also had to be carefully chosen, near the seaport or in

the centre of the city. It was this ambiguity in the layout option that commentators-

illustrators felt the need to resolve, an ambiguity present in the very terms of the text

and which aroused great interpretative passion (Morolli, 1986/1988: 301-302). Despite the fact that none of the original drawings have survived, Vitruvius

refers to figures which would have accompanied the text (schemata). In fact, a

problem persists about the presence and significance of the diagrams in De

architectura. There is little consensus regarding on this subject (Gros, 1981/1988:

57-59), beyond the fact that written reference is made to it and that they appear to

have been largely geometric diagrams concerning the winds and town layout. That is

to say, they were schemas and not architectural designs, as Mario Carpo explains

(1998/2001: 19 onwards.). Underlying this were the demands of the rhetorical

method, according to which communication was assured through rigorous rule-

bound verbal discourse and diffused through oral and handwritten reproduction,

where an image could be described in words, but not copied with precision. The Renaissance interpreters of Vitruvius tried to reconstruct the text and

illustrations, and fix them in drawings. But before embarking on this issue, it is

important to highlight some aspects that were prior to these and which are related to

the significance of the wind rose diagram and the main lines of the urban layout.

For one, it is significant that, during the process of textual transmission through

medieval codices, there is one case that includes a wind diagram (Pagliara, 1986:

22-23). This contains the so-called Vitruvian octagon, which is explained and also

drawn in the Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum (Ibidem: 14). Therefore, the terms

in which Vitruvius based his city is unequivocally and explicitly gromatic.


1219

Secondly, the gromatic legacy in the Roman era also brought with it an earlier

fund, particularly a set of ritualistic procedures of Etruscan origin, archetypal in

nature. The Etruscan ritual of inauguratio involved tracing a diagram in the ground

whose form consisted basically of a circle with a cross-shape inside it, which could

be identified as the umbilicus of the place. This was the principle of the groma or

gnomon which Vitrivius wrote about, though without mentioning the cardo and

decumanus, documented only by the gromatici or land surveyors, responsible for a

document fund that will be mentioned again below in the context of castrametatio

or the geometric principle of marking the central point and four main solar-

cosmogonic directions. This cross-shaped form is repeated or amplified in the Etruscan ritual of

limitatio, the definition of the urban limits or perimeter through a plough furrow18.

Alberti was fully aware of this. Rykwert (1976/1999: 45-47) observed the coincidence

of the words used in the foundational rituals and procedures of the gromatici, a

connection confirmed by Martines (1976). These religious rituals and land-surveying

procedures became effective through design, whether through the cross-shape at

the centre or the outline of the perimeter furrowing the terrain. The transformative

power of design lies in the act of delimitation, the demarcation of space that

becomes territory19. This is not a normative matter but a question of the abstract and

symbolic organization of the world, whose realisation implies the use of astronomical

knowledge, however elementary this might have been. The essentiality of the limit (limes) and the act of delimiting raises another

point and a question. The point is that it was mentally and physically manifested in

the protective wall, while the question resides in the morphological interpretation of

the cross-shaped diagram. The axial cross may not necessarily imply a circular or

square-shaped perimeter; for to be squared may not mean the shape of a square but

rather division into four parts. In fact, when Vitruvius text was first typeset (the

princeps edition of 1486-1492), the wind rose as basic scheme of urban layout was

the only illustration (Pagliara,1986: 22-23).

18 From the Classical authors, it would seem that the root of the word urbs may have derived from urvum or urvo (i.e. the curved furrow of the plough); another possibility is that it derives from orbis, which meant the globe or sphere of the world (Rykwert, 1976/1999: 134 and 223). In either case, it is evident that there was a connection between the city and the notion of demarcation and orientation of/in territory. 19 The augurs act in drawing his diagram on the ground changed the earth he touched from anywhere to this unique and only place. (Rykwert, 1976/1999: 89).


1319

The first illustrated edition, that of Fra Giocondo (1511), included in Book I four

diagrams related to urban implantation: one with the winds inscribed in a quarter

circle; a second with a referential octagon; a third forming a double referential

octagon, centred using the gnomon and with indication of radial schema; and finally,

the figure with De electione locorum ad usum comune civitatis, a superimposition of

the wind octagon on a square that exceeds it, in order to define the angulation of

roads. The Cesariano and Barbaro editions (of 1521 and 1556 respectively) adapted

the radial and grid schemes inserted into the octagon, which could be interpreted as

the perimeter or as merely the starting point for the plan. Indeed, in both Fra

Giocondo and Daniele Barbaro (the most rigorous interpreter), the definition of the

layout is left open, inscribing it only in a long interpretative chain which brings

together the octagonal perimeter form with the road grid. This was less influenced by

what Vitruvius effectively wrote than by the weight of Roman castrametation, about

which texts also survive.

5 Castrametation and land surveying

Castrametatio is a technical term in Latin, made up of the word castra, meaning

military camp (castrum), and metor (delimitation or measurement). Thus, it referred

to the procedures necessary for the implantation of the castrum, carried out by land

surveyors or gromatici. The rules regarding this operation were transmitted by

various sources, although in reality archaeology has shown a normal and reasonable

degree of irregularity when these were adapted to the terrain. The terms gromaticus,

metator and mensor seem to have been used differently by different sources20. The connections between castrametation and land surveying have long been

established, both within the Roman written tradition itself and in the complex chain of

subsequent transmission. Similar methods were used, with similar meanings, for the

division of territorium, ritual founding of the city and demarcation of the military

camp. They were all based on the delimiting power of the design on the ground and

shared the ancestral meaning of the Etruscan limitatio, as mentioned earlier.

Therefore, the perception, rooted in Polybius, that the city was mirrored in the 20 Philologists have pointed out the relative rarity of the term gromaticus, and the lack of any clear distinction between the role of the metator (who chose the site for the camp) and the mensor (who measured out and delimited the terrain). The distinction between them is based upon a late source, namely Vegetius (Bk II, Ch. 8), cf. Lenoir, ed. Pseudo-Hygin, 1979: 116-117.


1419

ephemeral military camp is logical, since the aim was indeed to simulate the

inhabited city. In fact, given the dangers involved, the stationing of an army always

implied the ritual establishment of the encampment21. Moreover, the procedures used in castrametation seemed to provide a

condensed set of ready-to-use rules that could be applied to town planning in any

situation. These range from the choice of site to the definition of the form of the

perimeter and respective defences (moat or wall), the road network distributed in

accordance with the intersection at right angles of a cardo / decumanus, and the

organization of the housing units. In fact, underlying the whole concept of the Roman military camp were the

basic tenets of Roman town planning: the delimitation of a square; the regular

format; the principles of axiality and orthogonality in the layout, and the intersection

of the four main axes in the area of the praetorium (the equivalent of the forum, in its

ideal centrality, as the Latin terms make clear). Indeed, there is rare historiographical

unanimity as regards the close connections between castrametation and town

planning, and their sharing of a common spatial conception.

However, on this subject, it is important to know which classical authorities

were used, as there are substantial variations between them as regards content and

meanings. The historicity of those sources not completely visible in the 15th and

16th centuries should also be borne in mind. With regards to castrametation, the

main sources are undoubtedly the texts of Polybius (c. 203 BC 120 AD),

particularly the description contained in Book VI of the Storiae22. This is the most

complete ancient source, written by a Greek author with great experience of the

politics of the Roman expansion. However, it is quite elaborate and sheds no light on

the origins of the rules of castrametatio. As Rykwert (1976/1999: 69, 88) noted, that

origin is obscure and its supposed relationship to the Greek tradition of the

orthogonal (hypodamic) plan has not been completely clarified. More importantly for

the modern context is the fact that Polybius explicitly draws an analogy between the

military encampment and urban layout (transl. Weil & Nicolet, 1977: 106, 109) in 21 The first act was the ceremonial implantation of the praetorium, marked by plunging the generals standard into the ground. All the other procedures were similar to those described by the gromatici. The groma in the camp, like the foundation of the city, was inscribed in a site chosen auspiciously; cf. Rykwert (1976/1999: 68-69), who draws upon Polybius and Hyginus Gromaticus (in fact, the book on castramentation by the so-called pseudo-Hyginus; ed. Lenoir, 1979: 6). 22 Storiae, Book VI, Chapters 26-42, ed. Raymond Weil & Claude Nicolet, 1977, translated from the Greek. First printed edition by Giovanni Lascaris, Venice, 1529, in Latin and Greek; first translation into French, Paris, 1545; first in Italian Polibio del modo daccampare tradotto di greco per M. Philippo Strozzi, Florence, 1552.


1519

terms that justify its repetition by modern authors, starting with the military art of

Machiavelli (1521).

Other Classical authorities on castrametation have been shown to have been

involved in the production of written rules of land surveying. The famous Corpus

agrimensorum romanorum23 includes contributions from Frontinus, Hyginus and

Hyginus Gromaticus, demonstrating just how standardised was the procedure of

marking a centre that contains the four cardinal points. Indeed, this pattern is also

observable in Vitruvius and Polybius and is confirmed in this text, which was the

most important group of technical texts on land surveying. Moreover, some of the

illustrations, drawings and schematic diagrams given in more than one manuscript

confirm this sharing of principles (cf. Dilke,1971).

But, in addition to the more elementary procedures of land division, this

documental corpus does not in itself supply any specification relative to military

encampments, nor even the demarcation of the adjacent territory (territoria legionis),

used exclusively by the army for pasture and military exercises. The oldest manuscript in the Corpus agrimensorum romanorum includes a text

about military encampments, attributed to Hyginus (a third Hyginus or, as sometimes

called, the pseudo-Hyginus), which acquired the title De munitionibus castrorum, and

this might reflect the close relationship between the military encampment and land

surveying, as transmitted through various manuscripts down to the 16th century.

From a later date than Polybius, this fragmentary and somewhat confused text uses

a different method for defining the camp, and the reiterated metaphorical analogy

between camp and city is notably absent. In fact, it is probably these differences with

regard to Polybius that dictated the fact that less attention was given to it. Indeed, it

was only printed in 1607 in a collection of texts dealing with the military arts, and

only began to be compared with the Polybian encampment at the end of the 17th

century (ed. Maurice Lenoir, 1979: XXIII). We should stress once more the continuity in the line of transmission of

knowledge throughout the medieval period, despite the fragmentary nature of some

texts and the many additions. Hence, there was no radical new discovery or

recovery in the Renaissance of either the texts on re militari or specifically about

castrametatio. This is something to be taken into account, as the association 23 On the content and nature of this complex group of codices, see the study by Castillo Pascual, 1996. Hyginus and Hyginus Gromaticus are two different personalities, which has often caused errors of attribution. The most well-known is Hyginus Gromaticus, who best described the division of space using the groma and the four geographic directions. The publication of the printed edition of Corpus agrimensorum romanorum was a long and problematic process, although the first complete edition of the codices dates from 1554.


1619

between castrametation, land surveying and town planning constitutes a

contemporary methodological reading, although an interesting conceptual nexus. Though the association of the printing press with humanistic culture meant that

Classical sources were now being divulged on a whole new scale, we should bear in

mind that this reinterpretation of the classics resulted from a selection of materials,

where some texts were more privileged than others. So while 16th century

castrametation did not represent any novelty or even practical operability beyond the

strict implantation of military camps; while the bond with the city was not at all

original, it nevertheless continued to arouse interest, even in Albertis treatise De re

aedificatoria, which, as we have seen, reveals a consciousness of its debt to the

Classical legacy with regard to the procedures used.

6 The urban limit: city and camp

An attraction for military design in town planning is detectable in the work of some

Renaissance architectural treatise writers, such as Serlio, Palladio and Cataneo.

Serlios interest in castrametation24 is that of the antiquarian and civil architect (Fiore,

2004: 212). Based on Polybius, his manuscript (an assumedly creative exercise)

suggests variations on the theme, resulting in an authentic proposal for urban

planning: a closed city, regular and classical. This text contrasts an interpretation of

the Polybian encampment with an exercise in ambiguous urban design, where the

classical military base supports a modern city allantica. This symbolic approach to

the military theme is also visible in Palladios illustrated translation of Julius Caesars

Commentaries 25, the title of which reveals that his interest in the subject is primarily

historical. The case of Pietro Cataneo is somewhat different. Despite ignoring the subject

in the 1554 edition of his treatise, he later deemed it necessary to add to three short

chapters on military camps to the first book (ed. Bassi & Mariani, 1985: 250-258). 24 Entitled Della castrametatione di Polibio ridutta in una citadella murata per Sebastiano Serlio bolognese, sometimes known as Book VIII; this was probably produced in France around 1546 and was conserved in manuscript form until very recently: ed. F. P. Fiore & T. Carunchio (1994). Architettura civile. Libri sesto, settimo e ottavo nei manoscritti di Monaco e Vienna. Milano, Il Polifilo; ed. V. Hart & P. Hicks (2001), Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture. Books VI and VII with Castrametation of the Romans and The Extraordinary Books of Doors. New Haven - London, Yale University Press, vol. II, pp. 387-512. 25 I commentari di C. Giulio Cesare, con le figure in rame de gli alloggiamenti, de' fatti d'arme Venetia, 1575.


1719

His concern, however, was defensive, and the urban analogy is absent; indeed, he

focuses on the differences between ancient castrametation and the modern way of

lodging armies26. However, he nevertheless offers a brief stylized diagram of the

modern camp as urban synthesis. This consists of a square-shaped perimeter with

an open space at the centre, containing the emperors (commandants) pavilion,

which was divided into four parts, each with its own smaller central square. In fact, this interest in castrametation on the part of Renaissance architects

and scholars seems to illustrate their general taste for humanistic culture, combined

with the continuing prestige of the military in society. In practice, the design of

military camps gradually modified in accordance with technical advances and

changing political circumstances. However, given the incorporation of Classical

urbanistic principles, which thus continued to be diffused in educated circles,

castrametation continued to play a part in military culture and training. Indeed,

training in it practically equipped the educated soldier with the skills needed to

design built structures of any scale and in any kind of terrain. In a broader time frame, castrametation (a Classical practice that offered no

innovations) continued to be relevant as a kind of basic course in town planning,

surviving as the first proposal the military city. In fact, the city was almost reduced to

the condition of a military camp in the treatises and fortification manuals produced

between the 15th and 18th centuries. This can probably be understood not only on

the level of the military defence network but also as theory or metaphor, constituting

a kind of exercise in design that insists on recreating the founding notion of a

regulated and defended (and therefore delimited) urban settlement. As described above, the subject of wall and city, centre and limit, is a very

ancient one (archetypal even), which has a paradox at its root. That is to say, the

limit is transformed into a boundary, whose very existence only makes sense in

opposition to the gate, the point of opening and crossing. While the city as civitas

cohabits uneasily with militia, as a total lack of permeability makes it unviable, its

connections with the camp clearly reveal the need for order in the design of the

urban layout. Classical town planning, which survived, with military overtones, into

the modern age, required a limit (with or without walls) that could constitute not only

a safe perimeter, but also a link of territorial belonging, a limit that is not so much a

means of social segregation as a line of demarcation that orients and consecrates

culturally-appropriated humanized space. 26 For this, he presents first De la castrametatione over figura antica del campo deRomani, which is obviously based on Polybius, though it also quotes Livy. But he warns that, due to the impact of the modern artillery, he will concentrate upon contemporary camps (Forma di castro secondo luso doggi), taking as an example the camps used in the wars of Charles V.


1819

References ALBERTI, Leon Battista, ed. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach e Robert Tavernor (1485 1486/1988), On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. BRUNETTI, Fabrizio (1986/1988), La difesa della citt secondo il trattado albertiano, Architettura Militare nell Europa del XVI Secolo, ed. A. Cresti, A. Fara e D. Lamberini. Siena, Edizioni Periccioli, pp. 391-398. CARPO, Mario (1998/2001), Architecture in the Age of Printing. Orality, Writing, Typography and Printed Images in the History of Architecture Theory. Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. CASTILLO PASCUAL, Maria Jos (1996), Espacio en orden. El modelo gromtico-romano de ordenacin del territorio. Logroo, Universidad de la Rioja. CATANEO Senese, Pietro (1567), L'Architettura di Pietro Cataneo Senese. Alla quale oltre all' essere stati dall' istesso autore rivisti.... Venetia, Paolo Manuzio. CATANEO, Pietro, et al., ed. Elena Bassi, Paola Marini et al. (1985), Pietro Cataneo. Milano, Il Polifilo. CHOAY, Franoise (1980), La Rgle et le Modle, Sur la Thorie de l'Architecture et de l'Urbanisme. Paris, Editions du Seuil. CONCEIO, Margarida Tavares da (2008), Da cidade e fortificao em textos portugueses (1540-1640), Doctorate dissertation in Architecture (Theory and History of Architecture), submitted to the Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra. [DESWARTE] Rosa-Deswarte, Sylvie, ed. (2004), Sebastiano Serlio Lyon: architecture et imprimerie. Le trait d'architecture de Sebastiano Serlio, une grande enterprise ditorial au XVIe sicle. s.l., Mmoire Active, vol. I. DILKE, Oswald Ashton Wentworth (1971).The Roman land surveyors: an introduction to the Agrimensores. Nova Iorque, Barnes & Noble. FIORE, Francesco Paolo (2004), La Castrametatio (appele Livre VIII). L architecture de Sebastiano Serlio et la Castramtation des Romains selon Polybe, Sebastiano Serlio Lyon: architecture et imprimerie..., ed. Sylvie Deswarte. s.l., Mmoire Active, vol. I, pp. 211-223. GROS, Pierre (1981/1988), Vitruve et les ordres, Les Traits dArchitecture de la Renaissance, ed. Jean Guillaume. Paris, Picard. GUILLAUME, Jean, ed. (1981/1988), Les Traits d'Architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du Colloque tenu Tours 1981. Tours, Picard. HART, Vaugham e HICKS, Peter, ed. (1998), Paper palaces. The rise of the Renaissance architectural treatise. New Haven - London, Yale University Press.


1919

[HYGIN] PSEUDO-HYGIN, ed. Maurice Lenoir (1979), Des fortifications du camp [De munitionibus castrorum]. Paris, Les Belles Lettres. MACHIAVELLI, Niccol (1521/1551), Libro della arte della guerra.... Firenza, per li Giunti. MARTINES, Giangiacomo (1976), Hygino Gromatico: fonti iconografiche antiche per la ricostruzione rinascimentale della citt vitruviana, Ricerche di Storia dell Arte. Roma, Bulzoni Editore, n 1-2. MOROLLI, Gabriele (1986/1988), Vitruvio e la citt dei venti regolari. Istituzioni e invenzioni della forma urbana nel De Architectura e nell esegesi degli interpreti classicistici del tratttado, Architettura Militare nell Europa del XVI Secolo, ed. A. Cresti, A. Fara e D. Lamberini. Siena, Edizioni Periccioli, pp. 299-333. MURATORE, Giorgio (1975/1980), La Ciudad Renascentista. Tipos y Modelos a travs de los Tratados. Madrid, Instituto de Estudios de Administracin Local. PAGLIARA, Pier Nicola (1986), Vitruvio da testo a canone, La Memoria dell' Antico nell' Arte Italiana, ed. Salvatore Settis. Turim, Einaudi, vol. III, pp. 5-85. PATETTA, Luciano (2004), Disegni per il De re aedificatoria di Leon Battista Alberti, Il Disegno di Architettura, Notizie su Studi, Ricerche, Archivi e Collezioni Pubbliche e Private. Milano, Edizioni Unicopli, n 28. [POLYBIUS] POLYBE, ed. Raymond Weil e Claude Nicolet (1977), Histoires, Livre VI. Paris, Les Belles Lettres. RYKWERT, Joseph (1976/1999), The Idea of a Town. The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World. Cambridge MA, The MIT Press.

Documents

1097 MTC Fortified City in Alberti Ghent 2010