In his Premier tome de l’architecture (1567) — the first original,
comprehensive architectural treatise written by a French author —
Philibert Delorme (c. 1514–1570) claims to be the first to formulate a
theory of divine proportions, which he describes as a set of rules recorded in
the Old Testament as directly dictated by God to men for the construction of the
Ark of Noah, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Temple and House of Solomon. Yet
the author does not develop the theory of divine proportions in the
Premier tome and postpones it instead to the second volume
of his treatise. As a second volume was never published (and likely never
written), Delorme readers are left with a handful of less-than-coherent
references and illustrations of a theory that remains largely obscure. Yet the
elements of theory of divine proportions contained in the Premier
tome provide historians with an understanding of the genesis of the
treatise itself, thus ultimately helping to raise broader questions about the
book and its author. This paper shows how Delorme’s divine proportions
offer a key to understanding the conception and composition of his treatise as
well as to the process of intellectual development of the author and the changes
in the nature and scope of his written work.
Philibert Delorme’s Premier tome de l’architecture (1567), the first original, comprehensive
architectural treatise written by a French author, opens with a sobering critique of the
author’s own built oeuvre:
I honestly confess that the palaces, châteaux, churches and houses built so far
according to my designs seem like nothing to me, even though they are appreciated by
many and their proportions follow the art of the true architecture of men. These
works seem like nothing to me when I compare them to the divine proportions that
came from heaven and to those of the human body. So much so that if these works had
to be built again, I would provide them with much more dignity and excellence than
people find in them nowadays. (Delorme 1567: f.
4v)1
Readers are thus confronted with a confession of architectural repentance of a
particularly bewildering sort, for not only were, and are, Delorme’s buildings
regarded as masterpieces (it will suffice to mention the Château d’Anet and
the Tuileries Palace), but Delorme himself is better known for the arrogance that earned
him countless enemies at the court of King Henri II than for the unassuming modesty
conveyed by this passage. Delorme’s statement is also peculiar for the distinction
it draws between the proportional rules of ‘the true architecture of
men,’ which he claims to have applied to all his works, and a higher,
God-given set of rules — the divine proportions he would use
instead if given a chance to redesign the same buildings.
Divine proportions, Delorme explains in the same foreword to the reader, are those
recorded in the Old Testament as directly dictated by God to men for the construction of
the Ark of Noah, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Temple and House of Solomon (f. 4v).
The author also claims to be the first to formulate a theory of divine proportions when
he declares his surprise that these ‘have not been known, studied, nor put into
practice neither by ancient nor modern architects’ (f. 4v).2 Then, much to the readers’ disillusionment, Delorme
announces that the Premier tome will contain no in-depth discussion of
this groundbreaking theory. Instead, and as its title indicates, the Premier
tome will be followed by a second volume dedicated to this matter (f.
3v–4).
Yet the Second tome de l’architecture never appeared. Delorme died
in January 1570, a little more than two years after the Premier tome
was published (in November 1567), leaving no trace
of the theoretical works he announced as forthcoming or mentioned as future projects in
the Premier tome.3 To this day, no
manuscript has been associated with any of these projects, nor is there evidence that
Delorme actually started working on any of them. Moreover, Delorme’s theory of
divine proportions cannot be inferred from his buildings, for not only have most of
these since been destroyed but, as the architect’s confession cited above warns
us, none of them were designed according to those rules. Therefore, the only available
source for Delorme’s theory of divine proportions is the handful of references and
illustrations found in the Premier tome.
While Delorme’s theory of divine proportions remains largely obscure in the scant,
less-than-coherent references contained in the Premier tome and in the
absence of the Second tome, it is nonetheless central to the
architect’s theoretical work and our reading of it: first, because Delorme
repeatedly says so, and therefore the theory of divine proportions can shed light on his
ambitions as a theoretician; and second, because the way Delorme deals with proportions,
both divine and non-divine, provides historians with an understanding of the genesis of
the treatise itself, thus ultimately helping to raise broader questions about the
treatise and its author. In this paper I will show how the theory of divine proportions
offers a key to understanding the conception and composition of Delorme’s
Architecture as well as to the process of intellectual development
of its author and the changes in the nature and scope of his written work.
Divine proportions in the Premier tome
The references to divine proportions in the Premier tome consist of
twelve images (about six percent of the 205 woodcuts that illustrate the treatise)
and three short passages in which Delorme provides the numerical keys for their
interpretation. The images are divided into two sets: the first seven illustrate
components of the orders (as in figs. 1 and
7); the remaining five illustrate the
composition of elevations (as in figs. 2, 3, and 8).4 The textual references include
a passage in Book V where, discussing an Ionic entablature, Delorme states that
divine proportions are based on the numbers 3, 6, and 7, their squares, and their
multiples by 2, 3, and 6, which generate the sequence 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 14, 18, 21, 36,
42, 49 (f. 168). In Book VIII, when discussing the composition of entrance
façades, triumphal arches, and doors, he writes that all ratios should be 1:6,
1:7, and 1:10 and then adds that the numbers fundamental to his theory are 2, 3, 6,
7, and 10 (f. 233 and f. 235v).5 Nowhere does
Delorme explain how these numbers are associated with the biblical buildings he has
mentioned in the foreword, nor does he ever specify which numbers or ratios from the
Old Testament he is referring to.
Clockwise from above left: Doric base, capital, and entablature according to
divine proportions. Delorme 1567: f. 139,
140, and 141v.
Elevation according to divine proportions. Delorme 1567: f. 233v.
Church cross section according to divine proportions. Delorme 1567: f. 235.
The Doric order. Delorme 1567: f.
143.
The Doric pedestal according to Vitruvius. Delorme 1567: f. 143v.
The Doric capital of the theatre of Marcellus. Delorme 1567: f. 148v.
The Doric pedestal according to divine proportions. Delorme 1567: f. 144.
Elevation of the Tuscan order according to divine proportions. Delorme 1567: f. 228.
In his 1958 monograph on Philibert Delorme,
Anthony Blunt identifies 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 as the numbers provided by the Old
Testament for the design of the buildings mentioned in the Premier
tome, and suggests that these should be understood as a sequence of
ratios of primes — 1:2, 2:3, 3:5, and 5:7 (Blunt 1958: 127–31). Blunt sees this sequence as consistent with
the third one provided by Delorme, or 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10, as these numbers can be
reduced to 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Disregarding the second of Delorme’s series, or
1:6, 1:7, and 1:10 (probably because this series can be generated by the numbers
provided in the third one), Blunt concludes that the architect was in fact working
with only two series of divine numbers: 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 18, 21, 36, 42, 49, and
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Blunt thinks of these two series as only ‘slightly’
conflicting with each other and proceeds to show that proportional ratios based on
them could be found in several of the treatise’s illustrations associated with
divine proportions, such as the Doric base, capital, and entablature shown in f.
139–141v (fig. 1), the Composite
elevation of f. 233v (fig. 2), and the church
cross section of f. 235 (fig. 3).
The latter, for instance, is inscribed in a square the side of which is seven units,
the nave width and height (at the vault springs) being in proportion of 5:7, and the
vault on top having a radius of 1.5 units. The aisles are two units wide, their
height at the vault springs (established at the intersection of lines MN and AC) is
7/3 of a unit, which can be reduced to integers as a width-to-height proportion of
6:7, and their vaults have radiuses of one unit. Thus, Blunt concludes, the
illustration contains ratios of 3:5 and 5:7 from the sequence 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and
ratios of 6:7 from the sequence 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 14, 18, 21, 36, 42, and 49, as well
as ratios of 1:2 and 2:3, which belong to both sequences. On the basis of similar
observations, Blunt concludes that Delorme’s proportional system is
‘astonishingly simple’ because ‘everything is reduced to the
simple relations of the first five prime numbers’ (Blunt 1958: 132).
Blunt exaggerates both the simplicity and the consistency of Delorme’s theory
of divine proportions. While Delorme certainly succeeds in reducing his proportions
to simple ratios of integers, if not always prime numbers, and while his modular
grids are very effective in conveying these ratios, his illustrations are far from
consistent with the numeric sequences he provides in the text. Also, the two series
identified by Blunt — 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 14, 18, 21, 36, 42, 49 and 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
— are more than just ‘slightly conflicting,’ for, even reduced,
the first series does not contain number 5. Finally, the abundance of divine numbers
and ratios that Delorme provides, combined with the lack of instructions on how to
apply them, leaves his readers at a loss to understand what distinguishes divine
proportions from ‘the proportions of men.’ Of course, it also leaves
them free to recognize virtually any of those numbers and ratios in virtually any of
the treatise’s illustrations.
What is more, the clarity that Blunt perceives when focusing on the passages dealing
specifically with divine proportions is replaced by a fair amount of complexity, if
not confusion, once the general issue of proportions is considered throughout the
entire treatise. In fact, divine proportions overlap and, to some extent, compete in
the Premier tome with a variety of other recommended principles and
ratios, including the square root of two, the golden rule, harmonic proportions,
proportions inferred from ancient buildings, and proportions found in authoritative
texts, in particular those of Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder. In one instance Delorme
even goes so far as to deny the validity of any general proportion theory, stating
that ‘the proportions, measures and ornaments of columns, as well as many
other architectural matters, cannot be taught with general rules and theories
— they can only be taught with practical examples’ (f. 195).6
This complexity has led Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos to dismiss
Delorme’s theory of divine proportions as ‘neither coherent nor
original’ and to archive the matter as altogether irrelevant to our
understanding of the treatise.7 Of course,
Pérouse de Montclos’s statement is, like Blunt’s, an exaggeration,
albeit one that lies on the opposite side of the spectrum from Blunt’s.
The composition of the Premier tome
Analyses of the Premier tome have thus far been based on the rather
anachronistic assumption that the text went to press the way a scholarly book would
nowadays — that is, ideally, after the author has made sure, among other
things, that its content is coherent. Yet, as cultural historians and historians of
the book have shown, there are substantial differences in the way books have been
conceived, produced, and read across time and cultures.8 Delorme acquired new knowledge and developed new ideas while writing
but, differently from what we might expect, did not remove the traces of that
learning and thinking process from his final text, or at least not all of them. The
elements of proportion theory or theories in the Premier tome
provide readers with valuable insight into its author’s intellectual journey
from what can be described as an initially rough grasp of theoretical matters
detectable in some sections of the treatise to the sophisticated ideas found in
other sections. The key to this journey is found not in the
passages on proportions that are consistent with one another, on which both Blunt
and Pérouse de Montclos have focused, but in the internal contradictions of the
text and in the conflicting statements about proportion theory.
One of the most notable of these inconsistencies is found in Book V, which is
dedicated to the Tuscan, Doric, and Ionic orders, between the prologue and the main
body of the text. In the prologue Delorme states that his source on the different
types of orders and their relative proportions is Pliny the Elder (f. 130v).9 This is a peculiar statement, especially given
that Delorme is writing in the 1560s, a time when a number of new, far more
specialized texts on architecture and the orders had been published and the texts of
Vitruvius and Alberti had been edited, illustrated, and translated into several
languages. Vitruvius’s De architectura was available in the
illustrated editions of Cesariano (1521) and
Barbaro (1556), as well as in the French
translation by Jean Martin (1547). Cosimo Bartoli had illustrated the Italian
edition of Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria in
1550, and Jean Martin had translated it into French in 1553. Sebastiano Serlio’s Book IV on the orders had been
published several times in French since the early 1540s, as had Diego de
Sagredo’s Medidas del Romano (first translated into French in
1536), and Vignola’s
Regola and Jean Bullant’s Reigle had
come out in 1562 and 1564 respectively.10
Delorme’s reference to Pliny becomes more baffling as he expands on it,
writing that ancient architects had identified four orders of columns — Doric,
Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian — and that their proportions grew from the
shortest, the Doric, with a diameter-to-height ratio of 1:6, to the Tuscan, with a
ratio of 1:7, to the slenderest Ionic and Corinthian, with equal ratios of 1:9. No
expert of classical architecture in Delorme’s time would have agreed with this
statement and, after the publication of Serlio’s Book IV and its iconic plate
of the five orders, even amateurs were aware that ancient architects had used not
four but five orders, including the Roman Composite, and that, given the same
diameter, the shortest column was the Tuscan, not the Doric (Serlio 1537: f. 6). Unquestionably, the prologue to Book V
betrays the author’s limited knowledge of theoretical sources, both ancient
and modern, on the orders.
Yet when Delorme begins to describe the orders in detail, in Chapter IV of the same
book, he mentions not four but five orders, adopts Serlio’s canon for both
their proportions and sequence, and cites Vitruvius profusely as his source, showing
a much greater familiarity with the relevant literature on classical orders.11 In fact, with the exception of the prologue,
Book V of the Premier tome is sophisticated with regard to both the
theory of architectural orders and the clear, systematic way in which Delorme
organizes and illustrates his material. In the discussion of the Doric order, for
instance, he first describes and illustrates the components of the order and their
characteristics (as in fig. 4); then he
provides the proportions of each component according to Vitruvius (such as for the
pedestal in fig. 5); and finally he offers a
number of examples from antiquity (e.g., the capital taken from the Theatre of
Marcellus in fig. 6).
Book V is also the first in which Delorme discusses and illustrates divine
proportions, which he juxtaposes to those proportions found in ancient buildings and
those recommended by Vitruvius, as in the example of the Doric pedestal (fig. 7). The author also uses divine proportions to
appropriate elements of theory from various sources without acknowledging them
— as is the case with the base and the capital of the Tuscan order (fig. 1), the proportions of which Delorme takes from
Serlio but presents as ‘divine.’12
In doing so he shows little honesty, perhaps (although citing one’s sources
was not standard practice in sixteenth-century scholarship), but also a level of
familiarity with theoretical sources that is incompatible with the awkward passage
on Pliny from the prologue.13
There is a significant intellectual gap between the prologue to Book V and the body
of Book V — a gap that saw Delorme progress from being a practitioner capable
of employing the classical orders, to a scholar capable of writing a sophisticated
theory of the orders. A gap, also, that saw the theory of divine proportions come
into play in Delorme’s theoretical discourse. And Delorme not only
acknowledges this gap — writing in the errata of the Premier
tome that ‘the discussion of the orders provided [in the prologue
to Book V] follows Pliny, as I have written there. The orders according to Pliny,
though, are not good… as I explain later in the same book’ — but
also locates it in time by stating, in the passage from the foreword to the reader
quoted at the beginning of this essay, that none of his buildings were designed
according to divine proportions (f. 285v).14
Since these buildings include the Tuileries, designed in 1564, both the theory of
divine proportions and the main body of Book V (following the prologue), which
discusses that theory, must date after 1564.
Evidently, the time spent preparing Book V was crucial to Delorme’s theoretical
formation. It is thus reasonable to expect the books following Book V to show a
similar level of theoretical sophistication and to contain further discussions of
divine proportions. Yet this is not the case: not all books from VI to IX contain
discussion of divine proportions, nor are they all as well organized and informed as
Book V. Passages about and illustrations of divine proportions are found in Book VII
on the Composite order (as in fig. 8) and in
Book VIII on façades, triumphal arches, and doors (as in figs. 2 and 3),
but there is nothing about divine proportions in Book VI, on the Corinthian order,
and only a passing mention in Book IX, on fireplaces and chimneys.15 While it is possible that Delorme regarded the
latter as topics unsuited to divine proportions, it is surprising that he does not
mention divine proportions in his discussion of the Corinthian order, which, as a
result, stands out in the treatise as the only order to which he does not apply his
theory.
This is not the only inconsistency between Book VI and the other books on the orders;
in Book VI, Delorme is also less systematic in presenting his material. Instead of
offering his readers parallel examples of architectural components according to
Vitruvius, his own theory, and antiquity (as he does in Book V), in Book VI Delorme
lets antiquity speak for itself. After a brief introduction on the origins of the
Corinthian order, the book is entirely dedicated to ancient monuments and ruins, as
are 23 of its 27 illustrations (that is, eighty five percent). The book is less a
theoretical essay than it is a collection of exempla. It is not
surprising, then, to find in Book VI the above-quoted passage questioning the
validity of any general theory of proportions: in that passage Delorme states that
the proportions of columns can be taught only through practical examples, and that
is precisely what he offers his readers in this book.16 Book VI also appears to be the least learned of the books dedicated
to the orders, measured in terms of citation of sources on architectural theory.
Their respective lengths taken into account, Book VI contains less than half the
citations contained in Book VII and less than a third of those contained in Book
V.17 In terms of design and visual
organization of material, Book VI is also significantly less systematic than both
Book VIII and Book IX, in which Delorme borrows Serlio’s and Vignola’s
compelling juxtaposition of full-page illustrations and texts (as in fig. 9).
Corinthian door. Delorme 1567: f.
245v–46.
These inconsistencies suggest that Book VI was written before Book V, Book VII, and
Book VIII — all of which deal with divine proportions and must date after
1564. It is clear that the composition of Book V and the year 1564 mark a moment of
significant change in Delorme’s approach to theory. Yet we cannot appreciate
the impact of that change over the entire treatise because we do not know which
books were written before Book V and which after.
Most probably, Delorme started writing after the death of Henri II (July 1559), when
he lost his position as surveyor of the royal works. His first treatise,
Nouvelles inventions pour bien bastir et à petits fraiz,
was published in 1561, which suggests that
work on the Premier tome must have been carried out between 1561 and 1567. Delorme confirms this hypothesis in the prologue to Book IX, where
he mentions ‘the effort and the fatigue sustained during six
subsequent years and more, for both the conception and the design of
the illustrations of the present work and their demonstrations and
explanations’ (f. 259; my emphasis).18
Delorme scholars have assumed that the treatise was written in the order in which
the books are numbered. However, internal evidence shows not only that Delorme
worked on different books at different times but also that he reworked parts of
certain books at different moments. Book I, for instance, was written at a time when
Delorme still thought he would include the Nouvelles inventions in
the Premier tome as a final section on carpentry, an idea that he
later abandoned (Delorme 1567: f. 29v).19 Yet, in chapters VII and VIII of the same
book, the author mentions the ongoing construction works at the Château of
Saint-Maur and at the Tuileries Palace (f. 17 and f. 20). These references, meant to
flatter Catherine de’ Medici to whom the treatise was dedicated, can only be
additions inserted shortly before the treatise went to press.20
Contradictory statements on proportions, or conflicting theories of proportions,
provide evidence about the order in which the Premier tome was
written because they are isolated from each other — that is, the relevant
inconsistencies are never found within the same book. Divine proportions are
discussed only in Books V, VII, and VIII and they are announced, along with the
second volume of the treatise, in the dedication to Catherine de’ Medici, in
the foreword to the reader, in Book IX, and in the conclusion to the treatise, all
of which were written shortly before the treatise went to press; there is no mention
of them anywhere else in the text.21 Books III
and IV, meanwhile, contain no references to proportions, divine or not. Statements
conflicting with the theory of divine proportions — or with theory
tout court — are found only in Books I, II, and VI. In
Book I, which deals with the role of the architect, his relation with the patron,
and the choice of site for building, Delorme writes that, throughout the treatise,
he will use illustrations of the buildings he has designed in order to show how
‘to proceed without fault in the composition, ornaments, and measures of
architecture’ (Delorme 1567: f.
7v).22 This statement stands in
stark contradiction to the passage from the foreword to the reader, cited at the
beginning of this paper, in which Delorme declares that, given the possibility, he
would redesign all of his buildings according to divine proportions. In Book II,
which is dedicated to the construction of foundations, Delorme cites the golden rule
and the square root of two as proportional rules, among others, and Book VI on the
Corinthian order contains the above-mentioned statement questioning the validity of
general proportion theories (Delorme 1567: f.
31v).23 Books I and II also share
with Book VI a comparatively low number of references to theoretical sources, both
ancient and modern, even though their respective topics (the role of the architect
and the construction of foundations) had been treated extensively by previous
authors.24
The inconsistencies analyzed here provide a more complex picture of Delorme’s
book than allowed thus far. In particular, they show that the Premier
tome is not just the first half of an incomplete treatise, but is also
a book composed of two distinct sections marked by stark contrasts and most probably
separated, in their conception and writing, by a considerable amount of time: a
first section in which the author shows a limited acquaintance with textual sources
and a rather tentative approach to theory, namely, Books I and II, the prologue to
Book V, and Book VI; and a second section in which he shows an advanced mastery of
the same material, namely, Books V, VII, and VIII. Most likely, Delorme started
working with the material he was most familiar with — the profession of the
architect (Book I), the basics of geometry and construction (Book II), stereotomy
and vaulting (Books III and IV) — and then moved on to the orders, starting
with the Corinthian order in Book VI, at which point he realized that there was a
significant difference between making architecture, which of course he knew very
well how to do, and writing a theory of architecture, which he was only partially
prepared to do. However, by the time he approached the main body of Book V, and all
of Books VII and VIII — that is, after 1564 — the skillful practitioner
had also become a sophisticated theoretician. His statements about proportion theory
are the clearest (though not the only) marker of this decisive transformation.
The conception of the Architecture
The change in Delorme’s approach to sources and organization of material and,
ultimately, in his ability to compose a coherent theory of architecture, was
accompanied by significant change in how the author conceived of his book.
Historians have not given much thought to this matter, generally assuming that the
Premier tome had always been intended as the first part of a
treatise in two volumes. Pérouse de Montclos, for instance, writes that the
discussion and illustration of divine proportions was intended exclusively for the
Second tome and that the reason they appear in the
Premier is that ‘the closer Delorme was to finishing [the
Premier tome], the closer he felt to his own death’
— in other words, that in anticipation of dying soon and not being able to
complete his work, Delorme changed the plan of his first volume by inserting some of
the material he had already prepared for the second one (Pérouse de Montclos 1988: 8).
Yet when the Premier tome came out, Delorme was a little over fifty
years old and, aside from a comment on his diminished sight, nothing in his writings
points to poor health or a life-threatening condition. The illness that ultimately
caused his death became debilitating only in the fall of 1569, when he had to be
replaced by Jean Bullant in directing the works at the Tuileries Palace. Thus,
nothing validates the hypothesis that Delorme changed his plans for the
Premier tome because he knew he would not see the publication
of the Second tome. In fact, the opposite seems to be true: the
project of a second volume developed only during the writing of the first one.
As it stands, the Premier tome is not a manifestly incomplete
treatise of architecture. The distribution of material throughout the nine books is
balanced with regard to the number of pages and number of illustrations (fig. 10), and the organization of content follows a
clear and original logic that sees Delorme constructing the treatise the same way
one would construct a building: Book I introduces the architect, the patron, and
other professional figures participating in the venture, and discusses the choice of
site and orientation of the building; Book II deals with the construction of
foundations and the geometrical and design tools necessary to trace them; Books III
and IV focus on stone masonry — walls and their openings, vaults, and
staircases — and stereotomy, the art of cutting three-dimensional solids into
particular shapes in order to build those masonries; Books V, VI, and VII deal with
the orders and the decorative aspects of architecture; Book VIII is about the
composition of façades and monumental entrances and doors; and Book IX deals
with fireplaces and chimneys. The Premier tome is constructed much
like an actual building that grows from ground to roof before the eyes of its
reader.
Author, Distribution of text and illustrations in Delorme 1567; the y-axis numbers represent pages.
Delorme’s 1561 treatise,
Nouvelles inventions pour bien bastir et à petits fraiz,
dedicated to the carpentry of ceilings and roofs, was the logical complement to such
a building, so it is not surprising that Delorme initially thought to republish the
Nouvelles inventions at the end of the Premier
tome, as he announced he would in Book I (and as his editors did from
the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries).25 In Books VIII and IX the author specifies that, before abandoning
this idea altogether, he had considered ‘revising [the Nouvelles
inventions], adding a third book and new illustrations,’ and
using this new version of his first treatise as the final section of the
Premier tome (f. 231v and f. 259v).26 This remark shows that Delorme had significant second
thoughts about the final content of the Premier tome — even
with regard to material that had already been published — while he was writing
it.
The author’s references to the Second tome all lead to similar
conclusions: not only was Delorme undecided about the content of both the first and
second volumes, but the idea itself of a second volume only came to him during the
drafting of the first one. Mentions of the forthcoming Second tome
are found in several books of the Premier, but not all of them.
Aside from the dedication to Catherine de’ Medici, the foreword to the reader,
and the conclusion to the treatise (all of which were written shortly before the
book went to press), only Books V, VII, VIII, and IX refer to the content of the
Second tome, whereas Books I, II, III, IV, and VI make no
mention of it. If Delorme had planned from the beginning to write a treatise in two
volumes, then the only reasonable explanation for him not to refer to the
Second tome in five out of nine books of the Premier
tome would be that he saw the content of those five books as having
little or nothing to do with it. Yet the topics listed by Delorme as intended to be
fully developed in the Second tome — including the theory of
divine proportions, an essay on perspective, models of religious and residential
buildings, and illustrations of his own work — are not as foreign to the
material covered in those five books as this hypothesis implies.27 For example, Delorme could have anticipated divine
proportions when writing about the Corinthian order in Book VI (indeed, as discussed
above, it is rather surprising that he did not) and, similarly, it would have been
appropriate for him to have announced an essay on perspective when writing about
stereotomy in Books III and IV (stereotomy being a technique relating to
two-dimensional representation of complex three-dimensional objects). As for
architectural models and the architect’s own work, these topics could have fit
into any of the books, as the Premier tome is, in essence, a
treatise conceived around the practical, personal experience of its author. Indeed,
Delorme would go on to correct these missed references in the errata at the end of
the volume: for a Book III passage on baths, in which he had promised a further
development ‘below,’ he notes, ‘[I]nstead of
below, read in the Second tome’ (my
emphasis); he likewise uses the errata to postpone to ‘the Second tome of our
Architecture’ illustrations of the columns of Villers-Cotterêts (which he
had intended to provide in Book V) and an essay on perspective (announced in Book VI
for ‘the end of [his] work,’ f. 285v).
Most likely, the reason references to a second volume of the
Architecture are not included in Books I, II, III, IV, or VI is
that when Delorme was writing them the Second tome had not yet been
conceived. In other words, it was not until halfway through its composition that the
Premier tome ceased to be a stand-alone treatise and became the
first volume of a larger project.
All available evidence suggests that this change took place when Delorme developed
the theory of divine proportions. As discussed above, the theory of divine
proportions must date after the design of the Tuileries Palace in 1564, and Delorme
only elaborates on it in the second half of the Premier tome (Books
V, VII, and VIII). The same must be true for the project of the Second
tome, which Delorme likewise often mentions in the second half of the
treatise but never in the first half (Books I, II, III, and IV). Also — and
again as in the case of the theory of divine proportions — the key moment in
this change of plan from a single- to a two-volume treatise seems to have taken
place after the completion of Book VI, which carries no references to the
Second tome, and during the preparation of Book V, which, of
all the books that refer to the Second tome, is the only one that
appears in the errata for an incertitude, or second thought, about content.28
The theory of divine proportions and the Second tome de
l’architecture were born at the same time, after 1564. Yet their
relation to one another is not a simple causal one — that is, the
Second tome was not conceived in order to
contain the theory of divine proportions. Rather, both tomes
originated from an intellectual turn in the Premier tome, a work
that Delorme began to understand as a larger and substantially more ambitious
project than he had originally planned.
Conclusion
If historians are still struggling to understand what role proportions and proportion
theory have played in the practice of architecture (beyond that of providing
convenient, easy-to-memorize relations between some of the components of a
building), in the case of Philibert Delorme we are at a loss. The handful of textual
references and illustrations contained in his Premier tome are just
too few, too inconsistent, and too obscure to provide a solid basis for either
restitution or interpretation of his theory of divine proportions.
Yet, since the theory of divine proportions was developed (if incompletely) during,
rather than before, the composition of the Premier tome, it offers
extraordinary insights into the treatise, in which it leaves numerous traces of
Delorme’s own learning process and of the changes in the nature and scope of
his work. Attending to divine proportions thus allows a new, more complex reading of
a treatise that both Blunt and Pérouse de Montclos have so far construed as an
intellectual monolith — an object unaltered, from its conception to its
publication, by the process of its own making. Analysis of the inconsistencies in
the references to proportion theory as well as in the choice of authoritative
sources that Delorme left in his text show that, to the contrary, the
Premier tome grew and changed as an organism during its
production, following the intellectual development of its author. What began as a
stand-alone book on architecture became along the way a more theoretically engaged
work that reacted to and participated in the broader discourse on architecture and
architectural theory of its time, and then, in the eyes of its author, became the
first half of a much more ambitious project.
‘Quant à moi, je confesse librement et franchement que les palais,
châteaux, églises et maisons que j’ai par mon ordonnance fait
construire jusques à présent, et sont par la grâce de Dieu
prisées et louées des hommes, ne me semblent rien (jaçoit que les
proportions y soient gardées, selon l’art de la vraie Architecture
des hommes) quand je les confère et compasse avec les Divines Proportions
venues du Ciel (ainsi que nous avons dit) et celles qui sont au corps de
l’homme. De sorte que si lesdits édifices étaient à
réédifier, je leur donnerais bien autre excellence et dignité,
que celle que les hommes y trouvent aujourd’hui.’ Philibert
Delorme’s Premier tome de l’architecture (1567) is available online from
Architectura: Architecture, Textes et Images at http://architectura.cesr.univ-tours.fr/Traite/Images/Les1653Index.asp.
‘Je ne me puis assez merveiller comme tant de divines mesures et
proportions n’ont été connues, observées, et
pratiquées par les anciens, ou par aucun des modernes.’
Among them, a book on machines (f. 47v), one on harbors (f. 49), a new edition of
Vitruvius’s treatise (f. 179v), a book on ancient doors (f. 237v), and one
on ironware and door and window frames (f. 249).
See f. 139, 140, 141v, 144, 167v, 168v, and 211v for the components of the orders
and f. 228, 230, 233v, 235, and 236 for the composition of elevations. According
to Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos, the illustrations found in f. 157v, 158,
159, 160, 177, and 275 are also associated with divine proportions (Pérouse de Montclos 1988: 18 and notes
71–74) even though Delorme does not explicitly say so.
‘Ces nombres et divisions de dix, de sept, et de six,’ and
‘Vous vous souviendrez des nombres dont je vous ay advertis cy-devant,
à fin de vous en ayder, qui sont deux, trois, six, sept, et dix.’
‘Ainsi est-il des proportions, mesures et ornements des colonnes, et de
beaucoup d’autres choses de l’architecture, qui ne se pourront
jamais entendre pour en donner préceptes et règles
générales, ains plutôt par exemples manuels, afin de s’en
savoir servir à tous propos.’
Pérouse de Montclos dedicates very short passages to divine proportions in
both his commentary for the modern edition of the Premier tome
(Pérouse de Montclos 1988:
18–19) and his monograph on the architect (Pérouse de Montclos 2000:
180–83). The citation is from the latter, at 180.
On the history of reading and the history of the book, see especially Grafton
(1997) and Johns (1998).
‘Je trouve audit Pline certaines mesures, ordre et dénombrements de
colonnes que je ne veux ici omettre. Quant aux colonnes, dit il, tant plus elles
sont mises épaisses, tant plus elles semblent grosses. Les anciens
architectes les ont divisées en quatre ordres et quatre sortes. Le premier
est de celles qui sont aussi grosses au pied que la sixième partie de leur
hauteur porte, et sont appelées doriques. Le second est de celles qui ont
la neuvième partie de leur hauteur en la grosseur de leurs pieds,
nommées ioniques. Le troisième est de celles qui ont la septième
partie, ainsi que dessus, appelées toscanes. Le quatrième ordre est
des corinthiennes qui ont la même proportion que les ioniques, toutefois
avec quelque différence, car le chapiteau des corinthiennes est aussi haut
qu’elles sont grosses par le bas.’
Cesariano (1521), Barbaro (1556), Bartoli (1550), Martin (1553),
Serlio (1542, 1545, and 1550), Sagredo
([1536], 1539, 1542, 1550, and 1555), Vignola (1562), and
Bullant (1564).
In Book V are found 12 citations of Pliny, all of which are concentrated in the
prologue and in chapters I and II. Starting with chapter III, only Alberti,
Dürer, and Vitruvius are cited as sources, the latter for a total of 34
occurrences.
Cf. Delorme 1567: f. 137v–40 and
Serlio 1537: f. 6v–7.
For practices of citation, see Grafton
1998.
‘[au] f. 130 p. 2 [f. 130v], vous noterez que le discours de la division
des colonnes que nous y proposons est selon Pline, ainsi que nous avertissons
audit lieu. Mais l’ordre dudit Pline n’est bien, car le premier
ordre (ainsi que nous le décrivons aux chapitres ensuivants) est de la
colonne toscane, qui a de grosseur par le pied la sixième partie de sa
hauteur. Le second est de la dorique, qui en doit avoir la septième. Le
troisième est de la ionique, qui en a la huitième; et le
quatrième ordre est de la corinthienne, qui doit être de huit parties
et demie, et quelquefois de neuf, selon les hauteurs et lieux où on les
veut appliquer, ainsi que nous le déduisons en après.’
Cf. Pérouse de Montclos (cited in note 4), who believes the Corinthian
pedestal shown in f. 177 to be designed according to divine proportions even
though Delorme never states so.
Cited in note 6.
Book V, which is 88 pages in length, contains a total of 48 citations for an
average of one occurrence every 1.8 pages; Book VII, 60 pages in length,
contains 22 citations, averaging one every 2.7 pages; and Book VI, 56 pages in
length, contains only 10 citations, averaging one every 5.6 pages. The contrast
between Book VI and Book VII is even starker if one considers that Vitruvius
discussed the Corinthian order in his treatise but did not mention the
Composite, and that it would be therefore reasonable to expect Delorme’s
Book VI on the Corinthian to have more, rather than fewer, citations from
ancient literature than Book VII on the Composite.
‘[…]la peine et fatigue que j’ai soutenu l’espace de six
ans continuels, et plus, tant pour l’invention et protraits des figures du
présent œuvre, que pour leurs démonstrations et
explications…’
‘Touchant les bois pour la charpenterie et menuiserie[…] je vous
renverrai à ce que nous en avons écrit et enseigné, au premier et
second chapitres du livre que nous avons fait imprimer naguère, de la
Nouvelle invention pour bien bâtir et à petits
frais (lequel pour la continuation du présent œuvre vous
trouverez sur la fin).’ In the note to the reader at the end of the
Premier tome (f. 285) Delorme explains that he could not do
so: ‘Lesquels livres [de Nouvelles inventions]
jaçoit que j’aie promis vouloir insérer à la fin de ce
présent tome, je n’ai eu toutefois le loisir de ce faire, et y
pouvoir vaquer.’
Among several other examples of revisions to the text are the unnumbered chapters
called ‘avertissements’ or ‘digressions’ included
between two subsequently numbered chapters that appear in Books V (between
Chapters XXIII and XXIV and between Chapters XXVII and XXVIII), VI (between
Chapters VIII and IX), and IX (between Chapters X and XI).
The dedication to Catherine de’ Medici is dated 25 November 1567, and the
foreword to the reader and the conclusion, which contain numerous references to
the production and printing of the Premier tome and of its
illustrations, must date shortly before that. As to Book IX, Delorme states in
its prologue that he had initially intended for the Premier
tome to contain only eight books but then was prompted by friends
to add the ninth one (‘J’avais délibéré de donner fin
à ce premier tome et volume d’architecture, au huitième livre
précédent, après y avoir ajouté quelque chose pour les
cheminées et leurs ornements, mais plusieurs de mes amis ne l’ont
trouvé bon, et m’ont instamment sollicité de faire encore un
neuvième livre pour la façon des cheminées, et de leurs manteaux,
ouvertures, tuyaux[…],’ f. 259), thus suggesting that this was the
last he wrote. Citations of specific passages of books I, III, and IV (f. 269v,
273, 277, and 278v) found in Book IX confirm that these books were ready for the
press at the time Delorme was writing the ninth one.
‘[…]je me suis bien voulu ingérer, pour le grand désir que
j’ai de faire profit au bien public et signamment à ma patrie, de
mettre par écrit ce que j’ai connu de l’architecture, tant par
livres que par l’expérience que j’en ai eue en divers lieux, et
aussi par diverses œuvres que j’ai fait faire et conduites en mon
temps. Lesquelles (Dieu aidant) j’alléguerai ci-après avec leurs
façons, ornements et mesures, ainsi que les choses viendront à
propos.’
‘Mais je voudrais que non seulement [l’architecte] sût les
quatre parties vulgaires d’arithmétique, qui sont ajouter,
soustraire, multiplier et diviser, ains aussi la règle de proportion,
autrement dite la règle de trois ou bien la règle dorée, pour les
grandes commodités qu’elle apporte; davantage je voudrais aussi que
notre architecte fût prompt à entendre les nombres roupts,
appelés des mathématiciens fractions, avec les racines cubes et
carrées.’ See note 6 for the passage from Book VI.
One occurrence every 3.6 pages for Book I, and one every 9.5 pages for Book II.
Cf. above, note 17.
See note 19.
‘Il me semble rester maintenant à vous écrire comme l’on
doit appliquer lesdites colonnes aux grands portaux[…] et ayant satisfait
à tout cela, vous parler (pour la perfection des bâtiments) des
poutres, planchers, et couvertures, ainsi que déjà vous en pouvez
avoir vu quelque chose en notre nouvelle invention de charpenterie,’ and
‘je ferais fin à ce premier tome et volume d’architecture,
comme ayant conduit nos bâtiments, depuis les fondements jusques aux
couvertures, desquelles, comme aussi de la charpenterie, pour autant que
j’avais fait imprimer deux livres, il y a environ six ans, sous une
nouvelle façon et invention, je ne délibérais ici parler, ni
moins accompagner le présent œuvre des livres susdits, jusques à
ce que je les eusse revus, et augmentés d’un livre et
figures.’
For the content of the Second tome, see f. 133v, 150, 168, 212v,
218v, 221, 234v, 255, 262v, and 285v.
See note 27.
BarbaroD1556VeniceF. MarcoliniBartoliC1550FlorenceL. TorrentinoBluntA1958LondonZwemmerBullantJ1564ParisMarnef et CavellatCesarianoC1521ComoGottardo Da PonteDelormeP1561ParisFrédéric MorelDelormeP1567ParisFrédéric MorelGraftonA1997Ann ArborUniversity of Michigan PressGraftonA1998Cambridge, MAHarvard University PressJohnsA1998ChicagoUniversity of Chicago PressMartinJ1553ParisJ. KerverPérouse de MontclosJ-M1988ParisLéonce LagetPérouse de MontclosJ-M2000ParisMengèsSagredoD[1536], 1539, 1542ParisSimon de ColinesSagredoD1550ParisRegnault and Claude ChaudièreSagredoD1555ParisGuillaume GourbinSerlioS1537VeniceFrancesco MarcoliniSerlioS1542, 1545, and 1550AntwerpPieter CoeckeVignola1562Romen.n.