This page intentionally left blank
The Art of Building in the Classical World
This book examines the application of drawing in the creation of classical architec-
ture, exploring how the tools and techniques of drawing developed for architecture
subsequently shaped theories of vision and representations of the universe in sci-
ence and philosophy. Building on recent scholarship that examines and reconstructs
the design process of classical architecture, John R. Senseney focuses on technical
drawing in the building trade as a model for the expression of visual order, showing
that the techniques of ancient Greek drawing actively determined concepts about
the world. He argues that the uniquely Greek innovations of graphic construction
determined principles that shaped the massing, special qualities, and refinements of
buildings and the manner in which order itself was envisioned.
John R. Senseney is Assistant Professor of the History of Ancient Architecture
in the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
A historian of ancient Greek and Roman art and architecture, his current and
forthcoming articles and chapters appear in Hesperia,theJournal of the Society
of Architectural Historians,theInternational Journal of the Book, The Blackwell
Companion to Roman Architecture (edited by Roger Ulrich and Caroline Quenemoen),
and Sacred Landscapes in Anatolia and Neighboring Regions (edited by Charles Gates,
Jacques Morin, and Thomas Zimmermann).

᪉᪉᪉᪉
The Art of Building in the
Classical World
Vision, Craftsmanship, and
Linear Perspective in Greek and
Roman Architecture
John R. Senseney
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
cambridge university press

ISBN 978-1-107-00235-7 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs
for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not
guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
᪉᪉᪉᪉
To Megan, with much of a muchness

᪉᪉᪉᪉
CONTENTS
List of Figures page ix
Preface xi
Note on Dates and Translations xiii
Abbreviations xv
Introduction: Challenges of Analysis and
Interpretation
1
1 The Ideas of Architecture
26
2 Vision and Spatial Representation
60
3 The Genesis of Scale Drawing and Linear Perspective
104
4 Architectural Vision
142
Excursus: Envisioning Cosmic Mechanism in Plato and Vitruvius 175
Appendix A Analysis of the Dimensions of the Blueprint for Entasis at Didyma 189
Appendix B Analysis of the Hypothetical Working Drawing for Platform
Curvature at Segesta 191
Appendix C Analysis of the Hypothetical Working Drawing for Platform
Curvature in the Parthenon 192

15. Temple of Juno Lacinia, Agrigento, 28
16. Temple of Concordia, Agrigento, 29
17. Temple at Segesta, 30
18. Hephaisteion, Athens, 30
19. Hephaisteion, Athens, 31
20. Parthenon, Athens, 32
21. Parthenon, Athens, 33
22. Anta Building, Didyma and East Building,
Didyma, 35
23. Hermogenes (third and second centuries
b.c.). Temple of Artemis Leukophryne at
Magnesia-on-the-Maeander, 37
24. Archaic Parthenon, Athens. Modified from
M. Korres, 39
25. Akropolis, Athens, 40
26. Schematic comparison of typical plans of
Doric hexastyle and Ionic octastyle temples
with the Parthenon, 41
27. Parthenon, Athens, 42
28. Parthenon, Athens, 43
29. Temple of Athena, Paestum (ancient Greek
Poseidonia), 46
30. The symbol of the tetraktys, 46
31. Temple A, Asklepieion, Kos, 47
32. Temple A, Asklepieion, Kos, 48
33. Hellenistic Didymaion, 49
34. Diagram for Euclid’s proof of a geocentric
universe, 61
35. The zodiac as a circular construction with
twelve equal sectors for the signs, 66

geometric underpinnings, 85
53. Theater at Priene, 87
54. Hypothetical Greek protractor or “curved
ruler” indicating angular divisions of
15 degrees, 91
55. Pnyx, Athens, phase III, 96
56. Pnyx, Athens, phase III, 97
57. Graphic form of the analemma as described
by Vitruvius, 101
58. Hellenistic Didymaion, 105
59. Hellenistic Didymaion, 105
60. Hellenistic Didymaion, 107
61. Temple at Segesta, 109
62. Hellenistic Didymaion. Modified from
L. Haselberger, 111
63. Parthenon, Athens, 115
64. Proposed graphic constructions for
platform curvature on the northern flanks
of the temple at Segesta and the
Parthenon, 117
65. Archaic Didymaion. Restored capital, 118
66. Hellenistic Didymaion, 119
67. Stoa, Agora, Kos. Unfinished Ionic column
drum preserving the radial construction for
the fluting of its Ionic columns, 120
68. Artemision, Sardis. Detail of column,
121
69. Hellenistic Didymaion, 122
70. Hellenistic Didymaion, 123
71. Proposed sequence for fluting drums at the

82. Temple of Athena Polias, Priene, 157
83. Temple of Dionysos at Teos, 159
84. Asklepieion, Kos, 162
85. Upper Terrace with Temple A,
Asklepieion, Kos, 163
86. Temple A, Asklepieion, Kos, 163
87. Sanctuary of Juno, Gabii, 164
88. Temple of Juno, Gabii, ca. 160 b.c., 165
89. Temple of Juno, Gabii, 166
90. Sanctuary of Aphrodite, Kos, 167
91. Severan Marble Plan fragments showing
the Porticus Octaviae (Porticus Metelli,
renamed and rebuilt under Augustus),
Rome, overlaying modern urban
features, 168
92. Porticus Metelli (later Porticus Octaviae),
Rome, 169
93. Forum of Trajan, Rome, 171
94. Octagon of Nero’s Golden House on the
Esquiline Hill in Rome, 173
95. Pantheon, Rome, 174
x
᪉
᪉᪉᪉᪉
PREFACE
This book examines the importance of Greek building and thought for the
creation of architecture as Vitruvius understood it in a Roman context. In
focusing on the central role of Greek practices of scale drawing and linear
perspective, it considers the influence that Roman architecture drew on from
Greek architects and concepts of craftsmanship. More than this, however, I

Dengate were always generous with their enthusiasm, feedback, and sharing
of sources. Diane Favro challenged my ideas with incisive questions. Erich
Gruen took the time to meet with me and offer his ideas on the Hellenistic and
Roman historical contexts of my research on ancient architecture. Richard Mohr
offered invaluable feedback on my interest in Plato. Robin Rhodes generously
discussed the details of my research and invited me to join his panel exploring the
subject of scale in Greek architecture. David Sansone gave important feedback
on my interest in Aristophanes. Phil Sapirstein provided enlightening thoughts
and questions about the technology of building and design, particularly in
the Archaic period. Both in person and via email, Andrew Stewart asked me
penetrating questions about my developing research in Greek architectural
drawing, which resulted in several of the paths I later took in this book. Phil
Stinson gave me his thoughts and encouragement on a variety of topics. I have
also benefited from my colleagues researching the topic of historical architectural
drawing in later periods, including Robert Bork, Anthony Gerbino, Raffaela
Fabbiani Giannetto, Ann Huppert, and Heather Hyde Minor. In addition to
Heather Hyde Minor, this study simply would not have been possible without
the incredible support of my colleagues Dianne Harris and Areli Marina. Finally,
the ideas and approaches in the book build on a foundation in art history shaped
by my amazing teachers, C. Edson Armi and Larry Ayres. Any mistakes of fact
or questionable interpretations in the final work result from my own divergence
from the helpful suggestions of these excellent scholars.
Concepts also developed from the help of several friends and family mem-
bers, including Jonathan Banks, Brent Capriotti, Heidi Capriotti, Barbara Cohen,
Lawrence Hamlin, Dan Korman, Geza Kotha, Paolo Maddaloni, Rick Merca-
toris, Madhu Parthasarathy, Donna Senseney, Megan Finn Senseney, Debbie
Senseney-Kotha, Kevin Serra, Leonore Smith, Smitha Vishveshwara, and many
others.
Lastly, the following awards provided indispensable support for the research
and writing of this book: A William and Flora Hewlett International Research

in the American Journal of Archaeology.
Bauplanung Deutsches Arch
¨
aologisches Institut, ed. (no date). Bauplanung und
Bautheorie der Antike. Bericht
¨
uber ein Kolloquium veranstaltet vom
Architekturreferat des Deutschen Arch
¨
aologischen Instituts (DAI) mit
Unterst
¨
utzung der Stiftung Volkswagenwerk in Berlin vom 16.11 bis
18.11.1983. Berlin.
Gabii Almagro-Gorbea, M., ed. 1982. El Santuario del Juno en Gabii.
Biblioteca Italica 17. Rome.
Hermogenes Hoepfner, W., ed. 1990. Hermogenes und die hochhellenistiche
Architektur. Internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 28. bis 29. Juli
1988 im Rahmen des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses f
¨
ur Klassische
Arch
¨
aologie veranstaltet vom Architekturreferat des DAI in
Zusammenarbeit mit dem Seminar f
¨
ur Klassische Arch
¨
aologie der
Freien Universit

tells us about the subject, there are other Roman references to scale drawings
used in architectural planning,
2
as well as a few surviving examples that can
hardly attest to the frequency with which such drawings surely must have
been made.
3
More than just a fact of the design process, the application of
geometry in scale drawings during the Imperial era in particular may have
engendered the very aesthetic based on the curve and polygon that characterizes
Roman vaulted buildings perhaps as best appreciated today in the Pantheon
(Figure 1).
This observation, which is far from new, underscores the formative role of
reduced-scale drawing not only in the creation of buildings, but also in the
guiding approaches to form that underlie their production.
4
In a straightfor-
ward emphasis on technical determinism, one may view the fluid, plastic poten-
tial of Roman concrete as the primary impetus that transcended the prismatic
forms determined by traditional Greek construction with rectilinear blocks.
5
Yet keeping in mind the additional importance of the curvilinear, radial, and
polygonal qualities of classical scale drawings, one may perhaps better under-
stand Roman concrete as the material exploited to reflect in three dimensions the
forms first explored in ichnography (the art of ground plans), elevation draw-
ing, and linear perspective.
6
Acknowlement of this generative aspect of ancient
drawings emphasizes their function as models rather than mere architectural
representations.

in the open air of the Athenian Akropolis rather than in a textbook or dark
lecture hall where they view the temple by way of a small-scale set of black
lines (Figure 2). This graphic illustration of a ground plan then becomes a part of
a new generation’s image of the Parthenon and comes to represent how architec-
tural space is organized in ways that compare or contrast the supposed drawing
board of Iktinos with that of Brunelleschi or Mies or Zaha Hadid.
10
In this way,
drawing itself becomes an exceedingly familiar, culturally neutral act with a
universal application in buildings across time that express vastly different forms
and purposes.
In focusing on the gap that separates the instruments, methods, and appli-
cations of technical drawing in classical and modern architecture, the present
study explores how craftsmanship conditioned vision in the classical world. As
I argue, the shared habits of drawing in the art of building and the sciences
became central to the entity that, in Roman times, would receive the designation
᪉
3
The Art of Building in the Classical World
of “architecture” passed down to western traditions of building. The shaping
of order according the tools and techniques of craftsmanship directly impacted
how Greeks saw the structures and mechanisms of nature, as well as the under-
standing of vision itself as articulated in philosophy and optical theory. Against
this background, I present the Greek invention of linear perspective as reflec-
tive of existing procedures of drawing and influential for the heightened role of
scale drawing in the organization of architectural space beginning in the Clas-
sical period (479–323 b.c.). In this exploration, I approach the Greek theatron –
the “place for seeing” – as the earliest space expressly designed to shape vision,
enhancing the rituals of spectacle associated with Greek practices of seeing that
served the metaphor for “theory” itself as a new way of explaining the universe

moved within it.
As opposed to buildings, complexes, and cities, sculptures need not involve
a similar degree of changing perspective in motion on the part of the spectator.
As a textbook example of a fixed frontal perspective, even a dynamic sculpture
in the round like a Roman copy of Myron’s Diskobolos of the mid-fifth century
(Figures 3–4) disappoints rather than rewards the alternative perspectives of
a wandering viewer’s change of position, revealing a flatness and imbalance
4
᪉
Introduction: Challenges of Analysis and Interpretation
3 Myron of Athens (fifth century b.c.). Diskobolos (Lancellotti Discobolus). Roman copy
of Myron’s bronze original of ca. 460–450 b.c. Frontal view. Marble. Museo Nazionale
Romano (Palazzo Massimo alle Terme), Rome, Italy. Vanni/Art Resource, NY.
from the side that does little to break beyond even the static pose of an Archaic
kouros.
14
The unfolding, processual element found in classical architecture gains
emphasis when one confronts sculpture of the Hellenistic period in particu-
lar. A defining feature of Hellenistic art is the extension of dynamism inherent
in the work itself to the viewer’s interaction with the work. As seen in the
bronze horse and jockey pulled from an ancient shipwreck off Cape Artemision,
this quality transcends the principal view normally presented in published pho-
tographs (Figure 5).
15
The boy turns his glance toward an invisible opponent
with whom he seems to run neck-and-neck toward a “photo finish,” his horse
dedicating every muscle, fiber, and vein to the momentum and energy of the
final push. In terms of the height of its original placement and its accessibility,
᪉
5

differing media of sculpture and architecture that appears to come into being in
the Hellenistic period.
6 Sleeping hermaphrodite. Antonine copy (a.d. 138–192) of a Hellenistic original of
the second century b.c. View of backside. Marble. Museo Nazionale Romano (Palazzo
Massimo alle Terme), Rome, Italy. Vanni/Art Resource, NY.
᪉
7