Vitruvius Da Architectura Analysis

As Walter Isaacson explains, Vitruvius’s emphasized “the relationship between the microcosm of man and the macrocosm of the earth.” In Da Architectura, Vitruvius actually describes “a way to put a man into a circle and a square in order to determine the ideal proportions of a church.” Vitruvius’s own words best explain this:

In a temple there ought to be harmony in the symmetrical relations of the different parts to the whole. In the human body, the central point is the navel. If a man is placed flat on his back, with his hands and feet extended, and a compass centered at his navel, his fingers and toes will touch the circumference of a circle thereby described. And just as the human body yields a circular outline, so too a square may be

Hundreds of architects have based their work on the philosophy and instructions in that treatise; however, there are some criticisms to the authenticity and actuality of Vitruvius and his work. As Erişmiş and Gezerman assert, “there is extensive knowledge on the biography of Vitruvius and the work Ten Books on Architecture,” but there is no further information. Additionally, “it is stated that the treatise had survived from the ancient times, [but] there is no evidence to prove this in the studied sources.” The original manuscripts are even lost. Essentially, everything known about Vitruvius is in relation to him creating De Architectura, and when the sources are analyzed, “the relevant information about Vitruvius is contradictory,” where “even the name ‘Vitruvius’ varies in the sources.” These alternate names are Pollio and Marcus. According to Erişmiş and Gezerman, these contradictions led to combining the three names into one: Marcus Vitruvius Pollio. Moreover, the authors cite De Architectura’s dominant theme of the Classical Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders as evidence proving the falsity of the work. They argue that “the existence of the supposed rules for these [classical] styles has been falsified on numerous occasions by later researchers.” Overall, they conclude that Vitruvius never existed, going so far as to state that “[Vitruvius] is as human as the anchovy-pizza-eating comic strip ninja turtles.” Although they believe Vitruvius to be fictional, Erişmiş and Gezerman acknowledge that “under any circumstances, [Vitruvius’s De Architectura] has led to a better understanding of