Premises for the Resumption of the Discussion of Typology

Author(s): Werner Oechslin

Source: Assemblage, No. 1 (Oct., 1986), pp. 36-53
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3171053
Accessed: 11-12-2019 10:20 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Assemblage

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Werner Oechslin is Professor at the
Institut for Geschichte und Theorie der
Architektur, ETH, Zurich, and an editor
of Daidalos (Berlin).
This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Werner Oechslin
Premises for the
Resumption of the
Discussion of Typology
The discussion of typology was at the front ranks in archi-
tectural circles in the 1960s and early 1970s, but has lately
fallen back to the second eschelon. The "post-modern"
now takes all the headlines instead. But this shift in
current events is not at all a matter of replacement. The
increasing r6clame in architecture, on the contrary, has
tended to favor superficial methods of study, methods for
the most part oriented toward the outer appearance, the
superficial image of architecture. The discussion of archi-
tecture at present suffers especially from these ills, and as a
result a deeper understanding of typology is hardly think-
able. What survives of such an understanding outside of a
restricted circle of initiates seems to have long since been
reduced to a trivial conception of typology. The misunder-
standing stubbornly endures that typology is a matter of
classifying forms and functions as simply and unequivo-
cally as possible. This banalized understanding of a con-
ception so rich in tradition and so important in intellectual
history joins forces with what is furthered and practiced as
"economic functionalism." Standardization and typification
have long since occurred in this sphere but not toward an
ideal reduction of the architectural design process to its
universal foundations, not even for the purpose of guaran-
teeing light and air, but rather for the sake of increasing
productivity. As we know, this economic functionalism has
led neither to more dwelling space nor to a more livable
environment and, even more than in other parts of the
field, it has been oriented toward the no longer profoundly
examined laws of production (and of the producers).
37
 EXXX5AES JWgDItVCtS AWLih &

7-111

~~e~~~u~~~t..t~~~~j~ JoelR re~oeiejea~e&.peebewoe* dut c hue aLIcm

~j c~: r j L

1 -t - C--

Frontispiece: J.-N.-L. Durand,

ensemble d'6difices resultants
des divisions du quarrO, du
paralilbogramme, et de leurs
combinaisons avec le cercle.

From Prcis des lemons

d'architecture donn6es A
I'Ecole Polytechnique, vol. 1
(Paris, 1802).

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 assemblage 1

...........cr ru .lrdr er. c.ala*? m (Io7.17L .I it \J .. r.... .. ........

T'his also indicates how explosive the discussion of typol
is in its possible, and in part already historically proven,
!- - .......... consequences. It is also clear how great a disservice is don
Z4:1lii4 z;i1LL*AL Z7
by those architectural critics who allow this trivial under
standing to persist undisturbed. One voice should be cite
17i77
here that has spoken out systematically, polemically, and
~~3,
often scornfully against virtually every tendency toward a
. . . . . .

:44 .

degree of profundity since the moment renewed discussio

............... .....

of "rationalism" began. It is representative of those "misu

derstandings" that come of rejecting a deeper analysis.
Bruno Zevi makes the inexcusable mistake of basing his
evaluation of the concept of typology on that purely diag
nostic and trivial form of types determined entirely by
function. Instead of correcting such a one-sided and inap
propriate use of the concept of typology, he questions th
1. J.-N.-L. Durand, ensembles usefulness of the concept itself. On the basis of these fun
d'edifices resultants de diverses
tionally based uses of the concept, he decides that it is
combinaisons horizontales et
unsatisfactory. What is then proposed in opposition to th
verticales d'apres le carre divise
en deux, en trois, en quatre. possibility of such theoretical models forgoes any and all
From Precis des leqons, in the reflection on the relationship between artistic individuali
editions of 1813 and following. and artistic convention - a matter which has kept the
discussion of the theory of art in suspense for centuries.
Instead, one reads in Zecvi statements delivered with an u
surpassable arrogance, such as: art is anti-typological; ever
architectural creation is necessarily an individual interpre
tation by the artist; individual style is more decisive in t
shaping of a work of art than the type. It is as if he want
to overlook the impact of the Palladian villa or of Schin-
kel's Old Museum!

Meanwhile, art history - with respect to the problematic

of typology, especially in the work of A.-C. Quatremdre
de Quincy has attempted to bring the phenomenon of
the uniqueness of the forms and inventions presented by
artistic works into harmony with the equally undeniable
circumstance of established conventions, general lines of
evolutionary development, and recurring background con-
ditions. The difficulty with handling the concept of typol-
ogy is no doubt coupled with a certain intellectual demand
that is too often rejected in the discussion of architecture
today, with a gesture toward the great number of concrete
problems that need to be treated. A minimum of thinking
effort in fact continues to be a requirement.

38

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Oechslin

All this is enough to make it clear that there must be a

renewed consideration of architectural typology, given the
misunderstandings and incorrect evaluations of previous
analyses. For indeed the all-too-narrow understanding of
type and typology has at times produced disconcerting
results. Efficiency in architecture, for example, naturally
was placed in the foreground in the Third International
Conference for New Construction in 1930; even though
Sigfried Giedion, who set this direction as a goal, also
accurately pointed out that, for all of the elevation of the
problem of mass production as the imperative of the mo-
ment, the conceptions of Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier
had been anticipated in Charles Fourier's Phalanstere of
1822. In this same context, Gropius naturally did not pose
the question of rationality or of "rationalism" as fundamen-
tal, but instead, working concretely, limited the ideas of
the rationalists to the field of optics: "Which building
heights are rational for municipal construction of mass
public housing?" Of course (in an epoch that had long
since taken to using handbooks with which the costs of
architectural works could be calculated), J.-N.-L. Durand
had already made the interdependence of architecture and
economics a central theme, and in the process had re-
duced the relationship between architecture and produc-
tion to an apparently simple common denominator. This
reduction has added strength to the growing tendency to
understand his Precis des leqons (1802) as the manifesto
and the epitomy of a rigid, "typified," and. "standardized"
conception of architecture. In addition, the history of ar-
chitecture, for its part, has gone without a deeper discus-
2. Modular/geometrical gener-
ation of bodies according to sion of typology and has written instead'the "history of
late-antique tradition: demon- building projects," as even the most recent work of Nikolas
stration of single, bi- and tri- Pevsner still demonstrates sufficiently. Once again, the
dimensional development, phenomena themselves take the foreground, driving out
from point to line to surface to
fundamental thinking.
body. Distinction of the specu-
lative and practical (physical)
aspects of the various mathe-
matical definitions. From J. Nevertheless, in discussions of typology architects, particu-
Caramuel de Lobkowitz, Archi- larly in Italy, have taken seriously the distinction between
tectura civil recta y obliqua ... type and model, for example, and an attempt has been
(Vigevano, 1678). made to bring theory back to the practice of design in an
intelligent manner. Distinct positions have been taken and
defended and can be individually characterized. The

39

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 assemblage 1

names of Aldo Rossi, Giorgio Grassi, and Carlo Aymonino

come to mind.

T 'he reference point for the Italian discussion of typology

has always been Quatremere de Quincy's article "Type,"'
which has since become famous. It was first published in
3. Drawing by Superstudio, 1825 in the third volume of the Encyclopedie merthodique.
1968.
G. C. Argan deserves the credit for taking up and dissemi-
nating this classic definition in his brief and concise article
"Sul concetto di tipologia architettonica" (1962).2 Of
course, a number of different misunderstandings with their
respective consequences can be traced back to Argan's es-
say. These misunderstandings concern the fundamental ap-
praisal of the place and importance of typology in regard to
design practice and methods, and the even more clouded
issue of the systematic value of the type and its importance
to the historical dimension of architecture.

Argan's essay first appeared, in its original short form, in

the Festschrift for Hans Sedlmayr. Since his Borromini
studies in the 1930s, Sedlmayr - even if working from
completely different premises - had been close to the
problems of architectural typology, and was considered in
the 1930s the chief proponent of the iconology of architec-
ture. It is questionable whether, or to what degree, Argan
wanted or was able to take into account the discussions of
structuralism in Germany since the end of the 1920s.
There are no explicit references. Conjectures in the light
of the dedication to Sedlmayr remain unresolved. How-
ever, Argan does undoubtedly relate his efforts at interpre-
tation to the specific state of the then current art historical
discussion of methods. With an eye toward Italian art his-
tory, Argan describes his analysis as a contribution to the
criticism of idealism. He tries, on the other hand, to draw
a parallel with what was then the most up-to-date and the
4. 0. M. Ungers, Welfare Island
most discussed viewpoint in the discipline: the typology of
Competition, New York, 1975.
architecture, he says, corresponds for the most part with
the iconology of the pictorial and sculptural arts. This ex-
plicit parallel places Argan's essay in that series of works
(Krautheimer, Wittkower, Bandmann) concerned with a
specific iconology of architecture. The publication of the
essay in the Festschrift for Sedlmayr can be adequately
explained only in this light.

40

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Oechslin

Geometrical device and the definition of an architectural grammar.

ht~..~l~r?;rU ?,l".?h~U*t*""~L~. Fk*a~lirbr trafliJpr

T- ie
~/ " ~y/~

r~*bryy ~41?

i;:
i ;i~ ti ..'i ~iiliI r ;! ..... .... . -- -L?
iP~ ? ":= '; !I i dc '..-- .. .
~cc, ~n
':" ... ... '....... ii " ... .. .. 7' ' ? "
;i I.aC uc),n~. trl

~---
In the substance of the essay itself, however, a troublesome
rl::`%$jC,, ? s
IrPLn.

contradiction arises. The parallel Argan draws between

?:~i~ t

:I--. i~?. rY'\i !M ~-C.Y~ typology and iconology necessarily leads him to place the
I 1` h ~ central emphasis of typology on the specific classification
:t$r ~acnu, of architectonic types according to functions more or less
.., ?r~

~~. ?^? . P. well defined with respect to content. How readily this can
1,: ie: ::)i ~1.....~L... lead to a lapidary history of "building projects" is shown by
~~~i-?
a
the previously mentioned study by Pevsner, from which
~F~"1"?~t~t~??cl????i.~K~rlhmfm ar.nsrr&oi~Yl~d
the typological problem of generalization and the relevance
hPmrb~cecgth :Dtb~~

~Il""-P";?"l(~'~ct~f",~J(~hfC~I~~.~:~;~
I-"r*ugn;F~*krtr.u~*~^liti?:p~wr~*c ,,n

of typology for design all but entirely disappear. Argan does

5. Mathematical bases of 6. Detailed geometrical/ in fact place the distinction between type and model, thor-
architectural forms. From V. mathematical representations
of columns and bases. From
oughly discussed in Quatremere de Quincy, at the center
Scamozzi, L'idea della architet-
tura universale (Venice, 1615; Scamozzi, L'idea della of his deliberations, but the "art-historical" premise appar-
German edition, 1678). architettura universale. ently keeps his point of view on the design process from
becoming any clearer. The removal of the type from the
artistic process of mimesis shows - though admittedly not
I" tom Y wf4 as radically or as clearly as in Zevi - the rejection of the
i: r r
I 12vii ry~J.J. 161 NOW.m ,' J corresponding creative process. The modern historical
.1. i' it ?;Ii6 J f_~l.J~
-?~ __ .~i C)pTsrfLrrBn krl)rucu context of art, the parallel with the pictorial and sculptural
O A -C-(; . A
"'~
; Habr.?js
t
c s~.ri-?
,~L~t~;;%c~;?~ab
.... .L MI L.9"kC
r~ (and imitating) arts has allowed Argan to forget that at the
?

--? ? :: . i ~LBD~rP?M? ~??(1P~~dZlrc

Lt3r1I~LLx~L~fCf~j
?---:irr? T~LL fWk -;I
very beginning of academic discussion at the close of the
rc~-Y r-
p~rrr~~ i ~I~L **I1Y
~o tth-a

:::~d ,j: t: i ....1 ~4~9. Iw?r~m~

?-:,b _9 Pw-r j *oy-u
VA" m
sixteenth century, it was the conflict between the different
,,,,w~? i?i* dncrid
cmrlgCTr ~~CC~J

I? ' -i
406ft x.,j

ii'-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~9 :Z 11,-~ ~~Pdfl I ~I~rnrSILl~ii;uun.

Omamcoh. Crc~ i"-WJh, ad'C"C'"'"D
I~ib" arts, with their different limitations as they wrestled for the
sh?~

___, L3:.C)rr hv~frr d L

a~,~ PY h';: L *.I~Ah

Ad-,. ?6k?-L~ AA,"??

z? ;---,I

.i .-t~I
a~fPUZ~~
~lr
claim to leadership, that was decisive. At that time, view-
rl;c~ir
V 1 r A 'Awt f*
a ~ jk~~a* J?~T
1*0 'W~i~q
: QI Cuu l~*C
rm' rr points specific to architecture had for the most part, as a
dx~r
:47 (
?I?I .l.r
.~3d-
fl r i?u-P
i.34n
~--r~e

commonly shared principle, already dropped the mimesis

..x~
~..1 ~"~~^~-? -?--i I_^-FC t~L~n o;?Crr4r
- -?---?- ........r )r~r~,;r .~j~llL~b
?il~eb~t I
~CZ~,, 3, n~pe
c~r? .~-~?? theory from serious consideration. But the theory of archi-
rri

nc~-, n i*s a*?-

L..~ i~ru
tecture has
i;never
r
.~x;LL~SLI~3~~TI.~Crgiven up its claim to systematics,
Irri:::::::::~::j
i~-~:~7)
I
r---??,
"'----J at any
IL.7M~
+
i. rr~drg+bcr-
period. Quatremere de Quincy is himself a proof of this
: 1?r~csrt
=x~

1F-~J r- i: j~a i?li*r~ I

i ~i ~,;M Y-?W)ML Xi 5 ~?Y~

:a dr' fact, even though, more than any architect before him, he OhC;B*rr~n
n~i X.6Na Ynf~r

~1 ?~y?- gave special attention to the doctrine of imitation. In his

article on typology, however, Argan's efforts to forge a link
with the doctrine of mimesis had to lead to confusions.
7. Detailed geometrical/ 8. Detailed geometrical/mathe-
mathematical representations matical representations of cor-
of architectural orders. From nices. From Scamozzi, Quatremere de Quincy's article is distinguished, as usual,
L'idea
Scamozzi, L'idea della della architettura universale. by analytically precise wording and the systematic organi-
architettura universale. zation of the arguments (concept definition, etymological
derivation, explanation of the history of the concept, dis-
cussion of word usage, and, only then, remarks specific to
architecture). It is no accident that Quatremeire de Quincy
conceived of and planned his Encycloptdie m6thodique:
Architecture as a necessary, field-specific extension of the
great encyclopedia of Diderot and D'Alembert. In keeping

41

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 assemblage 1

9. J.-N.-L. Durand, d6tails des

ordres en g6neral. Geometrical llt!!Ltl 1i'.\f S :tS (tltl;tK1SS, !:?; tiEt~iKtit~..
description of cornices in the
usual tradition of Vignola edi-
tions such as Daviler.
-l C . v . . .. ..

,,,,

.. ..... i ............. . .. ,

... . ... ,..-..

. . . / : -.....
--. ..... . .... ... ' " . . .
.. .. . .. . . . ... ....... ..... \ ... .... ..... . ... ........ .

Geometry and its use in defining physiognomical types.

/I ~?:
a?F: j 5 9
~-?t~

~i~? .~4
t\i~l ~i"3
X.- c
2" ~C"fu~

4
II.
(;:
i/
r h
r( '
~ ~
irt V ~ ~

~9~
6/hC~J ,?~r"
; ?~Y P~:~lp_;S~

10. Drawing by 11. Drawing

Charles by Annibale
Lebrun.
Carracci.

42

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

12, 13. Examples of the clas-
sification or the constituent
elements of the human
physiognomy. From Alexander
Cozens, Principles of Beauty
relative to the Human Head
(London, 1777-78).
14. Drawing by Friedrich
Weinbrenner.
This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
Oechslin
with this more general context, the distinction between
type and model bears characteristics from epistemology and
from general systematic thought - which had been just as
well known and as much discussed in architectural circles,
mutatis mutandis, since the early days of Vitruvianism be-
tween Alberti and Barbaro. This is not the place to reach
that far back in history. Nevertheless, it can be said with
confidence that the definition of the concept of the "type"
in Quatrernmre de Quincy is just as unthinkable without
the precedent of the classical philosophical question of
form and matter as the discussion of typology altogether
would be without the preceding efforts to integrate Euclid-
ean geometry into architecture. Simply remembering the
conceptual correspondence between type and figure (typos/
figura) should surely suggest much additional thought.
By the same token, one also comes upon shortcomings in
Quatrembre de Quincy's distinction between type and
model. T''o his perhaps overly abstract and for the present
too philosophically conceived definition of the type, one
can at least contrast a compromised formula - yielded in
the context of defining architectural drawing as an exten-
sion of Vitruvian exegesis - in which the pure geometric
form requires "sensuous" mediation in visible lines (lignes
sensuelles). (Note the distinction between linea speculativa
and linea practica in the figure from Caramuel reproduced
here.) There is very probably, then, a possibility of graphi-
cally representing "typologies" and of applying and using
them indirectly in design. Here Quatremrre de Quincy re-
veals his Platonic side! He was no doubt thoroughly aware
of the schematics customarily used at the time - half-
abstract, symbolic formulas (almost in a plan de masse).
15. Drawing by Friedrich Apparently, he did not want to depart from his main dis-
Weinbrenner. tinction to go into these "transitional forms" in his article,
which was aimed at a systematic attack. To put it differ-
ently, that Quatremenre de Quincy foregoes an analysis of
the existing practical equivalents of typology of his day is
accounted for by the decidedly theoretical orientation of
the Encyclopedie methodique.
In this light, Argan's attempt to limit the distinction be-
tween type and model all too exclusively to architectonic
realities (which occurs predominantly against the previ-
43
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

??-~ -i
16-19. Geometrical
the combination game.
Metamorfosi del Giuoco detto
I'Enimma Chinese (Florence,
1818).
assemblage 1
ously mentioned background of assigning function and
content) seems a two-fold obfuscation. Quatremere de
Quincy always kept the two viewpoints clearly separated.
And for just this reason, in a second part near the end of
his article (not sufficiently considered by Argan), he took
up the discussion of contingency and conventionality,
through which the embedding of the type in historical re-
ality and in a specific time inevitably occurs. If this second
part - which comes astonishingly close to a hermeneuti-
cal point of view - of Quatremere de Quincy's definition
had been sufficiently heeded, the discussion of typology
could not have been posed against artistic individuality
and against historicity, but would have had to have been
conceived of as a regulative principle enmeshed in history
and context.
IF 1 R E N Z
Now it is also true, however, that in Italian discussions of
_8 78 typology, led chiefly by architects, such positions have
been worked out, in part independently. And as a result, it
is precisely in these discussions (specifically within the so-
called rationalist tradition) that history as a problem has
been rediscovered, and in a much more clearly refined
way than postmodernism is able to manage, relying as it
does on a superficial conception of mimesis, as invoked by
Argan, or on mere imitation.
For exactly this reason, it is appropriate and necessary to
return to Quatrembre de Quincy's discussion of typology in
: its full scope, even if this can not be done exhaustively in
this essay. A few remarks will have to suffice to indicate
the long tradition, reaching far back into history, in which
. .....---- the
__ problem of'.."' ....
typology arose. A clear exposition of the
problem, reduced to a simple denominator, is found in the
introduction to Henry Wotton's Elements of Architecture
of 1624. Wotton distinguishes the "historical" from the
systematic or "logical" method or approach. Only the sys-
tematic way of proceeding makes it possible to isolate and
extract rules from the historical context in order to form
figures and
them into a (design) method. Elsewhere this same use of
From
rules remains vague, for example in Palladio, at least in
the text of I quattro libri (1570)- not however in the
precise abstraction evident in 'the illustrations. Regole
universali are foreseen here as a corrective and as a
44
This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Oechslin

point of orientation for the purpose of preventing errors

Yet even in the eighteenth century, Pere Andre, in one
his best-known aesthetic treatises, Essai sur le Beau (175
attempted with a correct evaluation of the role of geome
to clarify precisely the distinction between the first inva
able rules and the second, historically contingent rules
order to specify the gradual adjustment of art to history
reality.

In this climate of distinctions and analyses, Quatremrnre

de Quincy finally, with full awareness of the rich tradition
in art history, takes up his argument. This becomes even
more apparent as his other articles (on architecture,
character, convention) and further writings, such as
Considerations morales sur la destination d'ouvrages de
l'art (1815), are included in the analysis. The more com-
prehensively Quatremere de Quincy argues, the clearer his
tendency to attack the one-sidedness of a purely "historical"
and positivistic approach to history. In this manner he criti-
cizes the usual treatment of mimesis. Starting from the the
fact that nothing exists without predecessors ("I1 faut un
antecadent a tout. .. ."), he turns against literal interpreta-
tions of imitation, aimed at the model and its repetition,
and against imitation based on its positivistic form: "Ils md-
connoissent tous les degres d'imitation morale, par analo-
gie, par rapports intellectuels, par application de princips,
par appropriation de manires, de combinaisons, de rai-
sons, de systemes, etc." What are required, then, are fun-
damental, systematic, analogic, rational, and combinatory
kinds of processes in the context of the encounter with
history. And here it becomes clear that Quatremere de
Quincy argues from the position of one .who is aware of
the possibility of misapplication and trivialization in han-
dling this fundamental problem in architecture, and who
realizes he has been confronted with such misuse. The
problem of appropriate usage thus overshadows, at least
partly, the systematic intention with which Quatremere de
Quincy discusses the concept of typology.

One is much closer now to that "extreme" example of con-

temporary typological effort that, once more in a mislead-
ing way, has been touted as the "piece de resistance" of all
attempts at formalization. Durand's table "Ensemble

45

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

/--i
20-22. These
tute the more severe schemati-
zation of fig. 1 by choosing
figures derived from the
square, indicating their imme-
diate transformation into
architecture.
This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
assemblage 1
d'edifices resultant des divisions du quarrd, du parallelo-
gramme, et de leurs combinaisons avec le cercle," pub-
lished in his Precis des leqons, is commonly seen as an
example of that narrow conception of typology that turns
to the solid basis of the universal language of geometry to
..... . ..... -- ?------------ ?-----
apply it in as unadulterated a manner as possible to con-
crete architectonic objects themselves. That Durand related
E4 ("pure") geometric configurations directly to the design pro-
cess emerges clearly both from his publishing the table in
the relevant tract of the Precis and also from the immediate
juxtaposition of geometric figure and architectural type in
the second edition of the table (1813).
Yet a closer examination shows that Durand by no means
represents only a counterposition to Quatremere de
Quincy's "historical" discussion of the concept of typology.
diagrams substi-
Not even Durand speaks only of a "geometrical reduction
of architecture." On the contrary, he is concerned with
clarifying the relationship in architecture between a con-
crete (historically) existing typology and the general form
based on the universal laws of geometry. What resembles,
in the table of 1802, a purely "Euclidean" development of
a form, entirely in the mainstream of the attempts at clas-
sification that had been extremely popular since the eigh-
teenth century, turns out under closer scrutiny to be a very
carefully developed attempt to legitimize more complex ar-
chitectonic configurations. Despite the elementary nature
of the geometric figures shown, even in these simple
forms, one can make out the architectonic thought behind
them. Durand reveals this himself in the revised, 1813 ver-
sion of the table, where simple ("pure") geometric figures
and their architectonic correlates, in the form of fully
developed types, are presented together in the same
illustration.
The reasons for Durand's decision to take this clarifying
step can only be surmised. Apparently, in his time the rela-
tively high degree of abstraction demanded a more con-
crete, but also more trivial, clarification. For in contrast to
this second illustration, one can see in the first and more
abstract diagram the very genesis in stages of the architec-
tonic/geometric typologies. The old question of finding a
fundamental principle, or a radically systematic laying of
46
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Oechslin

4444

Z, Z,

-4,

LILA IHI I

44l, o14
A~ ~ i i i! i~~i

i i iii ii ii!!ii li i ii iii i iiiiiii ii !ii ~iiii l iii i! ~ii iii ~ i! ! i!i !i ii! i iiili i!iil ~ iillii i!i ~ ii i ii iii iiiii i ii iiilil ~i i i ~iii i !ii i ~ i i!ii iii i lii~ ~~ li iii i ~ ii ii iiiiii ~ iii iilii! i iii - fii i

4 1

"r lot mm

f I -I

47

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 assemblage 1

Durand's reductive geometry as a reliable method of gen-

erating large-scale typologies whose "functional" definition
goes beyond any single "building type," but embodies urban
"relevance. "

23. J.-N.-L. Durand, formule 24. J.-N.-L. Durand, marche 6

graphique applicable aux suivre dans la composition d'un
edifices public vout6s: compari- projet quelconque: demonstra-
son of geometrical schemes tion of method showing how
and possible adoption for to generate building types
public structures. through a geometrical device.

25, 26. Durandian schemes of

differently developed geometr-
ical complexity, on the way to-
ward defining more complex
typologies.

48

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Oechslin

Sequence of "large typology" schemes as used in the tra-

dition of academic architectural culture in the second half of the
eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century.

foundations for architecture in the sense of Euclidean

geometry, is precisely considered in the process, as at the
same time the bow is strung for history with its concrete
objects and actualizations.

A brief description of the original diagram will be helpful

here. In nine vertical columns, basic geometric figures and
their variants are presented with an array of transformations
according to the criterion of analogy. The first four col-
umns deal with the simple square, the square divided into
thirds, into fourths, and the square subdivided into
doubled symmetry; the next two columns are for the hori-
zontal and vertical rectangle; two more present the circle
and semicircle; while the last column takes a composite
figure (subdivided square with an inscribed semicircle) as a
starting point. The variations in the first column suggest an
ordered, that is, systematic, sequence according to pattern:
square; open square; square open on two sides; halved
27. Alessandro Rossini, pianta
del Tempio con Canonica square; twice-halved square; combined open and divided
Collegio ed Ospedali, Accade- figure; combined figure open on two sides and subdivided;
mia di San Luca, Rome, 1702. figure open on all sides and twice subdivided. This varia-
An early example of complex28. G. P. M. Dumont, essai de tion is not without a stringent logic. Yet it is not carried
typological schemes proposed
plan pour un chateau ou through in the other columns with the same clarity and
for an academic competition.
grande maison de plaisance: strictness. The reason for this is not so much inability
geometrical and typological
(Durand demonstrates his systematic intentions quite ade-
regularity and the pretext of
an architectural theme, 1775. quately in the first column) as it is an early conforming to
possible, that is, reasonable, architectural outlines or their
geometrical abstractions, respectively.

This jumbling reveals itself entirely in the figures for

which the increases in complexity are attained in surprising
leaps rather than stepwise and systematically. The compli-
cation of geometric form runs from the.top left down to
the bottom right of the table. There the figures are found
that both follow and anticipate typical architectonic out-
lines (predominantly of the academic-wealthy stamp) and
are immediately intelligible and verifiable as "architec-
tonic." The graphic clarifications make this apparent. They
show, for example, that the basic floor plan or typological
definition of Durand's last geometrical figure corresponds
to the design that Marie-Joseph Peyre chose for his Acad-
emy project (made famous by its publication in Oeuvres
d'architecture), which constituted for Peyre the starting
point for a whole series of "analogous" projects.

49

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 assemblage 1

The decisive point about this observation is that quite

probably even within his demonstrative figure arguing on
"purely typological" ground, and indirectly within the
bounds of his design methodology, Durand maintains the
connection with precise, historically contingent objects,
which was regarded as given at the time and thus placed
at his disposal, clearly in sight. On the other hand, the
design method was intended in fact to lead to concrete
results, which in their turn constituted the history of
architecture.

An analogous, contrasting consideration must also be

added to Durand's efforts in the history of architecture.
Just as the Precis des leqons was intended to satisfy the
systematic requirements of the designing architect, the
Recueil et paralldle des tous les Mdifices anciens et
modernes of 1800 was to make the history of architecture
available to him. In keeping with his own systematic inten-
tions - though this time with a different orientation than
in the Precis - Durand intended to work formally on the
historical material as well. Furthermore, this had to be
29. D. L. Detant, Accademia di
San Luca, 1762. done so that both comparability of forms and applicability
of concrete design work were always guaranteed in the
process of reducing them to the essentials (that is, in repre-
senting typological diversity) as well as in the process of
standardizing both measures and means of graphic
representation.

In both undertakings - the systematic as well as the his-

torical - Durand shows himself ready to compromise.
Neither is his systematic-geometrical approach exclusively
abstract, nor does his history remain unsystematic. History
is not played off against systematics. Rather, the basic pre-
suppositions of dealing with systematics and with history
are both considered in order to meaningfully introduce ty-
pology, the "theory of figures," as an intermediate court of
appeal. The realization of this project, in accordance with
the distinction between type and model tossed into the bal-
ance as a weighty argument by Quatremere de Quincy,
remained at that time unfulfilled. And therefore - in the
30. Sir John Soane, ground light of these theoretical efforts, in other words, before put-
plan of a design for senate
ting them into practice - at the other end of the discus-
house, 1779.
sion of typology a good deal of autonomy was necessarily
granted. In any case, introducing typology to design prac-

50

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Oechslin

tice would not (as, for example, Zevi seems to do) replace
the creativity of the design process that would necessarily
follow, but rather would merely set out more demanding
conditions and premises. The self-evident interaction with
these conditions has been lost to the architect in the new
mythos of the unbound desire for invention. (Even the
doctrine of mimesis had decisively limited this!) This myth
leaves the architect wholely at a loss, so that architecture is
then surrendered ever more completely to accidents and to
forces foreign to architecture itself.

In its appeal to general geometrical forms, Durand's dia-

gram also shows that an identification of architectonic fig-
ures with functions and interpretations was premature at
the least, prior to the confrontation - to be sought from
within contemporary design itself - with fully developed
or developing traditions. The theory of character can set a
similar contextual condition. Quatremere de Quincy
expressly mentions that the type must receive its conven-
tional application (emploilusage naturel) according to
necessity (besoin) and natural constitution (nature). So
architecture does not come about by blind translation of
geometries. The circle of the argumentation is rounded
out when one considers that elsewhere, namely, in his
Considerations morales sur la destination d'ouvrages de
l'art, along with other conventions of varying degrees of
31. Dionisio Santi, edificio alla
maniera degli antichi musei di necessity, Quatremere de Quincy draws on those basic Vi-
pitagorici italiani, 1806. From truvian concepts (firmitas/utilitas/venustras) that have for
Opere dei Grandi Concorsi so long acted as regulative principles in architecture. Once
premiate dall'l. R. Accademia more, in such cases it is not a matter of his pinning archi-
delle Belle Arti in Milano
tecture down to its societal actualizations or its indispen-
(Milan, 1824). Square structure
with two semicircular annexes,
sable historicity. Instead, he is concerned with defining the
internally resolved in a polygo- remaining freedom, within and despite this conditioning,
nal form, and annex of a that guarantees the artist the ability to function effectively
square structure with circle and the possibility of affecting society, and in this way
inscribed.
passes on to him a precisely defined role.

In light of this broadened consideration of the work of

Quatremere de Quincy, it further becomes apparent that
the discussion of typology is by no means a matter of sim-
plification or standardization or of a reductive model of
architectural invention. On the contrary, we must perceive
in his work an intelligently developed construct in which
the link is ensured between the systematic and the histori-

51

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 assemblage 1

32. E. L. Boullee, project for

the extension of Versailles,
1780.

cal or conventional (and therefore always societally

oriented) limitations of architecture in their reciprocal
dependence.

Notes Figure Credits

All illustrations courtesy of the
1. English translation in Opposi- author.
tions 8 (1977): 148-50.

2. First published in Munich,

1962. Now in the Enciclopedia
33. Charles Fourier, project for Universale dell'Arte (Venice). En-
Phalanstere, 1822. glish translation, "On the Typology
of Architecture," by Joseph Rykwert
in Architectural Design (December
1963): 564-65.

34. C. Perrault, drawing of an

observatory.

35. F. Milizia, reproduction of

the observatory as an example
of good architecture. From
Prinicipi di Architettura Civile
(Finale, 1781-1800).

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Oechslin

36, 37. U. Vitry, model of a

"Home in the Turkish Style":
utilization of Perrault's scheme,
plan and elevation. From U.
Vitry, II Proprietario Architetto
(Venice, 1840).

53

This content downloaded from 182.70.64.219 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:20:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms