Piero della Francesca and the Renaissance Proof of Linear Perspective Author(s): James Elkins Reviewed work(s): Source:

The Art Bulletin, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 220-230 Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3051019 . Accessed: 22/02/2012 18:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp 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.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

Piero della Francescaand the RenaissanceProof of LinearPerspective

James Elkins

The extant Italian Renaissance treatises on perspective often mention its geometric foundation without making a rigorous connection between geometry and perspective practice. Renaissance texts are normally didactic manuals whose authors take it for granted that perspective is a vera scienza. Alberti mentions but does not record a proof for his construzione legittima; the missing demonstration can be identified with two propositions in Book I of Piero's De prospectiva pingendi. The proof, which contains some lacunae, is here annotated and translated. It is unusual by modern standards, both because it exemplifies the quattrocento love of proportions by proving more than is mathematically necessary, and because it reduces the three-dimensional conditions of perspective to a two-dimensional configuration of lines. Most unexpected, in light of subsequent developments in perspective, is the small part played by optics in a "science"predicated upon vision. The description of construzione legittima in Alberti's De pictura is incomplete. At the end of Book i, Alberti says he has omitted the full "explanation" of perspective: [?23] I have set out whatever seemed necessary to say about triangles, the pyramid and the intersection. I used to demonstrate these things at greater length to my friends with some geometrical explanation [geometrica ratione]. I considered it best to omit this from these books for reasons of brevity.' Alberti says he is writing "as a painter speaking to painters" and that his description of construzione legittima is for the "unlearned"(ineruditis, "non eruditi"in Italian).2The closest he came to setting down his "prolix explanations" (to use Spencer's rendering) is a short work, Elementi di pittura; it begins auspiciously, but does not get beyond geometrical forms, which he called "inherent qualities."3 Even so, the proof may not be entirely lost: I will suggest that it is preserved, in a form close to the way Alberti proposed it, as Propositions I.xii and xiii of Piero della Francesca's De prospectiva pingendi.4 There are four reasons for identifying Piero's theorems (which actually function together as a single theorem) with Alberti's "prolix explanations," two circumstantial and two textual: First, De prospectiva pingendi was intended as a detailed exposition of the most technical aspects of perspective, largely omitting simplified advice and more general painters' concerns; and Piero was widely acknowledged as an authority on such matters. Second, Piero was ideally placed to be among the recipients of Alberti's "geometrical explanation" since he knew Alberti and was in Florence as early as the year after De pictura was written; and he possessed the requisite linguistic and mathematical training to be numbered among those who received the "explanation." Third, textually, Proposition I.xii-xiii does not fit smoothly into its context: the propositions that precede it do not adequately prepare for it, and those following make use of other constructions rather than applying it as would be expected. Conversely, the text may be read smoothly without the Proposition. Fourth, unlike the other propositions in De prospectiva pingendi, Proposition I.xii-xiii is logically unclear and contains several lacunae, suggesting it may not be Piero's own formulation. When the lacunae are restored, it can be seen that the Proposition functions as a justification for Alberti's construzione legittima by demonstrating proportional relations between various elements of Alberti's construction. After considering these four points, I will turn to the curiously small role of optics in the proof (it relies almost exclusively on a two-dimensional system of proportions),

1 Grayson, 58-59.
2
3

Ibid., 37.

H. Mancini, ed., Leonis Baptiste Alberti, Opera Inedita ..., Florence, 1890, 48-65; Spencer, 59. 4 The two earliest Mss are in Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, no. 1576, and Milan, Ambrosiana, Cod. Ambr. 307 inf. The former is in Italian and has

text and illustrations in Piero's hand; the latter is in Latin, with corrections and illustrations by Piero. Later versions exist in Milan (Ambrosiana, Cod. Ambr. 200 inf., 16th century, in Italian, without illustrations); London (British Museum Cod. 10366, 15th century, in Latin); Paris (Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. lat. 9337, 16th century, in Latin); and Bordeaux (Cod. 516, 16th century, in Latin). There are two modern editions of the Parma MS(see Winterberg and Fasola).

PIERO AND PROOF OF LINEAR PERSPECTIVE

221

and consider the way that the Latin perspectiva tradition has been utilized in the justification of the new perspectiva artificialis. The Technical Nature of Piero's Treatise Piero begins by dividing painting into disegno, commensuratio, and colorare, echoing Alberti's circonscrizione, composizione, and recezione di lumi. But unlike Alberti, Piero immediately narrows his attention to commensuratione, "which is called prospectiva," thereby concentrating on the most mathematical of the three elements and excluding many of Alberti's less rigorous concerns. Gilbert has located Alberti's model in the Horatian isagogic treatise, but Piero's drier, more mathematical text is more like a Euclidean or Archimedean sequence of definitions and proofs.5 His treatise is remarkably short on explanations; the proemium itself includes geometric figures, and the proofs commence immediately afterward.6 Piero was consistently identified with interests in technical perspective throughout the sixteenth century. Filarete, whose treatise on architecture includes the only surviving discussion of linear perspective between Alberti and the terminus ante quem of Piero's treatise, suggests that Piero execute the portraits of astronomers and mathematicians for his ideal city.7 Raffaello Maffei names Piero in his Commentiarorum Urbanum (1501) among those who had brought optics to the level of a science.8 The next year, Piero was mentioned among the "masters of perspective" in Camillo Leonardi'sSpeculum Lapidum.9Later in the cen-

tury Vasari praised Piero's accomplishments in perspective, and recorded that Luca Pacioli, perhaps the foremost mathematician of the fifteenth century, began as Piero's pupil.1o Daniele Barbaro, in his Trattato della nobilitiadella pittura (1585), called Piero "il maggior geometra de'suoi tempi," above Masaccio and Uccello.11Piero was also praised and imitated by several early authors of perspective treatises, including Daniele Barbaro (who copied several dozen of Piero's plates), Ignazio Danti, and Diirer.12 In the Summa di aritmetica (1494), Pacioli explicitly credits Piero with providing the geometrical foundation of perspective: "Perspective, if closely considered, will show that it could not exist except for geometry, a fact which has been clearly demonstrated by Piero della Francesca, my Pacioli contemporary and the prince of modern painters."13 recognized that a simplified method such as Alberti's stood in need of some more exact demonstration; and he identified Piero as the source for such a proof. Modern scholarship, beginning with Janitschek, has further amplified the Renaissance opinions of Piero's achievement.14 After Piero, perspective treatises usually declared themselves as simplifications of a more involved geometric theory. Serlio, for example, begins II secondo libro di prospettiva (1547) with an echo of Alberti's idea: "Inthis second book, I will try in the briefest way I can to provide the workman with just enough [perspective] so that he will be able to use it himself."15And again like Alberti, he recognizes the existence of a "deeper"science: "I will not try to dispute philosophically on the origins of perspective,

5 For the isagogic treatise in relation to Alberti, see C. Gilbert, "Antique Frameworks for Renaissance Art Theory," Marsyas, iII, 1943-45, 91. See Fasola, 64, n. 1, for a discussion of Piero's narrowing of Alberti's three elements. Piero also excludes the larger issues of the istoria, the physiology of the eye, and the fundamental geometric figures and constructions that became traditional (see Barbaro, for example). For important differences between Piero's reasoning and the tighter arguments of Euclid or Archimedes, see nn. 45, 52, and 53 below.
6

pratiche leggiere poste senza ordine, & fondamento, & esplicate rozzamente: perche di queste ne sono pure alcune di Pietro dal Borgo S. Stefano, & d'altri, che per gli idioti ci potriano servire." Also see Vignola, Prefazione, n.p., and Sabba da Castiglione, Ricordi, overo Ammaestrammenti, Venice, 1554, 52. 13Tit. I, art. ii; transl. in W.G. Waters, Piero della Francesca, London, 1901, 88-89. The first notices of De prospectiva pingendi stress its contribution to the "Wissenschaft der Perspektive." See H. Janitschek, "Des Piero della Francesca drei Biicher von Perspektive," Kunstchronik, xiii, 1878, 672, and E. Harzen, "Ueber den Maler Pietro degli Franceschi und seinen vermeintlichen Plagiarismus, der Franziskanerm6nch Luca Pacioli," Naumanns Archiv fiir die zeichnenden Kiinste, 11, 1856. F Witting, Piero dei Franceschi, Strassbourg, 1898, 150-51, praises Piero at the expense of Alberti: "Den Schnitt nun auch geometrisch zu konstruieren, gelang ihn [Alberti] nicht mehr. Die wird zuerst von Piero dei Franceschi geleistet." In this century the highest praise has come from S. Bottari in the Encyclopedia of World Art, xi, col. 353: "He dealt, therefore, with problems previously handled rather empirically by . .. Alberti, treating them . . . according to a method that was to be so fruitfully taken up again by Galileo. .. ." In fact, Piero's method is very little like Galileo's since it involves no experimentation, but rather the development of a body of propositions out of a number of given statements. Also see P. de Vecchi, The Complete Paintings of Piero della Francesca, New York, 1967, 119: by applying the strict rules of geometry he achieved . . . the inter". pretation of the concept of space in scientific terms." The misplacement of Piero at the beginning of the scientific tradition is probably due to Olschki (as in n. 9), 137-50 and 151-239.
14
15 S. Serlio, Tutte l'opere d'archittetura et prospectiva, Venice, 1619 (facsimile ed. 1964), 18r.

Piero's other two treatises are even more technical, although there is some attempt in Trattato del abaco to write for a larger public. See Mancini, Davis, and S.A. Jayawardene, "The 'Trattato d'abaco' of Piero della Francesca,"in C. Clough, ed., Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance, Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, Manchester, 1976, 229-43. Technical aspects of the Trattato d'abaco are also discussed in M. Cantor, Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, Leipzig, 1892, 11, 144-50. The Trattato is available in a modern edition in G. Arrighi, ed., Trattato d'abaco dal codice Ashburnhamiano 280 (359-291) della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze, Pisa, 1970.
7 See J.R. Spencer, ed., Filarete's Treatise on Architecture, New Haven, 1965, ii, Lib. ix, 67r. The terminus ante quem is given by the death of Federico da Montefeltro in 1482, since Piero's Libellus de Quinque Corporibus Regularibus is dedicated to Guidobaldo and Piero asks that the Libellus be placed in the Ducal Libraryalongside De prospectiva pingendi. For a discussion of this request, see Davis, 19-20. 8

Commentiarorum Urbanum Libri XXXVIII, Rome, 1506, ?xxv. Venice, 1502, cited in L. Olschki, Geschichte der neusprachlichen wissenschaftlichen Literatur, repr. Vaduz, 1965, 141, n. 4.
9

10Vasari, 11,487-88, 490-91. 11In P. Barocchi, ed., Trattati d'arte del cinquecento, Bari, 1962, ni, 220. 12Barbaro, 1: ". . . se forse vogliamo chiamare precetti & regole, alcune

222

THE ART BULLETIN JUNE 1987 VOLUME LXIX NUMBER 2

since the learned Euclid has written subtly on that subject [tratta sottilmente con la speculatione]."16Other Renaissance authors mention the foundations of perspective even more briefly. In the Perspectiva Corporum Regularium (1568), Jamnitzer says only that perspective springs from the "rechten grundt Geometria."17 Only in the seventeenth century, when Piero's treatise had been forgotten, did authors again attempt rigorous treatments.18 Piero's Contact with Alberti and Knowledge of Optics and Latin From these references it appears that if any Renaissance author is likely to have been given the full explanation of perspective by Alberti, it was Piero; and this supposition is strengthened by Piero's intimate contact with Alberti. Milanesi discovered a document that places Piero in Florence in 1439, working under (or with) Domenico Veneziano; and according to Longhi, Piero may have arrived in Florence four years earlier - which is to say, the year after Alberti wrote his treatise.19If we follow Piero's will and not Vasari's record, Piero was born in 1416 and would therefore have been nineteen years old, certainly mature enough to assimilate the new interest in perspective and appreciate the achievements of Masaccio.20 This friendship with Alberti continued in later years. Longhi suggested that Alberti served as guarantor three times for Piero: first when he traveled to Urbino and worked for Federico II da Montefeltro (ca. 1445), and again during his stays in Ferrara and Rimini.21 Hence Piero was ideally placed to be among those to whom Alberti gave his "prolix explanation." He was, in addition, well qualified to move in humanist circles. Another of his writings, the treatise De Corporibus Regularibus, which was printed by Pacioli, can be readily distinguished from Pacioli's autograph works since it is drier and
16

more technical.22 Assessing how well read Piero was is somewhat more difficult, since he was not given to naming or quoting his predecessors beyond Euclid - and his borIt rowing from Euclid is often allusive and inexact.23 is clear, however, that Pacioli knew Boethius, Leonardof Pisa, Ptolemy, Biagio Pelacini, and Regiomontanus, and that he translated the Elements twice, once into Latin and again into Italian; thus one may assume that Piero was familiar with at least some of these authors.24Piero is also likely to have known Witelo and Nichomachus, and if he read Ghiberti's Commentarii, he would have been aware of Alhazen, Paolo dell'Abaco, and Biagio's Quaestiones Perspectivae.24Piero was proficient in Latin. The Latin version of De prospectiva pingendi was written by Matteo dal Borgo, but edited by Piero; moreover, FernandaWittgens has suggested that the Latin edition may be "il vero trattato," and the Italian version dependent on it.25 Proposition I.xii-xiii in the Context of the Treatise Such are the external reasons why Piero is likely to have recorded the proof. The treatise itself also offers evidence, since the Proposition is in part unrelated to its context. De prospectiva pingendi is divided into three books (see Table I).26 Piero's own summary of them occurs twice in the text; in the proemium he says the first book deals with "[the perspective of] points, lines, and surfaces of planes," but to be precise, only the second half of the first book, Propositions I.xiv-xxix, fits this description. The initial half of Book I is a theoretical preparation, and it culminates in the proof, Proposition I.xii-xiii.27With three minor exceptions, practical methods of making perspective pictures are the substance of the remainder of the treatise.28 It may seem from this that the proof introduces the practical methods; but unlike Alberti's construzione legittima, Proposition I.xii-xiii is not the first step in a painter's constructions. It
did not know Pecham, but a printed edition was available from ca. 1482. See Facio Cardano da Milano, Prospectiva d. Iohannis Archiiepiscopi Centauriensis, Milan, ca. 1482. (P. Riccardi, Biblioteca Matematica Italiana, Milan, 1952, I, col. 248, lists the book as "rarissima."A copy is in the collection of the University of Chicago.) 25 F. Wittgens, "Una noterella sul trattato 'De Prospectiva Pingendi' di Piero della Francesca,"Studi in onore Carlo Castiglione, Milan, 1957, 872.
26

Ibid.

17Facsimile ed., Graz, 1973, Vorrede, n.p., par. 7. 18 See Guidobaldo del Monte, Perspectivae libri sex, Pesaro, 1600; E. Zanotti, "De Perspectiva in Theorema Unum Redacta," Buoniensi et Artium Instituto atque Academie Commentarii, iII, 1755, 169-75; and B. Taylor, Linear Perspective, London, 1715. Each author attempts a rigorous proof independent of Piero's. Other authors are rigorous (see, for example, F. Commandino, F C. Urbinatis in Planisphaerium Ptolemaei Commentarius, Venice, 1558; Vignola; Benedetti, De Rationibus operationum perspectivae, Taurini, 1585, 119-40) in the sense that individual procedures are complex or quantitative, but they commence with simplified diagrams for the non eruditi, bypassing the justification for perspective as a whole provided by Piero. See G. Milanesi, "Le Vite ... da G. Vasari. .. Vita di Piero della Francesca," Giornale storico di Archivi Toscani, vi, 1862, 10-15, and R. Longhi, Piero della Francesca, Florence, 1963, 97. 20 Vasari, ii, 488-90. A facsimile of Piero's will appears in Mancini.
21 Longhi (as in n. 19), 99 and 106. 22 See Mancini and Davis, 98 f. for a discussion of the "plagiarism." 23 In addition, Pacioli knew several scarcer sources: the Pseudo-Euclid, Jordanus Nemorarius, and Beldomani. See Olschki (as in n. 9), 163-64. On Piero's use of Euclid, see Davis, 38-41. 24

The numbering of the books and propositions is modern, but it seems certain Piero intended separate title pages for each of the books. 27 The other summary is found in the proemium to Book III, where Piero says Book I treated "plane surfaces in various ways" - again, referring to the second half of Book i. There is some confusion over the names of the two practical methods Piero introduces. The first, shown in Figure 5, is the second perspective method to appear in print. Even so, it has no generally agreed-upon name. Panofsky calls it "Piero's elegant method" (The Life and Art of Albrecht Disrer, Princeton, 1971, 251). In my Table I have adopted the term coined by P. Jones, "The Development of the Mathematical Theory of Linear Perspective .. .," Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1947. "Circumscribed rectangle procedure," Jones's term, encompasses a number of later procedures, such as those of Benedetti, Barbaro, Commandinus, and so forth. The second technique has been called "visual ray method" since the 19th century; but the appellation is not as useful since it embraces a number of distinct variants. Piero says only that his second method is useful for more difficult (i.e., complicated) objects.
28

19

J. Schlosser, Ghibertis Denkwiirdigkeiten, Berlin, 1912, II, 26. Ghiberti

PIERO AND PROOF OF LINEAR PERSPECTIVE

223

does not show how anything can be put in perspective except the empty square in which objects will be inscribed. It lacks the crucial element that makes Piero's foreshortenings possible, the diagonal lines drawn across the square (Fig. 6).29 But even if the proof does not make it possible to put objects in perspective, one might expect it to be used to draw the empty squares in perspective, before the objects are drawn in - but this is not the case. The proof is never used for practical purposes in De prospectiva pingendi. The first of the practical methods that follows the proof does away with its rigor, and Piero suggests that the empty squares can be drawn in any shape the painter wishes, instead of being carefully predetermined as they are in Proposition I.xii-xiii.30Further,the propositions before and after the proof connect with each other, leapfrogging over the proof.31 Nicco Fasola, who edited the text in 1942, noted that Proposition I.xii-xiii provides a "general validation" for perspective rather than a specific procedure. It also stands alone because of its level of geometric rigor: it contains some rather densely reasoned arguments, unlike even the more expansive of the later propositions, which break down into lengthy iterated procedures.32 The Proof in De prospectiva pingendi and Alberti's construzione legittima The content of the proof itself provides a fourth reason for identifying it with Alberti's "prolix explanation." It contains lacunae at several points, which have not been adequately reconstructed by previous commentators. A detailed discussion and partial translation is therefore provided in the Appendix. Here a brief gloss can serve to bring out its salient characteristics. The first part (which corresponds to the whole of Proposition i.xii) states that a horizontal plane BC can be foreshortened into a vertical plane EB (Fig. 1). In one of the few discursive asides, Piero explains that the vertical line EB represents a muro or tavola; and he gives each segment a length in braccia to show how the painter can calculate distances. In the second part (which corresponds to the first part of Proposition i.xiii), Piero adds a square to the diagram

(Fig. 2). He draws visual rays from A to the corners of the square. It is now this square, not the line BC, that the eye at A sees. Piero proves that that far side, CG, will appear the same to the eye as EH. Likewise the top, FG, will look the same as FH, and the base will appear equal to BE. At this point in the text there are two things that the eye views and two representations: BE represents the "plane" BC, and the various segments BE, EH, HF, and BFrepresent the sides of the large square. The second part closes with the earliest version of the "distance axiom," predating the one usually cited in P61erinby at least twenty years.33 The final part introduces another, quite curious, object into the proof: the trapezoid CEHG (Fig. 3), which functions as a foreshortened square turned on its side. Piero establishes an unexpected proportional relation between this trapezoid and another foreshortened square, BD'E'C, which he adds below it; he shows that the top of one, D'E', is equal to the top of the other, EH. This then proves, by a chain of equivalences, that this latest trapezoid BD'E'C is in fact the desired foreshortened version of the plane BC with which he began. In Piero's reasoning (Fig. 4), the "plane" BC "is" [he means "is proportional to"] the trapezoid CEHG, which in turn "is" [proportional to] the last trapezoid BD'E'C. This final trapezoid is the foreshortened square that is found in the later constructions (Fig. 6). Even on repeated readings, it is not clear exactly what Piero is attempting to prove, or why he reasons as he does. A modern reader, for example, may be surprised that the proof includes two unforeshortened squares (BC in side view and BCFG) and three foreshortened ones (BE, CEHG, BD'E'C);that they overlap in such an odd manner; and that Piero develops the relations between them in such different ways. At times it is not even clear how he visualizes the various parts of his diagram. The simple diagram in Fig. 1 is an elevation; the large square (Fig. 2, BCFG) looks like a plan but is introduced in the proof as an elevation; and the rotated and skewed square (Fig. 3, ECHG) is neither plan, elevation, nor finished foreshortening, and it would not be necessary for a straightforward proof.34 Modern explanations of the proof are not wholly satisfactory. Most authors follow Fasola and Winterberg, who claim the proof is a refinement on Alberti's construzione

29 The diagonal AC that appears in the proof is unrelated to the diagonal he uses in Propositions i.xiv ff. See n. 35 below. 30 Fasola, 77. Piero draws the foreshortened squares (degradate) in a number of different proportions, and it is important to recall that in the circumscribed square method, the degradata is drawn first, before the object or even the unforeshortened square below it. 31 Proposition I.xiv continues I.vii and I.viii, and I.xv continues i.ix and
I.x.

32 See Fasola, 76, n.2. 33For P61erinas the first to enunciate the "distance axiom," see Panofsky, "Die Perspektive als 'symbolische Form,"' Vortriige der Bibliothek Warburg, 1924-25. Further, see nn. 44 and 53 below.

34 It is mathematically inaccurate to claim that BD'E'C is the correct perspective representation of a square with side BC seen from point A without specifying the position of point A on an axis perpendicular to the plane of Figure 4. Piero's last equations, BC = CG and D'E'= EH, are necessary but not sufficient; and forms such as the trapezoid CEHG are not necessary. Such details should be compared to claims made for Piero's mathematical rigor: see, for example, F. Ghione in Fasola (ed. 1984), xxix-xlii. The implication that the large square BCFG is not a plan comes from the propositions that he adduces from Euclid's Optics, where Euclid speaks of points above and below each other. (The points B, E, H, F would be on the same level in a plan.) Piero refers to Euclid's Propositions 10 and 11, when he could as easily have referred to the two following propositions, which draw the same conclusion for points to the left and right of each other.

224

THE ART BULLETIN JUNE 1987 VOLUME LXIX NUMBER 2

legittima.35However, if the proof is seen instead as a justification for Alberti's method, its unique characteristicsfall into place. To see how Proposition I.xii-xiii functions as a proof of Alberti's method, we should ask what Alberti needed to justify in his explanations. His two diagrams (Fig. 7, lower left and center left) are normally explained, in part following Leonardo's description, as a side view and a front view.36 Yet to Alberti, justifying his construction by appealing to a three-dimensional analogy would probably have seemed less an explanation than an example, like the "miracoli della pittura" he made to show reflected light.37 His construction was based on theorems of perspectiva naturalis, but he could not turn to medieval theories of vision to prove a theory as artifiziale as linear perspective. In addition, theories of human vision all relied on Euclidean optics and geometry for their proofs. For justification, then, Alberti needed a purely mathematical construction, and in geometry that meant proof by proportions. Since the proof in Piero is a single diagram (Fig. 5), it provides the proportional relations between all the elements of the perspective construction: in modern terms, the side view (Fig. 1, part one of the proof), top view (Fig. 2, second part of the proof), and the foreshortened perspective construction (Fig. 3, part three of the proof). In the process of uniting these parts into one diagram, the proof has to give up clarity and practical advantage: it is as powerful in terms of proportions as it is useless for actual work. By comparing the three parts of the proof to the two diagrams of construzione legittima, it is easy to see how Alberti's diagrams are a special case of the more generalized proof in Piero. As Fig. 7 suggests, once the square in the proof is subdivided into smaller squares, the two become identical.38The top view or plan, which is not described in De pictura, is restored at the top left. The diagrams in De prospectiva pingendi show how the various parts of Alberti's construzione legittima are related: how the drawing made in the "little space" (Fig. 7, middle left) is related to the proportions of the final drawing, and how the plan of the object is related to the construction as a whole.39 In a word, it "proves" the construction by exposing the harmonious proportions between Alberti's apparently separate parts.

AF

B F

C G

E B C

E B F C G

A' D D B B I I CI C

35 Fasola, 76, n. 2, remarks that Piero's theorem, unlike Alberti's, manages to put information on the height of the foreshortened square (that is, BE) with the apparent width of its far side (that is, HE) onto the single line BE But there is no reason why such information should be put on a single line, and therefore such a compression of information is not a "refinement" of Alberti's method. Brion-Guerry, 42-46, 130-32, is primarily interested in the history of the diagonal drawn to the distance point, and she finds both Proposition I.xiii and i.xxiii of importance. The former does not include such a diagonal, and the latter only employs it as a check on another construction. Further,see A. Parronchi, Studi su la dolce prospettiva, Milan, 1964, 277.

De 1 Piero della Francesca, prospectivapingendi,diagramto author) PropositionI.xii (all diagrams: 2 Diagramto PropositionI.xiii, simplified 3 Diagramto PropositionI.xiii, simplified 4 Diagramto PropositionI.xiii, redrawnfrom the ParmaMS

36 See, for example, Grayson, 113, n. 20.

37 See Spencer, 105, n. 27. 38 See Proposition i.x (Fasola, 71-72) for a similarly divided square. 39 In this reading, CEHG (Fig. 2) is the plan; see n. 34 above.

PIERO AND PROOF OF LINEAR PERSPECTIVE

225

_____ *'

____

____

e-4-

__ --.

t~\

-?

? :e

9'? ^"t%:`?

.r

--- C

5 Diagram to Proposition I.xiii, the version in the Milan MS(photo: Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan)

A'

"17

xC

6 Diagram to Proposition I.xxii, some lettering altered

7 Comparison of Alberti's construzione legittima (middle left and lower left) and its corresponding ground plan (upper left) with Piero, diagram to Proposition I.xii-xiii (right row)

226

THE ART BULLETIN JUNE 1987 VOLUME LXIX NUMBER 2

Geometry, Proportion, and Optics in the Proof Wittkower underscored the importance to Alberti of proportion in perspective: "The proof of representational correctness .
.

. [is] given in terms of the proportionality

of

similar triangles. It is worth remembering that this is the mathematical concept on which Renaissance theory of perspective rests."40Proposition I.xii-xiii supports this: proportion proves perspective. The crucial last step of the proof shows that both the large trapezoid ECHG and the smaller one BD'E'C "are the foreshortened plane." They look quite different to modern eyes - the larger one is rotated 90 from what we might expect, and is steep and asymmetrical, and the smaller one is shallow and symmetrical - but to Piero they are in proportion to each other, because of the network of triangles that surrounds them and because their bases and tops are equal. Modern diagrams intended to summarize or introduce the elements of perspective normally depict a bird's-eye view of an observer looking at a picture plane. Such representations are meant to be illusionistic, and to be visualized in three dimensions. Piero's diagram (Fig. 5) is not such a model. It can be redrawn so that it appears more "modern" in this respect (Fig. 8), and sixteenth-century writers, beginning with Vignola, indeed attempted similar transformations.41 But this is an impermissible anachronism, principally because it destroys a crucial step of the proof: the trapezoid CEHG is no longer proportional to the trapezoid BD'E'C (compare Figs. 4 and 8). By altering the positions of H and E on the line BF, the illusionistic representation makes Piero's proof impossible. Proposition I.xii-xiii is more like an ideal picture, stripped of ungeometrical subject matter, in which all the proportions are in perfect accord. Hence it is surprising but not unaccountable that the diagram recurs, reversed, in Piero's Flagellation (Fig. 9). There, a large square (formed of the near columns and their entablature) dominates on the left, as the square BCFG frames the right half of Figure 4. And like the diagram, the square in the painting contains several

/A'
A D'

/ /C

**.. "' E'

D
8 Diagramto PropositionI.xiii, redrawnto develop threedimensionalrelations receding, foreshortened squares and their vanishing point. The figure at the extreme right of the painting faces left and observes the scene, like the schematic observer AD in Figure 4. (Later, when lines such as AD were elaborated into figures, they were conventionally drawn in profile as the observer is here.) The careful adjustment of proportions in Piero's painting has often been remarked; the appearance of the diagram provides the first direct evidence of the application of an ideal system of proportions.42 This accounts for the way the proof is reasoned, and for the part played by proportion, and the explanation seems

Perspective," in Idea and Image, London, 1978, 127. However, Wittkower goes on to argue that the proportions of fundamental importance are those between images in perspective (such as the proportion between two columns in a picture). His primary source is Piero's discussion of the subject, which occurs just before the proof, in Proposition I.xi. But his conclusions are not supported by Piero's text: "proportion in perspective" is not the subject of Piero's Proposition I.xi, but rather of a scholium or commentary appended to it; and Piero, who is otherwise so thorough about illustrating his propositions, does not even include a diagram. Furthermore, Piero never returns to the subject, although he discusses proportions in other contexts (for example Propositions I.ix, I.x, and I.xv; see n. 31 above). Piero does not measure proportions in perspective pictures. The structure of the treatise argues instead that the following propositions, i.xii-xiii, are central (Wittkower does not mention either). Also see M. Baxandall, Patterns of Intention, New Haven, 1985, 113, for another statement on the importance of proportion in perspective. 41 Vignola, 105. 42Piero says that the position of the eye can be altered (see Appendix below), so that the Flagellation retains the crucial proportions of the proof even though its principal vanishing point (A') is off-center in the square.

40 R. Wittkower, "Proportion in

K. Clark, Piero della Francesca, London, 1951, 20, points to the inlaid black marble "over the head of the bearded Greek." His suggestion that it is a modulus for the painting is consistent with Piero's interest in proportions, although the diagram is chiefly concerned with proportional relations rather than repetitions of a modulus. The parallel between diagram and painting also helps explain its odd composition. The "framed" area at the left is indeed a "picture"(of the trials of the Church), and the three foreground figures are linked to it by a system of proportions. Pontius Pilate functions as a second "observer,"within the large square, and Christ is framed by a small rectangle into which Pilate looks. (I am not suggesting the diagram is reproduced exactly; the observer is higher than line AD and closer than he would be if the painting were based on a copy of the diagram. It is rather the harmonious proportions afforded by the diagram that, I suggest, were attractive to Piero.) Also see Baxandall (as in n. 40), 111, for the related term commensuratione; and G. Maiorino, "The Legend of Geometry Fulfilled," Gazette des beaux-arts, cxxxviii, 1986, 111-17, for more general critical reflections. These aspects of the picture complement the sleuthing of its illusionistic space, which Piero also intended; see M.A. Lavin, Piero della Francesca: The Flagellation, London, 1972, 31-51. The parallel was first brought to my attention by L. Bowditch.

PIERO AND PROOF OF LINEAR PERSPECTIVE

227

I?x
Ir~O?' :;~~? ? h~L; -? :.? .L% ..' I! I? ,"

'~?-l?;:~c~~ ii"""""""""'~:
-r --4-` . -~ol--???~. .; i;, ?~- -1ii: ? f~ L"il ?,? i:LrR -);L? ?a 3?~.3~~lru~l.~aaaas%~f~!~ ~- ?~ I?1~ ~%"; ~

?I:j i~?i? d

:d (;::?

.it'']

~t
.

:-si::i:

-s~

-py~?

p~7*:- pW q;r~~ "-_4L~ .?`.F ., :: ?' ?' ?.-*

i?:i

r~-"???.: ~"; ?r~':,,

~1?

":

lies"

:?x. ?;i?wl;??
'5:

fi!

z 1 * d

w5F

"?k
?Irp ?i. 4 ??, -

;& Int~.r~
i .i E ,:?

?i.~
"T-~e

Ii '"J~

:~;j$? ;1;

;r. r

?r t; I-?~ iiil' it !r. ; t`:ir ?~,:

rl' ~~\'? 'o II~? tr (i ~F~~dl;~is, ?: ,t [Ir~ii

;c ;~L~L~ ?li~;I;?~PI~ .-? : 91~~-

t~? .

?? ?i
;;

9 Pierodella Francesca, Rome) Flagellation, temperaon panel, 58.4 x 81.5cm. Urbino,Ducal Palace(photo:GabinettoFotografico,

complete. But how are optics involved? If perspective is a "true science," as Piero says,43 and a key to naturalistic painting, then it must also be based on optics and vision, and not just on two-dimensional proportions. The role of optics, which is disconcertingly small, can be traced in the eleven propositions that precede the proof. The first four are pure Euclidean optics: Proposition i.i is an expansion of the first definition of Euclid's Optics, and Proposition I.iv is Euclid'sProposition 5, close to the "angle axiom."44 However, Piero discounts vision by renaming the rays "lines"and demoting the eye to a "point."Propositions I.iv and I.v are versions of a single diagram (Fig. 10); but where Proposition I.iv is concerned with appearances, Proposition i.v contains no eye or visual rays: it is con-

10 Diagramsto PropositionsI.iv and v, letteringomitted

11 Diagramsto PropositionsI.vii and viii, letteringomitted

43See Propositions I.xxx and II.xxii, the closing proofs of Books i and ii (see Table), in which Piero defends perspective against those who charge it is not a "true science." The first addresses the limits of human vision, and the second malpractice by painters. An English translation of the first appears in E. Holt, A Documentary History of Art, 1947, I, 261-64. These are the earliest evidence we have of detractors of perspective.

44The "angle axiom" is Euclid's Proposition 8. It claims that certain proportions do not apply in a specific case (contrary to what Panofsky implies). Euclid's Proposition 5 and Piero's Proposition I.iv simply claim an inequality: that among equal objects, the nearer subtends the greater angle. Thus there is no contradiction between Proposition I.iv and the "distance axiom" stated in i.xii and i.xiii.

228

THE ART BULLETIN JUNE 1987 VOLUME LXIX NUMBER 2

cerned exclusively with the kind of proportions that obtain between various segments.45Proposition I.vi returns to optics, but the next two propositions form another such pair in which the first is optical and the second geometric. Proposition I.vii reads: "Given a line equally divided [Fig. 11, left], and a pencil of lines, the largest angles belong to the shortest lines." Proposition I.viii reads: "Given a line equally divided, and a pencil of lines, a second line parallel to the first will also be equally divided."46 In the first of these, Piero is no longer speaking of raggi, but only of linee, and the eye is a puncto; but it is clear he is thinking of vision when he speaks of the angles between the line segments. The second proposition abandons even this, and speaks only of proportions between the segments on the two parallel lines. The remaining three propositions before the proof are concerned exclusively with proportions, and, as I have suggested, they are connected with the first practical method that follows the proof. Discounting these final three propositions, then, there are four propositions on optics, in which the eye and its visual rays are progressively discounted in favor of a geometric configuration, and two pairs of propositions (Figs. 10 and 11) in which optical configurations are emptied of their visual meaning and replaced by systems of proportions. The proof uses two of the optical propositions (I.ii and I.vi) and makes reference to Euclid's Propositions 10 and 11. In each case the references establish that part of the proof looks like or is taken from a theorem on optics, and in each case the optical theorems are turned into sets of proportions. For example, when the large square BCGF is introduced into the proof (Fig. 2), Piero does not establish that the visual rays must intersect the side BF, but only that the configuration of lines appears similar to that in Proposition I.vii. Similarly, when he adduces Proposition I.ii, he might equally well have adduced Proposition I.xii, which is concerned wholly with proportions; but by adducing I.ii he underscores the similarity of his diagram to the configuration in a proposition on optics. The proof itself mentions rays and the eye, but they are not consistently used. It is impossible, for instance, for the eye at A to "see" the trapezoids ECHG or BD'E'C in the way that it "sees" the plane BC (Fig. 4). Piero and Alberti did not want to discuss optics "more than necessary," and Alberti declined to consider the extromission/intromission debate (Piero usually speaks of lines to the eye).47" Piero drains the references to optics out of his propositions and makes them into geometric configurations. Vision functions only as a ready analogy for the first part of the proof, and it provides diagrams to which systems of proportions may be applied. Optical theorems therefore validate the proof only indirectly: a certain portion is validated because it uses a certain Euclidean diagram, which in turn can be replaced by proportions. Before
45The proportions are related to those in the final paragraph of Proposition i.xii, and serve to show that more proportions could be extracted from the diagram than are used in Proposition I.xii. See n. 52 below. 46 Fasola, 69, 70.

they can be used in the proof, rays must become lines, "eyes" points, and angles triangles. Only the formal elements of the optical propositions survive in the proof. The proposition recorded in De prospectiva pingendi is the only surviving Renaissance proof of perspective, even though Piero and the "rechten grundt Geometria" were often referred to in later works. The fact that perspective was justified quite differently than it was in later centuries illuminates not so much the history of mathematics as changing conceptions of what was in need of proof. In particular, Alberti's "prolix explanations" show an unexpected relation between proportion and optics - and by implication, between perspective and vision. A doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago, James Elkins specializes in various aspects of art theory. He previously published "Michelangeloand the Human Form: His Knowledge and Use of Anatomy" in Art History (1984). [1450 East 55th Place, Apt. 1029-S, Chicago, IL 60637].

Table
Outline of De prospectiva pingendi
Book I Theory (a) Theoretical underpinnings 1. Propositionson optics 2. Propositionsof proportions ....... I.v, viii-xi 3. The proof of linearperspective ...... I.xii-xiii (b) The circumscribed objects squaremethod:two-dimensional
1. Proportional divisions of the square .. . I.xiv-xvi ................ Propositions I.I, i-iv, vi, vii

2. Polygons .................... I.xvii-xx 3. Reducingand enlargingthe square ... I.xxi-xxiv 4. Polygons, continued;plans of buildingsI.xxv-xxix envoi: the possibleangles of vision .... i.xxx (c) Theoretical Book II The Circumscribed SquareMethod(Continued) (a) Three-dimensional objects(pilasters,fonts, etc.) .... II.i-xi II.xii envoi: the "columnparadox"......... (b) Theoretical Book In The VisualRay Method .III.i-iv (a) A torcula(simplifiedmazzocchio) ............ (b) Three-point perspective................. ... .III.v .III.vi, vii (c) Columns:bases and capitals .............. III.viii ........... (d) Heads.................. III.ix (e) Cupolas ................ ............ forms ...................... (f) trompe-l'oeil III.x-xii
In this context it is important that the circumscribed square method does not require an "eye"at all, and Piero often (but inconsistently) draws constructions with "lines" and later adds the eye.

47

PIERO AND PROOF OF LINEAR PERSPECTIVE

229

Appendix
Annotated Translation of The Proof of Linear Perspective, De prospectiva pingendi, Proposition I.xiii The first part of the proof, Proposition I.xii, requires little annotation, and is therefore omitted. An English translation is available in E. Holt, A Documentary History of Art, 1947, I, 260-61.48 To foreshorten a plane in a square [Fig. 2]. As above [Proposition I.xii], divide the line DC in B and draw BF perpendicular to DC. Draw GC perpendicular to DC, so that GC equals BC, and draw FG perpendicular to BF, so that FG equals BE I say BCGF is a square. Draw AC and AG, cutting BF in E and H. I say that E appears to point A to be higher than B, since A is above B, and H is lower than F, as shown in [Propositions] 10 and 11 of Euclid's De Aspectuum Diversitate.49 I say that BE appears equal to BC in the end point, and EH in the given plane appears equal to CG, and HF appears equal to FG. [And this is the proof:] Draw AF and AB. This gives us three triangles, each with two bases: ABC with bases BC and BE; ACG with bases CG and EH; and AGF with bases FG and FH. Whence, by Proposition [I.]ii above,so the base BE appears equal to the base BC, since they are contained within the same angle [B]A[C]. In the same way, the base EH appears equal to CG because they are seen under the same angle, and the base FH appears equal to FG, because they

are seen under the same angle. AndS1 AE:AC :: DB:DC [1] and EH:CG :: AE:AC52 [2] and BE + FH:CG :: AG:HG [sic:HG:AG] [3] And whenever the distances and the objects are in proportion to the height of the eye and the foreshortened object, it is clear that the foreshortening is a true one.53 Therefore I say EHCG is the plane BE, foreshortened in a square [BCFG].54 Draw a line from A parallel to BC, and divide BC in half to locate point I. Draw a line from I, perpendicular to BC, to meet the line from A in point A['].55 Then draw a line from E parallel to BC, to intersect CG in K. Draw A[']B and A[']C, and label the points D['] and E['] where EK intersects them. I say the foreshortened plane is the trapezoid BCD[']E['] [Fig. 3]. The Proof is as follows: [I claim that] D[']E['] must equal EH [Fig. 4], which appears the same as CG, as proved above. I say it is either equal or proportional, since A[']B:A[']D['] :: A[']C:A[']E[']6 [4] and D[']E[']:BC :: EH:CG. [5]

The proportions [in (5)] may be equal or similar; but they are equal, because we set BC in one [square, in side view] equal to BC in the other [square, BCFG], so the proposition is proved.57

48Forfurtherreferences this text, see Fasolaand Winterberg, on passim. The translation paragraphed clarity.The original has no spacing. is for Ms 49Euclid,Optics,Proposition "Inthe case of flat surfaces 10: lyingbelow the level of the eye, the more remotepartsappearhigher." Proposition 11: "In the case of flat surfaceslocated above the level of the eye, the partsfartheraway appearlower."Transl.from H. Burton,"TheOptics of Euclid," Journal the OpticalSocietyof America,xxxv, 1945,357in of 72. Pierocouldalso haveusedProposition two I.vi: "Given equal,parallel lines perpendicular a horizontalbase, and an eye to one side, neither to highernor lower than either,I say that the lower extremityof the more remoteline will appearhigherthanthe lowerextremity the closerline, of and that the higherextremityof the more remoteline will appearlower than the higherextremityof the closerline."See n. 50 below. 50 PropositionI.ii: "All bases seen undera single angle, whatevertheir position, are represented equally to the eye." Piero could equally well have referredto Propositioni.xii. In this case, as in n. 49, to explain Piero'spreferences is necessary recognize importance attached it to the he to includingpurelyopticaltheoremsin the proof. 51 The laws of proportionality Piero uses may be found in Euclid,Elements,vi.2 and v.17. 52 and Proportion[3] does not follow immediately, it has not been adeThe quatelyexplainedin moderncommentaries. lacunamay be filled as follows:
CG - EH:CG :: AC - AE:AC BF - EH:CG :: AC - AE:AC AC - AE:AC :: AG - AH:AG [2.1] [2.2] [2.3] [2.4] [2.5]

since he needsonly [1] (see n. 45), Pieroprovesmore than is necessary, betweenthe "sideview" relations and [2]to demonstrate proportional the EHCG.Thisdecidedly non-modas given in Prop. i.xii and the trapezoid ern practiceis to be accountedfor not by confusionon Piero'spart, but in such Proportions pleasure proportion. by a characteristic quattrocento as [3] add to the cumulativeharmonyof the entire proof ratherthan workingin a linearfashiontowarda single conclusion.Specifically,[3] ties theheightof theforeshortened linking object,BE,into theproportions Prop. I.xii and the trapezoidEHCG.See furthern. 53. of axiom" 53This is the second, moreexplicit,formulation the "distance of in the proof. The firstoccursin the finalparagraph Prop. i.xii (seetext to'n. 33). This passagedoes not repeatwhat he had said in the earlier betweenthe elementsof the diacontext,but servesto establishrelations as gram to Prop. i.xii - which is alreadyestablished a "trueforeshorEHCG.HencePierousesplurals: "distances" tening" and the trapezoid and "objects."
54

See Fasola, 76, n. 2:

". ..

non ? esatto quando dice che EHCG e 'il

significache EHCGci da le misureper la piano BE'ridottoin quadrato; costruzione prospetticadi un quadrato,de cui BE la veduta scorciata della profondit. . in with primesoccurunprimed the Ms; it was usualthroughthe 55 Letters 16th centuryto repeatlettersin geometrydiagrams. 56 Anotherlacunaseparates[4] and [5]. It may be restoredas follows: :: D[']E[']:BC AD -BE:BE [4.1]
AD - BE:BE:: DB:DC DB:DC :: EH:CG [4.2] [4.3]

therefore
BF - EH:CG :: AG - AH:AG

but
AG - AH = HG

and BF - EH = BE + FH [2.6] I thankIan Muellerfor suggesting reconstruction. this Hereas elsewhere

from which [5] follows directly. in ways: the side BC of 57Note that the squarescorrespond unexpected the squareseen "inside view"(Fig.2) is also the side of the largesquare (Fig. 3) since A is the eye; but this same segmentbecomesthe front of the trapezoidBCD[']E['] (Fig. 3) and also, by rotation, the front of the of ECGH.HencePiero'sinterestin the proportions his diagram trapezoid as a whole is strongerthanhis concernwith consistentthree-dimensional visualization.

230

THE ART BULLETIN JUNE 1987 VOLUME LXIX NUMBER 2

But if you ask why the eye has been placed in the middle, it is because it measures the representation from that position. Nevertheless you can place the eye where you wish, but not beyond the limits shown in the last figure [Proposition I.xxx], and wherever you place it, the same proportions will apply.58

Fasola, G. Nicco, Piero della Francesca, De prospectiva pingendi, Florence, 1942 (repr. with intros. E. Battisti and F. Ghione, Florence, 1984). Grayson, Cecil, Leon Battista Alberti on Painting and Sculpture ..., don, 1972. Lon-

Mancini, Girolamo, "L'opera'De Corporibus Regularibus' di Pietro Franceschi detto Della Francesca, usurpata da Fra' Luca Pacioli," in Atti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, ser. 5, xiv, 1909, 441-649. Spencer, John, Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting, New Haven, 1966. Vasari, Giorgio, Le Vite. . ., Florence, 1568.

Bibliography
Barbaro, Daniele, La pratica della prospettiva, Venice, 1569. Brion-Guerry, Liliane, Jean Pelerin Viator ..., Paris, 1962. Davis, Margaret Daly, Piero della Francesca'sMathematical Treatises..., Ravenna, 1977.

Vignola, Giacomo Barozzi da, Le due regole della prospettiva ... commentarij del R. P. M. Egnati Danti, Rome, 1583.

con i

Winterberg, Constantin, Petrus pictor burgensis de prospectiva pingendi, Strassbourg, 1899.

58 Barbaro, fig. 36, demonstrates how the eye may be shifted to the left or right to produce an asymmetrical foreshortened square similar to Piero's trapezoid ECGH. Piero allows for this; but the later Renaissance predilection for asymmetry does not occur in De prospectiva pingendi. A confusion over "eyes" also begins here: Piero implies that A['] is an

eye as well as A, and Barbaro adds a third eye and calls the distance point the "occhio fuor[i] di squadro." The confusion is due in part to the lack of unambiguous terminology for "elevation," "side view," and "vanishing point," and in part to the conflation of many views into a single diagram.