ANAMORPHIC ART by Jurgis Baltrusaitis translated by W,J. Strachan Cheoalier des Arts et Lettres HARRY N. ABRAMS, INC. Publishers, New Yorkmramorphese LACAN SEMINARS 1 t son fopiqueat plaisir ambassadeus dhan ide sonon960 Tsetse de a pine psi960 _nigine image de la passionryindeanamorpique dela tage ‘77051961 beaut chose 2an2i966 canton pique, es anbassateus ogee uta perspective pals elérection ores elopiqules ambassadeus al sie™ Pa en 2 2 5 £ SRLS Penpestive projection on 4 vaste cing A ‘Bone 165. The Matera Perpecice. A. Boss, 18. Redcton Ia perpective of roma pir, G. ‘Hae tom CCompostion of dongsted pice. G. Hue, 2. Meso istrument fA Riches 646. Diets windows se4 Garden ofthe Invonts of Chi’ Pasion, i etn 64 AathropomarhieSeapor. Brace 1624 ‘Atkeopomorpic City. Brac 624 ‘Anumorphiclindsape A, Kirche, 646 Asana in ‘numorPic agra. Sho 637 Diet radon ater G. Scot 1657. Dares window ater Vigo Dant 138. Dies window’ 1335 The Ambaradrs Haba, 533 Penpectecta te P. Aco 635 Vly of hanan boolige Valle Vacche 10-35. ‘Ti tronomer, Assess or Hans Hobsin, The Costs Armsof Death Holi, 32. The daar (Sas anarporpe sal nd ‘sopsclcorecion. Anumnrphous of el T- Revo 615 ‘Sropate taanorpioss of sl Bu Brew, 199 ‘Azamorphic minor portrait of Chases 1 afer Te sang Pope 2B 67 Sees Gks tae Sac ot ‘i Gat gre of ts Uns Mens, 1636 The deal of dr nd Set 8 Tes ‘headin (a; snamopns oft Ghia np of Gra Cons eM ba, Antort pot of ee. C. Ornem, ‘Aaattepie metho C. Oca, 165, “sen nh come. 20. ‘Amorphis oo seal ples. J-B. Lavi "Boe. aap ring. B.S, 154 Wier me tg ‘Anomorpicansespe Fort, 180-20. ‘Nuc a. ‘Napleon 1868 105, 105, us ma, 18 13 na ns "9 9 ny Bs Be Br 28 9 Dnoes; Musician. 868. A-Anambrphasis: Dag agordn. 2804-14, 1B. Distore image. Jo. Grandvil 844 Cylindrical aamorphoves? Wrest. {Cylinsiealanamorphoser: Harsemon 28th (Ginga snamorphoses: Mow wih a Beard, 1630, Clinical ansmorposer: Cac 1640. (Gindal aamorphoses: Brcton of he ras. "rhe. Cylinal mamorphores: Haning soe 8 CGindrclanamorpSoer: Masia 18th (Conical ansmorphosis: Horsonan 28th (Conca anamorphosis: Mytllaia! sone. 18th Clinical ansmorphoris: Woman ah Bd “zeae ithe Gylindsc anamorphosis: Lue-plyer ond a "evn tharmatc wore tthe Cplindscsl anamorphone: Cupid and Pryce ithe CConieatanamerphosis: Woman with a bird Tithe ‘Por ame tondre Chamonets,ssamorposis and painting. 8th ‘Conia sramorposs: Oa defending ie young gaint an eagle. x8, (Gini anamoephoss: Monkey with an oer arm hace oantd by ade. 180be Von ond dis sasnerphasis tod engteving Anamorphic misrr with an elepant. 8. Vet, ers, Anamorphic mirrors with Loui XIT 1630, 1638 ‘Anamorphic porit af Jacques” @AUzo. Shak Nicero, 1631 Si rans of Pla, asamorphosis nd engraving, ‘Ciindviea miro casing an iage o appear in thei A. Kircher 155 ‘Conia anamorphosis: geometrical diagram. J~ , Niceron 1638. caopericenamorphoss, Do Breil 649. {Conia snsmorptoss M-Btta, 143. (Cyndi anamorphonis) A. Kirchet, 166 ‘Azamorphie machiae for © cylindrical miroe T-Leapoly 1722, Chinese anamorphoses, 1573-169: A pairof oor. oman na spongy rack. Horan. ‘Moved rir. Warrior i slr nach hand Pnonag mounted nan lp.Anamorphic Arts weston of Anamarphoe ox magi ariel de fs noes by Juris Balas, Olver Pern Eater, 1959 Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 7.73789 Standatl Book Number: 8109-06527 French eon © 1969 Olivier PerinBaieur, Past English tanlation 1 1976 Chad Healey Lud, Cambridge blithe in 1977 by Hary N. Abrams, Incoported, New York Alleghtseserved. No part of the enoteat ofthis book may be teprodved without the writen permission ofthe publishers Printed snd bound in Gret Brisa by Wiliam Clowes & Sons, Limited London, Calchester and BecksContents Acknowledgements List of Mlustrtions Preface ‘Accelerated or decelerted perspective ‘The first anamorphoses end their dissemination: sinteenth and, ‘seventeenth centuries French masters of perspective: Salomon de Caus, Niceron, Maignan Descartes: automata and doubt “The artists’ quarrel: the Academy versus Desangues and Bosse German visionaries: Kircher and Schott Holbein’s “The Ambassadors" Optical diversions inthe eightesath and nineteenth cent ‘Mirsor anamorphoses Chinese presiigiation Notes tothe ext Index to text u 6 ™ 3 ns 1 159 183there is nothing more perilous than to arrive at madness through reason Gomeline Agrippa Acknowledgements Fig 6, Anderson-Viollet; Figs. 7 and 33, afer G. Honet; Figs 8 and 9, Albertina, Vienna; Fig. 1 Marc Vasx; Fig. rt, Neional Porat Gallery, London; Fig. 2, The Mecopolitan Museum of Art New York; Fig. 16 and 96, Ritsmuseum, Amsterdam; Fig, ty and gy afer Boge Fig 23, Universty Library of Erlangen ig 37, Gabino Fotopaico Naionale, Rone; Fig. 36, Vase, Rome; Fg. 65 and Po, Naonal Gallery, London; Fg 67, Archives phorographiques, Pari Fig. 6, after H. A. Schmid Fig. 73, [Natonalmoscam, Stckhabn; Fig. 74, Abnur-Vielt; Fi. 92-4, Pildeiphia Massa ‘of re, phot A.J. Wyatt; Fis. 97-200, Rijksmuseum of Amsterda=Museum of Natural Sener of Leyden; Figs 101-5 and 107-9, J D. Sch Fig. 129, Pete Devinoy For Figs 5525. 39,54 87-9; 6,62 7, 76, 8,8, the author isindebted to the photo> raph seve ofthe blotique Naina, A ember ofthe rproduaions have been ‘ade from orginal documents by Jean Sadoul to whom thanks ate also due fr the optical foreshortenings af Sgures 7 and 7 “The publishes wish thank Marion Calthorpe for hr invaluable work athe checking of ferences and the eting ofthe English talon nd for repaing the ines,List of Illustrations Accerted perspective: Trois sage, 1672. ‘Decslerated perspecse: opie eozetons. Dare, 1535. Deselerated perspective: opsical_comectins “Tr 1672. “Trsn's Calum, Rome: ALafter Kiecer, 649. Batter Bald 112, Deereated perspective: ‘A. Michelangelo, "The Last Judge’, 1935-46 3 Lessig oe wal Dies 55, Av Comeced poraits of Pope Pr ‘Ferdinand 'B, Anamorphic pictae of Charles V, Ferdinand I, Pope Pal I and Franc 1535. Ves B,Scin: "Was sibs du" 1538 Vesiri,.Schba: “Au dual Tor! ‘Anamorphic portic: Chis V.1533 ‘Aousnoepic portrait Bard Vi 1546. ‘Aoamorpbi ang of sing. Geman, 16h. ‘Anamorphic pices SU Anthony. 1535 ‘Anamorphic picture: Stins Peter and Paul et (German 1530-60 Auamomphic pstre: Bapuion of Chit, St “eroms Laan, 160 Asnmorphie pctore: Desth of Saul. Flemish, eine Asnmorphic composition: The Fall J. 1H, Glse, 16538, ‘Humorows ezamorphoss: ‘Now sommes tai van dee Heyden, 1625 Azamorpi por: Erest, Dake of Boars, "7 Stommel 1598 Secret port of Cares fae 1649. Etenlon ignoring visual angle: Vignla-Dand, 1540-85, sry example of anamorphoss, Leonardo de ‘inch 185-1538 Acamorpic diagram. The Master ER, ©1540. 1 and 4 2s 26 ” 8 2» x» 3 M 35 ¥ Oti-fchioned anamorphic method. 8. Marlo 1604, (d-fishioned anamarphic method. M. Betini 160, Jean Feanois Niceon, M. Las, 262. Conant lena, after Lessardo da Vinci, 492. Anatnogphicchemes by Niceron, 638 [Stamarpie schemes by Du Brea with ports ‘of Lows XI, 1649. Animorphs of hea, Salomon de Cas, x22. nampa nfs hea JF Nico, 138 [Anamorpboss of sn actor Holding «mask S. de ‘Cas 1612 Anamorphonis clas, J. Neon 1638. (Conia asumoephosis of Louis XU J-F. ‘Nieto, 1638 Pyramidal and con anarorphoss. Du Brel, 1649, Optic, anopsic and catoptic anamorphoses ‘Du Bee 2699. Dest fram the Ora D. 8 Voz, x6 ‘Sr Frans of Pasi, anamorphic feo, F ‘Maignan, 162. Optical stron and correo Apparatus for an anamorphic composition TE Maignan, 1643, St obr the” Apoule at Parma fresco. JP. ‘Nieto, 1643 and 3644, Widen cn. Acco, 16. igure representing Mout Fmolls.. de Caos, 1s Figure epresating a iver S. de Cas 1615, The Cov of Orphen, which could be aad inthe precoding Sire’. de Cans, rr NepmeGratto Sde Cavs, 16t5 ‘Egpoument with sphere, Descartes, 1662 Experiment with tick Desa, 166, Derspective diagram. H. Reds 153 "Te prove that ee ot neces draw pat the eye reer A. Bose 1683Preface In the history of art, perspective is generally considered to be a realistic factor restoring the thd dimension. Buti, abovealla device the nature of which varies accoedingt0 the intentions behind the work. This Bookis concerned with ts fantastic spect, che absurd side of perspective. ‘Anamorphosis ~a word that makes its appearance inthe seventeenth century but fora device already known ~ plas huvoe with elements and principles; instead of seducing forms to thir visible limits, i projects them outside themselves and stort them so that when viewed from a certain point they return to normal. The system was established as a technical curiosity, but it embraces a poetry of ab> ‘traction, an effective mechanism for producing optical illusion and a philosophy of fase realy, Iris an enigma, a wonder, a marvel. Although itbelongs tothe world cf curiosities which inthe Fund of human knowledge has aways had its cabinet’ — its private rom ~and refuge, it at infrequently spils over the hermete framework ofthat domain. These scholarly ‘games are, by definition, something mote. ‘The subject ofthis book is the history of pictures in which realty and appearance sare artificially separated by artists and scholars ‘Accelerated! and ‘decelerated’ perspective systems upset a natural order but without destroying it. Anamorphic perspective destroys i by carrying the same principle to its logical extreme. Dis iegrated pictures reconstituted by optical rays were commonly found in the sixteenth century. They were considered tobe miracles of art nd for some time the secret of how they were executed was jealously guarded, bur subsequently they spread almost until our own time. The procedures for cresting these compositions were revealed only step by step, and it snot until the seventeenth century that we sce exhaustive demonstrations of them and of their relationship with other itel- Iectus! speculations. Perspective has it place in the body of knowledge about the world Iti sur- sounded with legends and with theories about the universe. Tei asociated with certain automata that gave rise to notions about mechanisms governing forms of life. Ansmorphosis renewed contact with the occult and at the same time wih ‘theories concerning the nature of doubt. Ital Jed to discussion of the ‘Vanities’ culminating in Holbein’s painting The Ambassadors to which chapter ofthis book is devote.‘Anew instrument the miror, appeared in the anamorphic field around 1615-25, ‘Stated in geometrical term, its the replacement of the visual ange by the angle of reflection. The glesming mirror itself takes on magic powers by conjuring up ‘Phantoms. Chinese prestdigation was grafted onto the “catoprics™ (mieror snamorphoses) of Antiquity and the Middle Ages, thus reshaping methods that had been established for diect vision. For a long time conical and cylindsical viewing roys were to divert the connoisseur and th curious spectator ait, In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, anamorphosis parted company with metaphysics and existed once again in its own right, Adopted both as trick ofthe artists’ trade and os a fashionable perversion, anamorphosis developed along lines ‘established by the fantasies ofthe Renaissance. Iisa continual reminder of the astonishing and artificial elements in perspective, whether it be optical distortion or striking erompe-oei. Perspective ceases tobe a sience of reality and becomes an instrument for producing hallucinations Poets of our own ime have meditated on these pictues in which nature and life ‘ass through cstaclysms toa mysterious rebirth. Frances de Dalmati (1957) gives sn anamorphic definition of poetry ist, with its perspectives lst in infinity and fis images revealing themselves from a secret yet exact spot.” For Jean Coceat (1961) i was in the corridors of a cyindeical ansmorphoss ike the labyrinths of ‘Knossos, thatthe ‘no man’s land” where poetry and science meet was situated? ‘This book deals with anamorphosis asa system with a basis of mathematics and physics around which figurative forms and mental speculations are made and Anamorphoss ou Porspecioscuvewes was fast published by Oliver Perini 1955. A second edition was published in 1969 with a diferent subsite: Anamar- photes ou magiearifciele des ees meri. This edition was enlarged both in its documentation and in its teatment of specie problems. In addition it ia- cluded the section on eatoptris which was being considered for separate public tion atthe time ofthe frst edition, The subtitles ofthe fst and second editions sre both taken from Nicecon's La Peipetoe cursus ou magic aif dex effets ‘merzeilew (Paris 1638). This translation is from the second edition and incor porate some new corrections and sdsitone made by the author.CHAPTER ONE Accelerated or decelerated perspective “The difference between the intrinsic nature of an object and our perception of it has fascinated philosophers and artists ofall imes. Patoin The Sophst distinguishes to arts of imitation: the at of copying, reproducing forms exactly, andthe at of ‘evocation, transposing them into the world of appearances.! The great works of sculpture or painting eppear other than what they are: the upper portions too Small, the lower too lage. Thus handsome figures are no longer so if their true proportions ate reproduced. In order to keep them handsome, arts with seant respect for the truth endow them, not with the forms they actully possess, but with those they judge most felicitous, I is no longer & question of reality but of fition, “Works which, considered fom a favourable viewing-point, resemble the ‘beauifl but which, propery examined, no longer offer the resemblance they promised, are phantoms.” And the art responsible for them is nothing but a phantasmagori. “The Roman architect Vitruvins echoed this reasoning and drew practical con- clusions from it. Since what is true appears false and things seem different from ‘what they ere, in representing them we must add or subtract. Ta the case of an architectural fagade, this involves replacing stright lines by curves, thickening, ‘alsing, and inclining certain parts. Columns swell in the middle, their bases bulge, corner columns swell (bya fiftieth part of their diameter), architraves lean forward (by a twelfth part oftheir ight).* ‘Ofcourse, these are only minor adjustments ‘to remedy errors of vision’, but tis the same principle of deforming natural forms, of obtaining equity through inequality and stabiity dhrough instability. Architecture thus eonocived is not strict realty but a Platonic phantom. ‘For Vitruvius the image reated by the object changed according tothe density of the airy the intensity of the ight and other optical phenomena whose effec: are onl empirically egstered, But his explanations had fallen behind the sciemie knowledge ofthe time.* The laws of vision had been established geometrically by Bucld for more than two centuries. Perception is defined not only by atmospheric condition but ~ and above all ~ by visual ays. As they emerge from the eyes the rays sptead ina straight ine and form 2 cone, the summit of which isin the pupil fd the base the outline of the object. Things increase or diminish according tothe width ofthe angle tha consis them (axioms VV and Vit). “a consequence there are common points where equal sizes seem uncqual’ and conversely (see fcorems xxvitt and xLIW), and itis by calculating the proportions with the help ofthe rays thatthe desired results ae obtained. A whole technique of phantom forms is embraced by this lw. The perspective of dreamers distorting the truth is built up, paradoxically, by the system which describes i Perspective was t0 continue to develop in thi ambivalent way. I isa science ‘which fixes the exact dimensions and positions of objects in space, but it also ‘an art of illusion which recreates them. Its history is not only the history of artistic realism but the history of «dream, ‘Two phases shouldbe distinguished after the end ofthe Greco-Roman world the abandonment and disimegration of the basie principles of perspective, and their reconstitution by vious means, lading to a complex doctrine of remarkable precision, Neglected for along period by artists, all the problems of perspective ‘were systematically tackled again, a fist by scientists, During the Middle Ages the sciences of Antiquity were passed on theough Islam. The Treatise of Alhazen (. r039) had wide repezcussons, and even the [Latin wanslation of Euclid was made not from the Greek but fom the Aric, by ‘Adelard of Bath in the twelfth century. Robert Groseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (1175-1253), Roger Bacon (¢. 1270), Vitellion (c. 1270), John Peckham, Areh- bishop of Canterbury (c. 1280) dealt with problems of perspective based on Islamic systems. By a curious contradiction, it was the culture most hostile to vision in depth and in reli in painting and decoration that taught is principles ‘There was a clear division between the optical experiments of artists and scientific speculatioas. This clear separation was to be maintained inthe Gothic West, and ‘the fist researches of artists inthe seam of perspective were empirical and wholly indepeadent. In the process of clarification in the fourteenth century, research ‘was pursued along dhe same lines in the Northern Schools until relatively late ate? The meeting between the arts and sciences in fact tok place in Italy in the fist half of the fieenth century (Ghiber, Albert." I¢ produced 2 wonderful flowering: Piero della Francesca (1469), Leonardo da Vinci (1492), Jean Pelerin, called Viator (1505), Duer (1525), Vignola (1330-40) Serio (1543), Barbaro (1559), Cousin (1560), all of whom applied mathematica cheories methodically tnd elaborated procedures for dealing with all possible forms. All the works that followed them exploited che knowledge accrued during the Renaissance Perspective was restored both a 2 rationalisation of vision and as an objective reality while atthe same time preserving the element of make-believe. The de- velopment of its technique supplied new methods with every device. The illusion of infinite expanse could be crated in a small space. Distances cold be dimin- ished. The possession of methods for producing exact representation led to the "Great Mlusion’~ the multiplying of artical works ~ which has haunted men of very age. F. Cleric gave some idea of its diversiy and power in learned an- ology." ‘A sas apse was simulated by Bramaate a San Satiro ia Milsn (1514) in a space no deeper than 1.20 metres.!! The accelerated foreshorteaings of the cornice,offered ceiling and pilasters in stuco and tereacora give the impression of a ‘vaulted room, but ifone tries to enter one collides witha wall. The whole church is sturbed by this rompe-oai, and everything i called into question. "The history of theatrical scenery is dominated inthe ssteenth cemury by the problem of cresting this illusion of distance. The impression can be obtained not only by the abrupt contraction of the side walls but aso by rising the horizon. “The world in which realty sad fiction finally imsermingle was being progressively bail up, In Selo’ interpretation (1545) ~ repeated by Barbaro (1559) ~ ofthe staging for tragedy, comedy and satire described by Vitruvius, there i sil a jutapestion of real space ~ at proscenium ~ and of illusory space ~ the inlined back ofthe stage, sith the two oblique sides accelerating the perspective to a point where the space beoomes roo narow for the actors to ence.! In the Olympic Theatre of Vicenza (Pallaio and Scarozzi, 1580-5), with the tentacles of the sloping. permanent décor forming seven streets in stcooed ood epening onto the frons-sconaz, the frontier is blured.™ All the architectural details, as in Bramante’s Milan apse, ae contracted, thus accentuating the effec of ight. Real and illusory space inte ‘communicate directly. These spaces were soon to fase into one, because of the catenion onto the proscenium, ist ofthe oblique walls (Theatre of Sabbioncta by ‘Scarczzi, 1588-9), then ofthe slope. In Sirgati's treatise on perspective (1596), ‘the whole stage is inclined. The actors no longec move ina realistic environment, ‘hey exist i the realms of luson, The stages of Furtenbach (c. 1625), Sabatini (1637) and Troi (1672) (ig. 1)edopethe same principle of accelerated perspective.” ke FO io, 1 Acclented perspective Teli tage 672 s rFo, 2Decslersted perspective: pica casetons fora aise ‘mn. Dorr 1525 1g, 3 Deoserata perpectie ‘ptcal sacar ores ‘hima. Durer, 1535 Te would be worthwhile ro try to discover whether similar arrangement were also ‘made in gardens and even in architectural compositions on irregular sites. Theatre ‘nd life were continually intermingling at this period, and some building arrange- mens were directly borrowed ftom the theatre, The colonnade of the Villa Spada in Rome (. 1638), built by Francesco Borromai only some 8 metres lng, creates the Musion ofa long tunnel, by violently contracting he dimensions: 5.80 metres by 3.50 metres atthe entrance, 2.45 metres by 1 metre atthe ext, but without modifying the design of the component parts. The ecelerated perspective of & ‘sree on the stage ofthe Olympic Theatre at Vicenza is introduced into the décor fof buildings by an abridged and stespe angle. No doubt we are witnessing ‘antsy playing with paradox, bu it elect the phantasmagorical conception of an srchitecrual ore. "The reverse process, decelerating pesspecive, that i making objets appear ‘caret then they are by increasing the dimensions of distant element is taught ‘methodically in treatises on perspective. Direr (1525), explains it in the ease of, columns and leers (Bigs. 2 and 3), Serio (1545) explains it for masonry. Tt is fot a matter, as with Vitruvius, of emphasising certain points. The linear vertical segments subtended by equal ares, increase proportionately until atthe rp, heyhave increased tenfold, The courses ofa wall increase proportionately as they rise. ‘The decorations are elongated. Spirals of twisted columas lengthen fivefold at their third turn, From below, however, everything appears to be equal in size, since the angle of vision remains constant. The visual ray isnot the passive con- ductor of a sensation produced by an object. Tt recreates it, giving realism to distorted forms. "An ancient building, the Temple of Prine, dedicated by Alexander to Athena Polis (335 8), had, even at this early date, an engraved inscription with calarged leter in the upper lines, in accordance with the Euclidean angle, but the System does not interfere with the proportions ofthe whole.” This isnot the case in deawings ofthe siteeath century in which, through the sifting ofthe viewing point rowards is abject, the power ofthe projection is concentrated for the sake of the clarity of the demonstration. The close and lower the viewing point to the objet the greater the slant of the visual rays and the extension ofthe gradations ‘which they mark on the vertical elevation, ‘This resus in incredible proportions. ‘Restored in is fll rigour, the antique procedure destroyed an order of Antiquity. "A drawing of the method of decelerated perspective is reproduced by Polienus (1638), that for leering by Salomon de Caus (1612) and by Mydorge (1630). "The Paradoxes of Perspectce by Teaili (1672) proposed the pplication of the same rule, based on Setlio and Diet, for the courses of walls fo inscription, for wit ‘ows, and for statues set at diffrent heights (Gg. 4)" Decelerated perspective, ting a «brake on the veiching point by the propertionate increase of dimen sions is applied to the fade and to seulprured décor. Two wellknown legends 1g, 4Decelerted penpecte ‘psa enrecton fr lets,Fig. 5 Teja’s Colm, Rome: ‘iter Athans Kirn, 9, ice Bernardino Ba 6x2 D are connected with this technique: an ancedote about Phidits and a fantasy about “Tesjan’s Column, At the time ofa competition for astawe of Minerva destined to crown a high pillar, Alcamenes carved « wel-proportioned figure, whereas Phidise created one with distorted limbs, a gaping mouth and an elongated nose, On the day of the hibition, Aleamenes won all the votes, whereas his rival was harshly criticised. ‘But when the sculpraes were set up in turn oa the tp ofthe colums, Phidias's stamue assumed great beauty whilst the rival work became an objet of rdicle ‘The story is taken from Pliny by J.-F. Niceron (1638) and ftom Teetzes, a By. ‘antine writer ofthe rwelithcennary, by A. Kitcher (£646) Tis legend of forms ‘thar must be distorted in oder to recreate the beauty ofthe mode therefore owes its survival revo sources. In Kircher the story i followed by technical explana ‘ions and the method of making “the fgures proportionately larger as they are diminished by the height oftheir situation’, dseribed by Lomazzo (1584) is 20¥ itstrated by a drawing ster Duser, showing the projection of the visual rays onto 8 column.* The drawing is a modification of Tesan's Column, considered fom the sixteenth century a an optical wonder (ig, 5a and). The column is completelystorie Instead ofthe twenty-five spirals of the twisted column, the frieze has ‘only seven, and the width of the segments increases so rapidly thatthe final turn ofthe spiral occupies more than a third ofthe shaft. Kircher's example is repeated by RF, de Chantclou (1663).!* Commenting on Euclidean perspective, he refers to Trajan’s Column as producing an admirable effect in which “Art, supplementing Narare’s error, causes the distant pars to be a digernible to the eye a the nearest this effect Being achieved by widening the Intervals thereby regaining ‘precisely the same dimensions es the distance caused them to lose. In fact, thanks to Gieardon’s measurements, i was already known, thar the distance berween the spirals of the fieze was identical fem the bottom tothe top. The Bucidean angle docs not only distor antique proportions throvgh tan excess of zea t proves points iterates a false nation of @ monument vat sti stands in Rome "The Trsjan's Column myth is found again in Troi, according to whom de~ cerated perspective was used by all the best artists up to his time. Painters, sculptors, architec, he claimed, used it regularly: Galber (2) among the ancient painters, Calls, Algrdo among the modern masters. The Last Judgement in the 9Fig. Deceased perigee 4 Michelngdo The Lar Fadgnont, Sistine Chapel, Rome, oe Dies DASW) IGOTES |BLEIBT ef Sissine Chapel was also conceived inthis manner. As far as Michelangelo's composition is concerned (fg. 63), Teoil’s claim is perfectly tru. The thre horizontal rows, the earth, the intermediate zone the sky, become progressively larger. The final row even overlap the cornices of the side walls fting the ecale of che lower panel. Is dynamic ensemble which ses to « climax as if cosmie cataclysm was let loose.** Bur its vigour isnot the result of improvisation. Ifone stands inthe ais infront of the steps ofthe pom, the level ofeach row corresponds exactly to the same angle of vision. The method is ike the ‘one Albrecht Der used for wall inscriptions, szuilarly divided int thee super- Imposed sections (fg. 6b). As with Direr’s letes, the participants in the scene ‘become larger or smaller according to their postion in the composition, Charon, at the base is haf the height of Christ and the saits and prophets atthe top. Their respective dimensions are caculte like those ofthe letters, which from a given Point appear equal in size and remain legible despite ther distance fom each other. But the device works only up to @ certain distance. IF one looks at the fresco fiom a greater distance, its exuberance is no longer restrained by optical fore- shortenings, and the vision bursts upon one. Increasing in size as they mount higher, the forms acquire a new majesty and fllnss. The upper row is inhabited by Titans, The decelerated perspective produces overwhelming revelations and surging chythms. An art which strikes us and is expressed by distortion is chus defined in technique that restores true appearances by modifying the truth. Born 18 a result of rational and organic development, art discovers new means and appropriates them. ‘The excesses to be noted in rome examples of the Baroque demonstrate the repercussions of such infuence.® ‘Accelerated and decelerated perspective disiore nature and atthe same time transfigure it. But the gulf between reality and the way we erosive it leads leo to ‘permancat separation,CHAPTER TWO The first anamorphoses and their dissemination: sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ‘Among the fantastic systems associated with the genesis of modeen Surrealist art tare strange pictures which, seen from the front, present a confusion of elongated, apparently meaningless forms, bus which, looked at obliguely, contract and form hormal images, The Georges Hugnet catalogue, published on the occasion of an ‘exhibition in New York has three examples: an engraving by Echard Sehin and two panes by an unknown painter, belonging to the late Jecques Lipchitz, ob= ‘viously executed at about the same date in the sixteenth century." Contemporary artis have been intrigued by these pictures in which the subjects emerge and disappear as if by mai, Art historians have for the most part classed them a= tutioctes of no general importance ‘A Vesield (puzale-picere) by Schon, a Nuremberg engraver snd pupil of Dicer, has been described by Rotinger: of large dimensions (0-44 metre >< 0-75 rete) it is formed of four trapezoidal rows in which striped hatchings are con- ‘tied by Landseapes peopled with ving figures. Towns ad hills, men and animals are reabsorbed and engulfed in a tangle of lines, at fest sight inexplicable, But by placing the eyes atthe side and very close to the engraving one can see four superimposed heuds inside reclinea frames.* Perspective causes the apparent images to disappear and at the same time the hidden outlines to appear. ‘The human figures are perfectly identifiable: the Emperor Charles V, Ferdinand 1 of Austria, Francs T and Pope Clement VIT, German and Latin inscriptions which are executed in the same way give their names. Clea, precise profes emerge from Tinear chaos. ‘While preserving «thematic unity, the design combines two diferent pictures in one. The background which unfolds behind the hidden sovereigns reclle evens connected with them and provides 2 key for deciphering their enigma: behind (Charles Va military scene, horses led by soldiers; behind Ferdinand I the siege of Vienna (1529-32), often represented by Schin: behind the Pope - God theese ing 1 Turk, and an armed ships behind Francis 1 ~ Orientals and a camel, allusion to his selatons with the ‘Turks "This superimposition causes a disconcerting phenomenon which takes on « symbolic meaning. The features of the hidden royal efges disturb the tope- _raphical sites. They hover over counties and over scenes of historical vicsitudeslike phantoms covering vast tracts of land. The vison tkes place in an agtted Inndscepe, marked bythe sovereign power which t conceals. Iti at once a drama and a piece of witcherat. Schin’s woodcut must have been exccuted between 1531 (Ferdinand 1 was king) and 1534 (death of Clement VID, but a second version depicting another Pope, Paul II, in which the inscriptions are only in Latin (fig. 74 and b) also ‘exists, Tiss the one in the Hugnet catalogue, Two other engravings, originally ateibuted to Stefan Hammer, « Nuremberg publisher, are now asribed to Schio,* Bartsch describes the succession of elects 1. Avery lage pace showing onthe ef Jonah coming out ofthe whale, Al the estof the prints filed with apparent meaningless, but wach, viewed bligusy, with the eye prataly on a level withthe picture, shows 4 man sathfyng his needs tn this inseipan: WAS SIEHST DU, #338, STEFAN HAMMER ZU NURNBERG (fg. 8) 2. Anather simile piece which on the left shows «shameless woman surreptitiously pasting to her lover the ney shes stalng fom the purse fan eld man who casing her, Allhe rst of ‘the pice is sinilany filled wih scribble, whic, foreshortened, show 8 Yep lewd sene and hese words: AUS, DU ALTER TOR [6 9} ‘The above description is incomplete. Other scenes unfold around the confusion of elongated figures: in the fist engraving a whale hunt, in the second # stag hase, anda boat with musicians ~ bu all vanishes when the secret picture appr. Thus we know of four designs by Schon, exeeuted during the years 1531-3 to 1538, in which these opsial devices were used. Te artist ses to have had & liking for and to have excelled in these contrived eects,The corcetd pore of Paullitend rancho 1935 a1c, 10 Anamorphic port of (Chales 1593. Lip (Callen, New York 16 ‘The method is also employed in painting, One of the panels in the Lipshitz CCotlection depicts Charles V (Bg. 10). The portrayal sma to hat of Sch in his first two plates. ‘The emperor is shown from three-quarter view with the sme design ofthe collar and insignia ofthe Golden Flesce. The inscription which gives his name (CAROLUS QUIN. IMP.) snd his motto PLUS OUTRE also bests the date 1533, close in time to the fist version of Seton's woodcut. similar por trait of Charles V in Palencia Cathedral is mentioned by Louis Dimer? This sovereign sequently represented in these compositions, and we may well wonder ‘whether it was in a milieu more or less attached to hie perion or to hie ‘court that they were fest propagated with the greatest enthusiasm at any rate among Germanic artists. There is also an anamorphic portrait of «king of England, Edward VI, executed in 1546, the year before his acession to the throne (6g. 21). Paul Hentener, a German traveller, who bad seen i at Whitehall in 1598 described it: ‘A picare of King Edward VI representing at fist sight something quite deformed, ill by ooking through small hole inthe cover, which is pu over i, you seein its true proportions." The portrait is enclosed within a frame like a box, with « smal hollow on the right side fixing the poscon from which the eye aces it correc. Horace Walpole, who mide out the now vanished inscrpcion Guilin psi satrbted it to Mare Willems, an Antwerp painter and a pupil of Miche! I Cone.” ‘Wornuim read the signature as that of Guillim Stretes, posibly of Dutch engin,Fo. 12 Anamorphic draving of ‘sag. Geman, 100s enery ‘The Meuopeltan Maseamot 18 ‘More recently, the picture has been associated withthe work of Cornelius Anthon- fsx Similar distortions are found in the allegovical skull in the painting The Ambassadors by Holbein, executed in London in 1533, t0 which I shall be returning later, swell as in the figure of «sag ina German drawing ofthe sxtenth century (ig. 12)? Another passage contemporary with Hentener could refer to the same ana- ‘morphic porteat In his description in Richard 11 (1595-6) ofa of rif, Shakes- eare alludes to similar distortions which eppear to a troubled eye. For sorow's eyes glazed with Minding tears, Divides one wing ene to many objets; Like perspectives which, sight p2 upoo, ‘Show nothing bt confusion, yd avy, Distingigh for!“The Lord Chamberlain’ Men, a theatrical company to which the playwright belonged, played occasionally inthe palace where the strange poreit of Edward ‘VI then hung.*! Shakespeare, ike Hentener, may have been sruck by it Depictons of sits were subjected to similar treatment. The second panel ofthe Lipehite Collectio, without doubt belonging to the same workshop if not t the same hand as the porait of Charles V, seems at fist sight a mere agglomeration of egg-shaped forms, empty of content, reminiscent of a modern abstract panting (Gg 13) They ae grouped around rue small tables and a bench with extrordinarily broad legs. The only living creatures, wo butters, ate alightng on a lozenge shape below. The optical correction reveals « monk kneeling before a table ~ the foreshortened bench ~ 0a which there is a naked Child ‘The monk is St. Anthony of Padua to whom Jesus appeared before his death. According to some tations, the holy men present at this miracle sw only the Saints Face suddenly luminated.™* Jesus is reveled when the viewer looks at the picture ftom 2 position almost in line with the Saint's own view-point. The mechanics of distortion which make the pierre untecognizable are used to compose a fleeting shadow. The arrangement i particulaly cunning, Normal figures, mingled with swollen forms, become blurred when sten obliquely. They undergo a complete metamorphosis. One of ‘the two small tables ruras into a book the other into the arms of across. The butter fies become fcurr-de-lis, On the ground and ona piece of furniture ne recognizes the emblems of the Suit ‘Several religious subjects are superimpored on one another in a fourth picture in this series (Gg. 14): Saints Peter and Paul, Christ and the Angel, The Divine Counconance, The Virgin and Child, Francis of ss rceving the stigmata, “Lipehite Collection, New York ‘Sains Par and Pak Crt andthe Avge The Done Soamaenancy The Vogin and iS Fronts of use Tee the gmat German, School uremtere 59> 60 Baral Coleco, Mian‘These pictures are covered by a fragmented and Bud landscape, wit, atthe top, ‘sailing ship, a horseman, two hounds and a hare; below, two bird-etchers holding their net; on the lei, a eee behind which « untsman crouches in walt; in the ridl, strange forms are strewn on the ground or hang suspended ~ translucent wings, mysterious objects. As with the porwai of Edward VI, the hidden image ‘comes into view when it is loked at fom the sights fixed in the frame, Thee are {our of these ~ two at each sie. With its trapezoidal rows the composition exactly repeats the geometrical outline of Schén’s large woodcu, whose dimensions it ‘nly marginally exceeds. Judging bythe spare and graphic nature of the draving, the precision of the figurative groups and their covering, this Vesirbd emanates irecty if not from the studio at leas from the Schoo! of the Nuremberg Master, [Bvidenceindiates a date between 1530 and 1360 Alater work, The Bapuom of Ct, St Jerome, oles an example of anamrphosis in more supple and less hidden manner (Gg, 15). The picture, which bears the stamp of Mannersm, was without doubt executed in Northern Teal." Te repre- sens river, 2 roa, «bridge. On the right St Jerome is knesng before the Cross with aon by his side. On the left, a man advances with an ats probably the one believed to have been devoured by a wild beast. Around the river area succession of scenes: a shepherd end sheep, a meal in the open az, «bathing scene, herons, rabbits, Nature is a peace in an atmosphere of rural charm, buta sideways glance reveals two giant figures in the upper part: the Baptism of Christ withthe in- scription HIC EST FILTUS MEUS DEL and the Holy Dove, Below emerging from the waters one sees the head of St, John the Baptist on a platr. Tt i the vision of St, Jerome whose monastery was situated in the region of Bethlehem. Sunk in prayer and meditation before the image of Jesus, the hermit evokes in ‘thought the evens of the Holy Sexptures that tok place in the lind of Jordan. "The huge figures placed onthe landscape remain perfectly recognizable despite the elongation and stand ox in it ike hieroglyphic. ‘A second group of these anamorphoses originated in che final years of the sixteenth century and developed inthe seventeenth century. It also demonstrates reat diversity. One picture, probably Flemish but with strong Italian influence, represents The Death of Saul wt the bale of Gilbos.'® The soenes take place in front ofa city in Bames, on the banks of the Jordan (Gg. 16). But Saul remains invisible. He is hidden in the island which stands out in the foreground, on the black waters ofthe river, illuminated by the conflagration, The king, who ie fling ‘on his sword, emerges when one loks at the piceure from the side. His proportions ‘are superhuman. He is a colossus, clad ina cost of mai formed by paving-stoness his limbs, flatened and disjointed, ae wholly confused with the ground. The river ofthe Holy Land seems to conceal scriptural imagery, and, like the other example, the drawing includes a bridge. There is another version af the picture in which the soldiers do not wear military uniform and in which the king mest is without armour. That version includes a scene of witchorft. In The Pall, an engraving by J. H. Glaser, a native of Basle and a pupil of F Breute (Strasbourg) the same device i used (fg. 17). Adam and Eve, tasting the fruit, are on the right-hand side of along, narrow composition. The Expulsion 2sF1g.17 Anamorphic fommpoion: The Fal. Engraving by I-F Gases, e198 from Paradie, ison the opposite side. A lake stretches between the two scene in ‘the foreground are animals and birds of every species; in the background, exotic wees, The secue appeus aural extepe shat the wer Which should be cal in this landscape of Paradise s strangely agitated and seems to be concealing human features. The waves are explained when one looks at them sideways: frm them emerges the head ofthe sulfering Curis, the compassionate Christ with the Crown of Thorns. The Redeemer makes his appearance ay far back asthe Original Sin ‘The Biblical scene is completed by « hidden representation of a seene from the [New Testament. The engraving dacs from 1638 and bears a dedication to Remi Fasch, Rector of Bale Universiy Anumogphosis also contains fantastic themes. In a drawing by Jacob van der Heyden, a Suasbourg artist who was a pupil of Raphael Coe at Antwerp, a double ‘oo's-head is elongated soa to look ike an ass ead, its ear formed bythe nose and the chi.” The inscription rans NOUS SOMMES TROIS. In the drawing there is also an inser skerch-plan shoving « bosrd and a viewfinder on a stick (fig. 18) This work i part of a group originating in the Rhineland and Northen "landers, but such anamorphoses are also found elsewhere. [Becenric devices were enjoying & new vogue at this time, Te was a period when at and wonder, closely bound up, intermingled. The Kunst-und-WPanderkammer ‘which spread during the Renuissance, continuing a medieval tradition, became popular throughout the whole of Europe.!* The studies ofscholats and collectors ‘were piled up with all the wonders of the world ~ stuffed monsters, rate objets, natura curiosities, perspective instruments, pictures by masters everything that fected the mind and the imagination, The Wandorchant, « reducing cabinet which Philippe Hainhofer, «connoisseur and merchant of Augsburg had st up into. 19 Anamorphic port of Egat Duke Bam Hecor a Calgse Engraving Stommel i508 1632 for Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, contained several anamorphoses, Tn addition, among the king's papers an engraving by Stommel was discovered (6. 19) which represented Ernest Duke of Bavaria with the same distortion as in the portraits of Charles V and Edward VI, and also an anamorphic drawing of animals and a peasant, dated 1598. Anamorphic portris of Charles T were dis- sented in England among the Royalists following the king's execution in 1649. In one ofthese the king's head i extended upwards so that he hat a pointed fore~ head (Big. 20) The process was aso introduced into the décor of buildings. In ‘Rome and in Paris c was applied to very lange frescoes in monasteries. ‘Two phases in the development of antmorphoris can be distinguished: genesis ‘nd initial dissemination in the sixteenth century and revival in the seventeenth century. The importance ofthe development i revealed bya series of books which provide us with descriptions of certain studios and ofthe techniques employed by sliferent artists. One of the ist reference tothe procedure appears in The Tao Rules by Vignola compiled c.1530-40 and published with commentaries byer 0 pri ee 8g (Cals laterts49. Anthony ‘fOtiy Galeton, Landonee a Hin Si aa Ace ioe gnatio Danti 2 translator of Euclid, only in 1583. the drawing of ead in profile, its length quadrupled by means of simple grid which ignores the ange of ‘the visual rays which broaden out as they move away from the eye ~ one of the besic principles of near perspective, The image is enclosed in a box pierced by an opening from which the foreshortened picture it reennetirated. The devi is analogous to that used forthe portrait of Edward VI but is much les sophisticated than the first compositions which have come down tous (g-21). The method is ‘attributed to Tommasso Laurer, Sica, often quoted in Vignol’s book as a devise of perspectives and an excllens painter ‘The optical ‘game’ is also mentioned by Giambettista della Port, a Neapolitan and specialist im the wonders of nature. We read in his Natural Magic (2558) “there isa patt of geometry whichis called Perspecsive, which appertins to the yes and which produces several marvellous results: .- . now will show you the euside ofa fgure, chen i will show you noting, and in a strange way twill change its effccs, composing various images!" No indication of how these ‘compositions ae made fllows this precise description ofthe effect. ‘The technique is, however, taught about the same date by Daniele Barbaro, Patriarch of Aqueila and commentator on Vitevius (Venice, 1556), im his Praca dalla Perspetsiva (1559). Barbaro presents enamorphosis as a revelation: a ‘beauifl and ‘ecrer” part of perspective (Vignola had act yet been published), and as a device in curent ue, Many times wih oles pleasure than wonder one loo at ome of these pctnes or perspective schemes which, ifthe eye ofthe beboder not placed a the predetermina pint, the subject appeate suite diferent fom what i pst, ‘ut subsequent locked at fom the erect riew-pong, the subjec treed cording tothe punters intention, beita mater of depiction of expe enimas, Jeesing or other representations,ey 2 sr lll32 so that seen feom the front ‘they no fonger seem to be heads but t be straight lines and curves that lack any regular form, bur, seen from the point fom which ‘the ays coms; the heads will eassume the frm they hal onthe paper.” Barbaro alo mentions geometrical and other process: ‘Its possible to do the same thing without sun, lantern or perforated paper, using instead the rules and instruments which we shall discuss in the lst par? (which deals with perspective apparatus). He fis, however, to provide many details, He is more concerned to bring out the hidden and mysterious aspects ofthese picrues, Forms within forms ‘ust be included. They should be disguised. ‘The better to hide what he points i acordance with the practices indicsted, {he pain ho is proposing to delineate the wo cas crochet portsyls mus ‘now how to shade and cover the image 9 tha inset of two heady sows landscapes, water, il rocks and other thing... The pants can an aden, ‘must deceive our eyes by interrupting and sepaitng lines hich supe to straight and continuous becuse, except athe Wewing-poin indicted, they do ‘ot reveal what they reveal atthe chosen place, The figures canbe broken ‘up with some puts separated from other 4 thi they appt t ota gate ‘gun when they are looked ar obliquely: ths, the forehead of «fac ca Be laced atone pot, the nose at nother and the chin somewhere else And {en one woud no longer rengnize tat the painting represents ahead bt the ‘noe would seem one thing and the forehead another ad, for examples the ‘sinter can make the nose lak ke a rock nd the forehead lke ld af arts he wie, ‘The anthropomorphic landscapes and ‘composite’ hess which were disseminated at precisely this period by Arcimboldo and his Italian intators to the North are ircty grafted onto these optical distortions ‘A fourth book places a whole series of these perspective anamorphoses in the vecy midst of the painters of Milan. Its author is Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo, theoretcian ‘and historian of ‘Manners’, who describes Arcimboldi asemblages. Ia his ‘Treats on Painting (1584) a wile article is devoted to ‘reverse perspective which looks correct when viewed through a single hole’ (book 6, chapter 19) The method for dealing with large sizes is set out: “You will put under a portico, according to the width of the facade, a canvas or sheet of paper r5 cubits 1 (about7 x o's metres). The image, «well-executed head of Christo horse Sed 15 in Barbaro’s projections. But in this casei is inscribed within a grid which is Projected onto the picture with the help of «thread, whilst the drawing i rans. ferred by means of long stick with a charcoal point, Clearly, the lantern pro- cedure would not have worked for such a large area, Bu it isnot only the mont ‘mental nature ofthese compositions which introduces a new element, The names ‘quoted are no less revealing, Lomazzo states that he as seen ‘the optical llvion of Christin profile whose hair looked lke the waves of the ea and which wien Seen through the peep-hole assumed che greatest beauty. This work fad been executed by Gaudenzio Ferrari (2.1546) whom Lomazzo thought to be his uncle, He continues: ‘Similanly Francesco Mela report that Leonatdo da Vinci depicted 1 dragon in combat with a lon, very wonderful 1 see, and likewise horses forFrangois Valois, King of France ~ a method which was dearly understood by Girolamo Figino [pupil of Melzi and also fom Mila] forthe representation of ‘A book and two drawings confm this testimony. In his Treanse on Pain, Leonardo describes the mechanic of progressive foreshortening produced by an oblique viewing, in which unequal intervals are made equal by this ‘apparent diminuon ‘And iyou were wo pala his on wal in oar f which you can move ely, the eer would appear out ef proportion ro you because ofthe grt difleence between O R and R Q [the imtrvl) This happens because the ee is 9 lose to the wall thatthe pining appears freshotened. And if you wited paint that, however, your pespecie would have to be viewed trough single al, The method is suggested for « mural composition. The chill’ face, widened, and the eye, found in the Cader Adantiou (1483-1518) complete the lesson given by this great artist, These drawings are the oldest known examples of anarorphoses (fg. 29. ‘The anamorphic game is thus ditecy associated witha genus and with ars ofthe tp fight. The value of such testimony cannot be overemphasized. Although the majority of works preserved from this period are to a greater or lesser extent linked with Germanic influences, it to Tay that we owe the fist technical instructions on anamorphosis and mension of earlier works. We aso ‘know through Acoli that Cosimo II de" Medics (1608-20) had. himself repre sented in painting which ‘demonstrated the power of perspective in its deceptions’, asin the portlts of Charles V2" It is therefore virally certain tha those centres ro.22 Baty example of 33hich developed perspective in general to such an extent algo invented is para~ doxes. When Direr was in Italy in 156, be could well have already assimilated the busi principles, Ina eter sent from Venice to his friend Williband Piskheimer, he said that he was about 1 go to Bologna to learn the art of secret perspective die Kunst in geeimer Perspottive which someone was anxious to teach him. It was the same term uma ella excreta parted Prspettva which Barbaro used 0 designate the devices of elongation. Furthermore, the eases of decelerated perspective which ‘we have noted in Diter are near-anamorphoses.® With its spirals, close at fst, then extended, moving vertically to the summit, the twisted column is more lke & ‘monstrous serpent than am architectural suppor (ig. 3). Ta theory these contoeions, ‘when seen from below, should appear regular. In realty, by rectifying the pro- portions by the angle of vision, Diirer begins to destroy them. ‘The structure becomes completely distorted, as in the pictures by Erhard Schon, his disciple. Diiree’s fener from Venice is of prime importance on two counts ic marks an important stage both in the extension of optical devices into che realm of the fantastic and in it introduction into an environment which was sil close to the Middle Ages. Whilst Tely chought of perspecsve primarily as a eaprie and smusemznt of painters, Europe to the north of the Alps conferred oa ita power and sturdiness that approached the dramatic andthe burlesque All this, however, is supposition, We lack the evidence required to establish presse connections. The fist printed texts ae of ater date tha the dissemination of the fist seris of anamorphic compositions, and the methods they describe seem tess develope than the techniques employed in those compositions. The virtuosity of a Schm goes beyond simple elongation tha ignored angles of vision and optical diminution and the finese and the precision of his complex drawings caclude the possibilty of protecting them through large oles in perforated paper or the use of a sketch made with along stick, a technique which was envisaged for 'F1g.23 Anainorpic diagram by (Ge dtaserHt ReNeremsrs, fis. Untersiy Libary EstngeaFro, 24 0i-tioned ‘amerphie method ‘Maral The Hope, FE works of very diferent dimensions and which could not be applied ro engravings. Furthermore, «contemporary drawing (540) by a native of Nuremberg, the Master HL R, reveals a knowledge of sophisticated geometsic processes in that anistc mile.” Tes a wiangular diagram, crossed by a single diagonal, fixing ~by ren of is intersections with the visual rays opposite ~ all the distances ofthe tlongaton (Big. 23). Since the subject is merely a hand emerging from a clowd, the ‘ery nature of which implies extensions and contractions ad infin, the com= position seems to have been intended as technical demonstration, Its dimensions {fo'36 m x 075 m) correspond to those of the anamorphic plates engraved in the 3sFio.25Oldsutioned samorphiemethod: Mario ‘Bea alge ae same tov bya pupil of Albrecht Dicer within a year or two of the same dae, The formula, which was t become casi, marks a considerable advance on ‘what had fora long time been found in the treatises on perspective circulated among artists, While the first group of anamorphic compositions was being dis- seminated, good processes were no doubt jealously guarded. Tt was only in the course of the sevencenth century with the formation of the second group and its ‘many developments that precise geometric procedures were completely revealed "The whole business came about in progressive stages, \Vignola's rudimentary method contnved to be used by some: in the Low ‘Countries, by Samuel Maroloisin 164 with the figure of «dog whic, elongated, becomes a caricaure of a busset-hound (Big, 24) i Tely, by Mario Bettini in 1642 with a front view of a crowned head, in a perforated box (fig. 29)” In the ‘meantime, however, ll che arrangements based on the angle of vision, in accord- ance with beter rules, had been methodically revealed by French scholar, 36CHAPTER THREE French masters of perspective: Salomon de Caus, Niceron, Maignan In the seventeenth century two men above all devoced themselves passionately 10 studies inthe field of perspective. They were Salomon de Caus and Jean-Francois [Niceron, the former an engineer and architect, the ler a stholar and mathe- ‘Salomon de Caus (1576-1626) wes born in the Dieppe region, but moved a great eal in Flemish and German czces in which anamorphoses seem to have been particularly in vogue. We see him in Brussels in the service of the Archke ‘Albert II of Austria (605-10), next in England where he warked inthe Richmond Gardens and in Greenwich Palace for Henry, Prince of Weles, then with Fredrick \V, Bleccor of the Palatinate and King of Bohemia (1619). He spent the fina years ofhis ie in France. A cosmopolitan and an intellectual with wide-ranging interest, he wrote on music, on automata, on solar clocks and on Euclidean proportions. His book Porspctioe appeared in London in 1612 nd in Paris in 164." Inthe sur total of his wor, this book takes is place as one chapter ofa vast treatise on the ‘wonders ofthe world, in which the harmony of sounds and shapes, the mechanics of vision and of hydraulic machines are presented on the same level, Although the author writes in the sober style of a technician, he is deeply aware of the poetry of his subject, ‘Jean-Frangis Niceron 1613-46) (Rig. 26)a Parisian of the Order of the Minims,* id very lie traveling, He journeyed only to Rome in 1635 and 1642, where he joined a group of other monks i the French monastery of Santa Trnita dei Monti, and became absorbed in work ofa similar scientific nature. He died at the caly ge of thirty-three at Aix-en-Provence. He was acquainted with every treatise on perspective: ofthe Middle Ages ~ Vitelion and Alhazen; of the clasial series - Albert (1435), Viator (1505), Dier (1535), Selo (1545), Barbaro (1549), Du Ceroeau (1576), Danti-Vignols (1583), Sirgat (1596); of his immediate pre- decessrs ~ Salomon de Caus (1612) and Marolos (1614); and of his comtemporer- ies ~ Fernando di Diano (Polis) (1628), Vaulezard (1630), Desargues (1636) ‘The fist edition of Niceton’s Curious Perspetoe is dated 1638. Tr was followed by a Latin version: Thawnasingur optics, published in 1646 after his death +See wana’ nce p50 37This was « much more developed work which served as basis for futher versions in French published in 1652 and 1663. Iti a scientific work in which science unfold in a fairy-tale atmosphere. The book's subtitle: in which, besies being 2 summary and description of the general method of ordinary Perspective, practically demonstrated on the fve regular bodies, is also taught the way of making and tonstruting all kinds of distorted figures which when seen from their correct viewpoint appear in correct proportion’ juxtaposes ‘Curious Perspective’ and ‘imarvellous effects produced by arliial Magic. ‘Thus we abo see magicians quoted: Pererus, Bulengerus, Toreeblanca, And the effects of this magic are Gescrbed as ‘the most beautfal and admirable that the aet and industry of Man. ‘in achieve? In this connection Nicer, undoubtedly desiving his information from Cornelius Agrippa, refers to automata: the sphere of Posidonius which showed the movements and period of the planets, the wooden dove of Architas Which could #35 the automaton of Daedalus and ‘the bronze head made by Albertus Magnus which spoke as if by nature, and the wonderful works of the learned Boethus who made bronze snakes hist and bronze birds sing... Conceived on the lines of « predsion machine with ts mechanism hidden, per- spective that distances and diminishes, that shifts and animates forms in the Universe of illson, belongs ro a simile order of miracles. Nicern stresses these 1,114 these authors arribe these miaculws prodactons = [the automat) ~ and an infinity of ether which we read about in books, 10 the power and ‘peratins of ttl Magi, we can certainly claim the sme thing about the ‘ets of perspective which ae nol o be pried and admired. Pio the Jew in is book De Specatbus our stats expressly in These terms tht toe mage tr the perfection of sciences consist in Perspective, which enables us to know tnd discern more perfec the beautfl works of Nature and Art and which hss tecn a all ines in high estes aot only among the common people But among he moss powerfal monarchs of the word [Although Salomon de Caus was occupied simultaneously with the Reason of ‘Meving Force stomata ~and with perspective as belonging ro the same category, ‘Niceron justifies himeell with a whol pice of philosophical and historical reason- ing. Salomon de Caus devotes three chapters of his book tothe method of fore- shortening in such a ay that the sid Freshortenng il scem to be unnatural and extravagant, yet nevertheless sen from the chosen view-point wil represent the objet foreshortened as it would naturally appear.” Niceron has «whole book — the second ~ ‘in which are set out the means for constructing several sorts of figures, which seen from elsewhere than the chosen view-point will seem distorted and senseless, but seen from the view-point wil appear correctly proportioned’ “The third and fourth books deal with eatoptic anamorphoses and dioptsicar- rangements, They teach the mechanics of nonsensical, extravagant and distorted forms a8 an exact science, We are no longer concezned with empirical methods as in Vignola and Barbaro or evento some extent in Lomazz, but with science based fon the geomesry of visual rays and on precise caleulations. Fo, 26ean-Prangait Nceron ‘background. Porta execated Tn Rome 42, by Michel Lae, From ie Thoemgus ois (ar 1646) 39H P DoH 1c, 27 Cosrasion gina: ster Leonardo de Veh bray ofthe neue Franc, 1292, MSA, 42 ‘Let ws sum up in a few words what had oo far been the devices employed by !tss for che organisation oftheir pictures according to normal perspective. Fite, ‘the Horizon Lines drawn at eye level. Next two points ave fixed: in the conte, the Principal Point towards which all the receding pale straight lines converges on ‘the sume horizontal line and atthe same distance from the Principal Point asthe yess the Poin of Distance towards which the agonal ins converge. To obtain "he fal effec, the spectator mus place himself ata fixed view-point (fg 27), ‘The space receding into the distance is thus divided by the drawing of the grid {in which the distances corresponding to each square are determined by the iter= sections of two sets of straight lines. The result is trapezoidal chequerboard on wich al thar now remains robe done is to place the figure, in proportion to the receding dimensions ofthe parallelograms. The system, in Ttaly often called costmeione legis, goes back wo Alberti (5435), Leonardo da Vinci (1492, MS.A. of the Library ofthe Institut of France), and Viator (1505)" One sees i next in Vigaola'’s second rule, and itis tught in the majority of artists? manuals. It cor. responds tothe realty of perception bu itis also a device for representation which ‘works in every situation. Reversed and extended, it also serves as a basis for a distortion ready for an optical corection. ‘The arrangement fas a cwo-way function, If squace in perspective appears as 8 trapeze, a trapeze appears as square: reversal of the viewing point, placed sbove the Principal Point (a a height equal to its length away from the Point of Distance) and set in some way inthe picture results inthe opposite effet. The same diminutions coerect the forms and bring them close instead of puting them ‘a greater distance and distorting them, asin a film running backwards. The Perspective iin reverse Once the mechanics of the operation were found, attempts were made o increase ‘the effec by exaggerating the proportions absurdly, This was achieved by pushing 4 ‘back the Principal Point and simultaneously closing up the Point of Distance. The[FRENCH MASTERS OF PERSPECTIVE squares are then violently stretched out and diminish at‘ rapid rate. Their suc- Cession is so strongly contrasted that they are no longer of equal size but they become equal gain when they ae viewed from the reverse view-point 'At fist, the proces served to verify normal perspective by its reversal Tt was ext taken tothe extreme limit. The experiments on figures that expand as they move across space and that return intact, a by an automatic contrivance, resulted in independent systems which hada value oftheir ov. nits practical ue, the linear network vavied fom the simple wo the complicated, Salomon de Caus composed the framework in diect acordance with Vignol's fist rate, by means ofthe visual rays and ther icersetion wit te ‘patton line’ ‘an imaginary line rising verily in font ofthe object. Thereby de Cas obtained the same distance and the same angles as by the covtracione lepicina (rule 1) lengthened, which he also employs in some eaies. Niceron, on the other band, relies exclosively on Barbaro’s automatic method in his geometry, Usually he draws ‘only singe diagonal line which sufices to ix che scale of all the squares fig. 28). Fig. 28 Asamoepic schemes by Niccon, 16381a. 9 Anamoephicschemes by Er De Brel with sbe povosieof ous 11, 1549 This is the very method provided by the Nuremberg artist (the Master H.R) ‘exactly one century previously. The layout was later universally adopted. It was ‘ken up agin in 1649 by Fe. Du Breall (ig 29)" In the illustrations in de Ce and Niceron, heads perpetuating the tradition of | the distorted portraits of the siteenth century are particularly common (igs 130 and 31). However, we slo sce whole persons and object: in de Caus, an actor sp) Fia.g1J-P.Nlcron | ations fhe, 638 8nails. With Fr, Du Breui cones and pyramids hung from the citing and were set om the floor and on tables." Whole zooms, veritable clletions of conical peespetive, were filled with these xy (5g 35) ‘Similarly, morphic schemes on ft surfaces were not only applied to engray- ings or paintings done on an easel, but were also devised for the mural decorations ‘of ‘gallery o& room" (Salomon de Cau), as in Lomazzo's description. The larger ro. 35 Fe, Du Brel ‘alleen af pyramidal and ‘one namorposes, 1699the drawing, the more exact and ample isthe effet; thus, some ofthese composi- tions are of enotmous dimensions. Niceron ists thre types, according to the view point and its relation tothe subject and is siting: ‘optical? when one looks hori- Zontally along a vase allo gallery ‘anoptric? when one looks up towards the top of every high wall, and ‘catoptrie’ when one locks down, for example, fom an ‘open swindow, sbove @ painting designed to be thus viewed. Intzoduced into the alasifcation of clongeted pictues, these terme borrowed from Coclius Rhodigins, refer to avast programme. Fr. Du Breuil’s Practical Perspective (Bg. 36) shows how these schemes were worked out, We see two rooms filed with distorted images. There are giant strangely elongated heads on the wal, on the Hor and cling, cven ons table, Panel with holes through which peopl pee, analogous to the sighting-point on Vignol's fame, are aranged in front of some of these ‘compositions. The commentary suggests that thse images can elther be painted ‘or executed in marquetry. The rooms are like rooms of ghosts in which fees rise ‘upon every side and vanish as one moves about. ‘Niceron also suggested these devices forthe décor of oraamental cavern: {or those who work in them ssualy crete mast, status, says and eter _otergue fares made of shells sng tei natural colour and outline according to what is most appropriate forthe eprsetation of certain pars. By applying these rules of perspective to shellmarquety they can make ditrted and ne {ood figures which would not epreent anything except om the peedcermined ‘viewpoint, and ths wl be all dhe more plein im that in test works which sce t0 cil for nating bur simplicity, one wil ce perfect images and well ‘composed picurs, The cones and pyramids which one could hang up ‘ke the keystones in our churches are particularly recommended for these caverns.** ‘Were any of these anamorphic curiosities realized in important works? Nieron {quotes and describes several examples which existed in his time, two af which are still preserve, Inthe edition of 1636 he praises one single great work. Otbers were elds in the 1646 edison. The fists 1 fieso ina chapel of our Monastry (ofthe Minis), of 8. Tenth dei Monte incon Rome, showing 2 Deznt rm the Cron which Cit o depicted ‘hat viewed fom the Ie He seans to be Ing down and leaning aro the ‘tue, with His right fooe crest cut wowards the left; bat viewed from the ‘ther aide His whole body appears almost vertal, moch move foreshatene, fnd the foot which seemed to prtrade on the lt side appears to advance Coward the ght The ect ca be seein the ret altar of our crch in the Place Royal where we poses a well made copy ofthis picture fi. 37) ‘The original fresco which once surmounted the high alar of the Rovere Chapel in Rome was by Daniel Riccireli di Voters, one of Michelangelo's immediate circle, who in the same church about the middle of the sixtenth century had executed am Assumption ofthe Vigin ‘in which we note that in place ofthe Twelve [Apostles he represented the most talented painters of his century’. Michelangelo lone of those so portrayed in the picture, whichis til n stu in the Rovere Chapel [As forthe Descot from the ross of which the Paris monastery possessed 2 copy, after several restorations and relaying onto canvas in the time of Nepoleoa I it was relegated in 1855 toa side-chapl. Vasari refers othe foreshortening in its being of fan tnnsual complexity and beauty’. With is confusion of gure, swaying in very dirctioa, the whole picture explode in a swisl of Baroque. While the optical collection of ‘Optical’, ‘Reopen and ate? sarees 1649 ryEg. 38 Emmanuel Malena: ShmeretS. Tania de Moni, ‘Roms 162 Opti dinoranar ‘Eaorpheconpoction in ‘Stan det Mos ame, 648 | frame the picture. A sail and a giant insect, placed on one of the gnarled tee ‘rank, introduce # marginal drllery." Tis fem these images thatthe figure of St. Francis of Paol knecing in prayer emerges when one stands a the end of the gallery. The maze of roads which com pose the lines give the drawing a particular sliity ‘Extending slong, a wal this astonishing picture was composed on a new pri ciple The use of geomevica rid would have proiued satisfactory results, But Emmanuel Maignan, author of an importaat weatse on sundial, wished to do coven beter. It was in fact with strings representing the visual rays emerging from the eye that e organized the whole picture asi is seen by the visitor turing the gallery by 2 side door. Maignan’s Perspectioa horaria, published in Rome in 168, two years after Niceron's Thawmacingu optics contains a technical ecrptionof the meod and an engraving wo iustrate it (6.38). “The system isa mechanical one, depending on special apparatus ike # minis cue gibbet, xed perpendicularly agaist the wall ats fixed distance from the ‘iewing-point. Oa th horioatal bar D E, a movable string F His fited by means Staslipknot ‘The srng’s positon can be changed and itis kept upright by means fa weight. A gemstones threaded om iin such away that t can be si along and Stopped atthe desired height. A shuter LK, with two hinges on which the image fo be projected is xed, is hooked on tothe upright of the ‘gibbee. Finally a string INP, Jong enough to reach from one end ofthe gallery to the othe, i attached in frone ofthe enttance-door at eye-leve. This completes the siracrure. It functions s4 in three stages: 1 The shotter containing the image is folded back against the stringthat holds the stone, and the stone is moved along to mark a precise point in the figure The shutter is then opened. The stone will then bein the ai e the place ‘corresponding to the point that i marked on the picture. This acs aba guide for the sighting, 1m The visual ray string is made taut, so that ic frst touches the stone and then meets the wal, ing the proection exaclly. By repeating the operation along the contours, one obtains the elongated transposition of the whole igure ‘Such is this remarkable instrument. One is surprised to recognize in it Durer’s “window” (1525; ig. 64), and even mare tose the use t0 which the device is put, serving not to arrange but to distort perspective" The mechanics are the same: the frame (minus a stick), the hinged shure the stings ~ visual and sighting strings ~ later perfected by Accot (a625).° ‘The two transverse strings inter secting inside the frame have been replaced by a single string with a pea” (Fr “Maignan’‘gemston’) which ie adjustable in eight. However the apparatus works in revere. In Diiers drawing, the abject is et infront ofthe ‘window’ and ics fn the hinged panel that its contours are masked with the aid ofthe visual string [According to Maignan, the subjects put on the shutter and is projected onto the surface in front ofthe frame. Reconstituted in every dual, one of the ist known, instruments of perspective is revived in the mid-sevententh century by a French ‘Minim, who furthermore acknowledges the prototype which inspired him, ‘Niceton suggested thatthe perspective apparatus invented by a Florentine artist, 1. Cigoli (1559-1613) should sso be used in reverse. Ths he had discovered inthe colection of Hesslin, the king's counsellor (4 Wisuderhammer in Paris and hed described as “catholic or univers. One should note in this connection that 3556 fan a Ae en Fro. goJ-R. Neon: Sait Jobe fips at Patan, Tres exerted inthe Mis ronareis ia Rose, 142,004 inPar Galileo was in touch with Cigoli and in 1612 wrote to him on the subject of an elongated picture He describes it ss 2 human figure when seen from the side from a single fixed point, but when seen from the front as a chaos of lines and colours in which - with some dificult i is posible wo find some resemblance t9 rivers, deserted beaches, clouds, lakes and ghostly forms. Ie presents a kind of allegorical poetry with & phantasmagora of its own, in which the images and meanings flow out ofeach other and change according to the director oblique perspective ofthe concept, Galileo's comparison is valid for a large number of Compositions which we have analysed and it provides en excellent definition of « poetic mechanism athe frescoes of St . John the Apotl, Niceron did ot make use of the ap- paratus perfected in Florence, which was available to him, but rather of tht of his Colleague Maignan, without, however, abandoning linear methods. Always ‘thinking as a geometrician, he wsed it not to bring back the image tse but just the tutlne. This permitted the simplification of the operation: the horizontal ine of the grid are drawn along the wall by means of lines led by a string fixed oato the Principal Point (F), while the vertical gradation is located with the help of another string that starts out dreetly from the Viewing-Poiat (A) in accordance with the “Maignan system. As result the ‘gibbe is modified. Instead ofa single movable string with stone, there are several, which are weighted where the vertical division requires it and there is no ‘guide’. To project this frame-work onto the wall the procedure iss for an isolated point. Once the outline is obtained sl that % tra the picture by fllowing its succesive elongations and expansions ‘This was the hybrid technique, alzeady described by Lomazzo with « more primitive frame, which was employed for the composition of St Join the Apostlesd reproduced in Thaumatagusoptcu (8g 40). Niceron quotes the dimensions ‘of the Parisian cloister: Jength of wall 104 feet, height 8 fet picture ofthe Saint 56 fe. (The outline of person 180m. is 18 m. wide.) Entering the gallery one Sees the fresco correctly, since the view-point is by the entrance, but the igure ‘melts away as one advances slong the corridor. Seen at close range, i isa land scape as in Maignan's fesco. But itis not however a monochrome painting Niceron explains 1 have followed he custom ofthe painters who cote St, Jon in ascare robe, in oder to paint oni severl tes, shrub ower, et, which the people who walk along the palry see dietly, fr the various adornments of the gues iver the specaors: but the pater must ot inlode any iem thtinverferes ‘vith the oblique view ofthis Kind of Perspecive* ‘The two superimposed images, one appearing andthe other disappearing athe gaze shifts, asin Burbaro’s description and in Schin's plates, constitute a vast ‘ensemble curied out with perfected procedures, "The system produces the same effec es the changes of scenery in Baroque ivertictoments and specaces. The aforementioned Hesselin, counsellor and overser ofthe king's pleasures, called by Niceron ‘one ofthe most exceptional men Jn the world’, was celebrated for his theatrical receptions. “His house is filled with curiosities: one ses such beautiful mirors, so many rare paintings and delightful, pieces in high and low relic, so many fine books about every branch of knowledge, that one could desribe it a8 eptomisng Parisian collecions.** When, in 1656, in his Chiteau ¢'Essonnes Hesslin recived Queen Christina of Sweden, who knew hina ‘tough his singular reputation as one ofthe most skifl and gallant 7Pro. gr. Acct: widened ea ies5 38 men in France’, he Jed er into an enchanted dwelling: everything was ilusion, herything moved and was transformed.*' The walls melted away, and one sa, in succession, vast hall, clouds bearing a city in Games, the chariot of Fame, “a erie of doors of several rooms, the first of which was guarded by two Swiss guards tenon one took 4 be merely painted’ but who moved away from the wall and rcvited a dance. ya caver of extracedinary depth’ which seemed io advance, evealing yet another cavern, By transformation and optical iluson this unstable, fairy word unfolded ina continua anamorphoss Te fe galante in which visions ine rencarnated and reabsorbed into other visions belongs tothe same order of Trees as depictions of saints transformed ino landscapes, The representation in the Chiteau e'Essonaes was wholly based on systems of accelerated and false perpeatve, and itis quite pose tha the sons of appearance and diseppeat~ hoe were likewise produced with the aid of extended forms. Hesslin dared with Niceron.a pasion for oddities and rare objects. His chiteas, spilt wound 164o by Louis Le Vau inthe Te Saint Lous, was not far from the monastery ofthe Minims and Niceron often visited it. There, a we have seen, hecame across Cigl’s instrument which he was able to use “in reverse. He even dedicated one of his books to Hessen.” ‘The chronology of Niceron's large frescoes canbe established exactly. In 1638 fhe mentions only the leaning Christof the Detcent from the Cros, Daniel di Volterra’ orginal in the Roman monastery and his copy in the church of the ‘Minims in Paris, placed above the High Altar sbour 1632. The picture greatly impressed Niceron, so that one might well ask whether it was not curiosity about how ie was done that urged him into research on the subject. His fst fresco of St Joh was Sst printed in Rome where he was in 1642 and where Maignan, inter ‘aod in his researches indeed, Maignan said himself that he had been led by his Parisian colleague to concern himself with these problems ~ proposed his own method, Perhaps it was a matter of competition and compromise. Niceron began. swark on the Place Royale cloister frescoes on his return to Paris, According tothe “Armas ofthe Order of the Minima, ‘Er, Niceron executed the anamorphic painting ‘of St.John the Evangelist om the island of Pasmos in 1644, and in 1645 began the ‘Mary Magdalene’ The work was interrupted in 1646 by a journey undertaken for 39study, and in the same year Nioeon died in Aix. This explains why the Thauw- Imacergs optics does not deal with this second fresco, The Annals give us the Icitiona information that the Mary Magdalene was completed in 1662 by Fr. Maignan, during a visit tothe sister foundation. Since, however, Dezallier d'Argen= ville only mentions the drawing, Maignan’s contribution was doubles just question oft retouching ‘Tewas Pais that now became the important centre for the study and propagation of these optical contrivances. Bven the Italians were to rediscover thir own tra- dition through the influence of a Parisian monk and in a French monastery sub- sidized by the kings of France. Accolt's book, published in 1625, which shows an a, whose elongation is determined by use ofthe visual ray method (fg. 41) a8 in Dre's columns, mentions ony a single example of anamorphosis: the portrait of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosimo I which ean be linked with he fst series of secret effigies of sovereigns, As late a 162, Bettini in his Apiaia, was stil giving instructions on simple devices, even for catoptscs, for which in 1630 Vaulezand ‘nad established a rational geomerical system which wil be the subject of the final ‘chapters ofthis book. Aer its diffusion in Flemish and Germanic centres, ana- ‘morphoris was now re-thought and developed by a French School, ‘Buc what was that strange monastery, founded by Marie de’ Medics (whose frst cousin yas in fet portayed ina picture with ‘magic’ perspective) where above the High Alara tottering Christ could be seen and where the Minims as they prepared for meditation in the cloister were coaftonted with pictures of sins that ex- panded and diminished endleesy ae ina nightmare? Was ta rereat for llumnat ‘bsessed by their speculations ? No: ews in fact a Cartesian centreCHAPTER FOUR Descartes: automata and doubt ‘The monsstery ofthe Minims, founded in 1609 in Paris, close tothe Place Royale Ges buildings are now replaced by the barracks of the Gendarmerie, rue des Tous- nelles and rue des Minimes) was an important centre for scenic studies, often visited by Anne of Austra, According to Thiery, its library housed 26,000 volumes, The most istiows men in the world of religion and scholarship met there and the foundation became an intellectual conte of European characte. Its ‘connections with Descartes were established through Fr. Marin Mersenne,theo- logan, mathematician and philosopher, thus continuing the Platonic treition of the Rensisance which long remained is principal inspiration, In his biography of Descartes (1691) Baillet maintains thatthe two scholars had known each other st the Jesuit college of La Fléche. We next find them together in Paris, Mersenne who had entered the Order of Minims in 1611, sete there inthe Orders new establish= ment. Descartes posed the winter of 1622-3 there and stayed therefrom 1625 unt late 1628 or the spring of 1629 when he departed for Holland. Ir was inthe setting of the monastery that there sprang up betwees them a feiendship that was never to diminish. They coresponded regularly whenever they were separated." It is certain that ther relationship deeply inluenced the spirit ofthe whole group. As ic happened, questions of optical illusion and geometry were in the forefront of ‘Mersenne’s mind, ‘Apart fom his great theological works, Mersenne wrote Universal Harmony (aie, 1636), a work, like tha of Salomon de Caus, dealing with music, a mathe- matical miscellany intended for preachers, a treatise on optics and catoptics and @ calletion called Amazing Questions or Scholars’ Recreation One realizes how close the naure of his studies was tothe speculations of a Nieron, Moreover it wes he who signed the theological approval of Niceron's Curious Perspective and revised the ext of the posthumous editions. ‘Twenty-five years younger than Fr. Mersenne, his teacher and patron, Fr. \Niceron was the youngest ofthe group. His precacity was remarkable, Ar eighteen, hh was already considered ‘very learned in everything ro do with optic’ by Jacques @’Auzoles of whom he made an anamorphic portrait in 1631 (Bg. 114) and his research progressed rapidly.* A picture representing heads of Turk, but which, ‘when seen through a multi-faceted lens, hecomes 2 porwait of the Grand Duke of 6ros43 Figure representing flowed out tude Solomon SeCaus, 1615 e ‘Toscany, Ferdinand TT (the son of Cosimo TT de’ Medic) proves to us that Nixon vas already a consummate master of his art at the age of twenty-two. The young ‘monk did not know Descartes personaly but made use of his works and sent him his own book, In letter dated 30 April x630, Descartes mentions itr Mersenne ‘and, in 1644, he sent Nicer his Priwiples of Pup Emmanuel Maignan, who began by teaching philosophy at Toulouse, then seated atthe French monastery in Rome, also belonged to this group. An intimate fiend of Niceron and Merseane, he wat also an adaiter of Descartes whom he praised on several occasions ~ according toa contemporary ~ and from whom he ‘borrowed, without acknowledgement, “whatever was finest and bes’ By a curious crincidence all the men who were concerned with paradoical perspective systems ound themselves to some extent inked with Descartes. Scattered though they were, they belonged to the same circle, were connected with the Paris monastery, and pursued similar lines of researc, Their works fllow n regu succession a 1637, Devcaree’s Diopeice and his Geometry; in 1638 and 1646, respectively, Jean- rangis Niceron’s Prpectioe and Thawmatwgus opus, followed by a Diopais; in 168, Maignan’s Parpectioa horara, and in 1651, Mersenne's Opies and CCatoprcs, both writen long before. These works all refet a kindred spirit and, to a certain extent, contribute to a new philosophical movement. One even finds certain analogies of reasoning and association of ideas, among them the image of ‘the automaton, which likewise finds its way into the demonstrations of Descartes. Descartes, in fact, erie than Niceroa, deals with the automaton in his Discourse ‘on Method (1637). He points outs sumlaiies to animals, to machines, lacking ‘souls othe ability to reason suchas a clock which is merely an assembly of cog- wheels and springs, and even to Man whom, however, he also contrast with them. ‘The automaton explains the workings of the body of ving organisms: Which wil cem in no way strange to thote who, kong how many diferent somata or movieg-machises the indus of men can make, employing but few pecs compared with the muliude of bones, muscles, nerves, arteries, ‘eine and all theater parts which ae inthe body of ch animal, consid this body asa machine” "The obsession with mechanical alclaion which in Niceron dominates perspec- tive systems is present with simile emphasis in anatomical stadies. The system is developed in Descartes's Trea on Man, sketched out as early as 1634 but pub- lished posthumously in Leyden in 1662 and in Pais in 1664. In his preface ro the [Latin edition of 1662, Florent Schuyl describes the same mechanical wonders as sre found in Niceron ~ the automata of Daedalus, the talking bronze head of Albertus Mags, and so on. Descartes himself abo knew of these machines; he and Nieeron had the same source (Agripps.* Fr his examples, however, he does sot usethese legendary masterpieces but moder series, And tly, one can very well compate the erie ofthe machine {iy Man} ‘which Tam desing to you to the pipes of the machinery of thee fountains; bis moscer and his tendons to te various engins and sprigs which Serve toFverekh erers hallowed out {nde Salomon de Ca, 615 move thems his animal spits othe water which ses them in motion, whose ure iv the heart, and the cavities of whose bran ae the outs. (This of Course applies to hydraulic machines but also Man] Furthermore, breathing el sina cts, which are natural and normal to im and which depend on the fancdoning of the mind, are like the ovemens of a cock, or ofa ill (thigh the regal fw ofthe wer am erp i continual motion. (Tels actions “re eotoled by hide levers tera objets which by thst very presence, {against the organs ofthe emacs and which by ths means set up movements {b sverl verse way, according to the arangement ofthe pars ofthe Bain, de like ranges who, cteting some ofthe vers containing these fountains, ‘emseiny unwitingy, cme the movements which occur in dhe presence: fbr they canna enter except by treading on crn aving-tils so arranged that {ff crample they approsch a Diana ating, they will ete her iden the reeds and f they pss. on further in her pur, case a igure of Nepeane to move towards them, tieatenig them with his trident of they move else- ‘hore ene tome tarne monster fo rise up and spot water in their fe, ‘nile things will happen, acordingtthe whim ofthe engineers who havemade ‘hem ‘So we find ourselves in a garden with automata turning and moving in an ap~ propriate setting, in keeping with a mythological scenario. What a strange image GEMan with his conduit pipes cavities, grotoes in which dances of gods and of Spirits of Ansiguity ere suddenly set in motion! How can we help bur think of Salomon de Caus whose The Reason of Moning Forces, published s earl a8 1615, declared itself a Cartesian tile? These frees, which are the four elements, thefist of which is water link automata with a thoory ofthe Universe and with Nature, We rediscover ‘the clock with the fow of a natural fountain’, which Descartes ses oillustrste respiration and ll he systems of conduits and other arrangements which ee the human body in motion, and even three statues with caves and foun- tains in their interior.” Salomon de Caus saw ‘e huge Cyclops ia whose body some caverns had been artificially concealed’; this was at Pratlino near Florence in the pirden of Francesco de" Medici (the Villa Medici had been built between 1569 and 1584)!" Montaigne likewise noted i in his Jounal in 1$80 a8 a ‘giant which ‘three cubits wide a the eye opening, andthe rest in proportion, through fountain gushed forth water in abundance’.* The colossus was Giambologaa's “penne which inspized two similar works by Salomon de Cans: A huge fgure to ‘which one could give the name Mount Tmollus (afer the fable related by Ovid bout the god of MI. Trois, Who, with Midas, was the judge of a musical Contest between Apollo and Pen), and could constrct cavers thersin (ig. 42) a5, willbe described in the fllowing Problem’ in which we see ‘another drawing of a great ste figure representing a River god [2 giant, reclining on « mountainside] (fg. 43) in whose body some caverns can be contrived It was the fashion. ‘The ‘ountuyside became peopled with gints with mysterious holes and eaverns con ‘eile in their person These caverns slaty feature in de Caus's book, Problem vit shows a drawing of the eave of Orpheus ‘which eould be mad in the pre= ceding figure? (fig. 44). Carcesian Man, with the ancient gods brought to life in his heat by a hydraulic mechanism, i complete in ll his elements ro. 4 The Oaeof Opts ric soa be mate nthe proveding Sure Salomon de 65tos 4s Noun’ Gra Stim de Cass, 615 66 (One scene described in Desarts’s Tratse on Mar also appeared in de Cas (6g. 45) In problem xavit he explains the fnetion of the machine by means of which the god Neptune ‘wil tur in circular motion round a rock with some other figures which will spurt water as they move. The text makes no mention of Dian, ‘but a naked woman canbe seen in the engraving siting moag the rocks beside the Fountain. Neptune bears his trident and the marine procession spouts water in his ‘wake. Except for a few details, itis the same scene. Descartes not only retains the ‘general des ofthe mechanical figures bu repeats ther arrangement exacty.!* ‘Descartes had no doubt sen sme contrivances made by Salomon de Caus inthe royal gardens in Germany ahere fe had stayed in 1619 and 1620, but the majority ofthe elements of his demonstration are borrowed dec from de Caus's book. ‘When Descartes vent to Holland in 1629, he often saw the family of Frederik V; the Flector Palatinate and King of Bohemia who with his Cour, had taken refuge there fllowing the events in Prague in 1620. Princess Elizabeth, the soverign’s cleestdaughver, ecame his favourite pupil. He dedicated his Principles of Philo~ soph o her. The Reston of Moing Forces bad been dedicated to het mother, the lecress Palatinate, wife ofthe man who had patronised and taken into his service ‘the constructor ofthe automats. This proves that de Caus's treatise was avaiable te the philosopher. In taking his inspiretion from these moving machines in his mesitatons on the structure and fuetin of living organisms, Descartes moves outside the resi of Topic into tht of imagination; he thinks of the world asa theatre in which the secrets of mature are revealed through the medium of toys constructed by men “Thus it appears that Salomon de Caus, who alone among the exponents of pari- osicat perspective had no ditect ink withthe Merseane-Desearts group, also made a contribution to the development of Descarts's mind. The strict logic of these automata had a profound effect on Cartesian thought. But their affinity © the fantasies ofthese scholars was also confirmed by studies on perception. "The problem of illusion in allt forms continually preoceupied Descartes. For him, as for Pato, there is a diference betwen reality and one’s judgement of i, bt in wider sens, This difference doesnot only apply to woks of art, Descartes also considered the works of Nature tobe phantoms. This concern. dominates his Speculations. He had alzeady formated it in his Discuz on Method: ‘Cave always remained steadfast in the esoluion I have made never to accept a true ‘anything which did noc appear clearer and more certain than the demonstration of the Geometsicians made it appear’ This principle the foundation of his research in many varied fields, not lest his examination of the sensations. “The Diapers (1637) sketches out the reasoning which Descartes reruns 0 and develops further in the Treatte on Ma (pat 1). To experiments ae proposed. ‘One shows why we sometimes see double objects: if we touch a ball (X) sith rwo cconed fingers (the forefinger T and the midle-ingerR) these fingers ‘make you think tht they touch tw diferent things, because they are crosed and forced ost of thei natural position’ (ig, 46). Te sa question ofan illusion in which realcy Appears as other thin eis, asin the figures that change according to an arifcally fixed view-point, The second experiment concerning why objects seem to be in @liferens place from where they realy are applies wo a bent stick. If the rays or other line, tnough the intervention of hich the ations of he lsat objects pas into our peecpton are curved, the mind, which assumes them to bestia, wil be deveived. For example, the sick HR i curved tomas K, i il sem othe mind thatthe object K which thi stick tees feeowards R847). Perspective is falsifying the poston and structure of objects. Descartes continues ‘And in conclusion, it shouldbe observed tha all means of knowing the ditance ‘objects fom us are uncertain «Beare the rays tht emanate from their ‘ious points do ot al seemble together exacy atthe back ofthe ee, the ‘rample of perspective pictures shows how easy tis o be deceived: fer when ' the gues represented are salle than we should te andthe 46 Experian wih phere ees imagine they Desc Feat Ma Color de ndnce and ther etre it lorced hit aks them Nek ‘em ter ay and age than hy realy.” | Reo. 47 Experiment with, Descartes, Treat on Mam, ‘ Nosed. In discourse 1v of the Dioptries, Descartes enlarges on this analysis of visual crore. Things showin in copperplate engravings are imperfect representations since, ona totally fat surface they show us bodies ruse and sunk at diferent level and since, even azoring to che rule of perspective they often epreseat ‘Seles moe effectively by ovale than by other citles and squares more etectvely Fic. 48Peppecive diagram ‘by bombs, an smiley with ll the ther gure: ha eft, inode 1 be Bandi fama HRoder, mote perfect as images nd the bet to represent an object they must not 1st resemble A “This ase passage could equally wel be found in a Sophist or in Vitruvius, but the geometrical figures in question are thoee of modem perspective. Artists’ manuals ae full of these square, Srequendy with circles insevbed inside them, represented by shombs and ovals (fig 48).* eis Alberts costrsionlsitria, Vignal’ second rule, which furnishes the final proof of the flseness of the appearance of the physical world, Perspectives not an instrament for exact representations, but a lie ‘gw in fc in mathematica Cartesian oval. Transat’ wee‘nal these cases, it snot a matter of fortuitous or occasional lapses ofthe senses [A whole series of curious phenomena in which objects duplicate themselves, are tistorted and move, a in the hands of«conjuor, are assembled round some grand ida at the bidding of «metaphysical doubt, They make uncertainty certain, and in 0 doing bear witness to the necesity for the revision of ideas and values. They ‘contibute to daub. “Everything Ihave hitherto accepted for what is most rue and ‘mort certain Ihave learned from or throug the senses: but [ havesometimes found thatthe senses were deceives, and it i prudent never to ust oneself entirely to thote which have once dectved us” (Things that one can call into question). All Descartes demonstrations ofthe unreliability of our organs of perception reflect, that concern which, in his Medications (1641), he formulated as ¢ doctrine of ‘knowledge in which considerations aso intervene on the vision of things and on arti’ pictures ~ the real snd the imaginary. The same teaching emerges spontan~ ‘ously from the experiments f the perspective specialists of the time. “Extravagant and unnatural foreshortenings’ (de Cavs), ‘igues belonging to normal vision and whic, away from the predetermined view-poin, seem distorted ‘and nonsensical, but seen from the proper view-point will appear corredy pro- portioned’ (Niceron) ~ these are offered infact, a6 a demonstration of the same principle, and with the same searching after paradox as implied by the diversions ‘with ball end stick. ‘The manipulators of perspective work with the same optical oometry as Descates, exacting from it stil more decisive and breathtaking proofs, Anamoephoris i as soft and flexible asthe wax on which the philosopher aso meditated. ‘Some speculations on optic illusion tok onastrangecharacter. Thus, Emmanel _Maignan compares the perspective mechanism which ‘ceives our eyes’ tothe way fur senses are deceived” inthe mystery of transubstasiaton o in the appearances of Christ tansfigured as «pilgrim or asa gardener. But these are miraces inthe Gospels and not physical phenomena. The anxieties ofthe spisit are fed above all bby uncertainties concerning things that are normally visible. ‘When Niceron constructed his ‘curious perspectives, he di son his own way, without wansgressing the strcly technical framework, but he had been brought to it by influences which prevailed in his cice, and his works completely and brilliantly confirm the Cartesian reflections on palpable realty and on the divers ences berween the real and the appazent. Among the ates he invented there was ‘even one, causing hidden subject to appear in a pita, based ona formula inthe Disprics, published only a year eatie. The method coasists of painting an ‘extremely small inverted image ona rng or medallion, so that i is impercepeile ‘Bur putting your eye to the epylase dicey opposite thie tiny object would care ts appearance to such a degree that one woud see the smallest details ‘vay disney, while theres of the painting would disappear from view, 2 ‘eheme tet Would rico admirably {fone wel lass or cysts of che form tnd shape presribed by ML Descartes in Discourses 8,9 and 10 of his Diop= ‘One is now no longer dealing with direct vision without an apical instrument, as7p in distort perspective, tis however sil «game with forms conoeaed in ober forms playing on errors of vision, Scientific experiments, wicks of printing, scenes jnvolving automata and interchangeable pictures are found side by side, based on the same material and developing inthe same direction, ike some philosophical obsession with illsion, Anamorphosis, astocated with these studies and expeti- ‘ments, tkes on a new significance. ‘The huge compositions in the cloister of the ‘Minims, with sins taking shape and disintegrating serve asa constant reminder of the scenic research carried out inthe monastery and of the uncertainty of appearances which, in sigious thought, corresponds to the dea ofthe inconsancy and the vanity of this worldCHAPTER FIVE The artists’ quarrel: The Academy versus Desargues and Bosse ‘The development and propagation of the theories of perspective in a milieu of monks and scholars were disturbed by an aris’ dspure which reveals both the intransigence and the passion with which they takled these problems, A veres of curious arguments brought Desargues into conflict with Fr. Du Breul, and Desargues and Abraham Bosse into confict with Gregoire Huret. At first the controversy did not dzectly concern ‘distorted forms but inthe end doubts were expressed about them to. (Gérard Destzgues, the architect and mathematician from Lyons, author of « ‘clebrated theorem, spent ewenty-ive years in Pris, from 1626 to 1650, and was ice Pascal's master He wae continwally in touch with Mersenne and all the scholars of the monastery of the Minin, and his researches were on similar ines to theirs, After reading Desargus’s Practice of Perspective, published in 1636, ‘Descartes sad of it that his inquiring mind and the clarity of his language are estimable.” Du Breuil who made compilations of several authors also made use of this book with certain modifications ~ without acknowledging the source ~ and provoked a song reaction, Desargues considered himself personally wronged and protested vigorously. Posters with indignant headings ‘Incredible Errors’ "Eno ‘mous Errors and Fallacies’ ~ were plastered on the walls of Pars that January and fs pamphlet entitled Six erore sr the pages was distributed among. the public. ‘Crowds of people were drawn into the argument and the conflict extended beyond strictly academic limits. Du Breil immediately retorted with a pamphlet: (Charitable opinion n certain works and loots of Sieur Gerard Desargus. The ait ended in a lawsuit. With Desargues discouraged, it was Abraham Bosse who ‘undertook the publication of his work* ‘Bosses The Univerial Manner of M, Desargurof practising perspective ppeared in ‘wo volumes, one in 1648, the other in 1653, oth under the same licence of 1643.° ‘Te second was entirely devoted to perspective on izegular surfaces. The problem vas presented from the Cartesian point of view: ‘On whet occasion docs the representation take or not take the same form asthe subject (Hig. 49)- But it was fa matter not of pictures but of distorted supports, that i ro say various types of ‘vaults and domes, incined or undulating surfaces in which compositions were to preserve this exact appearance. The method derives both from recarded perspec nte. 4p Absa Bosse:"To raw cepuintatheeyeseer, 166s Fc. 50 Abraham Bowe perpetvepojeoa ena ost cling 655 p tive in which proportions are restored by calculating the visual rays, and from concave conical anamorphic picures, “If the subjects painted in its correct form ‘on the horizontal eylinder as if t were ona gallery roof, it appears distorted, the Jower parts are foreshortened, those from midway tothe top donot change, or only slighty.’ To counteract this distortion, che author proposes projections “with strings, by means of candles or by a view-point given oe found with such strings or by covering one eye or looking through one ee". For a painting onthe barel- roof ofa hall or gallery, the most practical method consists of placing under the vault horizontal grid formed by stretched threads the shadow of which, projected by alg placed atthe viewing-poiat, wil produce on the surface the perspective ‘wells (ig, 50). But there were also more complex and scientific forme In proposing their methods, Desargues and Bosse dit not anticipate effocts produced with distorted forms. The operation is logical, The Fact remains, nonethe les, that it makes use of violent deformations, that its projection system is ‘based on the principle which Barbaro recommended for anamorphoses, and finaly that iis conceived in terms of wast architectural surfaces, ro which the Minis ~ at precisely tha period ~ were applying optical devies. Despite differences in the tines of there scholars, one Snds common feeures in their researches and methods ~andall have the same obsession In one drawing in the Univeral Marne, ‘thtee gentlemen, completly sbsorbed, had othe eyes strings representing visa ‘ays and are deep in contemplation of squares traced onthe ground (Bg. 51). “The book aroused immense interest but was immediately subjected to strong attacks of which Bosse, after Desargues, had to bear the brunt. But this time the controversy involved the French Royal Academy which in 1648 had entrusted Bosse with the teaching of perspective and in 1651 had appointed him an honorary ember. All his theories were now described as ‘mad, flee, wrong’. In 1655 the attack was directed by Curabelle then in 1660 by Charles Le Brun, who sated his preference for J. Le Bicheur’s Perspective. In 1661 Bosse found himself excluded from the Academy. The conflict took on the aspect ofan argument between the pinters and the scholars. In 1670, Grégoire Huret, who had suoceeded Bosse in his teaching post in 1663, resumed che attack with a book the violence and bite ness of which could hardly be described a academic. ‘The formulae advocated by Bosse were treated as impracticable and ‘most prejudicial even if they could be put into practice’. Bosse was said to be ine ‘competent in this eld: he obtained his theories from the deceased Desargues who hha in his sr borrowed them from other authors suchas Abretht Direr in Germany who was the fist to produce perspective by mectanial means in his window" with the lute, and he Paster Glin, appended wo his Treatise on Geometry of 1532 os which was taken to ely by Vignola and Egnatio Dans who gave two methods fr doing it (dhe fst of which i mechanial ike Dies andthe ether geometric) n the Treatise of 1583, HHuree asserts that these men are tiresome charlatans and goes on to say that Dire’ third method ‘of portraying figures by squaring up" repeated by Barbaro snd by Cousin “isthe worst of the thre, since is foundation and aim ae conteary tothe rules of oprcs and of the arf portrirure' All the gest names fall under Hiuret’s blows. We have moved # lang way from cloistered contemplation and serene meditations on appearance and reality. The subject of perspective now unleashes hate and passion wholly unrelated to the theme. By extending his offensive to embrace all the classical authors Huet arrives at ‘the question of elongated depictions. One might well have expected him to an- sila them in this general massacre. On the contrary, the spokesman of the ‘Academy of Colbert and Le Brun stresses the interest and importance of these ‘devices. The systems are presented in the second part of the book ‘which deals with speculative perspective; tagether withthe mor interesting and considerable ‘questions which have so far been proposed concerning Portaitare and Painting, ‘THe aRTists" QUAREEL Masi of Peco, 15ta. $2 Gregoire Hur. eduction in perspective of sonal pictures, 1672 ro. 53 Grégoie Hurt fompotonefeloneated ith their solutions’. The autor proceeds syrtematialy, fist studying geometrical perspective diminution in normal pictres.” ‘The problem is posed theoretically. If Sgures are toe seen, a they realy are, ‘through aight’ fixed in front ofthe composition, they must expend as they move ‘way from the axis~ spheres becoming egg-shaped forms, human heads becoming