Roman Architecture School

[romanonick]

Is there any evidence that candidates with architectural promise were officially 'schooled' in recognised colleges or centres? Or was the learning more often than not acquired through apprenticeship and 'on the job' experience under the supervision of a 'master'?
Secondly, were there 'grades' of subsequent architectural progress - eg novice through to full qualification as 'master' ?

Regards,

Romanonick/Nick Deacon

[Carlton Bach]

To my knowledge, no such structure existed in the ancient world. The idea of having 'a degree in X' took a long time developing, from the 'student of' or 'stuidied at' of the ancient world through the ijaza and 'first publication' of the medieval Muslim intelligentsia through the Bachelor-Master-Doctor progression of Western European colleges to our modern world. In Greece or Rome, you could not 'study architecture', the best you could do is learn under a recognised architect.

There was, of course, an informal system of quiality control. You wouldn't hire an architect you didn't have references for. A military architect might be your best choice if you didn't have connections because you knew he had gone through a hard school and had to produce results. If you had connections, of course, you could have someonme recommend someone who had done something before and thus end up with good people. Say you're a local curialis and you want a villa bath built - you write to your patron who tells you he knows this architect in Mediolanum who did his friend's summer residence in the Transpadana. You contact him, he can't come, but he can send one of his students who comes and builds your villa baths. You get a good guy, he gets experience and a future reference, his teacher gets extra prestige, everybody's happy. Next time, the student may get a commission for a municipal bath or a vivarium.

That's how it usually seems to have worked. Unlike for doctors (Cos and Alexandria) or lawyers (Rome, later Constantinople and Berytos), there wasn't a place for architects to congregate and study, but the best and most famous would naturally be where the custom was - Rome, Naples, Alexandria, Antioch - and their students would follow them there.

[Epictetus]

You might be interested in what Vitruvius said about the education of the architect. He makes no mention of formal "schools" as such, but was quite adamant in what was necessary for an architect.

Consequently, since this study is so vast in extent, embellished and enriched as it is with many different kinds of learning, I think that men have no right to profess themselves architects hastily, without having climbed from boyhood the steps of these studies and thus, nursed by the knowledge of many arts and sciences, having reached the heights of the holy ground of architecture.

Vitruvius. I.1.11.

You can read it here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... us/1*.html

[Carlton Bach]

You might be interested in what Vitruvius said about the education of the architect. He makes no mention of formal "schools" as such, but was quite adamant in what was necessary for an architect.

Consequently, since this study is so vast in extent, embellished and enriched as it is with many different kinds of learning, I think that men have no right to profess themselves architects hastily, without having climbed from boyhood the steps of these studies and thus, nursed by the knowledge of many arts and sciences, having reached the heights of the holy ground of architecture.

Vitruvius. I.1.11.

It's what he would say, wouldn't he? Actually, you find similar claims in Galen's writings and the purpose is to establish personal credentials. I'm sure he'd have been a lot less strident if he had had a proper diploma to hang up in his study

[M. Demetrius]

I read that an architect who had designed a stone arch was required to stand under it when the wooden supports were removed. If the arch collapsed, the faulty design would not be repeated. :wink:

Now that's a school of hard knocks, isn't it? :lol:

[Wander]

There was pretty much no distinction between the modern roles of architect, engineer, and contractor -- it was all rolled into one: the architect was also the builder.

And, while Vitruvius wanted everyone held to a high standard of education and craftsmanship (and he certainly demonstrated that the knowledge was there), not everybody who sold his services as a builder/architect was that qualified. There was no regulation as to who could go into the building business, and if the person paying for it didn't want to pay top dollar, he probably went to people with marginal qualifications.

This is amply demonstrated by the fact that insulae were collapsing with frightening regularity all over Rome. Sure, there were building codes and laws governing quality of materials -- and they were about as widely ignored/bribed around as any other laws. So if you were a rich man contracting for your own home, or if you were an aedile letting a contract for a temple or basilica, you'd get a well-recommended architect and top quality materials. But if you're maintaining an insula you own as a rental property, you might pay for just the very minimum for repairs or construction -- as Cicero was well known for doing.

[M. Demetrius]

arch=chief tekton=builder, if I remember the Greek correctly. Having worked on several sorts of construction projects (as a worker) I sincerely wish that the architect had to be on hand to give explanation for why this wall intersection really needs to be 24.5 degrees on the flat, and 11 degrees off vertical. Try cutting and nailing that, Mr. Architect...no doubt much easier to draw than build!

[romanonick]

Thanks for the recent additions to this topic. I've assume for my purposes that:
a. There were no formal schools or 'diplomas'.
b. There were 'apprenticeships' which may have been 'sold' to aspiring students or offered as a result of patronage.
c. That acceptance as a 'master' was probably as a result of fewer of your completed buildings falling down!
d. That the coexistence of the 'jerry-built' and perfection was then, as now, the norm.
e. Building regs etc. could be ignored and (if there were any) inspectors bribed.
f. Rachmanism was alive and well and was probably perfected by the Romans well before early '60's Britain!
g. That if engaged in this 'trade' you were. literally, 'jack of all of them' !

M.Demetrius - I like your 'stone arch' test! Can you remember the source??

The more I read of daily life in the Roman Empire the more parallels of our own age seem to appear!!!!!! Ancient history is not so distant!1

Regards,

Romanonick/Nick Deacon