Vitruvius: 'Ten Books on Architecture'

Rating:
Summary: Penn State Student Critique
Review: As a Penn State first year architecture student I have been studying Vitruvius line by line. It is the most inspirational, thought provoking, and interesting book I have ever read. I even hold my own Vitruvian study sessions to review the material and relate all of Vitruvius's topics to the outside world not even related to architecture. If you are at all interested in architecture, construction, philosophy, or if you just want a different type of book to read I urge you to give this a try. It is truly a remarkable book that has revolutioned and standardized many architectural details.

Rating:
Summary: Too many liberties taken with the intent of the text
Review: First off, I should note that I find this version of Vitruvius far more useful than many others, especially in the clearly noted diagrams, explanations of measurement units, and so forth. The editor and translators have done a good job of this aspect of Vitruvius Pollio's work.

However, the translators appear to have taken a few liberties with the text. First, since Vitruvius is a historical work as well as a canon of Classicism, an honest modern-day translation must relate not only to its period, but also to subsequent periods in order to be understood in terms of the nearer to present and Vitruvius' own time. The translators' choice of ridding the text of the translation "the Orders" for Vitruvius' original choice of "genus" is bad enough, but when you observe that this translation has been rendered as "type" instead, it has the potential of blending in with unintended references in the text to type as well as being confused with common modern/Modernist discursions into what type is. The translators should have indicated their theories about what they thought would be a correct interpretation of the Roman word "genus" at the beginning of their notes, not by making a deliberate decision to diverge from the customary content of the text.

Second, this translation appears to fail to take into account some aspects of military culture which have influenced the text. Vitruvius was a military man and although he adopted the linguistic style of Cicero in some respects (who has been accused of using two words in the place of one or even none), sometimes a distinction he makes, albeit slight, is worth noting, especially in the context of his role in the Roman military and in the context of subtle gradations of meaning being just as notable as subtle gradations in style and form.

Third, and most telling, the translators and editors have missed an opportunity to note something very useful in Vitruvius, and that is that although he understood the what of the Orders, he may not have understood the why of the Orders. In some cases, he goes to great lengths to wave hands over certain aspects of the Orders, even devolving into a Ciceronian overuse of words and dense prose, in order to pull a Wizard of Oz-like "pay no attention to the unknowns behind this concept". The translators note the fuzziness, but they don't begin to question the nature of it and as a result, they may inadvertently paint Vitruvius in a little bit better light than he may actually deserve.

Otherwise, it is a well-rendered translation, although for serious readers and researchers it should be balanced with at least one other translation, such as Morgan's translation.

Rating:
Summary: Too many liberties taken with the intent of the text
Review: First off, I should note that I find this version of Vitruvius far more useful than many others, especially in the clearly noted diagrams, explanations of measurement units, and so forth. The editor and translators have done a good job of this aspect of Vitruvius Pollio's work.

However, the translators appear to have taken a few liberties with the text. First, since Vitruvius is a historical work as well as a canon of Classicism, an honest modern-day translation must relate not only to its period, but also to subsequent periods in order to be understood in terms of the nearer to present and Vitruvius' own time. The translators' choice of ridding the text of the translation "the Orders" for Vitruvius' original choice of "genus" is bad enough, but when you observe that this translation has been rendered as "type" instead, it has the potential of blending in with unintended references in the text to type as well as being confused with common modern/Modernist discursions into what type is. The translators should have indicated their theories about what they thought would be a correct interpretation of the Roman word "genus" at the beginning of their notes, not by making a deliberate decision to diverge from the customary content of the text.

Second, this translation appears to fail to take into account some aspects of military culture which have influenced the text. Vitruvius was a military man and although he adopted the linguistic style of Cicero in some respects (who has been accused of using two words in the place of one or even none), sometimes a distinction he makes, albeit slight, is worth noting, especially in the context of his role in the Roman military and in the context of subtle gradations of meaning being just as notable as subtle gradations in style and form.

Third, and most telling, the translators and editors have missed an opportunity to note something very useful in Vitruvius, and that is that although he understood the what of the Orders, he may not have understood the why of the Orders. In some cases, he goes to great lengths to wave hands over certain aspects of the Orders, even devolving into a Ciceronian overuse of words and dense prose, in order to pull a Wizard of Oz-like "pay no attention to the unknowns behind this concept". The translators note the fuzziness, but they don't begin to question the nature of it and as a result, they may inadvertently paint Vitruvius in a little bit better light than he may actually deserve.

Otherwise, it is a well-rendered translation, although for serious readers and researchers it should be balanced with at least one other translation, such as Morgan's translation.