Skip to main content

Perspective in Renaissance Philosophy

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy
  • 128 Accesses

Abstract

The term “perspective,” deriving from the Latin perspicere (to see distinctly), indicates a technique of graphic representation whose rules were established mainly by the artists and mathematicians of the Renaissance. The term is a vernacular form of the noun perspectiva, which in Medieval Latin designated the science of vision, translating the Greek optiké. The philosophers of “perspective,” devoted to the study of vision from the ninth to the fourteenth century, investigated both physiological aspects, especially in the Arab world, and mathematical ones, retaining the ancient threefold division of the discipline into “optics” (direct vision), “catoptrics” (reflected vision), and “dioptrics” (refracted vision). This science, called perspectiva naturalis or communis, dealt with the visual and light rays propagating in a straight line, as established by a fundamental axiom of Euclidean optics (Euclid 2007, Catoptrics, postulates I and II). The artists and mathematicians of the Renaissance applied its principles to representation of the visible world, codifying the rules for a science of drawing that profoundly influenced the development of the applied arts and sciences in the modern age. Lorenzo Ghiberti described it as “a part of perspective pertaining to painting,” Piero della Francesca called it prospectiva pingendi (painting perspective), Jean Pelerin perspectiva artificialis (artificial perspective), and Daniele Barbaro perspectiva pratica (practical perspective): all these definitions converge on the basic concept of the practical application of optical laws to pictorial representation of the visible world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

Primary Literature

  • Aguilonius (François d’Aguillon). 1613. Opticorum libri sex. Moretus: Antwerp. Officina Plantiniana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleaume, Jeaques. 1643. Introduction a la perspective, ensemble a l’usage du compas optique et perspective [1628]. In La perspective speculative et pratique du Sieur Aleaume, ed. Migon, Etienne. M. Tavernier et F. Langlois: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alhazen (AbūʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham). 1572. Opticae Thesaurus Alhazeni arabis libri septem... item Vitellionis Thuringopoloni libri X..., ed. F. Risner. Basel. Facsimile edition: 1972. Ed. D. C. Lindberg. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alhazen (AbūʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham). 1989. In The optics of Ibn Al-Haytham. Books I–III: On direct vision, ed. A.I. Sabra. London: Warburg Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alhazen (AbūʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham). 2001. In Alhacen’s theory of visual perception, a critical edition, with English translation and commentary of the first three books of Alhacen’s De aspectibus, the medieval Latin version of Ibn al-Haytham’s Kitab al-Manazir, ed. A.M. Smith. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldinucci, Filippo. 1975. Notizie dei professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, ed. Barocchi, P., and Boschetto, A. Florence, 1681–1728, reprint, 7 vols, with appendix. Eurografica: Florence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Monte, Guidobaldo. 1600. Perspectivae libri sex. Girolamo Concordia: Pesaro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürer, Albrecht. 1525. Underweysung der Messung mit dem Zirkel und Richtscheiyt, in Linien, Ebenen, und ganzen Corporen, ed. A. Jaeggli. Nüremberg: H. Formschneyder. Enlarged edition: 1538. Nuremberg. Facsimile edition: 1966. Zurich: J. Stocker-Schmid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürer, Albrecht. 1527. Etliche Underricht von Befestigung der Stett, Schloss und Flecken. Norimberga .

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürer, Albrecht. 1528. Heirin sind begriffen vier Bucher von menschlicher Proportion, Nüremberg, ed. facsimile, Verlag Dr. Alfons Uhl, Nördlingen 1996 (cit. 1528).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürer, Albrecht. 1532. Institutioes geometricae, a cura di J. Camerarius. In aedibus viduae Durerianae: Parigi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonardo da Vinci. 1995. In Libro di pittura. Codice Urbinate lat. 1270 nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ed. C. Pedretti, C. Vecce. 2 vols. Florence: Giunti.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, Antonio di Tuccio. 1976. In Vita di Filippo Brunelleschi, preceduta da la novella del grasso, ed. D. De Robertis. Milan: Il Polifilo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Migon, Etienne 1643. La perspective speculative et pratique du Sieur Aleaume. M. Tavernier et F. Langlois: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niceron, Jean François. 1646. Thaumaturgus opticus. Paris: Langlois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozanam, Jacques. 1691. Dictionnaire des mathematique ou idée generale des mathématiques. Paris: Chez Estienne Michallet..

    Google Scholar 

  • Serlio, Sebastiano. 1545. Il primo libro d’architettura [di geometria]. Il secondo libro di Perspettiva. French Trans. J. Martin. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasari, Giorgio. 1973. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori scultori ed architettori, Florence 1550 and 1568. In Le opere di Giorgio Vasari, ed. G. Milanesi. 9 vols. Florence: Sansoni.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaulezard, Jean-Louis de. 1631. Abregé ou raciurcy de la perspective par l’imitation … Paris.

    Google Scholar 

Secondary Literature

  • Arrighi, Gino. 1967. Un estratto dal “De visu” di M° Grazia de’ Castellani (dal Codice Ottoboniano latino 3307 della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana). Atti della Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi XXII: 44–58. (cit. 1967c).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrighi, Gino. 1968. La matematica in Firenze nel Rinascimento. Il Codice Ottoboniano Latino 3307 della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Physis 10: 70–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerota, Filippo. 2016. I “sei libri di prospettiva” di Vincenzo Scamozzi: il grande assente della letteratura prospettica rinascimentale. In Vincenzo Scamozzi teorico europeo, ed. Franco Barbieri et al., 18–39. Vicenza: Accademia Olimpica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerota, Filippo, et al., eds. 2015. Piero della Francesca: il disegno tra arte e scienza, catalogo della mostra. Milan: Skira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federici Vescovini, Graziella. 1960. Problemi di fisica aristotelica in un maestro del sec. XIV: Biagio Pelacani da Parma. Rivista di Filosofia 51: 178–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federici Vescovini, Graziella. 1965a. Studi sulla prospettiva medievale. Turin: G. Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federici Vescovini, Graziella. 1965b. Contributo per la storia di Alhazen in Italia: il volgarizzamento del Ms. Vaticano 4595 ed il Commentario Terzo del Ghiberti. Rinascimento N.S. 5: 17–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federici Vescovini, Graziella. 1980. La prospettiva del Brunelleschi, Alhazen e Biagio Pelacani a Firenze. In Filippo Brunelleschi. La sua opera e il suo tempo, ed. Centro Di. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Firenze 16–22 ottobre 1977, 333–348. Florence: Centro Di.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, D.C. 1976. Theories of vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, Heinrich. 1882. Leonardo da Vinci. Das Buch von der Malerei. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panofsky, Erwin.1927. Die Perspektive als “symbolische Form”. Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg, 1924–5, 258–330. Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner. Italian edition: Panofsky, Erwin. 1977. La prospettiva come forma simbolica, ed. G. Neri and M. Dalai Emiliani. Milan: Feltrinelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panofsky, Erwin. 1940. The codex Huygens and Leonardo da Vinci’s art theory. The Pierpont Morgan library codex M.A. 1139. London: Warburg Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panofsky, Erwin. 1956. Galileo as a critic of the arts. Aesthetic attitude and scientific thought. Isis 47: 3–15. Italian edition: Panofsky, Erwin. 1978. Galileo come critico delle arti. Atteggiamento estetico e pensiero scientifico. In Galileo, ed. A. Carugo. Milan: ISEDI.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynaud, Dominique. 1998. L’hypothèse d’Oxford. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronchi, Vasco. 1983. Storia della luce. Da Euclide a Einstein. Rome: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. Mark. 1999. Ptolemy and the foundations of ancient mathematical optics: A source based guided study. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanturli, Giuliano. 1980. Rapporti del Brunelleschi con gli ambienti letterari fiorentini. In Filippo Brunelleschi. La sua opera e il suo tempo, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Firenze 16–22 ottobre 1977, 125–144. Florence: Centro Di.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Helden, Albert. 1977. The invention of the telescope, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 67.4. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde, Emil. 1990. Geschichte der Optik: vom Ursprunge dieser Wissenschaft bis auf die gegenwärtige Zeit. Vaduz: Sänding Reprint Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Camerota .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Camerota, F. (2018). Perspective in Renaissance Philosophy. In: Sgarbi, M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_680-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_680-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02848-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02848-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics