It may seem trite to declare at the outset that the history of architecture is a significantly different enterprise than the history of its theory. But it is worth pausing to reflect on these differences for a moment, for in so doing one begins to perceive the subtle and often very slippery passages between thought and act. I am of the opinion that these passages, when properly investigated, can contribute as deep an insight into the nature of human artistic endeavor as pure aesthetic contemplation. The book under consideration offers as splendid an example of this position as one could hope for.

The history of architecture concerns itself with the evolution of the building art. Visual analysis of concrete objects is the cornerstone and the keystone of successful architectural history. It is not uncommon for an accomplished architectural historian to make use of research presented by ancillary disciplines and methods, including biography, archival and paleographic study, art history, the history of technology, economic history, urban studies, and beyond. Such tangible evidence as contracts, drawings, correspondence, and the universe of architectural forms demands mastery.

By contrast, the history of architectural theory is more closely aligned with the subject matter, tools, and methods of the history of ideas or literary history than with the history of architecture per se. A whole canon of texts, anchored by the Roman architect Vitruvius, requires extensive sampling before one can pose a challenging question. Instead of reverberating with the activity inside the mason’s