Another Solution to the Polyhedron in Dürer's Melencolia: a Visual
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AESTHETICS No.13 (2009) The Japanese Society for Aesthetics / 179 Another Solution to the Polyhedron in Dürer’s Melencolia: A Visual Demonstration of the Delian Problem ISHIZU Hideko Seijo University, Tokyo Introduction The engraving Melencolia (1514) (Fig. 1) by Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) has been inter- preted in various ways, but is not yet completely solved. It is filled with marvelous instru- ments, and among them a large stone polyhedron in the left center has attracted both art historians and scientists, and the efforts to clarify the significance of the polyhedron have been made by both sides. The preliminary sketch of the polyhedron (Fig. 2), which Dürer drew in perspective, indicating the center of vision by an eye, shows all edges of the polyhedron transparently. And each vertex bears a mark. This polyhedron (Fig. 3) has been regarded as a truncated rhombohedron, which consists of 6 rhombuses. Cut off two corners along the planes perpendicular to the line AH, the solid now consists of 6 irregular pentagons and 2 equilateral triangles. One side of the upper trian- gular face and one side of the bottom triangular face are perpendicular to the picture plane. The engraving is also drawn in perspective. Lines that are perpendicular to the picture plane, such as the side cornice of the building and the arm of the balance, converge at the vanishing point on the horizon of the sea. Dürer set the mirror image of the polyhedron of the sketch in such a manner that the vanishing points and horizons of both planes correspond with each other, so that the polyhedron may be regarded as correct in perspective on the engraving. The polyhedron is so large-sized that it must have some significance, which has been often argued over, and is still in controversy. Art historians were apt to regard intuitively the stone polyhedron as some symbol in the context of their interpretation, for example, as a symbol of geometry, perspective, material, and so on. Meanwhile, scientists attempted to clarify the structure of the polyhedron by determining the acute angle of the rhombus before truncation, that is, the most acute angle of the pentagon. Since Dürer is prominent both as an artist and a geometer, it is necessary to examine this issue from both sides. Examination of Preceding Treatises Preceding treatises dealing with the structure of this polyhedron are listed in Table 1. While some insist that the polyhedron is a truncated cube without any rational grounds [1], the rest are divided into two groups, the one that determined the acute angle to be about 72° and the other about 80° [2]. 180 ISHIZU Hideko Fig. 2: Albrecht Dürer, Drawing, 1514, Pen and brown and black ink, 20.2×19.3 cm, Dresden Landesbibliothek Fig. 1: Albrecht Dürer, Melencolia, 1514, Engraving, 23.9×18.6 cm Fig. 3: Model of the Polyhedron (drafted by Ishizu) Table 1 year name angle method reason / interpretation c.1900 Niemann 80° by use of graphics intended to be a cube 1922 Nagel (90°) enlarged a cube obliquely 1955 Grodzinski 72° making models visually most alike among 60°, 72°, 90° 1957 Richter 79°36’ based on perspective admitted Grodzinski’s as it’s connected with the golden section 1970 Rösch 72° idea 1972 Harnest 80° reconstruction 1976 Wangart 90° by use of graphics 1978 Deckwitz 76° making models as it’s connected with pyramids 1979 Enomoto 72° making models as it’s connected with the golden section 1980 Schröder (81°47’) analysis the ratio between two diagonals is 2: √3 1981 MacGillavry 79° ±1° based on perspective crystal of calcite → mineralogy 1982 Lynch 80~83° making models three-dimensional anamorphosis admitted Richter’s no- 1990 Sixel about 80° tion 1993 Engelhardt 80° calculation crystal of calcite 1999 Schreiber 72° as it’s connected with the golden section Another Solution to the Polyhedron in Dürer’s Melencolia 181 Those who insist on an angle 72° founded their theory on the relation of this angle to equilateral pentagons, and moreover, to the golden section, as a result of looking for a mean- ingful rhombohedron [3]. In 1955, Grodzinski stated that the acute angle of the rhombus was 72° based on making models. He made three models of the truncated rhombohedron with rhombuses having acute angles 60°, 72°, and 90°, ― the angles which seemed somehow sig- nificant. Among them, one with an angle 72° seemed to him to be most appropriate visually. In 1970 approved Rösch this angle, because of its connection with the golden section. In addition, he insisted that several parts of Melencolia were constructed based on the golden section. In 1999, Schreiber stated that Dürer had drawn this polyhedron based on a ground plan and an elevation, and had determined the angle to be 72° as it is connected with the golden section. As stated above, an angle 72° is a very convincing angle which attracts many scientists. On the other hand, the original polyhedron can be reconstructed as it is drawn in per- spective. Derived from reconstruction by use of graphics and calculation, the acute angle of the rhombus, the face of the rhombohedron before truncation, is identified as about 80°. The quadrilateral AEHD in Fig. 3 is parallel to the picture plane, that is, it is similar to the original figure. The sides AD and EH of this parallelogram are projections of the sides of the original rhombus. The sides AE and DH are projections of the longer diagonals of the rhombus. Thus, for example, we can construct the original rhombus, and obtain the acute angle about 80°. At the request of Gielow, Niemann arrived at an angle 80°, although he was sure that Dürer had intended to draw a truncated cube. Then, Richter (1957), Harnest (1972), MacGillavry (c. 1980), Schröder (c. 1980), and Engelhardt (1993) also identified the acute angle as about 80°. Schröder tried to find some significance relating to the ratio between the two diagonals of the rhombus which he set at 2 : √3. In this case, the acute angle can be calcu-lated to be about 82°. Lynch derived an angle 80° by use of both reconstruction and making a model. But 80° cannot cause any important geometric meaning. Lynch insisted that this polyhedron represented a three- dimensional anamorphosis, which appears to be a rhombohedron set on a pentagonal face, and appears to be a cube set on a triangular face. MacGillavry and Engelhardt stated that it represented a crystal of calcite, which does not seem persuasive enough, as there is no reason why calcite should appear so large in the engraving. Schröder and Harnest identified the acute angle to be 80°, while they did not mention further interpretation on it. As stated above, the preceding attempts to determine somehow logically the acute angle of the rhombus, the face of the rhombohedron before truncation, to be 72° or about 80° seem both unsatisfactory. An angle 72° is attractive, while it does not correspond with the result of the analysis, having a large margin of error. And the case is possible only when Dürer lacked the ability to draft. On the other hand, an angle 80°, which was derived from the analysis, on the assumption that he was skilled in drafting, seems to be meaningless. In addition, it should be noted that their arguments are restricted only to geometric area, and that they do not refer to the vague image on the largest pentagonal face of the solid in the engraving which is too noticeable to be ignored. 182 ISHIZU Hideko New Hypothesis Now I set up a new hypothesis, which corresponds with the result of the geometric analysis, is meaningful enough, explains about the patches like a vague figure on the pentago- nal face, and explains also why and how Dürer drew the solid in the engraving in such a way. I’m going to argue below: 1) the solid had been primarily a truncated cube, which Dürer had drawn in perspective, 2) and then he enlarged the drawing vertically in a certain ratio; 3) the enlargement ratio is an approximate solution to the duplication of the cube, or the so-called Delian problem, which originated in ancient Greece. 4) He was interested in this problem and gave the full treatment of it in his book Underweysung der Messung. 5) It was such an important knowledge of geometry that he visualized in his work. 1) Significance of the Vague Figure on the Polyhedron As mentioned above, there are some shadowy patches on the large pentagonal face of the polyhedron in the engraving. That the vague figure represents a skull or a phantom has been often reported [4]. As this shadowy image has been engraved on a hard copper plate, it cannot be a product of chance, like a stain caused by a drop or a rub on a watercolor. It must be meant to represent something especially. In both Dürer’s Knight, Death and Devil (1513) and St. Jerome in His Study (1514), which along with Melencolia are collectively referred to as Dürer’s three master prints, a skull is engraved. So it seems natural to consider that a skull exists in Melencolia, too. However, this skull is not represented in a normal way but as an anamorphic figure. We can recognize a skull when we view the engraving obliquely from the lower side. I drew a skull I found on an obliquely taken photograph of the polyhedron so that you exactly see what I mean (Fig. 4). So large that it completely occupies the pentagonal face. The skull I recognize has similar features to that of his Coat-of-Arms with a Skull (1503) (Fig.5), such as ear holes so dark as eye sockets, a waving hollow over the eyebrows, and two vertical lines carved Fig.