Esothric geometry.

THE SYMBOLAT YOUR DOOR: NUMBER AND GEOMETRY IN RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE OF THE GREEK AND LATIN MIDDLE AGES

BY Nigel Hiscock, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. 2007. [pounds sterling]55.

Despite its quirky title, this book is a serious attempt to explain medieval geometry and numerology in terms of religious symbolism. It is a companion-volume to the same author's The Wise Master Builder: Platonic Geometry in Plans of Medieval Abbeys and Cathedrals (2000). Hiscock correctly states that the tenets of Modernism included a denial of any meaning in architecture, and ignored the importance of symbolism in medieval culture. The claim by so-called 'rationalists' that geometry as understood by medieval masons was merely a practical tool is clearly absurd, as anyone with half an eye will realise when studying medieval buildings and many texts that have survived. To Modernists, geometry is merely 'an abstract ordering principle that meant nothing beyond itself'. Summerson attempted, in 1957, to argue for a theory of Modern architecture, mindful of the fact that Classical architecture and a rich vocabulary, syntax, language and theory. However, the lingo of Modernism was simply too poverty-stricken for such sophisticated exercise, as Summerson eventually realised. And if the language of Classicism proved rich, so was that of medieval architecture, steeped in meanings and sacred geometry.

Drawing on medieval sources, Hiscock constructs a good case regarding architectural symbolism and its significance, and summarises Christian Platonism's interpretations of numerology and geometry. From domes and cubes he moves through a vast field to circular and polygonal structures, window-tracery and the beginnings of Renaissance concerns. It is a brave book, with an impressive list of references. Although aspects of numerology have offered easy pickings for the half-baked lunatic fringse, this is not the case here: that geometry did have esoteric aspects to it in the past cannot be denied by anybody familiar with the literature (published or otherwise).

Hiscock's text is very dense: sometimes it is tricky to see the wood for the trees, and more footnotes would have eased the flow. In addition, the book is let down by the quality of the illustrations. Too many drawings are of unredeemed coarseness of line, and numerous half-tones were taken with cameras that did not have facilities to correct vertical distortions, so should have been rejected.