090505_Constructions of Ideology-single
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Constructions</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ideology</strong><br />
An investigation in the shared motivations behind Thomas Jefferson’s<br />
Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia<br />
A product <strong>of</strong> William R. Kenan Endowment Fund <strong>of</strong> the Academical Village<br />
Danielle S. Willkens<br />
14 November 2008
“On the whole I find nothing any where else in point <strong>of</strong><br />
climate which Virginia need envy to any part <strong>of</strong> the world<br />
. . . spring and autumn, which make a paradise <strong>of</strong> our<br />
country. . . we have reason to value highly the accident <strong>of</strong><br />
birth in such an one as that <strong>of</strong> Virginia.”<br />
Jefferson to Martha Jefferson Randolph, 1791
Introduction<br />
Although Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia<br />
share a unique place together on the United<br />
Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization<br />
(UNESCO) World Heritage List, these two projects<br />
are rarely discussed in concert. Jefferson’s Monticello<br />
is viewed as his mountaintop retreat, the ‘essay<br />
in architecture’ that took nearly half <strong>of</strong> his life to<br />
design and build. The University rests in the valley,<br />
visible from the North Terrace <strong>of</strong> Monticello, as<br />
Jefferson’s ‘hobby <strong>of</strong> old age’ and lasting bequest <strong>of</strong><br />
the importance <strong>of</strong> public education. In the cultivated<br />
legacy <strong>of</strong> Jefferson at the University we rarely discuss<br />
what lessons were learned from the design and<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> Monticello, what worker’s hands<br />
touched the brick and stone at both sites, and how<br />
sectional similarities pervade the landscaped design<br />
<strong>of</strong> each place. At the University our understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
Jefferson on grounds during design and construction<br />
is substantial yet we do not fully comprehend what<br />
place students had at his home nor how Jefferson’s<br />
family perceived his shared parental responsibility<br />
as ‘father’ to the University.<br />
Thomas Jefferson is an iconic figure <strong>of</strong> the American<br />
Enlightenment. He was multifaceted: a statesman<br />
that always considered himself a farmer and a<br />
nation-builder that constructed both written and<br />
physical monuments to edify the United States. The<br />
home and self-titled hobby projects <strong>of</strong> Jefferson<br />
are phenomenally illustrative <strong>of</strong> his educational,<br />
aesthetic and social ideas through their contained<br />
programs and built spaces. The goals <strong>of</strong> this essay<br />
are to discuss the connections and contradictions<br />
between Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia<br />
that make the two built projects premier examples<br />
<strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s aesthetic and didactic theories,<br />
worthy <strong>of</strong> the selective UNESCO title <strong>of</strong> ‘universally<br />
significant’.<br />
Left. Tadeusz Kosciuszko aquatint <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson, before<br />
1817.
UNESCO World Heritage Sites<br />
In 1987 Jefferson’s Monticello and the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia were elevated to abiding international<br />
prestige when they were inscribed to the United<br />
Nations World Heritage List under the title <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Thomas Jefferson Thematic Nomination. 1 The<br />
World Heritage List is under the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong><br />
the UNESCO. World Heritage sites are annually<br />
selected by an international committee based upon<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> at least one <strong>of</strong> the ten codified<br />
selection criteria. Six <strong>of</strong> these criteria are cultural<br />
and four are natural. 2 The committee inscribed the<br />
first sites to the list in 1978 and currently there are<br />
878 sites recognized; 679 are listed as cultural, 194<br />
as natural and 25 as mixed. The United States holds<br />
20 properties on the list, 12 cultural and 8 natural.<br />
This list is not simply a written database <strong>of</strong> natural<br />
and constructed international wonders; it solidifies<br />
the universal symbol <strong>of</strong> the place and assures<br />
protection and preservation. UNESCO maintains a<br />
‘List in Danger’ <strong>of</strong> international properties in need <strong>of</strong><br />
immediate assistance and due to the mission <strong>of</strong> the<br />
World Heritage Committee, many <strong>of</strong> the properties<br />
that once made an appearance on the List in Danger<br />
have been successfully preserved for posterity. The<br />
importance <strong>of</strong> the joint inscription <strong>of</strong> Monticello and<br />
the University is underscored when one examines<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the other sites that matriculated in 1987:<br />
the Great Wall <strong>of</strong> China, the Acropolis, Teotihuacan,<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Bath, and Hadrian’s Wall. 3<br />
Under UNESCO requirements, every nomination to<br />
the World Heritage List must be submitted through<br />
the host country. In the United States all submissions<br />
go through the National Park Service, an agency<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior. 4 The Jefferson<br />
Nomination as submitted to UNESCO stressed<br />
the importance <strong>of</strong> both sites as experiments in<br />
architecture: Monticello as a personal laboratory<br />
for Jefferson’s aesthetic ideas and the University as<br />
a unique community <strong>of</strong> scholars. Both sites display<br />
Jefferson’s command <strong>of</strong> composition and proportion<br />
in relation to neoclassical architecture; however,<br />
both sites also show a clear evolution in Jefferson’s<br />
abilities as an architect. Jefferson’s initial, tentative<br />
moves at Monticello were replaced with inventive,<br />
even if sometimes problematic, design solutions<br />
over the more than forty years <strong>of</strong> construction.<br />
The University shows the adaptation <strong>of</strong> the temple<br />
typology in both strict and whimsical manners,<br />
clearly displaying an architect that understood<br />
the rules <strong>of</strong> classicism and could break them for<br />
successful adaptations. As noted in the submission,<br />
“Jefferson joined in this [classical] revivalist spirit as<br />
no other American did before him.” 5 Additionally, the<br />
nomination highlighted the representative nature <strong>of</strong><br />
Jefferson’s architecture in relation to concepts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Enlightenment such as education, self-determination<br />
and the reevaluation <strong>of</strong> beauty and order. Based<br />
upon the aforementioned elements detailed in the<br />
Jefferson Nomination, the International Council on<br />
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) selected Monticello<br />
and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia for the World Heritage<br />
List based upon the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> three UNSECO<br />
criteria:<br />
I. unique artistic achievement<br />
IV.<br />
VI.<br />
outstanding example <strong>of</strong> a specific<br />
architectural movement<br />
example <strong>of</strong> the built environment<br />
tangibly associated with beliefs <strong>of</strong><br />
universal significance 6<br />
Although the Jefferson Nomination as a report is<br />
an intriguing, nationally-produced document about<br />
the two sites, the ICOMOS recommendation for<br />
inscription provides a succinct argument for the<br />
significance <strong>of</strong> both sites from an international<br />
perspective. 7 The report gives unique insight on
the purview <strong>of</strong> the World Heritage List in the first<br />
sentence, “a request to include the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Virginia on the World Heritage List has long been<br />
awaited.” 8 Jefferson’s university, not his home, was<br />
the premier site according to the recommendation<br />
<strong>of</strong> ICOMOS. The report goes on to state that it was<br />
interesting and complimentary for the United States<br />
to put forth the two sites as a thematic nomination.<br />
Both sites are praised for their integration <strong>of</strong> built<br />
program into the natural landscape, the originality<br />
<strong>of</strong> design and the exemplary nature <strong>of</strong> neoclassical<br />
proportions and aesthetics. The recommendation<br />
described both projects as successful bridges between<br />
the architecture <strong>of</strong> utopian organization and the<br />
constraints <strong>of</strong> built reality; a theoretical connection<br />
similar to the ‘expression <strong>of</strong> the American mind’<br />
in the Declaration <strong>of</strong> Independence. 9 Clearly, the<br />
ICOMOS viewed an inherent duality in significance<br />
<strong>of</strong> Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia between<br />
the architectural program and visual expression.<br />
This connection is edified by the comparison <strong>of</strong><br />
Jefferson’s projects to the Royal Saltworks <strong>of</strong> Chaux<br />
by Claude- Nicolas Ledoux, a project inscribed to the<br />
World Heritage List in 1982. 10 As a site, the Saltworks<br />
was a unique amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Enlightenment<br />
ideas: rational social order, neoclassical adaptation,<br />
architecture parlante and industrial productivity. 11<br />
Similar to the Saltworks, the agricultural, educational<br />
and social programs <strong>of</strong> Monticello and the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia seamlessly blend into the architecture.<br />
At both projects, the architecture is not simply<br />
shelter but rather a conducive vessel for ideals and<br />
experimentations.<br />
Currently the Thomas Jefferson Thematic Nomination<br />
holds several unique characteristics on the World<br />
Heritage List: Monticello is the only recognized<br />
private residence in America and the University is<br />
the only recognized American university. Only a small<br />
number <strong>of</strong> architects have more than one project on<br />
the list; Jefferson occupies this selective group in<br />
the company <strong>of</strong> Andrea Palladio, Victor Horta, and<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the Bauhaus. 12 On January 30, 2008<br />
two additional built projects by Thomas Jefferson<br />
were submitted to the Tentative List: Jefferson’s<br />
plantation retreat named Poplar Forest in Bedford<br />
County, Virginia and the Virginia State Capitol in<br />
Richmond. If selected, these sites would be listed as<br />
extensions <strong>of</strong> the current Thomas Jefferson Thematic<br />
Nomination. Given Jefferson’s contemporary stature<br />
as a groundbreaking American architect and his<br />
elevated status as an architect <strong>of</strong> a World Heritage<br />
Site, it is difficult to remember that until 1916<br />
Jefferson was known merely as an architectural<br />
hobbyist, a statesman with a strong interest in the<br />
arts that also served as a patron. 13<br />
One key element not fully addressed by either<br />
the Jefferson Nomination or subsequent ICOMOS<br />
report is Jefferson’s multifaceted status as nation<br />
builder. Unlike any other architects named on the<br />
World Heritage List, Jefferson helped to literally<br />
construct the nation through his appointed and<br />
elected governmental service, written documents<br />
and revolutionary architecture for public and private<br />
edifices. Jefferson was a self-trained architect<br />
but is deserving <strong>of</strong> a more deferential term than<br />
‘gentleman architect.’ His projects were not the result<br />
<strong>of</strong> a mere subsidiary interest in architecture. Most<br />
<strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s designs were physical constructions<br />
<strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> his ideological principles for the new<br />
nation. 14 One <strong>of</strong> the strongest motivations behind<br />
Jefferson’s architectural endeavors was the quest<br />
for education: buildings were physical teaching tools<br />
and could be dwellings specifically designed for<br />
educational programs.
“A system <strong>of</strong> general instruction, which shall reach every description <strong>of</strong> our citizens from the<br />
richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest <strong>of</strong> all the public concerns in<br />
which I shall permit myself to take an interest.”<br />
-Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, 1818
A Vision for Education<br />
The Age <strong>of</strong> the Enlightenment was a philosophical<br />
movement that questioned conventions, morals<br />
and religion. Largely centered in France, England<br />
and Germany the movement later spread through<br />
Europe and eventually crossed the Atlantic. The act<br />
<strong>of</strong> becoming enlightened was derived from reading,<br />
writing, corresponding, conversing, listening to<br />
music and looking at pictures. Therefore, the<br />
endeavor was partially a sociable act and partially an<br />
act <strong>of</strong> individual study. 15 The movement encouraged<br />
education through discourse and introspection, or<br />
as John Locke stated, “a talk with one’s self.” 16 The<br />
Janus-faced methodology <strong>of</strong> enlightenment, public<br />
and private, was directly related to shifts in built<br />
space. Under the patronage <strong>of</strong> the Enlightenment the<br />
museum and library became prevalent architectural<br />
programs. Until the Enlightenment, most structurally<br />
innovative, ornate and spatially awe-inspiring works<br />
<strong>of</strong> architecture were either sacred spaces or projects<br />
sponsored by empires. Architects <strong>of</strong> the Enlightenment<br />
challenged the precedent <strong>of</strong> architectural hierarchies<br />
and introduced inspirational spaces intended for<br />
non-secular, public use. For example, the British<br />
Museum, opened in 1759, was the first purposebuilt<br />
national museum opened to the public.<br />
Architecture in the private realm also evolved during<br />
the Enlightenment: French architects <strong>of</strong> the mideighteenth<br />
century like Étienne-Louis Boullée and<br />
Nicolas-Claude Ledoux penned innovative designs<br />
for the cooper, surveyor and industrial worker.<br />
Suddenly, spaces designed by trained architects were<br />
not solely reserved for wealthy aristocrats. As for<br />
the architecture <strong>of</strong> introspection, libraries became<br />
more common outside <strong>of</strong> the secular world. Quiet<br />
study was no longer reserved for the cloistered as<br />
it was in the age <strong>of</strong> humanism and for the first time<br />
silent reading, as opposed to reading aloud among<br />
a group, was prevalent. 17 Public structures like the<br />
British Museum opened magnificent reading rooms<br />
and libraries became part <strong>of</strong> the programmatic<br />
language <strong>of</strong> private residences. At Monticello and<br />
the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia, Jefferson tackled the<br />
Enlightenment architectural programs <strong>of</strong> the library<br />
and museum. The architecture <strong>of</strong> these educational<br />
spaces will be discussed later in this essay.<br />
Previous page: Joseph Wright, A Philosopher Giving that Lecture<br />
on the Orrery, 1766.<br />
Left: Étienne-Louis Boullée, Bibliotheque Nationale, c.1775.<br />
Right: Étienne-Louis Boullée, Newton’s Cenotaph, c. 1774.
American Enlightenment<br />
The questioning <strong>of</strong> core values and assumed<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> the world clearly impacted the social<br />
and economic rationales <strong>of</strong> the Founding Fathers<br />
and outspoken patriots <strong>of</strong> the American Revolution.<br />
The Old World initiated the Enlightenment by their<br />
invention, theoretical formulations and overall<br />
agitation <strong>of</strong> conventions but it can be argued that<br />
it was only the New World that saw many <strong>of</strong> the<br />
true principles <strong>of</strong> the Enlightenment come into<br />
fruition. 18 The Enlightenment <strong>of</strong> America was fueled<br />
by activism. It was led by farmers, tradesmen, and<br />
lawyers, not by monarchs or philosophers. Although<br />
America questioned the position <strong>of</strong> the common<br />
man more than the scholars across the Atlantic, the<br />
democratic ambitions <strong>of</strong> the American Enlightenment<br />
will always be tarnished with the realities <strong>of</strong> racial<br />
and gender boundaries. 19 With regard to the Age<br />
<strong>of</strong> Enlightenment, Jefferson is a representative<br />
character in America. He was statesman, scientist,<br />
builder, botanist and reader while perpetuating his<br />
nation’s imperfect democracy through the ownership<br />
<strong>of</strong> more than 600 slaves during his lifetime.<br />
The presence <strong>of</strong> slavery, as well as the ruinous<br />
condition <strong>of</strong> many areas in the nation following<br />
the Revolutionary War, led to the ‘skeptical’<br />
Enlightenment in America. 20 Even Jefferson was<br />
victim to the disparagement. In letters, he wrote <strong>of</strong> a<br />
thankless nation that did not recognize the sacrifices<br />
<strong>of</strong> its citizens in the pursuit <strong>of</strong> liberty and one that<br />
was divided on the issue <strong>of</strong> slavery. Jefferson’s<br />
frustrations were clearly expressed in a letter to<br />
Colonel Monroe in 1885:<br />
My God! how little do my countrymen<br />
know what precious blessings they are in<br />
possession <strong>of</strong>, and which no other people on<br />
earth enjoy…come, then, and see the pro<strong>of</strong>s<br />
<strong>of</strong> this, and on your return add you testimony<br />
to that <strong>of</strong> every thinking American, in order<br />
to satisfy our countrymen how much it<br />
is their interest to preserve, uninfected<br />
by contagion, those peculiarities in their<br />
government and manners, to which they are<br />
indebted for those blessings… 21<br />
Fortunately, Jefferson’s dissatisfaction fueled his<br />
desire for change. Like many <strong>of</strong> his countrymen,<br />
Jefferson viewed education as the essential conduit,<br />
“if the condition <strong>of</strong> man is to be progressively<br />
ameliorated, as we fondly hope and believe,<br />
education is to be the chief instrument in effecting<br />
it.” 22 Although further inspired by the post- War<br />
conditions in America, Jefferson’s campaign for public<br />
education began during his tenure as Governor <strong>of</strong><br />
Virginia.<br />
Left: Charles Willson Peale, The Artist in His Museum, 1822.
Quest for Public Education<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the Founding Fathers were educators;<br />
however, Jefferson left the strongest record <strong>of</strong><br />
devotion to the education <strong>of</strong> the public through<br />
his governmental agendas and private advocacy. 23<br />
Jefferson’s own educational background included<br />
private tutors and college instruction granted by<br />
his privileged family condition. 24 Jefferson’s system<br />
for public education in Virginia was intended to be<br />
a solution for the problems he experienced and<br />
those he would habitually criticize in the realm <strong>of</strong><br />
private education: only the wealthy were given the<br />
opportunity for education, there was a general lack<br />
<strong>of</strong> regulation or universal assessment, there was a<br />
closed concept <strong>of</strong> epistemology that discouraged<br />
non-traditional learners and the system fostered a<br />
distinct sense <strong>of</strong> provincialism. 25 Jefferson did not<br />
envision the future <strong>of</strong> Virginia’s intellectual circle, or<br />
arguably that <strong>of</strong> the nation, as one solely reserved for<br />
the privileged. Jefferson believed people were the<br />
guardians <strong>of</strong> their own liberty, “enlighten the people<br />
generally, and tyranny and oppressions <strong>of</strong> body and<br />
mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn <strong>of</strong> day.” 26<br />
Instead <strong>of</strong> nurturing an aristocracy <strong>of</strong> wealth and<br />
familial connections, Jefferson championed for an<br />
“aristocracy <strong>of</strong> the mind”. 27 For Jefferson social class<br />
did not define academic potential. Throughout his<br />
life, Jefferson underscored the difference between<br />
the artificial aristocracy, which derived from wealth<br />
and birth right, and natural aristocracy which was<br />
defined by virtue and talent. 28<br />
Jefferson began his lifelong fight for public education<br />
in 1778 with his Bill for the More General Diffusion <strong>of</strong><br />
Knowledge. The three bills presented to the Virginia<br />
General Assembly outlined a comprehensive plan for<br />
education in Virginia. Under the bills, Virginia would<br />
be divided into regions <strong>of</strong> ‘hundreds’ where each unit<br />
had a local elementary school. 29 All children would<br />
be educated free <strong>of</strong> charge by the state for three<br />
years in reading, writing, arithmetic, geography and<br />
history. Students who could not afford to continue<br />
to general schools would enter a tradesmen track<br />
beginning with apprenticeship. A select number <strong>of</strong><br />
financially challenged students would be “raked from<br />
the rubbish annually” and given the opportunity to<br />
attend general schools under the sponsorship <strong>of</strong> the<br />
state. From general schools, students may “retire to<br />
the land or politics” or continue on to pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
schools where competitive scholarships would<br />
still be made available to the most talented <strong>of</strong> the<br />
impoverished students. In this complex, multi-tiered<br />
system <strong>of</strong> education Jefferson envisioned a state<br />
where all citizens would be literate and educated<br />
in the most basic principles, wealth did not define<br />
academic opportunity when promise was shown<br />
on the part <strong>of</strong> the student and diverse talents<br />
were recognized by the broadened definitions <strong>of</strong><br />
knowledge and skill. The bills were initially defeated<br />
in 1779 and did not have any greater success upon<br />
their reintroduction in June <strong>of</strong> 1780.<br />
As one <strong>of</strong> the first Americans to lay out a plan for<br />
public education, Jefferson called for a rigorous series<br />
<strong>of</strong> tests for advancement. His plan also illustrated his<br />
broad, Enlightenment-inspired sense <strong>of</strong> knowledge. 30<br />
The multiple-tiered system <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s plan could<br />
easily be described today as one that incorporates<br />
the theory <strong>of</strong> multiple-intelligences. In Jefferson’s<br />
plan, the ‘aristocracy <strong>of</strong> the mind’ referred to<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essionals, craftsmen, technicians and academic<br />
scholars alike. Jefferson also called for secular<br />
education that taught less about morals and focused<br />
more on instilling students with an understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
the global intellectual community. Under the Bill for<br />
the More General Diffusion <strong>of</strong> Knowledge it is clear<br />
that Jefferson wanted to raise a commonwealth<br />
prepared to actively engage both the nation and<br />
global community in discourse.<br />
Left: author’s diagram <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s education plan.
Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, his only published book,<br />
also outlined his ideas for education in his native<br />
state. The text was written after Jefferson’s bills<br />
but show that the defeat <strong>of</strong> the bills in the General<br />
Assembly did little to alter Jefferson’s adamant<br />
support <strong>of</strong> public education. 31 Jefferson discussed<br />
the importance <strong>of</strong> education for all children in<br />
Virginia in the areas <strong>of</strong> “reading, writing, and<br />
common arithmetic”, he stressed the importance <strong>of</strong><br />
universities and discouraged the instruction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Bible in favor <strong>of</strong> the “most useful facts” from the<br />
ancient Greeks and Romans as well as the history <strong>of</strong><br />
Europe and America. 32 Jefferson also commented in<br />
Notes on the importance <strong>of</strong> a national endowment<br />
for the establishment <strong>of</strong> public libraries and art<br />
galleries. 33 Erudition was not merely for the schoolaged.<br />
Today nearly ninety percent <strong>of</strong> children in America<br />
attend public schools where religious instruction is<br />
prohibited. 34 Merit –based scholarships exist at public<br />
universities around the nation; at the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia some <strong>of</strong> those select students are aptly<br />
named Jefferson Scholars. Even in contemporary<br />
society, the contents <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s bills for public<br />
education would be met with opposition. Jefferson’s<br />
plan revolved around two concepts still in debate<br />
in the public school system: equity and equality.<br />
Similar to contemporary educational policy,<br />
Jefferson struggled with the ownership <strong>of</strong> education<br />
in the government. Like many <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s ideas,<br />
his argument proposed contradictory elements:<br />
Jefferson wanted decentralized, locally-run schools<br />
that conformed to federal standards, were subject to<br />
national recruitment and reflected the architecture<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Republic. 35<br />
Left: Étienne-Louis Boullée, Design for a Metropolitan Church,<br />
1781-2.<br />
Next page: Plate <strong>of</strong> the Pantheon from Leoni’s Palladio.
“I am an enthusiast on the subject <strong>of</strong> the arts. But it is an enthusiasm <strong>of</strong> which I am not ashamed, as its<br />
object is to improve the taste <strong>of</strong> my countrymen, to increase their reputation, to reconcile to them the<br />
respect <strong>of</strong> the world, and procure them its praise.”<br />
Jefferson to James Madison, 1785
The Architecture <strong>of</strong> Education<br />
Jefferson was an outspoken advocate for the<br />
elevation <strong>of</strong> architecture in America. Much like his<br />
European contemporaries <strong>of</strong> the Enlightenment,<br />
Jefferson viewed architecture as more than shelter<br />
from the elements. Built space could be inspirational,<br />
unifying and a symbol <strong>of</strong> national values and<br />
identity. In Notes, Jefferson commented on the lack<br />
<strong>of</strong> true architecture in America. His descriptions<br />
went far beyond that <strong>of</strong> a displeased inhabitant<br />
and displayed his studied knowledge <strong>of</strong> design and<br />
construction. Jefferson reflected on not just the<br />
deficient aesthetics <strong>of</strong> American buildings but also<br />
the problems <strong>of</strong> function, differentiation <strong>of</strong> public<br />
and private structures, cost, materiality, connection<br />
to the surrounding landscape, spatial experience<br />
and the life cycle <strong>of</strong> buildings. The following passage<br />
clearly displays Jefferson’s distaste:<br />
The private buildings are very rarely<br />
constructed <strong>of</strong> stone or brick, much <strong>of</strong> the<br />
greatest portion being <strong>of</strong> scantling and<br />
boards, plastered with lime. It is impossible<br />
to devise things more ugly, uncomfortable,<br />
and happily more perishable. There are two<br />
or three plans, on one <strong>of</strong> which, according<br />
to its size, most <strong>of</strong> the houses in the State<br />
are built. The poorest people build huts <strong>of</strong><br />
logs, laid horizontally in pens, stopping the<br />
interstices with mud. These are warmer in<br />
the winter, and cooler in the summer, than<br />
the more expensive construction <strong>of</strong> scantling<br />
and plank…the only public buildings worthy<br />
<strong>of</strong> mention are the capitol, the palace, the<br />
college, and the hospital for lunatics, all <strong>of</strong><br />
them in Williamsburg, heret<strong>of</strong>ore the seat<br />
<strong>of</strong> our government. The capitol is a light<br />
and airy structure, with a portico in front<br />
<strong>of</strong> two orders, the lower <strong>of</strong> which, being<br />
Doric, is tolerably just in its proportions<br />
and ornaments, save only that the<br />
intercolonations 36 are too large. The upper<br />
is Ionic, much too small for that on which it<br />
is mounted, its ornaments not proper to the<br />
order, nor proportioned within themselves.<br />
It is crowned with a pediment, which is too<br />
high for its span. Yet, on the whole it is the<br />
most pleasing piece <strong>of</strong> architecture we have.<br />
The palace is not handsome without, but it is<br />
spacious and commodious within, is prettily<br />
situated, and with the grounds annexed<br />
to it, is capable <strong>of</strong> being made an elegant<br />
seat. The college and hospital are rude,<br />
misshapen piles, which, but that they have<br />
ro<strong>of</strong>s, would be taken for brick-kilns. There<br />
are no other public buildings but churches<br />
and courthouses, in which no attempts are<br />
made at elegance. 37<br />
Although Jefferson criticized the architecture <strong>of</strong> his<br />
native state, he acknowledged the reasons for the<br />
architectural inferiority:<br />
Indeed it would not be easy to execute such<br />
an attempt, as a workman could scarcely<br />
be found capable <strong>of</strong> drawing an order. The<br />
genius <strong>of</strong> architecture seems to have shed<br />
its maledictions over this land. Buildings are<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten erected, by individuals, <strong>of</strong> considerable<br />
expence. To give these symmetry and taste<br />
would not increase their cost. It would only<br />
change the arrangement <strong>of</strong> the materials,<br />
the form and combination <strong>of</strong> the members.<br />
This would <strong>of</strong>ten cost less than the burthen<br />
<strong>of</strong> barbarous ornaments with which these<br />
buildings are sometimes charged. But the<br />
first principles <strong>of</strong> the art are unknown,<br />
and there exists scarcely a model among<br />
us sufficiently chaste to give an idea <strong>of</strong><br />
them. Architecture being one <strong>of</strong> the fine
arts, and as such within the department<br />
<strong>of</strong> a pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong> the college, according<br />
to the new arrangement, perhaps a spark<br />
may fall on some young subjects <strong>of</strong> natural<br />
taste, kindle up their genius, and produce a<br />
reformation in this elegant and useful art…<br />
A country whose buildings are <strong>of</strong> wood, can<br />
never increase in its improvements to any<br />
considerable degree. Their duration is highly<br />
estimated at 50 years. Every half century<br />
then our country becomes a tabula rasa,<br />
whereon we have to set out anew, as in the<br />
first moment <strong>of</strong> seating it. Whereas when<br />
buildings are <strong>of</strong> durable materials, every<br />
new edifice is an actual and permanent<br />
acquisition to the state, adding to its value<br />
as well as to its ornament. 38<br />
Jefferson’s harsh condemnation <strong>of</strong> his nation’s<br />
architecture could be viewed as inspiration for his<br />
own architectural career: Jefferson saw no models <strong>of</strong><br />
design in his own nation so he sought to be a literal<br />
nation builder. It is still important to stress, however,<br />
that Jefferson’s Notes was largely written and edited<br />
prior to his departure to serve as Minister to France.<br />
His distaste in American architecture was not initiated<br />
by his European experience. Nonetheless, his travels<br />
developed his mission <strong>of</strong> codifying appropriate<br />
architecture for America. Jefferson began his first<br />
large architectural project while still abroad and<br />
upon his return from France he was engaged in<br />
multiple architectural projects, many <strong>of</strong> which had<br />
an educational program.<br />
The First Models<br />
In eighteenth century Virginia, there were four<br />
ways <strong>of</strong> understanding architecture: pattern books,<br />
self- initiated travel, apprenticeship, and previous<br />
experience from abroad. 39 Jefferson only knew the<br />
architecture <strong>of</strong> books and poor models that were<br />
constructed in colonial and Georgian America.<br />
However, in 1784 this would all change when<br />
Jefferson’s eyes were experientially introduced to<br />
the world <strong>of</strong> European architecture, “how is a taste<br />
in this beautiful art to be formed in our countrymen<br />
unless we avail ourselves <strong>of</strong> every occasion when<br />
public buildings are to be erected, <strong>of</strong> presenting<br />
to them models for their study and imitation?” 40<br />
Jefferson saw how buildings could truly affect<br />
society. While in Europe Jefferson met key figures <strong>of</strong><br />
the Enlightenment, saw architecture <strong>of</strong> the ancients,<br />
watched the construction <strong>of</strong> new architectural<br />
innovations and met contemporary designers. France<br />
was enlivened with the architectural explorations <strong>of</strong><br />
Étienne-Louis Boulée and Nicolas-Claude Ledoux, two<br />
key figures that Jefferson most likely met while at the<br />
French court. 41 Additionally, Jefferson spent fifteen<br />
weeks visiting various towns and sites in France and<br />
northern Italy; his journeys were extended a year<br />
later to encompass Amsterdam, parts <strong>of</strong> Germany<br />
and the Netherlands. 42 Despite Jefferson’s fevered<br />
travels throughout Europe he never traveled to the<br />
Veneto to see the works <strong>of</strong> Palladio in person, nor<br />
made it to Rome to see the work <strong>of</strong> the ancients. 43<br />
Nonetheless, Jefferson was able to see classical<br />
design in France, “here I am gazing whole hours at the<br />
Maison quarrée [Carrée], like a lover at his mistress.” 44<br />
The pseudoperipteral hexastyle temple then-turned<br />
church was constructed by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa<br />
from 19-16 BC. While Jefferson was in France he was<br />
approached to design the Virginia State Capitol and<br />
quickly took the opportunity to introduce his fellow<br />
Americans to the classical designs that had attracted<br />
his architectural attention:<br />
We took for our model what is called the<br />
Maison quarrée <strong>of</strong> Nismes, one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
beautiful, if not the most beautiful and<br />
precious morsel <strong>of</strong> architecture left us by
antiquity…it is very simple, but it is noble<br />
beyond expression, and would have done<br />
honor to our country, as presenting to<br />
travelers a specimen <strong>of</strong> taste in our infancy,<br />
promising much for our maturer age. 45<br />
intriguing design moves within the entire structure;<br />
the architecture <strong>of</strong> spaces for education was not a<br />
Spartan area to receive collections and be conducive<br />
to study. The spaces themselves were <strong>of</strong> an elevated<br />
and inspired design character.<br />
Here, Jefferson displayed his belief that architecture<br />
could elevate the culture and international reputation<br />
<strong>of</strong> a nation. To Jefferson, buildings were functional<br />
and poetic, optimistic and educational.<br />
The idea <strong>of</strong> a building as a teaching tool was also<br />
applied to Jefferson’s home Monticello. After his<br />
return from France Jefferson began a dramatic<br />
remodeling project for the home Unlike the Virginia<br />
State Capitol that was intended to be a model for<br />
the nation, Jefferson used Monticello as his own full<br />
scale study model. The mountaintop retreat served<br />
as a literal drawing board for Jefferson to test his<br />
own architectural ideas. Additionally, elements<br />
<strong>of</strong> Monticello’s program displayed Jefferson’s<br />
interest in a strong educational agenda in his<br />
home: Monticello contains one <strong>of</strong> the first private<br />
museums in America as well as a series <strong>of</strong> rooms<br />
dedicated to the occupations <strong>of</strong> reading, writing,<br />
drawing, experimentation and quiet study. Both the<br />
museum and the private apartment at Monticello<br />
are composed <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the most innovative and<br />
Right (top): Maison Carrée.<br />
Right: Jefferson’s Virginia State Capitol.
Breaking Ground on Public Education<br />
Much like a modern architect, Jefferson served<br />
a variety <strong>of</strong> roles as an institutional architect<br />
ranging from consultant to project architect to<br />
building manager. For example, he was a advisor<br />
for the Trustees <strong>of</strong> East Tennessee College on the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> a new university. His letter to the<br />
Trustees provided a concise description <strong>of</strong> his<br />
education theories and design ideas for institutional<br />
architecture:<br />
No one more sincerely wishes the spread<br />
<strong>of</strong> information among mankind than I do,<br />
and none has greater confidence in its<br />
effect towards supporting free and good<br />
government…I consider the common plan<br />
followed in this country, but not in others,<br />
<strong>of</strong> making one large and expensive building,<br />
as unfortunately erroneous. It is infinitively<br />
better to erect a small and separate lodge<br />
for each spate pr<strong>of</strong>essorship, with only a<br />
hall below for his class, and two chambers<br />
above for himself; joining these lodges by<br />
barracks for a certain portion <strong>of</strong> the students<br />
opening into a covered way to give a dry<br />
communication between all the schools.<br />
The whole <strong>of</strong> these arranged around an<br />
open square <strong>of</strong> grass an trees, would make<br />
it, what it should be in fact, an academical<br />
village. 46<br />
The ‘academical village’ was one <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s<br />
pioneering ideas in American institutional<br />
architecture. The scheme <strong>of</strong> combined classroom<br />
spaces and pr<strong>of</strong>essorial accommodations, adjacent<br />
to student quarters and concentrated around a large<br />
contained greenscape is reminiscent <strong>of</strong> Roman town<br />
design, elements in the villa urbana like the soldier’s<br />
quarters <strong>of</strong> Hadrian’s Villa and the hierarchical<br />
pastoral arrangement <strong>of</strong> the colleges <strong>of</strong> Oxbridge. 47<br />
Five years prior to Jefferson’s letter to the Trustees,<br />
Jefferson about a “University on a liberal plan” in<br />
Virginia,<br />
A plain small house for the school & lodging<br />
<strong>of</strong> each pr<strong>of</strong>essor is best. These connected<br />
by covered ways out <strong>of</strong> which the rooms <strong>of</strong><br />
the students should open would be best.<br />
These may then be built only as they shall<br />
be wanting. In fact an University should not<br />
be a house but a village. 48<br />
Given the early date <strong>of</strong> this letter, 1805, one must<br />
wonder when Jefferson began envisioning his master<br />
plan for an academical village.<br />
Only four years after his letter to the Trustees <strong>of</strong><br />
East Tennessee College, Jefferson helped to charter<br />
and design Albemarle Academy in a manner similar<br />
to the design stipulated in the aforementioned<br />
letters. A sketch for the Academy from 1814 is<br />
the first known graphic illustration <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s<br />
Academical Village. Throughout Jefferson’s fight<br />
for public education in Virginia, the importance <strong>of</strong><br />
design in the educational spaces was emphasized.. A<br />
revision <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s 1778 Bill for the More General<br />
Diffusion <strong>of</strong> Knowledge was presented on October<br />
24, 1817. In the document Jefferson described the<br />
potential for Central College to be transitioned into<br />
a state university specifically named the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia. This suggestion marked an important<br />
transition in Jefferson’s architectural program. Prior<br />
to the bill <strong>of</strong> 1817, Jefferson seemed content with a<br />
modification to William & Mary in order to transform<br />
the building into the central institution <strong>of</strong> the state.<br />
However, as Jefferson’s educational aspiration grew<br />
so did his architectural requirements. Instead <strong>of</strong><br />
working with an existing, and flawed structure as<br />
discussed in Notes, Jefferson wanted a tabula rasa.<br />
Clearly, his experiment in educational organization<br />
was also intended to be an experiment in design.<br />
In the 1817 bill, Jefferson described the specific<br />
architecture <strong>of</strong> Virginia’s future colleges:
On each <strong>of</strong> the sites so located shall be<br />
erected one or more substantial buildings<br />
the walls <strong>of</strong> which shall be <strong>of</strong> brick or stone,<br />
with 2. schoolrooms & 4. rooms for the<br />
accomodation <strong>of</strong> the Pr<strong>of</strong>essors, and with<br />
16. dormitories in or adja cent to the same,<br />
each sufficient for 2. pupils, and in which no<br />
more than two shall be permitted to lodge,<br />
with a fire place in each, & the whole in a<br />
comfortable & decent style suitable to their<br />
purpose. 49<br />
The above description contains two specifics<br />
elements: consistency <strong>of</strong> design language and a<br />
subtle reference to classical design. From 1805<br />
and on, whenever Jefferson described his ideas for<br />
institutional architecture, he referred to the idea<br />
<strong>of</strong> a centralized structure combining classrooms<br />
and pr<strong>of</strong>essorial lodging adjacent to student<br />
accommodation. The simplistic, but unique design<br />
provided for infinite expansion while maintaining<br />
a unified whole unlike the haphazard additions <strong>of</strong><br />
individualistic structures that dot the landscapes<br />
<strong>of</strong> today’s universities. The phrase ‘comfortable &<br />
decent style suitable to their purpose’ is directly<br />
related to the three requisites <strong>of</strong> architecture as<br />
listed by Vitruvius in his ten books <strong>of</strong> architecture,<br />
De architectura. 50 Within the text, Vitruvius asserts<br />
that the three most important elements <strong>of</strong> a building<br />
are firmitas, utilitas, venustas: strength or durability,<br />
usefulness, and beauty. 51 Through the simple phrase<br />
‘comfortable & decent style suitable to their purpose’<br />
Jefferson set up a legal framework for the buildings<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia’s colleges, and eventually his University,<br />
to be models <strong>of</strong> neoclassical design.<br />
Jefferson continued to press for educational<br />
legislation as it related to built projects and would<br />
eventually serve as the ultimate project architect for<br />
his state’s first public university. Jefferson pursued<br />
these all these tasks after the chaos <strong>of</strong> his final twenty<br />
years <strong>of</strong> formal governmental service. Jefferson’s<br />
tireless devotion to the architecture <strong>of</strong> education,<br />
in reference to both built space and the formulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> school systems, is best understood through the<br />
difficult process <strong>of</strong> creating the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia.<br />
Even after the charter for Central College was passed<br />
in 1816, Jefferson had to continually justify his<br />
educational scheme, its architectural design and the<br />
resulting expense. In order to further his mission,<br />
Jefferson took on the difficult task <strong>of</strong> agent for the<br />
University, “the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia is the last<br />
object for which I shall obtrude myself on the public<br />
observation.” 52 Jefferson advertised the University in<br />
manners that that had not been used in any <strong>of</strong> his<br />
other governmental or educational efforts. Jefferson<br />
even wrote an anonymous letter as a traveler from<br />
the Warm Springs to the Richmond Enquirer praising<br />
the design <strong>of</strong> then Central College:<br />
I rode to the grounds and was much pleased<br />
with their commanding position & prospect.<br />
a small mountain adjacent is included in<br />
their purchase, & contemplated as a site<br />
for an astronomical observatory, and a very<br />
remarkable one it will certainly be …besides<br />
the Observatory and building grounds, will<br />
afford a garden for the school <strong>of</strong> botany, & an<br />
experimental farm for that <strong>of</strong> Agriculture…<br />
the plan, and the superintendence under<br />
which it will be, give me the hope that we<br />
are at length to have a seminary <strong>of</strong> general<br />
education, in a central and healthy part <strong>of</strong><br />
the country, with the comfort <strong>of</strong> knowing<br />
that while we are husbanding our hard<br />
earnings and savings to give to our sons the<br />
benefits <strong>of</strong> education 53<br />
Left: Jefferson’s plan for Central College in his letter to Dr.<br />
William Thornton, May 9, 1817. UVa Library.
Much <strong>of</strong> the opposition to Jefferson’s educational<br />
plans was not from an ideological standpoint but<br />
rather a financial one. As best summarized by<br />
Dumas Malone, “he [Jefferson] regarded the cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> these schools as trivial in comparison with the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> ignorance.” 54 Therefore, Jefferson sought<br />
to justify his design beyond the immediate realms<br />
<strong>of</strong> education and aesthetic value. In the Report <strong>of</strong><br />
the Commissioners for the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia<br />
from August 4, 1818, known most commonly as<br />
the Rockfish Gap Report, Jefferson further codified<br />
his rational for the University’s design. 55 He stated<br />
that the design provided unity, tranquility for the<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essors, and <strong>of</strong> utmost importance, provided<br />
security against fire and infection. The idea <strong>of</strong><br />
designing for health was certainly not a prominent<br />
one <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s America even though the concept<br />
was rooted in the texts <strong>of</strong> Vitruvius and Palladio and<br />
was revived in Enlightenment architecture such as<br />
the ideal city <strong>of</strong> Chaux by Ledoux. The architectural<br />
arrangement <strong>of</strong> the University was intended to<br />
demonstrate basic principles <strong>of</strong> urban planning for<br />
safety and health.<br />
Finally on January 25, 1819 the Virginia state<br />
legislature chartered the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia,<br />
naming Central College as the site. By this time,<br />
many <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s architectural operations at<br />
Monticello had finished, allowing him to devote<br />
more time to the design and construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
University. Although Jefferson’s University was given<br />
both a site and small annual grant, the difficulties<br />
<strong>of</strong> the University did not subside. Construction was<br />
moving along at a slower pace than desired due to<br />
a lack <strong>of</strong> funding and able craftsmen, the University<br />
was already faced with its first lawsuit, and the<br />
realization <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s essential architectural<br />
symbol <strong>of</strong> education, the Rotunda, was in peril. Even<br />
though the University now existed on paper and in a<br />
few constructions on the land, the prospects <strong>of</strong> ever<br />
seeing students occupy the Academical Village must<br />
have seemed bleak. 56<br />
Left and right: Jefferson’s various plans and elevations for<br />
pavilions. UVa Library.
“It is the last act <strong>of</strong> usefulness I can render, and could I see it open I would not ask an hour more <strong>of</strong> life.”<br />
Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821
The Ultimate Icon<br />
Jefferson’s University had been in the planning<br />
stages <strong>of</strong> schematic design since the early 1800s; yet<br />
the frustratingly slow progress <strong>of</strong> the University’s<br />
adoption can be viewed in stark contrast to the rapid<br />
design development and construction <strong>of</strong> much <strong>of</strong><br />
the Academical Village. At the age <strong>of</strong> seventy-six<br />
Jefferson drew the basic designs for five <strong>of</strong> the east<br />
pavilions in two weeks. 57 In between the laying <strong>of</strong><br />
the cornerstone for Central College at Pavilion VII on<br />
October 6, 1817 and Jefferson’s first annual report<br />
to Richmond about the affairs <strong>of</strong> the University,<br />
dated December 1,1819, seven <strong>of</strong> the ten pavilions<br />
were completed or under construction and thirtyseven<br />
students dorms were ready for occupation. 58<br />
Despite the enthusiastic language <strong>of</strong> the report,<br />
the University would not receive its first students<br />
for more than five years and Jefferson had not yet<br />
completed plans for the Rotunda.<br />
The Rotunda, originally intended to serve as the library<br />
and repository <strong>of</strong> multiuse spaces, is the most iconic<br />
element <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia; however, it was<br />
the structure met with the most contention during<br />
Jefferson’s lifetime. Jefferson’s design for the building<br />
derived from Leoni’s depiction <strong>of</strong> the Pantheon.<br />
Aptly, Jefferson transformed a temple to all the gods<br />
into a temple <strong>of</strong> knowledge. The elevated, and costly,<br />
architecture <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda was not viewed as a<br />
fortuitous move by all. Critics <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda stated<br />
that the building was suffocating Virginia’s Literary<br />
Fund and, “the architectural beauty <strong>of</strong> the school<br />
will lead to a corresponding display <strong>of</strong> furniture &<br />
dress among the faculty & students. It will lead to<br />
ostentatious pride and will give this image to the<br />
rest <strong>of</strong> the country.” 59 Thankfully, with an additional<br />
grant from the Literary Fund and the forgiveness<br />
<strong>of</strong> loans <strong>of</strong> more than $180,000 in 1824 from the<br />
Virginia legislature, the construction <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda<br />
proceeded as planned. 60 Although the process <strong>of</strong><br />
creating the University was a stressful, lengthy one<br />
for the aging Jefferson, his letters consistently reveal<br />
his passion and pride in the enterprise:<br />
I am laying the foundation <strong>of</strong> an University in<br />
my native state, which I hope will repay the<br />
liberalities <strong>of</strong> it’s legislature by improving the<br />
virtue and science <strong>of</strong> their country, already<br />
blest with a soil and climate emulating those<br />
<strong>of</strong> your favorite Lodi. I have been myself the<br />
Architect <strong>of</strong> the plan <strong>of</strong> it’s buildings, and<br />
<strong>of</strong> it’s system <strong>of</strong> instruction. for years have<br />
been employed in the former, and I assure<br />
you it would be thought a handsome &<br />
Classical thing in Italy. I have preferred the<br />
plan <strong>of</strong> an Academical village rather than<br />
that <strong>of</strong> a <strong>single</strong>, massive structure. the<br />
diversified forms which this admitted in<br />
the different Pavilions, and varieties <strong>of</strong> the<br />
finest samples <strong>of</strong> architecture, has made <strong>of</strong><br />
it a model <strong>of</strong> beauty original and unique. it<br />
is within view too <strong>of</strong> Monticello, So it’s most<br />
splendid object, and a constant gratification<br />
to my sight. 61<br />
Left: Jefferson’s drawing for the south elevation <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda,<br />
before 1818. UVa Library.<br />
Bottom: author’s photograph <strong>of</strong> UVa from Monticello.
Forty years after Jefferson’s first presentation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Bill for the More General Diffusion <strong>of</strong> Knowledge<br />
he saw a facet <strong>of</strong> his educational system come<br />
into fruition: a public university with no religious<br />
affiliation. When Lafayette visited his revolutionary<br />
friend in 1824, Jefferson took advantage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
opportunity to inaugurate the Rotunda. The first<br />
public dinner at the University was attended by<br />
Lafayette and 400 guests on November 5, 1824. At<br />
the time the Rotunda portico was devoid <strong>of</strong> columns,<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> construction was unfinished and only a little<br />
over half <strong>of</strong> the Academical Village was complete. 62<br />
After a delayed opening due to the arrival <strong>of</strong> foreign<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essors, the University welcomed its first sixtyeight<br />
students on March 7, 1825; Jefferson was<br />
eighty-two years old.<br />
Sixteen Months<br />
After a quest for public education that lasted more<br />
than forty-eight years, Jefferson only lived to see<br />
his University in full operation for a mere sixteen<br />
months. After working on his home for more than<br />
forty years and the concept <strong>of</strong> a public university<br />
for nearly fifty, the brief time when Jefferson saw<br />
both projects come to full fruition proved to be<br />
anything but a relief from life the chaotic schedule<br />
to which Jefferson had become accustomed during<br />
his lifetime. Construction on Jefferson’s ‘essay<br />
on architecture’ was largely completed by 1809<br />
although major changes occurred through 1823. 63<br />
Despite a quieted condition <strong>of</strong> saws and hammers,<br />
Monticello was still a flurry <strong>of</strong> activity due to family<br />
occupation and visitation to the home from both<br />
invited and uninvited guests. When the University<br />
opened, Jefferson still made rides into Charlottesville<br />
to oversee the ongoing and much anticipated<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> his great Rotunda. He spent time on<br />
the grounds, touring visitors to the University and,<br />
unfortunately, dealing with disciplinary measures<br />
related to unruly students. Early students at the<br />
University complained about the chaos and noise <strong>of</strong><br />
construction. The October Riots <strong>of</strong> 1825 proved to<br />
Jefferson that self-governance for the gentlemen <strong>of</strong><br />
his University, some as young as sixteen and away<br />
from their families for the first time, was too great<br />
a freedom. 64 However, it seems only fitting that the<br />
University <strong>of</strong> a patriot <strong>of</strong>ten considered a radical,<br />
was filled with vivacious students. Despite Jefferson’s<br />
difficulties with the first scholars, he still invited a<br />
certain number students to dine with him on Sunday<br />
evenings at Monticello. 65<br />
Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia were<br />
dependent sites during Jefferson’s lifetime. Both<br />
sites were in view <strong>of</strong> one another, they shared similar<br />
architectural vocabularies and the fingerprints <strong>of</strong><br />
many workers appeared at both sites. 66 Towards the<br />
end <strong>of</strong> his life, Jefferson poured more effort into the<br />
University rather than his own home in relation to<br />
design and construction: the University had rendered<br />
columns before the iconic West Portico <strong>of</strong> Monticello<br />
was finished. 67 The visual between Monticello on the<br />
mountaintop and the University below connected<br />
the two sites; however the two places were also<br />
connected as <strong>of</strong>fices for the operations <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s<br />
educational plan. It was common for the Board to<br />
convene at Monticello and discuss major issues the<br />
evening before the formal meeting, “I shall hope to<br />
have the pleasure <strong>of</strong> receiving you at Monticello a
day, at least before that <strong>of</strong> our meeting, as we can<br />
prepare our business here so much more at leisure<br />
than at the University.” 68 It is interesting to imagine<br />
Jefferson dining with the Board, discussing the lack<br />
<strong>of</strong> funding for the University and the publicized<br />
criticism <strong>of</strong> the elevated architecture <strong>of</strong> the<br />
institution while surrounded by the masterpiece <strong>of</strong><br />
Monticello. Jefferson literally enveloped the Board<br />
with the rationale <strong>of</strong> his argument: designed space<br />
was important.<br />
In many ways the University served as Jefferson’s<br />
paternal legacy to his nation since he had no surviving<br />
male children from his marriage to Martha Wayles<br />
Skelton. The inscription on his tombstone that stated<br />
he was ‘father’ not merely ‘founder’ <strong>of</strong> the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia. This was no accident <strong>of</strong> terminology. In<br />
many <strong>of</strong> his descriptions <strong>of</strong> the University, Jefferson<br />
commands a parental tone. 69 Jefferson’s own family<br />
understood his passion for the University but <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
lamented his tireless dedication. After Jefferson’s<br />
passing his eldest grandson wrote that Jefferson<br />
took daily rides to the University despite his<br />
discomfort and, “he would probably have lived ten<br />
years longer if he had not persisted in the resolution<br />
to be actively usefull to the end.” 70 Many <strong>of</strong> the<br />
grandchildren wrote about the University as a prized<br />
project but Jefferson’s daughter was not amenable<br />
to the additional company that the University<br />
yielded the already busy household <strong>of</strong> Monticello,<br />
“we have allways a great deal <strong>of</strong> company in the<br />
summer, but the University has encreased the evil to<br />
such a degree that our lives are literally spent in the<br />
drawing room frequently I have been detained from<br />
10 to 3, and in addition a large and unexpected party<br />
to dinner.” 71 Many family letters similar to the two<br />
cited here show that Monticello and the University<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten shared traffic.<br />
Jefferson made his last visit to the University in<br />
early June 1826. The account in Malone’s Sage <strong>of</strong><br />
Monticello was that the ailing Jefferson went to<br />
the unfinished second story <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda and<br />
watched the first marble capitol lifted into place. 72<br />
He remained for about an hour, inspected the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the Dome Room that had already<br />
been delayed and then returned to his home.<br />
Jefferson did not live to see the Rotunda completed<br />
but today visitors to Monticello are gifted with an<br />
attractive vista <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda through the foliage<br />
from the North Terrace. During those brief sixteen<br />
months it seems as if Monticello and the University<br />
shared their closest connection. Although tourists<br />
to Monticello are encouraged to visit the University<br />
and select lecture courses from the University make<br />
annual field trips to Jefferson’s home, the sense <strong>of</strong><br />
mutual visitation between the sites is not strong.<br />
Today, the strongest connective tissue between<br />
these sites is related to the architectural design.
Edgar Allan Poe<br />
Poe attended the University from February to<br />
December in 1826. 73 Poe’s time in Charlottesville<br />
certainly had in impact on the young writer. Poe’s<br />
‘A Tale <strong>of</strong> Ragged Mountains’, published for the<br />
first time nearly twenty-five years after he left the<br />
University, is a story <strong>of</strong> mesmerism that takes place<br />
in the hills outside <strong>of</strong> Charlottesville. A hike taken by<br />
Poe in the Blue Ridge inspired the dramatic imagery<br />
utilized in the story. Perhaps Poe’s initial literary<br />
foray into the grotesque was inspired by his brief<br />
time at the University during its notoriously chaotic,<br />
vulgar and <strong>of</strong>ten violent early years <strong>of</strong> operation. In<br />
a letter to his step father on September 21, 1826 Poe<br />
described a fight outside his room that resulted in<br />
the expulsion <strong>of</strong> a student:<br />
The faculty expelled Wickliffe last night for<br />
general bad conduct -- but more especially<br />
for biting one <strong>of</strong> the student’s arms with<br />
whom he was fighting -- I saw the whole<br />
affair -- it took place before my door --<br />
Wickliffe was much the stronger but not<br />
content with that -- after getting the other<br />
completely in his power, he began to bite -- I<br />
saw the arm afterwards -- and it was really<br />
a serious matter. It was bitten from the<br />
shoulder to the elbow -- and it is likely that<br />
pieces <strong>of</strong> flesh as large as my hand will be<br />
obliged to be cut out. 74<br />
Much like Jefferson, Poe retains a ghosted place at<br />
the University through the preservation <strong>of</strong> his room;<br />
paradoxically room number thirteen on the West<br />
Range. Here students and visitors can peer through<br />
plexi glass and into a recreated time capsule <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong><br />
the earliest students at the University. Poe’s presence<br />
at Monticello is a possible one as well considering<br />
the young student may have dined with the former<br />
President during one <strong>of</strong> the Sunday dinners held at<br />
Monticello during the University’s first two sessions<br />
<strong>of</strong> operation. 75 Many have also asserted that Poe<br />
was also part <strong>of</strong> the University party that marched<br />
from Charlottesville to Monticello in mourning <strong>of</strong><br />
their institution’s founder. 76<br />
Although Poe’s presence at Monticello is not a<br />
historical certainty according to the documentary<br />
evidence, it is enticing to envision the interaction<br />
between two talented, but at many times troubled,<br />
minds. Did Poe’s experience at Monticello somehow<br />
inspire fragments <strong>of</strong> his imagery in ‘The Fall <strong>of</strong> the<br />
House <strong>of</strong> Usher’? If Poe had visited the ‘sage <strong>of</strong><br />
Monticello’ in his later years he would have seen a<br />
neoclassical home with signs <strong>of</strong> disrepair, a museum<br />
with collections on the walls and varied objects<br />
scattered around the room and a parlor containing<br />
an art gallery saturated with paintings. Although
many <strong>of</strong> the items in Monticello were uplifting<br />
images <strong>of</strong> natural and constructed beauty, it would<br />
be hard to escape the sublime tones <strong>of</strong> the home:<br />
mastodon bones on marble tables, a wall adorned<br />
with animal antlers, skins, and heads, a painting <strong>of</strong><br />
the head <strong>of</strong> St. John the Baptist, the eyes <strong>of</strong> intricately<br />
carved portrait busts staring from pedestals around<br />
the corners <strong>of</strong> rooms, and large mirrors to reflect<br />
flickering candle light in the dim hours <strong>of</strong> the evening.<br />
The architecture <strong>of</strong> the home itself was a contrast<br />
<strong>of</strong> carefully constructed elements and deteriorating<br />
details. Passages from ‘The Fall <strong>of</strong> the House <strong>of</strong><br />
Usher’ could have easy been ascribed as notes from<br />
visitors to Monticello in the later years <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s<br />
life:<br />
comfortless, antique, and tattered. Many<br />
books and musical instruments lay scattered<br />
about… 77<br />
Its principal feature seemed to be that <strong>of</strong> an<br />
excessive antiquity. The discoloration <strong>of</strong> ages<br />
had been great. Minute fungi overspread<br />
the whole exterior, hanging in a fine tangled<br />
web-work from the eaves. Yet all this was<br />
apart from any extraordinary dilapidation.<br />
No portion <strong>of</strong> the masonry had fallen; and<br />
there appeared to be a wild inconsistency<br />
between its still perfect adaptation <strong>of</strong> parts,<br />
and the crumbling condition <strong>of</strong> the individual<br />
stones… The general furniture was pr<strong>of</strong>use,
“Architecture is my delight, and putting up and pulling down, one <strong>of</strong> my favorite amusements.”<br />
Jefferson, 1824
Design<br />
If Monticello was Jefferson’s self-titled ‘essay in<br />
architecture’, then the University was most certainly<br />
his treatise. Monticello was a piece <strong>of</strong> residential<br />
architecture; the design and construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
home spanned Jefferson’s entire adult lifetime. The<br />
house is a reflection <strong>of</strong> his evolution as an architect,<br />
especially considering the massive design changes<br />
from Monticello I to the home as it is known today.<br />
Monticello, however, was small scale and was an<br />
isolated project. Jefferson made no mention <strong>of</strong><br />
his home’s design as a prototype for reproduction<br />
around the nation nor did he take any measures to<br />
preserve the home for the future as a monument <strong>of</strong><br />
neoclassical architecture in his budding nation The<br />
University, however, was a different condition. It was<br />
illustrative <strong>of</strong> his theories <strong>of</strong> design for institutional<br />
architecture that had been written in letters since<br />
1805. Jefferson’s University was ground breaking<br />
for its design in America. It is clear from Jefferson’s<br />
letters that advocated an open court design flanked<br />
by combined accommodations and classrooms that<br />
Jefferson was not carefully guarding the intellectual<br />
property <strong>of</strong> his design but rather disseminating<br />
the idea for greater implementation. Just like<br />
an architectural treatise, Jefferson’s University<br />
provided a guide for the ideological structure <strong>of</strong><br />
new institutional architecture in America and varied<br />
interpretations <strong>of</strong> neoclassical design. In many<br />
ways, Monticello served as a small practice piece for<br />
elements <strong>of</strong> the University’s design. Nonetheless,<br />
both sites contain unique design solutions that make<br />
Monticello and the University ideal case studies in<br />
Jeffersonian architectural theory.<br />
Site Selection<br />
Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia are both<br />
located in Charlottesville, Virginia, just four miles<br />
apart from each other. The small city <strong>of</strong> Charlottesville<br />
was never a capitol, the site <strong>of</strong> any major battle, or<br />
famous for any particular natural feature; but it was<br />
home to Thomas Jefferson. Many <strong>of</strong> his formative<br />
years were spent in the area, considered the<br />
frontier <strong>of</strong> Virginia at that point in time. Although<br />
Charlottesville was thriving during Jefferson’s<br />
lifetime he chose to situate both Monticello and the<br />
University outside <strong>of</strong> the city. Both Jefferson’s home<br />
and the University give distinct insight to his ideas<br />
on site selection and display the influence <strong>of</strong> ancient<br />
architecture. As a young man, Jefferson would have<br />
been familiar with the villa typology from his study<br />
<strong>of</strong> ancient Romans such as Pliny the Younger, a first<br />
century writer and Roman statesman, who described<br />
the benefits <strong>of</strong> villas in the country. 79 When Jefferson<br />
broke ground on his mountaintop home in 1768,<br />
removing approximately ten feet from the summit,<br />
he conscientiously situated his home as a model<br />
villa rustica that provided respite from the chaos<br />
<strong>of</strong> urban life, negotium, in the form <strong>of</strong> relaxation in<br />
nature, otium. 80 The location <strong>of</strong> Monticello displayed<br />
his favor <strong>of</strong> the picturesque over the practicality <strong>of</strong> a<br />
highly functional plantation:<br />
And our own dear Monticello: where has nature<br />
spread so rich a mantle under the eye? Mountains,<br />
forests, rocks, rivers! With what majesty do we<br />
there ride above the storms! How sublime to look<br />
down into the workhouse <strong>of</strong> nature, to see her<br />
clouds, hail, snow, rain, thunder, all fabricated at<br />
our feet! And the glorious sun when rising, as if<br />
out <strong>of</strong> a distant water, just gliding the tops <strong>of</strong> the<br />
mountain, and giving life to all nature. 81<br />
Similarly, when Jefferson purchased land for what<br />
would become the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia he looked<br />
outside <strong>of</strong> the city’s boundaries approximately one<br />
mile to the west. 82 Although it seems convenient that<br />
Jefferson situated the University in his own backyard,<br />
he went to great lengths to prove that Charlottesville<br />
was an ideal location for a college. In 1818 Jefferson<br />
argued, and graphically illustrated, that Charlottesville
was at the center <strong>of</strong> the state geographically and<br />
also in relation to the population. 83 The University<br />
was much like Pliny’s description <strong>of</strong> a villa urbana: a<br />
working retreat with the conveniences <strong>of</strong> urban life<br />
removed from the city but only by a short commute.<br />
Jefferson purposely situated the University outside<br />
the immediate context <strong>of</strong> the city in order to provide<br />
a more conducive learning environment, “I am not<br />
a friend to placing young men in populous cities,<br />
because they acquire there habits and partialities<br />
which do not contribute to the happiness <strong>of</strong> their<br />
after life.” 84 The suburban location <strong>of</strong> the University<br />
was also praised by early visitors:<br />
In a city, or land cultivated country it would<br />
not be so impressive—But on a noble<br />
height—embosomed in mountains—<br />
surrounded with a landscape so rich, varied<br />
& beautiful—so remote from any city—There<br />
was something novel, as well as grand in its<br />
locality, that certainly had a strong effect on<br />
the imagination. Were I, a young man & a<br />
student there—methinks the place, alone,<br />
would purify & elevate my mind. 85<br />
Both Monticello and the University illustrate<br />
Jefferson’s approach to site design and his progress<br />
as an early landscape architect. Both sites are<br />
located in terrains with drastic changes in slope<br />
and this terrain most likely governed the fact that<br />
the buildings were not cardinally orientated. In<br />
an early drawing, possibly a schematic design for<br />
Monticello, Jefferson made a note that states the<br />
front <strong>of</strong> the house should be oriented facing south<br />
“if convenient.” 86 However, as Jefferson further<br />
studied and matured as an architect he may have<br />
discovered that a true north-south orientation was<br />
not the most fortuitous arrangement, especially in<br />
a temperate like Charlottesville that experiences<br />
warm summers and cold winters. An orientation<br />
<strong>of</strong>f the cardinal axis provides better diffusion <strong>of</strong><br />
light. Additionally, there is a prevailing wind from<br />
the north in Charlottesville during the winter so it is<br />
better to orientate a home with walls to deflect the<br />
wind rather than a true north facing wall that would<br />
absorb cold air and concentrated wind loads. As<br />
designed, Jefferson orientated both Monticello and<br />
the University to varying degrees east <strong>of</strong> north, 68.7˚<br />
and 23.7˚ respectively. The University’s orientation<br />
is particularly intriguing since the orientation is<br />
extremely close to the 23.44˚ declination <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sun. Jefferson’s land survey from July 18, 1817 and<br />
the surviving plat illustrating the purchased lands<br />
do not call out why the University was oriented in<br />
this manner, nor do any <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s own writings.<br />
However, given his knowledge <strong>of</strong> surveying as well<br />
as his interest astronomy, it seems unlikely that<br />
the orientation is a mistake: on both the summer<br />
and winter solstice the sun rises directly over the<br />
Rotunda.<br />
At both sites there is a drastic slope to the southeast;<br />
however, Jefferson dealt with this design dilemma<br />
in two very different ways. Jefferson capitalized<br />
on the slope at Monticello by creating a series <strong>of</strong><br />
cascading terraces from the main plateau <strong>of</strong> the<br />
West Lawn. The South Terrace loggia flowed to the<br />
mixed use industrial alley <strong>of</strong> Mulberry row then<br />
into the terrace garden and finally down a steep<br />
drop to the vineyards. This sequence <strong>of</strong> spaces was<br />
particularly fortuitous in terms <strong>of</strong> agriculture since<br />
the warm morning air slowly rises from the lower<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> the mountain to reach the garden areas<br />
first. The change in topography at Monticello was<br />
celebrated through a series <strong>of</strong> delineated spaces<br />
where the orientation was actually advantageous<br />
to the agricultural program. At the University, on<br />
the other hand, the change in topography <strong>of</strong> more<br />
than twenty feet from the first lawn terrace near the<br />
Rotunda to the East Gardens was almost completely<br />
disguised. A viewer standing on the south end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Academical Village looking towards the Rotunda has
no indication that the spaces behind the pavilions on<br />
the east and west are anything but symmetrical in<br />
slope. It is only after one ventures down the alleys<br />
perpendicular to the Lawn that one discovers the<br />
gentle slope to the west is in stark contrast to the<br />
dramatic drop to the east. Jefferson mediated the<br />
site difference by simply adding additional terraces<br />
and retaining walls to the East Gardens. One main<br />
argument for the visual asymmetry in the treatment<br />
<strong>of</strong> terrain at Monticello from that <strong>of</strong> the University<br />
is the difference in programmatic symmetry. At the<br />
University, both sides <strong>of</strong> the Lawn contain pavilions,<br />
classrooms, student rooms, and gardens: the same<br />
activities were taking place on either side therefore<br />
Jefferson made the slopes appear as symmetrical as<br />
possible from the Lawn. At Monticello, the plantation<br />
character <strong>of</strong> the north and south slopes are very<br />
different: transportation and utilitarian domestic<br />
functions are on the north such as a carriage house,<br />
ice house, and grazing lands verses the agricultural<br />
production <strong>of</strong> the in the kitchen, gardens and<br />
vineyards. Topographic asymmetry was partially<br />
related to function.<br />
One important feature <strong>of</strong> both sites that is<br />
rarely discussed in respect to the architectural<br />
arrangement is the planting plan <strong>of</strong> trees around both<br />
constructions. Jefferson was familiar with landscape<br />
architecture from his personal study as well as<br />
travels abroad where he saw the formulaic quincunx<br />
gardens <strong>of</strong> Versailles in contrast to the picturesque<br />
and sublime arrangements <strong>of</strong> gardens like Kew and<br />
Stowe. 87 Although Jefferson may have appreciated<br />
poetic landscapes he did not realize the usefulness<br />
<strong>of</strong> a planting plan integrated with the architectural<br />
arrangement until his return to America. In 1793<br />
Jefferson wrote to his daughter while residing on the<br />
Schuylkill River during his tenure as Secretary <strong>of</strong> State,<br />
“I never before knew the full value <strong>of</strong> trees. My house<br />
is entirely embosomed in high plane-trees, with good<br />
grass below; and under them I breakfast, dine, write,<br />
read, and receive my company. What I would not<br />
give that the trees planted nearest round the house<br />
at Monticello were full grown.” 88 At Monticello,<br />
Jefferson’s original planting plan illustrated a strong<br />
reliance on deciduous trees to provide shade in the<br />
summer and allow light to pass through for radiant<br />
heating the winter months. For example, the trees<br />
along Mulberry Row provide both shade and a visual<br />
barrier in the summer between the southeastern<br />
slope <strong>of</strong> the site and the West Lawn plateau. At the<br />
University trees provide an enlivening feature to<br />
the site; however the current plantings on the Lawn<br />
were not present in Jefferson’s lifetime. Although<br />
he gave ample consideration to the planting plan <strong>of</strong><br />
the gardens, the same attention was not paid to the<br />
contained green space <strong>of</strong> the Academical Village.<br />
Jefferson’s May 9, 1817 letter to Dr. Thornton stated<br />
that the central area contains ‘grass and trees’ but<br />
no early engravings <strong>of</strong> the University show any plant<br />
life occupying the expanse <strong>of</strong> the Lawn. The initial<br />
plantings on the Lawn were in the 1830s; considering<br />
what a presence the large canopies now command<br />
on the Lawn it is hard to imagine the space without<br />
the changing, seasonal character <strong>of</strong> the trees. 89
The overall site schemes for Monticello and the<br />
University were unique approaches to how buildings<br />
met the land. Jefferson created two sites that<br />
were neither completely pastoral nor completely<br />
constructed landscapes. Some have argued that<br />
Jefferson was the initial designer <strong>of</strong> the garden<br />
republic in America: a landscape design scheme that<br />
rested between the wild and refined. 90 Today the<br />
extremely manicured landscapes do not represent<br />
the scenery Jefferson would have been accustomed<br />
to during his tenure at either site. 91<br />
Materiality<br />
Today, sustainable or ‘green’ design is at the<br />
forefront <strong>of</strong> architectural discussion. Site selection,<br />
adaptability and energy management are key<br />
elements <strong>of</strong> today’s sustainable architecture.<br />
However, one <strong>of</strong> the most important elements in<br />
regards to responsible environmental design is the<br />
basic materiality <strong>of</strong> a building. Although sustainable<br />
architecture is very much a facet <strong>of</strong> contemporary<br />
popular society, the use <strong>of</strong> local materials is not a<br />
new concept to architectural design. Like many <strong>of</strong><br />
his contemporaries, Jefferson used local materials<br />
not as an act <strong>of</strong> conscientious sustainability but<br />
out <strong>of</strong> necessity. The structures <strong>of</strong> Monticello and<br />
the University were comprised <strong>of</strong> bricks due to<br />
the availability <strong>of</strong> rich clay. Geologically, the soils<br />
at Monticello and the University are comprised <strong>of</strong><br />
Cecil loam, which is fertile if maintained but also<br />
very susceptible to sheet erosion, as well as three<br />
different types <strong>of</strong> clay loams that were useful for the<br />
production <strong>of</strong> bricks. 92 Bricks were also used for the<br />
composition <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the columns at the University<br />
as well as the columns <strong>of</strong> the West Portico and piers<br />
<strong>of</strong> the terraces at Monticello. 93 Local quartzite was<br />
used for Monticello’s East Portico and Jefferson tried<br />
to use mica schist for the ornamental parts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
University such as capitols. Only after the material<br />
was deemed unusable did Jefferson resort to<br />
importing marble for the capitols <strong>of</strong> Pavilion III and<br />
the Rotunda. 94 Today the botched carvings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
schist can be found in various forms <strong>of</strong> completion in<br />
the gardens <strong>of</strong> certain pavilions. 95
Axiality<br />
The strong axies are some <strong>of</strong> the most commanding<br />
features <strong>of</strong> Monticello and the University. Both designs<br />
are a u-shaped parti with the most dominant edifice<br />
at the apex. Although not cardinally oriented, both<br />
sites impose a strong sense <strong>of</strong> the cardo decumanus<br />
principles. Upon closer examination it is evident that<br />
Jefferson was not a slave to the rhythm <strong>of</strong> these axies.<br />
During the approach to the Monticello, the viewer is<br />
purposefully put <strong>of</strong>f axis along the roundabouts in<br />
order to provide constantly changing views <strong>of</strong> the<br />
home and its surrounding landscape. At Monticello<br />
the axis <strong>of</strong> the terraces spanning north and south do<br />
not directly intersect the main north-south axis <strong>of</strong><br />
the home. Additionally, the home possess no true<br />
enfilade <strong>of</strong> rooms and certain axies are purposely<br />
altered: for example, the axis along Jefferson’s<br />
private apartment that spans from library to cabinet<br />
is not separated by similar archways but rather by<br />
one semicircular and one elliptical arch. The same,<br />
slight but noticeable shift in axial alignment occurs<br />
underneath the home in the passage.<br />
At the University, the parallel rows <strong>of</strong> pavilions and<br />
ranges intersect with the strong perpendicular axis<br />
<strong>of</strong> the extended cryptoporticus <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda. In<br />
order to emphasize the axis, the distance between<br />
pavilions further increases as one moves south<br />
on the site away from the Rotunda. The alleys,<br />
flanked by serpentine walls that connect the rows<br />
<strong>of</strong> pavilions to the Ranges on each side <strong>of</strong> the Lawn,<br />
form secondary perpendicular axies. Jefferson added<br />
one subtle design move that denotes a hierarchy<br />
within these axial relationships: the alleys <strong>of</strong> the<br />
east and west are terminated with a column from<br />
the perpendicular colonnade <strong>of</strong> the Lawn. With<br />
this simple design move, the axies <strong>of</strong> the alleys are<br />
not allowed to cross the Lawn. This element also<br />
disguises the fact that some <strong>of</strong> the alleys between<br />
pavilions <strong>of</strong> the east and west sides do not perfectly<br />
align, such as those between V and VII and IV and<br />
VI.<br />
The strong, extended axies at Monticello and the<br />
University serve both aesthetic and utilitarian<br />
functions. Both sites provide walkways sheltered<br />
from the elements that serve as useful passages for<br />
daily operations. These unique interstitial spaces<br />
are reminiscent <strong>of</strong> the colonnades <strong>of</strong> cloisters or<br />
the long loggias <strong>of</strong> urban architecture <strong>of</strong> the Italian<br />
Renaissance. At both sites there is a duel layer <strong>of</strong><br />
circulation along the main axies. At Monticello<br />
operations in the dependencies <strong>of</strong> the house existed<br />
below the open terraces that connected the main<br />
home to the pavilions. Likewise, at the University,<br />
the colonnade connecting the student dormitories<br />
provided a place for students to traverse to class<br />
and congregate while the pr<strong>of</strong>essors were granted<br />
the same privilege above with their second story<br />
terraces that connected all the pavilions <strong>of</strong> one side<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Lawn together. The duel layer <strong>of</strong> the pathways<br />
at both sites allowed for multiple operations to occur<br />
at one time, where one group did not interrupt the<br />
occupations <strong>of</strong> another and those <strong>of</strong> the elevated<br />
status were literally occupied the higher road.<br />
Left (far): detail <strong>of</strong> topographic changes <strong>of</strong> UVa terraces.<br />
Left: abandoned Ionic mica capital in the garden <strong>of</strong> Pavilion III,<br />
UVa library<br />
Below: Column on the alley axis leading to the East Range.<br />
Invention
The ICOMOS and UNESCO evaluations both describe<br />
Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia as icons<br />
<strong>of</strong> American neoclassicism. Although both sites<br />
represent an architectural shift from adopted<br />
vernacular and the early stages <strong>of</strong> Georgian<br />
architecture in America, neither Monticello nor the<br />
University are strict interpretations <strong>of</strong> classical forms.<br />
At both sites there is a manipulation <strong>of</strong> structure,<br />
light, symmetry and circulation that could only be<br />
likened to the most experimental <strong>of</strong> classical forms<br />
such as the Erechtheum. Monticello is most certainly<br />
the looser interpretation <strong>of</strong> the two sites; however,<br />
certain details and bold moves at the University<br />
illustrate that Jefferson was not resolutely bound to<br />
the rules <strong>of</strong> classical architecture.<br />
Monticello and the University are both brick<br />
constructions, primarily composed <strong>of</strong> double wythe<br />
bearing walls. Although the amount <strong>of</strong> apertures<br />
within the structure was uncommon in Jefferson’s<br />
America, the basic structural systems <strong>of</strong> both sites<br />
was not atypical. Jefferson’s use <strong>of</strong> cantilevers,<br />
however, was out <strong>of</strong> the ordinary. At Monticello<br />
Jefferson used a pure cantilever form to construct<br />
the mezzanine in the Entrance Hall. The U-shaped<br />
mezzanine has chamfered angles; thereby the<br />
joists <strong>of</strong> the cantilever are tied together in plan<br />
both horizontally and vertically making one unified<br />
structural system. At the University six <strong>of</strong> the ten<br />
pavilions have cantilevered balconies that are given<br />
extra support with vertical tension rods connected<br />
to the ceiling framing <strong>of</strong> the porticos. 96 From the<br />
front elevation <strong>of</strong> a pavilion with a suspended<br />
balcony the tension rods are hidden behind the<br />
rendered brick columns, making it appear as if the<br />
balcony is floating. 97 Jefferson’s incorporation <strong>of</strong><br />
tension rods allowed for balconies with relatively<br />
large areas to be constructed and provided a pre-<br />
Industrial Revolution example <strong>of</strong> technology melded<br />
with neoclassical design.<br />
The dome at Monticello was constructed in the<br />
Delorme manner, a structural system that Jefferson<br />
was introduced to during his travels in France. 98<br />
This non-masonry form <strong>of</strong> construction used<br />
curved wooden segments that were laminated then<br />
connected together with wooden pegs in order to<br />
create continuous structural ribs. Jefferson made one<br />
important change to the prescribed Delorme method<br />
which was the use <strong>of</strong> nails for initial lamination not<br />
pegged joints; this connection showed Jefferson’s<br />
pragmatic side. At Monticello nails were easily<br />
available on site. 99 Pegged mortise and tenon joints<br />
were attached to ‘hoop’ members that provided the<br />
tension rings necessary for the dome to resist the<br />
thrust <strong>of</strong> the vault. 100 The resulting dome is lighter<br />
than a masonry construction, less expensive, and<br />
was comprised <strong>of</strong> prefabricated elements making is<br />
easier to construct. Jefferson’s dome at the Rotunda<br />
was also constructed in the Delorme manner. 101<br />
At both sites a compression ring allowed for the<br />
intervention <strong>of</strong> a glass-encased oculus.<br />
Glass took on a unique role at both sites thereby<br />
a making the play <strong>of</strong> light a dynamic feature in the<br />
architecture. In terms <strong>of</strong> Enlightenment ideology,<br />
light symbolized clarity and radiance rather than<br />
a mysterious, divine intervention. 102 True to his<br />
mathematical routes as the son <strong>of</strong> a surveyor,<br />
Jefferson wrote down a formulaic rule for light in<br />
his building notebook, “Light. Rule for the quantity<br />
requisite for a room. Multiply the length, breadth, &<br />
height together hi feet, & extract the square root <strong>of</strong><br />
their product. This must be the sum <strong>of</strong> the areas <strong>of</strong><br />
all the windows.” 103 Essentially, the volume <strong>of</strong> a room<br />
determined the area <strong>of</strong> glass necessary for desirable<br />
occupation. Jefferson’s light rule can be simplistically<br />
illustrated in the design <strong>of</strong> the student rooms at the<br />
University: the square route <strong>of</strong> volume <strong>of</strong> the 10’ x<br />
10’x 10’ room is only slightly larger than the area <strong>of</strong><br />
the singular window in each dorm measuring 4’x
7’. The door for each room provides an extra lightyielding<br />
aperture since it opens directly onto the<br />
exterior colonnade and maybe this feature allowed<br />
Jefferson to slightly deviate from his light rule to<br />
create smaller windows for the dormitories that<br />
conformed to the overall proportions <strong>of</strong> the dorms in<br />
relation to the pavilions. Triple sash windows adorn<br />
both Monticello and the pavilions <strong>of</strong> the University.<br />
Extremely useful for air circulation and easily made<br />
into an additional means <strong>of</strong> egress, the windows<br />
were one third larger than the typical windows <strong>of</strong><br />
the time. 104 Louvered blinds and interior shutters are<br />
attached to most windows at both sites to moderate<br />
solar gain. Although rectilinear skylights exist only at<br />
Monticello, Jefferson incorporated an oculus into the<br />
design <strong>of</strong> both his Dome Room and the University’s<br />
Rotunda. The Rotunda’s oculus is sixteen feet in<br />
diameter, exactly four times larger than that <strong>of</strong><br />
Monticello’s Dome Room. At both sites, the oculus<br />
provides diffused light and casts a dramatic circular<br />
illumination around the room during the course <strong>of</strong><br />
the day. Unlike the Pantheon, both <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s<br />
domes have apertures other than the oculus. The<br />
resulting space is a light filled rotunda that affords<br />
views not only to the sky but also to the surrounding<br />
landscape. At both sites, light penetrates even the<br />
subterranean spaces through the placement <strong>of</strong><br />
windows along the ground: lunettes illuminate<br />
the cryptoporticus underneath Monticello and the<br />
Rotunda. Jefferson used the cryptoporticus, a familiar<br />
feature <strong>of</strong> a Roman villa, as connective passage but<br />
refined the form by enclosing the apertures with<br />
glass. Therefore, the glazed lunettes create a rhythm<br />
along the lowest elevation <strong>of</strong> Monticello and the<br />
Rotunda.<br />
The game <strong>of</strong> visual symmetry is played very differently<br />
at both sites: at his home, Jefferson seems to<br />
celebrate irregularities in form whereas he masked<br />
many <strong>of</strong> them at the University. At Monticello, no<br />
façade is identical or possess pure symmetrical<br />
geometry. The plan clearly indicates that the east<br />
and the west facades must be treated differently:<br />
the structure <strong>of</strong> the east is in antis and the west is<br />
extruded. From this difference the two distinctive<br />
façades <strong>of</strong> the home were embellished and from<br />
an elevation standpoint, the Venetian porches add<br />
the only element <strong>of</strong> asymmetry to the otherwise<br />
balanced façades. From the plan is seems as though<br />
the north and south façades <strong>of</strong> the home must have<br />
similar elevation characteristics: both areas are<br />
interstitial spaces that blur the boundary between<br />
inside and outside yet the arcade <strong>of</strong> north piazza is<br />
left open to the elements where as the arches <strong>of</strong> the<br />
south piazza are enclosed with wood and triple sash<br />
windows to make the greenhouse. The north piazza<br />
creates subtractive architecture within the form <strong>of</strong><br />
the building whereas the south piazza is additive: the<br />
greenhouse is flanked by the Venetian porches that<br />
provide another protective visual and thermal shield<br />
to the home. Even if the difference in the arcade<br />
treatment <strong>of</strong> the north and south façade is ignored<br />
there is one, clever detail that separates the designs.
On the south, there are windows in the frieze,<br />
placed within the construct <strong>of</strong> three metopes. This<br />
detail was a simplistic way to get light to the nursery<br />
<strong>of</strong> the second story without exposing the space to<br />
cold drafts from a larger aperture. The windows fit<br />
neatly within the existing decorative language <strong>of</strong><br />
the entablature and are some <strong>of</strong> the most modern,<br />
almost mannerist features <strong>of</strong> the home.<br />
As a whole design, symmetry was a one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
commanding features <strong>of</strong> the University, as brilliantly<br />
illustrated in the Maverick engraving commissioned<br />
by Jefferson in 1822-3. 105 The pavilions <strong>of</strong> the east and<br />
west balance each other in mass and articulation, the<br />
colonnades are mirror images with the exception <strong>of</strong><br />
the arcade <strong>of</strong> Pavilion VII and the Rotunda is a object<br />
<strong>of</strong> pure geometry. Jefferson’s unique insertion <strong>of</strong><br />
elliptical rooms into the round plan is disguised in<br />
the architecture <strong>of</strong> the exterior. From the exterior,<br />
the rooms <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda appear to be uniform due<br />
to the uninterrupted rhythm <strong>of</strong> windows; however,<br />
the east and west- facing windows are directly in<br />
front <strong>of</strong> chimneys for the fireplaces <strong>of</strong> the elliptical<br />
meeting rooms.<br />
Jefferson was a neoclassical architect that was able<br />
to use precedent without architectural plagiarism.<br />
The architectural language <strong>of</strong> Monticello is an<br />
amalgamation <strong>of</strong> several classical ideas but has<br />
no direct precedent. 106 Although the form <strong>of</strong> the<br />
entrance on the East Portico <strong>of</strong> Monticello is<br />
reminiscent <strong>of</strong> a temple entrance in antis, the semioctangular<br />
structure enclosed by the West Portico<br />
does not have a precedent in ancient architecture. 107<br />
A more bold manipulation <strong>of</strong> the portico form is<br />
present at the University. At Pavilion VIII, the portico<br />
form is seamlessly translated into a vestibule and at<br />
Pavilion X the Giant order <strong>of</strong> the portico engulfs the<br />
uninterrupted form <strong>of</strong> the second story terrace. As<br />
a general note, the pavilions closer to the Rotunda<br />
are more strict interpretations <strong>of</strong> classical forms<br />
whereas the pavilions <strong>of</strong> the south end <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
display more editorial, neoclassical license. Although<br />
the Rotunda initially appears as a direct derivative<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Pantheon in Rome, there are several key<br />
design alterations that truly make the building a<br />
reinterpreted neoclassical model. Unfortunately,<br />
Jefferson never saw the Pantheon for himself but<br />
had to rely on the comprehensive plans, sections,<br />
and elevations <strong>of</strong> the buildings in the Leoni edition<br />
<strong>of</strong> Palladio’s Four Books on Architecture. 108 Jefferson<br />
disregarded the double portico and elongated drum<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Pantheon, created an edifice half the size,<br />
left the frieze devoid <strong>of</strong> inscription and added a<br />
timepiece to the pediment. 109 The biggest variation<br />
between the Pantheon and the Rotunda was the<br />
change from an octastyle to a hexastyle portico. This<br />
change allowed Jefferson to create a portico <strong>of</strong> ten<br />
columns, exactly equal to the number <strong>of</strong> original<br />
disciplines and pavilions <strong>of</strong> his Academical Village.<br />
Architecture <strong>of</strong> Educational Spaces<br />
At both Monticello and the University Jefferson<br />
created a series <strong>of</strong> classrooms out <strong>of</strong> doors. At<br />
his home, the greenhouse was limited in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
functionality but it provided Jefferson an interstitial<br />
place between the closed quarters <strong>of</strong> his library<br />
and the open vistas <strong>of</strong> the South Terrace. 110 The<br />
adjacent corner terraces provided planters, open<br />
to the elements, and Cornelia Randolph’s drawing<br />
<strong>of</strong> the home from after July 4, 1826 specifically<br />
labels the south corner terrace as the location <strong>of</strong> a<br />
violet bed. 111 To the west, Jefferson’s environmental<br />
classroom fully opened to the landscape. The West<br />
Lawn proved a place for exercise and botany, the<br />
winding path <strong>of</strong> the flower garden was designed in<br />
stark contrast to the strict rectilinear arrangement <strong>of</strong><br />
the south terrace garden. Within Jefferson’s terrace<br />
garden he constructed a pavilion, first designed as a<br />
rectangle adjacent to the sheer, rock retaining wall<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mulberry Row. 112 Upon reexamination, Jefferson<br />
constructed the more romantic square garden
pavilion that was erected on the edit <strong>of</strong> the terrace,<br />
overlooking the vineyards and Jefferson’s ‘sea view’.<br />
From the pavilion Jefferson could have shelter for<br />
quiet study away from the chaos <strong>of</strong> the home and<br />
watch weather formations between the extreme<br />
changes in elevation between the valley to the east<br />
and his Montalto to the west.<br />
Jefferson took the classroom outside at University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia as well, albeit in a more formal manner.<br />
The gardens between the pavilions and ranges<br />
served as examples <strong>of</strong> agricultural and botanical<br />
arrangements. The arrangement <strong>of</strong> the pavilions<br />
and student dormitories around the Lawn provided<br />
a space for exercise and the pavilions themselves<br />
were intended to serve as premier architectural<br />
examples for instruction, “these pavilions as they will<br />
show themselves above the dormitories, should be<br />
models <strong>of</strong> taste & good architecture, & <strong>of</strong> a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
appearance, no two alike, so as to serve as specimens<br />
for the Architectural Lectures.” 113 It is not difficult<br />
to imagine Jefferson as a student <strong>of</strong> his Univeristy:<br />
the young man that was once enraptured by the<br />
architecture <strong>of</strong> Europe could now find examples<br />
<strong>of</strong> refinement and design in his own country. The<br />
colonnades <strong>of</strong> the Lawn were intended to serve<br />
as paths <strong>of</strong> conveyance for the students, sheltered<br />
from the elements. However, these two axies along<br />
the east and west sides <strong>of</strong> the Lawn serve additional<br />
functions: they provide a continuous front porch<br />
for informal discourse between the students and<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essors. As the University has grown, educational<br />
spaces out <strong>of</strong> doors have remained an important<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the curriculum. Unfortunately though, these<br />
spaces are not as treasured as informal learning<br />
opportunities from a financial standpoint: the<br />
University does not count outdoor, unconditioned<br />
educational spaces in budget allowances for<br />
the renovation and construction <strong>of</strong> buildings on<br />
grounds. 114
Conclusion<br />
Jefferson was one <strong>of</strong> the primary architects <strong>of</strong> the<br />
American Enlightenment in relation to governmental<br />
structure, education and built space. Jefferson’s<br />
home began as an experimental, self-motivated<br />
construction and eventually became an international<br />
icon. Monticello was not only the primary residence a<br />
man <strong>of</strong> international influence but the home’s design<br />
was an anomaly for the nation. As an ambitious,<br />
self-taught architect, Jefferson did not limited in his<br />
architectural program to his own homes or small,<br />
sideline projects. Jefferson pursued the architecture<br />
<strong>of</strong> national identity through his work at the Virginia<br />
State Capitol and his suggestions for the nation’s<br />
capitol in Washington. Nonetheless, his greatest<br />
contribution was the architecture <strong>of</strong> education:<br />
at the University Jefferson created an academical<br />
village that was a perfect vessel for learning. It was<br />
complete with indoor and outdoor classrooms,<br />
places for informal discourse sheltered from the<br />
weather and neoclassical forms adapted for modern<br />
uses. Jefferson took the architectural lessons learned<br />
at his private residence and translated design ideas,<br />
sectional properties and light manipulations into<br />
moves appropriate for a public program. At the<br />
University, Jefferson uniquely took the five part<br />
Palladian parti and translated it into an expandable,<br />
replicable institutional architecture.<br />
Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia are built<br />
expressions <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s aspirations for the young<br />
nation: both structures express confidence, the value<br />
<strong>of</strong> education and maintain fortuitous connections to<br />
the surrounding landscape. Although both places<br />
have been altered since Jefferson’s time, they both<br />
maintain strong educational program. Today, I have<br />
no doubt that Jefferson would be pleased to know<br />
that both sites have high visitation and many <strong>of</strong><br />
those visitors come equipped with cameras in an<br />
attempt to capture Jefferson’s unique approach to<br />
the architecture as a true national builder.
Appendix A: United Nations World Heritage List Selection Criteria<br />
i. to represent a masterpiece <strong>of</strong> human creative genius;<br />
ii.<br />
iii.<br />
iv.<br />
to exhibit an important interchange <strong>of</strong> human values, over a span <strong>of</strong> time or within a cultural area <strong>of</strong> the world, on developments in architecture or<br />
technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;<br />
to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;<br />
to be an outstanding example <strong>of</strong> a type <strong>of</strong> building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human<br />
history;<br />
v. to be an outstanding example <strong>of</strong> a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative <strong>of</strong> a culture (or cultures), or human interaction<br />
with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact <strong>of</strong> irreversible change;<br />
vi.<br />
vii.<br />
to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works <strong>of</strong> outstanding universal<br />
significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);<br />
to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas <strong>of</strong> exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;<br />
viii. to be outstanding examples representing major stages <strong>of</strong> earth’s history, including the record <strong>of</strong> life, significant on-going geological processes in the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;<br />
ix.<br />
to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development <strong>of</strong> terrestrial, fresh water,<br />
coastal and marine ecosystems and communities <strong>of</strong> plants and animals;<br />
x. to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation <strong>of</strong> biological diversity, including those containing threatened species<br />
<strong>of</strong> outstanding universal value from the point <strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong> science or conservation.
Appendix B: Projects related to the Enlightenment<br />
on the World Heritage List<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 1982<br />
Royal Saltworks <strong>of</strong> Arc-et-Senans, France (no. 203)<br />
Architect: Claude-Nicolas Ledoux<br />
Construction begun 1775<br />
The rational and hierarchical organization <strong>of</strong> an industrial<br />
city was meant to promote order, harmony and serve as<br />
a model for the future construction <strong>of</strong> an ideal city.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 1987<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Bath, England (no. 428)<br />
Associated architects: John Woods, Robert Adam,<br />
Thomas Baldwin, John Palmer<br />
The neoclassical theme is prevalent through the planning,<br />
architecture, and the spa-city culture that was<br />
embraced in the embraced eighteenth century with a<br />
focus on the Roman baths.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 1990<br />
Palaces and Parks <strong>of</strong> Potsdam and Berlin, Germany (no.<br />
532ter)<br />
The varied spaces reflect architectural ideals <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Enlightenment and served as places <strong>of</strong> discourse for<br />
philosophers such as Voltaire.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 1995<br />
Old and New Towns <strong>of</strong> Edinburgh, Scotland (no.728)<br />
The new town is one <strong>of</strong> the best preserved examples <strong>of</strong><br />
urban, neoclassical planning and architecture that also<br />
served as a center for the Enlightenment movement.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 1999<br />
Museumsinsel (Museum Island) in Berlin, Germany (no.<br />
896)<br />
The concept <strong>of</strong> the public museum evolved from the<br />
Enlightenment and the five museums that occupy the<br />
island represent the evolution <strong>of</strong> this building type and<br />
contained program through structures constructed between<br />
1824-1930.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 2001<br />
New Lanark in South Lanarkshire, Scotland (no. 429rev)<br />
Much like the Saltworks, the town design reflected the<br />
Utopian concepts <strong>of</strong> founder Robert Owen and served as<br />
an architectural experiment on the eve <strong>of</strong> the Industrial<br />
Revolution.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 2000<br />
Garden Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Dessau- Wörlitz, Germany (no.<br />
534rev)<br />
The gardens reflect principles <strong>of</strong> the Enlightenment<br />
through the incorporation <strong>of</strong> aesthetic, education and<br />
economic program within the diverse elements <strong>of</strong> the<br />
design.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> inscription: 2003<br />
Royal Botanic Gardens <strong>of</strong> Kew, England (no. 1084)<br />
Associated designers: William Kent, Capability Brown,<br />
William Chambers<br />
The design and planting plan display the scientific and<br />
economic pursuits in the field <strong>of</strong> botany in the eighteenth<br />
century that would eventually lead to pastoral<br />
and sublime design movements in landscape architecture.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 2004<br />
Muskauer Park/ Park Muzakowshi, shared listing <strong>of</strong> Germany<br />
and Poland (no. 1127)<br />
Created by Prince Hermann von Puckler-Muskau between<br />
1815-1844 the park represented a fundamental<br />
shift in the design philosophy <strong>of</strong> landscape architecture:<br />
movement away from the concept <strong>of</strong> classical gardens<br />
and the incorporation native plants for a more humanized<br />
design.<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Inscription: 2007<br />
Port <strong>of</strong> the Moon, Bordeaux, France (no. 1256)<br />
The urban planning and architecture <strong>of</strong> the renovations<br />
from the eighteenth century represent the cross-cultural<br />
and cosmopolitan ideals <strong>of</strong> Enlightenment philosophy.
Endnotes<br />
1 The Thomas Jefferson Thematic Nomination<br />
will hereafter be referred to as the Jefferson Nomination<br />
2 At the end <strong>of</strong> 2004, UENSCO adopted a <strong>single</strong><br />
matrix for the ten criteria, allowing for mixed sites to be<br />
incorporated into the list.<br />
3 For report <strong>of</strong> the 11 th Session <strong>of</strong> the World Heritage<br />
Committee containing a full list <strong>of</strong> sites and inscription<br />
extensions see World Heritage Committee, ”Report<br />
<strong>of</strong> the World Heritage Committee Eleventh Session:<br />
UNESCO. Headquarters, 7-11 December 1987,” United<br />
National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.<br />
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom87.htm.<br />
4 Tony Lee was the author <strong>of</strong> the UNSECO submission<br />
with consultation <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson Foundation<br />
and University <strong>of</strong> Virginia. Her initial letter <strong>of</strong> inquiry<br />
regarding the nomination was addressed to William<br />
Beiswanger <strong>of</strong> the Thomas Jefferson Foundation on<br />
September 9, 1985. The proposal for submission was accepted<br />
and both sites were consulted on the submission<br />
document.<br />
5 Thomas Jefferson Thematic Nomination.<br />
“World Heritage List Nomination: Monticello<br />
and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia in Charlottesville No.<br />
442.”Submitted by Assistant Secretary <strong>of</strong> the Interior 11<br />
December 1986, 6.<br />
6 See Appendix I for the complete UNESCO World<br />
Heritage Criterion list.<br />
7 The ICOMOS report was presented to the 11 th<br />
session <strong>of</strong> the World Heritage Committee at UNESCO<br />
headquarters in Pars. The Committee was comprised <strong>of</strong><br />
voting members from Algeria, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria,<br />
Canada, Cuba, France, Greece, India, Italy, Lebanon,<br />
Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Turkey, United<br />
Republic <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, United States <strong>of</strong> America, and the<br />
Yemen Arab Republic.<br />
8 International Council on Monuments and Sites.<br />
“Advisory Body Evaluation” United National Educational,<br />
Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1.<br />
9 Ibid, 3.<br />
10 The Saltworks was constructed between 1775-<br />
1779 and during Jefferson’s tenure in France Ledoux was<br />
heavily engaged in the ‘Barrières’ or toll house project<br />
for Paris from 1783-1787. While serving as Minister to<br />
France Jefferson may have met Ledoux considering the<br />
French architect was one <strong>of</strong> Louis XVI’s preferred designers.<br />
11 Architecture parlante is, “the expressiveness<br />
sought by French revolutionary architects, notably<br />
Ledoux and Boulée, with a ‘narrative’ architecture whose<br />
purpose and character would be made evident not by<br />
symbols but by structure and form.” John Fleming, Hugh<br />
Honour, and Nikolaus Pevsner, Penguin Dictionary <strong>of</strong> Architecture<br />
and Landscape Architecture, 5 th ed ( London:<br />
Penguin Books, 1999), 22.<br />
12 The city <strong>of</strong> Vicenza and Palladio’s villas in the<br />
Veneto were inscribed in 1994 and the list was later<br />
extended in 1996. Four major townhouses <strong>of</strong> Victor<br />
Horta in Belgium were inscribed in 2000. In 2008 Berlin<br />
Modernism Housing Estates recognizing the work <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Bauhuas were inscribed; this nomination is separate<br />
from the inscription <strong>of</strong> the Bauhuas sites in Weimar and<br />
Dessau that were added to the list in 1996. Several other<br />
architects may join the list <strong>of</strong> repeatedly recognized<br />
designers in regards to pending items on the World Heritage<br />
Tentative List: in 2006 France nominated fourteen<br />
buildings under the heading <strong>of</strong> Le Corbusier’s body <strong>of</strong><br />
work, in 2006 Italy submitted nominations for the works<br />
<strong>of</strong> Leon Battista Alberti, and in 2008 the United States<br />
submitted a nomination for the works <strong>of</strong> Frank Lloyd<br />
Wright that included ten <strong>of</strong> his built works in America.<br />
13 Fiske Kimball’s pioneering work on Jefferson as<br />
architect gave Jefferson credit as a revivalist but not necessarily<br />
as a revolutionary architect. See Pickens for more<br />
on this distinction. Much <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s work, especially<br />
Monticello, was thought to be the genius <strong>of</strong> Robert Mills.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the first books on American architecture, William<br />
Dunlap’s History <strong>of</strong> the Rise and Progress <strong>of</strong> the Arts <strong>of</strong><br />
Design in the United States, had no separate listing for<br />
Jefferson but rather cited him as a footnote to Mills. See<br />
Richard Guy Wilson, ed. Thomas Jefferson’s Academical<br />
Village: The Creation <strong>of</strong> an Architectural Masterpiece<br />
(Charlottesville: University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Press, 1995), 47-<br />
74.<br />
14 Not all <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s designs had strong programmatic<br />
motivations. Projects such as his unbuilt designs<br />
for the Monticello decorative outchamber (c.1778,<br />
Nicols 5), Governor’s Palace (1779-1781, Nicols 7),<br />
Octagonal Chapel (c.1770, Nicols 9), designs for Bremo<br />
(c.1820, Nicols 31-32) and built projects at Barboursville,<br />
Farmington, and Edgemont are better classified as ‘armchair<br />
architect’ exercises in composition.<br />
15 Dorinda Outram, Panorama <strong>of</strong> the Enlightenment<br />
(London: Thames & Hudson, 2006), 56.<br />
16 Outram, 184. The sense <strong>of</strong> self was viewed as<br />
secular and completely apart from the God-given soul.<br />
17 Outram, 18. The Enlightenment was one <strong>of</strong> the
first recorded time when silent reading, not in public<br />
forum, was recorded as a prolific and even encouraged<br />
activity. The idea <strong>of</strong> introspective, self-guided study will<br />
be examined further in the text.<br />
18 Henry Steele Commager, Jefferson, Nationalism<br />
and the Enlightenment (New York: George Braziller,<br />
1975), 3.<br />
19 Commager, 13.<br />
20 Henry F. May, The Enlightenment in America<br />
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 133.<br />
21 Thomas Jefferson to Colonel Monroe, Paris,<br />
June 17, 1785 in Adrieene Koch and William Peden, eds,<br />
The Life and Selected Writings <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson (New<br />
York: Modern Library, 1998), 341-2.<br />
22 Thomas Jefferson to M. Jullien, Monticello<br />
1818 from John P. Foley, ed, A Comprehensive Collection<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Views <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson (New York: Funk &<br />
Wagnells, 1900), transcribed by the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia<br />
Library Thomas Jefferson Digital Archive <strong>of</strong> the Electronic<br />
Text Center. Hereafter referred to as E-text.<br />
23 For a list <strong>of</strong> contributions <strong>of</strong> Founding Fathers<br />
to education in America see Commager, 114.<br />
24 Jefferson even remarks on this fact in his “Autobiography”<br />
written January 6, 1821. See Koch and Peden,<br />
3-104.<br />
25 The evolution <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s theories for public<br />
education were largely informed by his own education<br />
experiences but also by books he owned such as Francis<br />
Green’s Green on Speech <strong>of</strong> the Deaf and Dumb (1783),<br />
Samuel Knox’s Knox on Education (1799) and Joseph<br />
Lancaster’s Improvements in Education (1803). See<br />
James A. Heath, “Thomas Jefferson: Architect <strong>of</strong> American<br />
Public Education” (EdD diss., Pepperdine University,<br />
1998), 162 for a more comprehensive analysis.<br />
26 Thomas Jefferson to Du Pont Nemours, Poplar<br />
Forest, April 24, 1816, E-text.<br />
27 Heath, 14.<br />
28 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Monticello,<br />
October 28, 1813 in Koch and Peden, 579-80.<br />
29 For the full text see Merrill D Peterson, ed,<br />
Thomas Jefferson Writings (New York, Literary Classics,<br />
1984) 365-373). The closest manifestation <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s<br />
region-based educational concepts was the passage <strong>of</strong><br />
the 1785 Land Ordinance that devised a system <strong>of</strong> land<br />
units <strong>of</strong> thirty-six square miles with a school closest to<br />
the center <strong>of</strong> the square as convenient. Additionally, the<br />
Ordinance called for 100,000 acres to be devoted for a<br />
university in each state. See Cameron Addis, Jefferson’s<br />
Vision for Education 1760-1845 (New York: Peter Lang,<br />
2003), 25. Jefferson returned to his idea <strong>of</strong> localized<br />
schools in the Rockfish Gap Report <strong>of</strong> 1818, “preliminary<br />
schools, either on private or public establishment, could<br />
be distributed in districts through the State, as preparatory<br />
to the entrance <strong>of</strong> students into the University. The<br />
tender age at which this part <strong>of</strong> education commences,<br />
generally about the tenth year, would weigh heavily with<br />
parents in sending their sons to a school so distant as<br />
the central establishment would be from most <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
Districts <strong>of</strong> such extent as that every parent should be<br />
within a day’s journey <strong>of</strong> his son at school, would be<br />
desirable in cases <strong>of</strong> sickness, and convenient for supplying<br />
their ordinary wants, and might be made to lessen<br />
sensibly the expense <strong>of</strong> this part <strong>of</strong> their education.” Jefferson’s<br />
desire to keep children close to home may speak<br />
to his own experiences both as a child and as a parent<br />
that spent lengthy amounts <strong>of</strong> time from his family, at<br />
considerable distances, due to his governmental service.<br />
30 Heath, 13-14.<br />
31 Notes was largely written in 1781, expanded in<br />
1782-3 and first published in France under the sponsorship<br />
<strong>of</strong> Jefferson in 1784. The entire text is reprinted,<br />
without the graphics, in Koch and Peden, 173-267, and<br />
will subsequently be referenced as Jefferson.<br />
32 Jefferson, 243.<br />
33 Jefferson, 246.<br />
34 Addis, 1.<br />
35 Heath, 193.<br />
36 Intercolumniation, the contemporary word for<br />
for Jefferson’s cited term, is, “the distance between the<br />
centres <strong>of</strong> the bases <strong>of</strong> adjacent columns measured in<br />
multiples <strong>of</strong> column diameters.” Fleming, 285.<br />
37 Jefferson, 248-9.<br />
38 Jefferson, 249-251.<br />
39 Anne M. Lucas, “Ordering His Environment:<br />
Thomas Jefferson’s Architecture from Monticello to the<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Virginia” (M.A. thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Virginia,<br />
1989), 7.<br />
40 Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris,<br />
September 20, 1785, E-text.<br />
41 Buford Pickens, “Mr. Jefferson as Revolutionary<br />
Architect,” The Journal <strong>of</strong> the Society <strong>of</strong> Architectural<br />
Historians 34, no. 4 (1975): 259.<br />
42 Hugh Howard, Thomas Jefferson Architect: The<br />
Built Legacy <strong>of</strong> Our Third President (New York: Rizzoli,<br />
2003), 42.<br />
43 Pickens, 277. argues that Jefferson did not visit<br />
Vicenza or Rome because he was more concerned with<br />
visiting contemporary developments in architecture. I<br />
would argue that Jefferson’s explorations were a reflec-
tion <strong>of</strong> both time constraints and priorities: Jefferson<br />
was visually familiar with the architecture <strong>of</strong> the Veneto<br />
and Rome through engravings in architectural books.<br />
Although not equivalent to firsthand experience, Jefferson<br />
possibly viewed a broad agenda for his architectural<br />
travels that included the lesser known or undocumented<br />
edifices <strong>of</strong> the Netherlands, Germany, and England. This<br />
theory asserts the claim by Wilson, 671: Jefferson tended<br />
to take his knowledge <strong>of</strong> the world from books rather<br />
than direct experience.<br />
44 Jefferson letter to Madame La Comtesse de<br />
Tesse. Nîmes,1787. E-text.<br />
45 Jefferson letter to James Madison. Paris, 1785.<br />
E-text.<br />
46 For the full text <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s May 6, 1810 letter<br />
addressed to Messrs. Hugh L. White and Others <strong>of</strong> East<br />
Tennessee College see Peterson, Thomas Jefferson Writings,<br />
1222-3.<br />
47 Jefferson never visit Rome, Tivoli, Cambridge or<br />
Oxford but would be familiar with ancient Roman town<br />
design from books and it is likely he was familiar with<br />
institutional design in England given his circle <strong>of</strong> contemporaries<br />
and knowledge <strong>of</strong> contemporary design.<br />
48 Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell,<br />
Washington, January 5, 1805 in Peterson, Thomas Jefferson<br />
Writings,1152.<br />
49 See item 18 in Thomas Jefferson, “A Bill for<br />
Establishing a System <strong>of</strong> Public Education,” October 24,<br />
1817, E-text.<br />
50 Vitruvius’ text is the only surviving architectural<br />
treatise from ancient times; if drawings accompanied the<br />
treatise they were not preserved. Jefferson possessed a<br />
Latin version, Vitruvius Pollio, and Perrault’s translation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the text. For more information see William Bainter<br />
O’Neal, Jefferson’s Fine Arts Library: His Selections for the<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Together with His Own Architectural<br />
Books (Charlottesville: University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Press,<br />
1976), 367-70.<br />
51 Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. trans.,<br />
Ingrid Rowland and Thomas Noble Howe (Cambridge:<br />
Cambridge University Press, 1999) I.I.<br />
52 Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, Monticello,<br />
1825, E-text.<br />
53 Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, article for<br />
the Richmond Enquirer “Central College A letter from<br />
a correspondent <strong>of</strong> the Editor <strong>of</strong> the Enquirer,” Warm<br />
Springs August 1817, E-text. Jefferson was well acquainted<br />
with Thomas Richie <strong>of</strong> the Enquirer and sent him a<br />
letter asking for publicity for Central College in order to<br />
further their efforts. For the full text <strong>of</strong> the letter see<br />
E-text. Ritchie proved to be an advocate <strong>of</strong> public education:<br />
he would later print Jefferson’s 1818 proposed bill<br />
for education in hopes <strong>of</strong> bolstering support. In December<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1818, Jefferson cancelled all newspaper subscriptions<br />
expect that to the Richmond Enquirer.<br />
54 Dumas Malone, Jefferson and His Time: The<br />
Sage <strong>of</strong> Monticello (Boston: Little Brown and Company,<br />
1981), 245.<br />
55 Peterson, Thomas Jefferson Writings, 457-473.<br />
56 The first lawsuit against the University was filed<br />
by James Oldham in 1823 for payment for carpentry<br />
work. See Gizzard, ”To Exercise a Sound Discretion: the<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Virginia and its First Lawsuit,” E-text.<br />
57 Addis, 95.<br />
58 For Jefferson’s full report see E-text.<br />
59 Addis, 106; see note 146. The cost <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda<br />
was an estimated $200,000.<br />
60 Barrett, 5-12. The Rotunda was finished to<br />
Jefferson’s specifications with the exception <strong>of</strong> the<br />
planetarium intended for the ceiling <strong>of</strong> the dome. Jefferson’s<br />
Rotunda stood only until the famous fire <strong>of</strong> 1895<br />
and was replaced with the reinterpreted designs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
architectural firm <strong>of</strong> McKim, Meade, and White. For the<br />
bicentennial <strong>of</strong> the nation, the Rotunda was restored to<br />
Jefferson’s original scheme in plan and section; that year<br />
the American Institute <strong>of</strong> Architects called the University,<br />
“the proudest achievement in American architecture.”<br />
Addis, 144. See the AIA Journal 65 (July 1976), 91.<br />
61 Thomas Jefferson to Maria Hadfield Cosway,<br />
Monticello, October 24, 1822, E-text.<br />
62 Malone, 408. Lafayette spent ten days with Jefferson<br />
at Monticello during his visit and apparently spent<br />
a considerable amount <strong>of</strong> time touring the grounds <strong>of</strong><br />
the University.<br />
63 See Sara Bon-Harper, “Monticello’s West<br />
Portico Steps: New Archeological Evidence,” Monticello<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Archaeology Technical Report Series no.<br />
4, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 2001, 1-3.<br />
64 For a history <strong>of</strong> the October Riots see Addis,<br />
119 and Charles Coleman Wall Jr., “Students and Student<br />
Life at the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia 1825-1861,” (PhD diss.,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Virginia, 1978) 148-158.<br />
65 Britton, 39.<br />
66 For example, James Oldham, John Neilson, and<br />
James Dinsmore were employed at both sites.<br />
67 See Bon-Harper’s report.<br />
68 Thomas Jefferson to the Board <strong>of</strong> Visitors, Monticello,<br />
September 30, 1821, E-Text.<br />
69 In notes to the University’s Board <strong>of</strong> Visitors
and in the Rockfish Gap Report Jefferson continually<br />
refers to the sons <strong>of</strong> Virginia; although this was common<br />
terminology it holds a particular meaning in respect to<br />
the heirless Jefferson.<br />
70 Thomas Jefferson Randolph to David Hosack,<br />
Monticello , August 13, 1826. Family Letters Project,<br />
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, 2006.<br />
71 Martha Jefferson Randolph to Ann Cary Morris,<br />
Monticello, August 8, 1825. Family Letters Project.<br />
72 Malone, 494.<br />
73 Rick Britton, “Unhappy Endings: Edgar Allan<br />
Poe’s Time at U.Va,” Albemarle, October-November<br />
(1999): 40.<br />
74 Edgar Allan Poe, Letter to John Allen 21 September<br />
1826. Transcription <strong>of</strong> a manuscript, Valentine<br />
Museum, Richmond, Virginia. E-text.<br />
75 Britton, 39.<br />
76 For example, Crawford’s Twilight at Monticello<br />
(2008) states that young Poe was at Jefferson’s graveside<br />
in 1826. This fact is unsupported by any direct writing <strong>of</strong><br />
Poe or the Jefferson family.<br />
77 Edgar Allan Poe, “The Fall <strong>of</strong> the House <strong>of</strong> Usher,”<br />
Charlottesville: Rector and Visitors <strong>of</strong> the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia, 1999. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ebooks/<br />
pdf/PoeFall.pdf<br />
78 A contemporary example would be the preservation<br />
<strong>of</strong> Sir John Soane’s Museum in London in 1836<br />
through an Act <strong>of</strong> Parliament initiated by Sir John Soane<br />
before his death. The architect wanted to preserve his<br />
unusual home and contained collections for posterity.<br />
Arguably, Monticello did not have a similar fact because<br />
there was no formal governmental service like the<br />
National Park Service or a national trust to entrust the<br />
home to nor did Jefferson have the financial ability to<br />
take on any measures <strong>of</strong> preservation.<br />
79 In addition to Pliny, Jefferson knew <strong>of</strong> ancient<br />
villa design from Adam Dickson’s two volume Husbandry<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Ancients and Robert Castell’s Villas <strong>of</strong> the Ancient<br />
Illustrated. Lucas, 8.<br />
80 See Robert F. Dalzell, Jr., “Constructing Independence:<br />
Monticello, Mount Vernon, and the Men Who<br />
Built Them,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 26, no. 4 (1993):<br />
559.<br />
81 Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, Paris, October<br />
12, 1786, E-text. See Malcolm Kelsall, Jefferson and<br />
the Iconography <strong>of</strong> Romanticism (New York: St. Martin’s<br />
Press, 1999), 112, for further discussion.<br />
82 The property on which the Lawn is situated was<br />
purchased in part from John M. Perry; part <strong>of</strong> the land<br />
contract stated that Perry would be commissioned for,<br />
“all the Carpenter’s and House joiner’s work <strong>of</strong> the said<br />
pavilion as shall be prescribed to him.” See Frank Edgar<br />
Gizzard Jr., “Documentary History <strong>of</strong> the Construction <strong>of</strong><br />
the Buildings at the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia, 1817-1828,”,<br />
ch. 1, E-text.<br />
83 Clifton Walker Barrett, The Struggle to Create<br />
University: University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Founder’s Day Address<br />
13 April 1973. Charlottesville, Thomas Jefferson Memorial<br />
Foundation, 1973, 8-9.<br />
84 Thomas Jefferson to Doctor Wistar, Washington,<br />
June 21, 1807, E-text.<br />
85 Margaret Bayard Smith to Anna Bayard Boyd<br />
and Jane Bayard Kirkpatrick, August 12, 1828 in Frank<br />
Edgar Gizzard Jr., “Three Grand & Interesting Objects: An<br />
1828 Visit to Monticello, the University and Montpelier,”<br />
E-text.<br />
86 See the Monticello: house (study plan), before<br />
1770, held by the Massachusetts Historical Society, N27.<br />
87 For Jefferson’s observation from his English<br />
garden tours transcribed in Thomas Whately’s 1770<br />
Observations on Modern Gardening April 1-April 26 1786<br />
see Edwin Morris Betts, ed, Thomas Jefferson’s Garden<br />
Book (Charlottesville: Thomas Jefferson Foundation,<br />
2008), 110-114.<br />
88 Betts, 196-197.<br />
89 Wilson, 72, discusses the current planting<br />
scheme on the Lawn<br />
90 Bell, 19.<br />
91 Dalzell discusses this air <strong>of</strong> ‘unreality’ at Monticello<br />
is his article.<br />
92 Charlottesville is on the western edge <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Piedmont Plateau and has deeply weathered bedrock<br />
due to the humid climate. This has produced the highly<br />
acidic loam soils know as the Davidson clay loam, and<br />
Congaree and Nason silt clay loams. See the Charlottesville<br />
Soil Survey for additional information. The brick<br />
kilns for Monticello were located at the base <strong>of</strong> the<br />
mountain and those <strong>of</strong> the University were on the steep<br />
east side <strong>of</strong> the site, not at present day ‘Mad Bowl’ as <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
stated. See the letter <strong>of</strong> John Hartwell Cocke, Jr to his<br />
father on August 27, 1819 in Frank Edgar Gizzard Jr., “A<br />
Young Scholar’s Glimpses <strong>of</strong> the Charlottesville Academy<br />
and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia in August 1819,” Magazine<br />
<strong>of</strong> Albemarle County History 54 (1996), E-Text.<br />
93 Thanks to Bill Beiswanger and his analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
archeological and geological reports conducted by the<br />
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation on the original<br />
height <strong>of</strong> Monticello.
94 William Alexander Lambeth and Warren H.<br />
Manning, Thomas Jefferson as an Architect and Designer<br />
<strong>of</strong> Landscapes. ed. Frank Edgar Gizzard, Jr. (Boston:<br />
Houghton Mifflin, 1913), E-text. Michele and Giacomo<br />
Raggi arrived in June <strong>of</strong> 1819 to carve marble capitols<br />
and bases. Gizzard, “A Young Scholar’s Glimpses <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Charlottesville Academy and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia in<br />
August 1819” E-text.<br />
95 Lambeth and Manning, E-text.<br />
96 The original tension rods were wrought iron.<br />
97 The structural failure <strong>of</strong> the balcony <strong>of</strong> Pavilion<br />
I on May 18, 1997, graduation day, cannot go unnoted.<br />
The nineteen tension rods <strong>of</strong> the pavilion balconies were<br />
annually inspected and during the major restoration <strong>of</strong><br />
1986-8, any with visible damage were replaced. However,<br />
under the extreme load imposed by observers to the<br />
graduation parade down the Lawn the northernmost rod<br />
broke and the wooden structure <strong>of</strong> the balcony could not<br />
support the weight. The collapse <strong>of</strong> one third <strong>of</strong> the balcony<br />
resulted in seventeen injuries and one fatality. Since<br />
the collapse, all <strong>of</strong> the tension rods have been inspected<br />
and replaced as necessary.<br />
98 The dome <strong>of</strong> the Church <strong>of</strong> Saint-Phillippe du<br />
Roule and Halle au Ble Paris grain market were both<br />
constructed in the Delorme manner. Jefferson’s use <strong>of</strong><br />
the Delorme manner had an impression on the young architect<br />
Robert Mills considering his Monumental Church<br />
in Richmond, VA, constructed in 1813, used the Delorme<br />
method.<br />
99 Douglas Harnsberger, “ ‘In Delorme’s Manner...’<br />
An X-Ray Probe <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s Dome at Monticello Reveals<br />
an Ingenious 16th-Century Timber Vault Construction<br />
Concealed within the Dome’s Sheathing,” Bulletin<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Association for Preservation Technology 13, no. 4<br />
(1981): 7. The nailery at Monticello initiated production<br />
sometime before May 1794; the dome was constructed<br />
in 1800.<br />
100 Robert Silman Associates. “ University <strong>of</strong> Virginia<br />
Rotunda Historic Structure Report.” Robert Silman<br />
Associates Structural Engineers. RSA project no. W1821<br />
submitted 13 August 2007, 18.<br />
101 The current dome <strong>of</strong> the Rotunda is a much<br />
more traditional construction: a <strong>single</strong> shell with thick<br />
tiles and large mortar joints. The current dome was<br />
designed by Raphael Guastavino <strong>of</strong> the Guastavino Firepro<strong>of</strong><br />
Construction Company. Robert Silman Associates,<br />
18.<br />
102 Outram, 37.<br />
103 Susan R. Stein and John B. Rudder, “Lighting<br />
Jefferson’s Monticello: Considering the Past, Present, and<br />
Future,“ APT Bulletin 31, no. 1 (2000): 21.<br />
104 Stein, 21.<br />
105 Malone, 394.<br />
106 Although Jefferson wrote “the octagonal dome<br />
has an ill effect, both within and without” in regards to<br />
Chiswick the similarities <strong>of</strong> the home to Monticello is<br />
inescapable. See Betts, 111.<br />
107 Octagonal forms became more prevalent in<br />
Early Christian architecture. Centralized spaces were<br />
common in ancient architecture, as advocated by Vitruvius,<br />
but they were typically pure round forms.<br />
108 Jefferson owned first and second editions <strong>of</strong><br />
the Leoni’s version <strong>of</strong> Palladio and probably a copy with<br />
Inigo Jones’ notations. See O’Neal for the full catalogue<br />
entries <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s architectural books.<br />
109 For further discussion on the design alterations<br />
see David Bell, “Knowledge and the Middle Landscape:<br />
Thomas Jefferson’s University <strong>of</strong> Virginia,” JAE 37, no.<br />
2(1983): 19-20.<br />
110 William L. Beiswanger, “Thomas Jefferson and<br />
the Art <strong>of</strong> Living Out <strong>of</strong> Doors,” Magazine Antiques 157,<br />
no. 4 (2000): 599.<br />
111 John Metz, “Archeological Investigation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Garden Terrace, Kitchen Dependency and Corner Terraces,”<br />
(Monticello Department <strong>of</strong> Archaeology Technical<br />
Report Series no. 1, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation,<br />
2000), 65.<br />
112 Metz, 5.<br />
113 Thomas Jefferson to William Thornton, Monticello,<br />
May 9, 1817, E-text.<br />
114 I thank the William R. Kenan, Jr. Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong><br />
Architecture, Peter Waldman, for this insight.
Bibliography<br />
Ackerman, James S. Palladio. London: Penguin Books,<br />
1966.<br />
Adams, William Howard. Jefferson’s Monticello. New<br />
York: Abbeville Press, 1983.<br />
Addis, Cameron. Jefferson’s Vision for Education 1760-<br />
1845. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.<br />
“The Architecture <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson.” Institute for<br />
Advanced Technology in the Humanities [IATH]. http://<br />
www3.iath.virginia.edu/wilson/home.html. (accessed<br />
August 2, 2008).<br />
Barker, David Michael. “Thomas Jefferson and the Founding<br />
<strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia: An American Age <strong>of</strong><br />
Reason, Religion and Republicanism. ” PhD diss., University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Illinois Urbana- Champaign, 2000.<br />
Barrett, Clifton Walker. The Struggle to Create University:<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Founder’s Day Address 13 April<br />
1973. Charlottesville, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation,<br />
1973.<br />
Beiswanger, William L. Interviewed by Danielle Willkens.<br />
Kenwood, VA., 5 November 2008.<br />
Beiswanger, William L. Monticello in Measured Drawings.<br />
Charlottesville, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation,<br />
1998.<br />
Beiswanger, William L. “Southwest Portico Steps: A<br />
Proposal for Investigation and Restoration.” Thomas Jefferson<br />
Memorial Foundation Internal Report, 1 May 1995<br />
with revisions.<br />
Beiswanger, William L. “Thomas Jefferson and the Art<br />
<strong>of</strong> Living Out <strong>of</strong> Doors.” Magazine Antiques 157, no. 4<br />
(2000): 594-605.<br />
Bell, David. “Knowledge and the Middle Landscape:<br />
Thomas Jefferson’s University <strong>of</strong> Virginia.” JAE 37, no.<br />
2(1983): 18-26.<br />
Betts, Edwin Morris, ed. Thomas Jefferson’s Garden<br />
Book. Charlottesville: Thomas Jefferson Foundation,<br />
2008.<br />
Bon-Harper, Sara. “Monticello’s West Portico Steps: New<br />
Archeological Evidence.” Monticello Department <strong>of</strong> Archaeology<br />
Technical Report Series no. 4, Thomas Jefferson<br />
Memorial Foundation, 2001. http://www.monticello.<br />
org/archaeology/publications/westporticosteps.html.<br />
Boorstin, Daniel. The Lost World <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson.<br />
Chicago: University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press, 1993.<br />
Boulton, Alexander Ormond. “The Architecture <strong>of</strong><br />
Slavery: Art, Language and Society in Early Virginia.” PhD<br />
diss., College <strong>of</strong> William & Mary, 1991.<br />
Brawne, Michael. University <strong>of</strong> Virginia: The Lawn. London:<br />
Phaidon, 1994.<br />
Brevan, Robert. The Destruction <strong>of</strong> Memory. Cromwell<br />
Press: Wiltshire, 2007.<br />
Britton, Rick. Jefferson, A Monticello Sampler. Buena<br />
Vista, VA: Mariner, 2008.<br />
Britton, Rick. “Unhappy Endings: Edgar Allan Poe’s Time<br />
at U.Va.” Albemarle, October-November (1999): 37-47.<br />
Burnstein, Andrew. Sentimental Democracy: the Evolution<br />
<strong>of</strong> America’s Romantic Self-image. New York: Hill &<br />
Wang, 1999.<br />
Chastellux, Marquis. Travels in North America in the<br />
Years 1780, 1781, 1782. trans. H.C. Rich, Jr. Chapel Hill<br />
Press: Chapel Hill, 1963.<br />
Commager, Henry Steele. Jefferson, Nationalism and the<br />
Enlightenment. New York: George Braziller, 1975.<br />
Cote, Richard Charles. “The Architectural Workmen <strong>of</strong><br />
Thomas Jefferson in Virginia.” PhD diss., Boston University,<br />
1986.
Dalzell, Robert F. Jr. “Constructing Independence: Monticello,<br />
Mount Vernon, and the Men Who Built Them”<br />
Eighteenth-Century Studies 26, no. 4, (1993): 543-580.<br />
Fleming, John, Hugh Honour, and Nikolaus Pevsner. Penguin<br />
Dictionary <strong>of</strong> Architecture and Landscape Architecture.<br />
5 th ed. London: Penguin Books, 1999.<br />
Foley, John P, ed. A Comprehensive Collection <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Views <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson. New York: Funk & Wagnells,<br />
1900. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/<br />
foley/.<br />
Gizzard, Frank Edgar Jr. “Documentary History <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Construction <strong>of</strong> the Buildings at the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia,<br />
1817-1828.” PhD diss., University <strong>of</strong> Virginia, 1996.<br />
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/grizzard/.<br />
Gizzard, Frank Edgar Jr.,ed. “Three Grand & Interesting<br />
Objects: An 1828 Visit to Monticello, the University and<br />
Montpelier.” Magazine <strong>of</strong> Albemarle County History<br />
51 (1993), http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/grizzard/<br />
smith.html.<br />
Gizzard, Frank Edgar Jr.”To Exercise a Sound Discretion:<br />
the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia and its First Lawsuit.”University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia E-text. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/grizzard/lawsuit.html.<br />
(accessed September 2, 2008).<br />
Gizzard, Frank Edgar Jr., ed. “A Young Scholar’s Glimpses<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Charlottesville Academy and the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Virginia in August 1819.” Magazine <strong>of</strong> Albemarle County<br />
History 54 (1996), http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/<br />
grizzard/jcockejr.html.<br />
Haferteoe, Kenneth. “An Inquiry into Thomas Jefferson’s<br />
Ideas <strong>of</strong> Beauty.” Journal <strong>of</strong> the Society <strong>of</strong> Architectural<br />
Historians 59, no. 2 (2000): 216-231.<br />
Harnsberger, Douglas. “ ‘In Delorme’s Manner...’ An X-Ray<br />
Probe <strong>of</strong> Jefferson’s Dome at Monticello Reveals an Ingenious<br />
16th-Century Timber Vault Construction Concealed<br />
within the Dome’s Sheathing” Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the Association<br />
for Preservation Technology 13, no. 4 (1981): 2-8.<br />
Heath, James A. “Thomas Jefferson: Architect <strong>of</strong> American<br />
Public Education.” EdD diss., Pepperdine University,<br />
1998.<br />
Hitchcock, Susan Tyler. The University <strong>of</strong> Virginia: A Pictorial<br />
History. Charlottesville: University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Press,<br />
1999.<br />
Howard, Hugh. Houses <strong>of</strong> the Founding Fathers. New<br />
York: Artisan, 2007.<br />
Howard, Hugh. Thomas Jefferson Architect: The Built<br />
Legacy <strong>of</strong> Our Third President. New York: Rizzoli, 2003.<br />
Howard, Seymour. “Thomas Jefferson’s Art Gallery for<br />
Monticello.” The Art Bulletin 59, no. 4 (1977): 583-600.<br />
International Council on Monuments and Sites. “Advisory<br />
Body Evaluation” United National Educational, Scientific<br />
and Cultural Organization. http://whc.unesco.org/<br />
archive/advisory_body_evaluation/442.pdf (accessed<br />
September 27, 2008).<br />
Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State <strong>of</strong> Virginia; Written<br />
in the Year 1781, Somewhat Corrected and Enlarged<br />
in the Winter <strong>of</strong> 1782, for the Use <strong>of</strong> the Foreigner <strong>of</strong><br />
Distinction, in Answer to Certain Queries Proposed by<br />
Him. Paris: privately printed, 1782 [i.e. 1784] reprinted in<br />
Adrienne Koch and William Peden, The Life and Selected<br />
Writings <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson (New York, Modern Library,<br />
1998), 173-267.<br />
Kelsall, Malcolm. Jefferson and the Iconography <strong>of</strong> Romanticism.<br />
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.<br />
Koch, Adrieene and William Peden, eds. The Life and Selected<br />
Writings <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson. New York: Modern<br />
Library, 1998.<br />
Koester, Anna G. “The South Pavilion: Design, Construction,<br />
Use, Restoration, and Furnishing.” Research report,<br />
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1996.
Lambeth, William Alexander and Warren H. Manning.<br />
Thomas Jefferson as an Architect and Designer <strong>of</strong> Landscapes.<br />
Edited by Frank Edgar Gizzard, Jr. Boston: Houghton<br />
Mifflin, 1913. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/<br />
grizzard/landscape/.<br />
Lay, Edward K. The Architecture <strong>of</strong> Jefferson Country:<br />
Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia. Charlottesville:<br />
University Press <strong>of</strong> Virginia, 2000.<br />
Lucas, Anne M. “Ordering His Environment: Thomas Jefferson’s<br />
Architecture from Monticello to the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Virginia.” M.A. thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Virginia, 1989.<br />
MacGregor, Arthur. Curiosity and Enlightenment: Collectors<br />
and Collections from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth<br />
Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.<br />
Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time: The Sage <strong>of</strong><br />
Monticello. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1981.<br />
May, Henry F. The Enlightenment in America. New York:<br />
Oxford University Press, 1976.<br />
McLaughlin, Jack. Jefferson and Monticello: The Biography<br />
<strong>of</strong> a Builder. New York: Henry Holt and Company,<br />
1988.<br />
Metz, John. “Archeological Investigation <strong>of</strong> the Garden<br />
Terrace, Kitchen Dependency and Corner Terraces.”<br />
Monticello Department <strong>of</strong> Archaeology Technical Report<br />
Series no. 1, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation,<br />
2000. http://www.monticello.org/archaeology/publications/cornerterrace.html.<br />
Nichols, Frederick Doveton. Thomas Jefferson’s Architectural<br />
Drawings. Charlottesville: Thomas Jefferson Memorial<br />
Foundation, Inc., 2001<br />
O’Neal, William Bainter. Jefferson’s Fine Arts Library: His<br />
Selections for the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Together with His<br />
Own Architectural Books. Charlottesville: University <strong>of</strong><br />
Virginia Press, 1976.<br />
Onuf, Peter S., ed. Jeffersonian Legacies. Charlottesville:<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Pres, 1993.<br />
Outram, Dorinda. Panorama <strong>of</strong> the Enlightenment. London:<br />
Thames & Hudson, 2006.<br />
Palladio, Andrea. I quattro libri dell’ architettura. trans.<br />
Robert Tavernor and Richard Sch<strong>of</strong>ield.Cambridge, MA:<br />
MIT Press, 2002.<br />
Peterson, Merrill D. Visitors to Monticello. Charlottesville:<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Press, 1989.<br />
Peterson, Merrill D, ed. Thomas Jefferson Writings. New<br />
York, Literary Classics, 1984.<br />
Pickens, Buford. “Mr. Jefferson as Revolutionary Architect.”<br />
The Journal <strong>of</strong> the Society <strong>of</strong> Architectural Historians<br />
34, no. 4 (1975): 257-279.<br />
Pierson, William H. Jr. American Buildings and Their Architects:<br />
The Colonial and Neoclassical Styles. vol.1. New<br />
York: Doubleday, 1970.<br />
“Plan Diagrams: Spatial Designations & Plan Diagram Revisions.”<br />
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Internal<br />
Report, 2003.<br />
Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Fall <strong>of</strong> the House <strong>of</strong> Usher.”<br />
Charlottesville: Rector and Visitors <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Virginia, 1999. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ebooks/pdf/<br />
PoeFall.pdf<br />
Robert Silman Associates. “ University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Rotunda<br />
Historic Structure Report.” Robert Silman Associates<br />
Structural Engineers. RSA project no. W1821 submitted<br />
13 August 2007.<br />
Stein, Susan R. and John B. Rudder. “Lighting Jefferson’s<br />
Monticello: Considering the Past, Present, and Future.“<br />
APT Bulletin 31, no. 1 (2000): 21-26.<br />
Thomas, D.A. Lloyd. Locke on Government. London: Routledge,<br />
1995.<br />
Thomas Jefferson Thematic Nomination. “World Heritage<br />
List Nomination: Monticello and the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia<br />
in Charlottesville No. 442.”Submitted by Assistant<br />
Secretary <strong>of</strong> the Interior 11 December 1986.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “World Heritage Sites.”<br />
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural<br />
Organization. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list (accessed<br />
September 2, 2008).<br />
Vidler, Anthony. “The Architecture <strong>of</strong> the Uncanny: the<br />
Unhomely Houses <strong>of</strong> the Romantic Sublime.” Assemblage<br />
3 (1987): 6-29.<br />
Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. trans. Ingrid Rowland<br />
and Thomas Noble Howe. Cambridge: Cambridge<br />
University Press, 1999.<br />
Wagoner, Jennings L., Jr. Jefferson and Education. Chapel<br />
Hill: University <strong>of</strong> North Carolina Press, 2004.<br />
Wall, Charles Coleman Jr. “Students and Student Life at<br />
the University <strong>of</strong> Virginia 1825-1861.” PhD diss., University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Virginia, 1978.<br />
Wilson, Richard Guy, ed. Thomas Jefferson’s Academical<br />
Village: The Creation <strong>of</strong> an Architectural Masterpiece.<br />
Charlottesville: University <strong>of</strong> Virginia Press, 1995.<br />
World Heritage Committee. ”Report <strong>of</strong> the World Heritage<br />
Committee Eleventh Session: UNESCO Headquarters,<br />
7-11 December 1987.” United National Educational,<br />
Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://whc.unesco.<br />
org/archive/repcom87.htm (accessed September 27,<br />
2008).