著：（加）菲昂·伯恩 譯：羅融融

0 引言

健康是一種積極而非中立的狀態(tài)。世界衛(wèi)生組織（The World Health Organization, WHO）將健康定義為“一種在身體、心理和社會交往等各方面都表現(xiàn)良好的狀態(tài)，而不僅僅是沒有疾病或身體強壯”[1]。WHO認為環(huán)境因素和個體因素通過相互作用而決定健康狀態(tài)，并且逐漸認識到接觸大自然可以顯著地促進整體健康。從WHO的定義來看，促進健康所涉及的途徑包括“生理過程（清潔的空氣等）、物理過程（體力活動）、社會過程（增加社交接觸的可能性）和心理過程（如放松和恢復(fù)）”[2]。在這個框架內(nèi)，解釋自然環(huán)境促進人類健康的兩個最有影響力的理論是“注意力恢復(fù)理論”和“瞭望－庇護理論”。歸根結(jié)底，自由呼吸這一基本和普遍的權(quán)利對于任何健康衡量標準都是必要的，因為如果沒有清潔的空氣和暢通的呼吸，健康生活就無從談起[3]。

多年來，建筑師和風景園林師一直在尋求通過環(huán)境設(shè)計以促進健康，并取得了不同程度的成功。其中最著名且最常被模仿的便是16世紀威尼斯貴族和設(shè)計師的作品，他們通過修建鄉(xiāng)村別墅來改造內(nèi)陸地區(qū)，并將自身置于同自然的和諧關(guān)系之中[4]。在被改造之前，低洼的威尼斯內(nèi)陸地區(qū)是蚊子的重要棲息地。盡管不像羅馬平原那樣糟糕，但仍被認為是不健康的場地（圖1）。直到19世紀，人們才知道瘧疾是通過蚊子傳播的。但在16世紀，瘧疾（意大利語：mal’ aria）被認為是由惡劣的空氣條件所導致的。人們普遍認為，沼澤和潮濕土地中腐爛的有機物會產(chǎn)生通過空氣傳播的毒物[5]。在一座別墅莊園的設(shè)計中，通過風景、花園和建筑的布局來重新分配空氣、水和土地的使用權(quán)限，并由此影響相關(guān)的人類活動和動植物生存，所有的一切都是為了使少數(shù)擁有特權(quán)的莊園主享有潔凈的空氣和健康。這種烏托邦式的建設(shè)行為通過改變物理環(huán)境來調(diào)節(jié)空氣狀況，并最終影響所有生物的健康。

1 威尼斯內(nèi)陸地區(qū)地圖，顯示了埃莫別墅和圓廳別墅與歷史上已知瘧疾感染范圍的位置關(guān)系A(chǔ) map of the terraferma showing the location of the Villa Emo and Villa Almerico in relation to known historic extents of Malaria

筆者以安德烈亞·帕拉第奧于16世紀在威尼斯郊外的內(nèi)陸上所建造的兩座著名別墅為研究案例，以此揭示一種持續(xù)的壓迫制度和場地使用的不平等性是如何影響環(huán)境與個人健康的。在這兩個案例中，促進健康的設(shè)計都會與相應(yīng)的、故意營造的壓抑環(huán)境形成對比。筆者將這項研究的重點集中在呼吸不平等上，即在空氣良好的環(huán)境中自由呼吸的機會分配不公。此外，筆者表明在16世紀的威尼斯，少數(shù)擁有土地的特權(quán)階層的健康是建立在剝奪許多普通民眾和弱勢群體健康權(quán)利的基礎(chǔ)上的。威尼斯精英們要想保持健康并生活在健康的環(huán)境中，就必須剝奪其他人同樣的權(quán)利。在這個前提下，通過限制其他人的呼吸使自己的自由呼吸成為可能，而為確保自己獲得新鮮空氣而采取的措施會使其他環(huán)境變得糟糕。

為健康而設(shè)計無疑是當前人類所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)，尤其是在試圖結(jié)束一場導致全球范圍內(nèi)數(shù)百萬人因呼吸終止而過早喪生的新型冠狀病毒肺炎（COVID-19）疫情時。本研究將揭露過去的不公正問題，以幫助減輕和避免結(jié)構(gòu)性不平等的進一步擴張。人們必須意識到，在這個時代，以犧牲大多數(shù)人的健康為代價來換取少數(shù)人的健康是不可取的。

1 內(nèi)陸地區(qū)的開發(fā)

現(xiàn)代資本主義誕生于15—16世紀的城邦中。例如，中世紀威尼斯共和國建立了強大且利潤豐厚的重商主義制度，貴族們因此獲得了可觀的個人財富。隨著熱那亞共和國擴大跨大西洋航運的范圍，貿(mào)易路線開始多樣化，被稱為貴族的威尼斯精英們開始將利潤投資于城市防御工事以外的領(lǐng)域。隨著威尼斯在大陸上取得領(lǐng)土并將之稱為“terraferma”（內(nèi)陸，以示這片堅實的土地與威尼斯島嶼區(qū)的區(qū)分），共和國開始在此發(fā)展農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟。這一變化使得威尼斯統(tǒng)治者吉羅拉莫·普里利（Girolamo Priuli）對這些放棄海上活動轉(zhuǎn)而投身鄉(xiāng)村生活的貴族表示失望。而事實證明，土地投資比航運更加有利可圖[6]，尤其是將沼澤地邊緣開墾后用于農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)。

盡管在此前沼澤地是歸個人所有，但協(xié)調(diào)、資助和實施水利計劃的工作已成為公眾關(guān)注的話題，1501年威尼斯成立水利部就證明了這一點。在該部門的建議下，測量工程師作為一種新興的職業(yè)出現(xiàn)，職責是通過調(diào)控廣闊低洼地區(qū)的水力狀況來提高土地生產(chǎn)力。大量的、人為控制的排水行為徹底改變了環(huán)境[4]。排水和灌溉改變了水與土地之間的相互關(guān)系，將沼澤變成田地，從而減少了瘧疾的發(fā)生。如今我們認識到實施排水行為可以消除蚊子的滋生地。然而，對于16世紀的威尼斯人來說，為了凈化有害空氣并使土地健康，就要讓水循環(huán)起來，并清除土地上的腐爛物質(zhì)。經(jīng)常被引用的希波克拉底的著作《空氣、水與場所》（Airs,Waters,Places）中將這一觀點建立在一個經(jīng)典理論之上，即“空氣是水和植物傳播疾病的載體”[7]。因此，要達到環(huán)境健康的狀態(tài)，必須避免出現(xiàn)死水、被污染的空氣和腐爛的植被。在內(nèi)陸地區(qū)的土地上進行建造時，建筑師應(yīng)試圖避免將住宅選址在不健康的場地上，并通過場地改造去克服現(xiàn)有的不利自然條件。在這種情況下，出于對健康設(shè)計的考慮，建筑和自然應(yīng)相互聯(lián)結(jié)，不再是分離的領(lǐng)域，這種相互聯(lián)結(jié)的作用在別墅建造過程中表現(xiàn)得最為明顯。

“別墅”是指從事農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)的建筑物和土地的結(jié)合體。當在內(nèi)陸上建造時，我們可以專門將別墅稱為鄉(xiāng)村別墅（villa rustica或country villa）。然而，“Rustica”只是后來用于將大陸地區(qū)與沿海區(qū)域相區(qū)分的一個術(shù)語，在沿海區(qū)域建造的住宅被稱為海上別墅（villa maritima），并不在本文的研究范圍之內(nèi)[8]。作為農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)的重要場所，別墅莊園包括合理組織的耕作農(nóng)田，用作打谷的庭院、谷倉或農(nóng)房，以及業(yè)主或“主人”的臨時住所。莊園主的住宅通過在生活區(qū)的上部或下部空間中儲存多余物資以發(fā)揮農(nóng)業(yè)功能，例如將收獲的農(nóng)作物存放到閣樓上，將葡萄酒儲存在地下。這樣一來，住宅建筑空間的層次劃分就成了別墅所具備的生產(chǎn)、儲存和安全等功能的象征[9]。

16世紀最著名的別墅建筑師是安德烈亞·帕拉第奧。他的作品對歐洲和北美的建筑及園林發(fā)展產(chǎn)生了深遠影響，許多歷史學家都對他留存下來的作品進行了深入研究[4]。本研究聚焦其建筑、景觀、花園和健康之間的關(guān)系，由此可證實：創(chuàng)造良好的健康狀況是帕拉第奧設(shè)計時的重要驅(qū)動力。然而，帕拉第奧式的別墅設(shè)計在實現(xiàn)健康生活環(huán)境的同時也產(chǎn)生了結(jié)構(gòu)性不平等。筆者將以水和農(nóng)業(yè)勞動為背景探究埃莫別墅，基于空氣和視覺控制的角度剖析圓廳別墅，以此證明在設(shè)計中健康的決定性要素并非與政治無關(guān)。相反，在不斷嘗試去構(gòu)建一個健康世界的過程中，要能意識到不平等現(xiàn)象的出現(xiàn)。

丹尼斯·科斯格羅夫（Denis Cosgrove）在《帕拉第奧式風景》（The Palladian Landscape）一書中寫道：“與人世間通常的情況一樣，最弱勢的、在社會中占有資源最少的群體往往負擔最重，而富裕和有權(quán)勢的貴族莊園主——包括威尼斯首府和地方上的莊園主，以犧牲弱勢群體的利益為代價來積累土地和財富?！盵4]就如同對待土地和財富一樣，也許只有剝奪他人享有健康的權(quán)利，才能保全自身的健康。然而，如果事實并非如此，那么當今設(shè)計師所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)就是必須解決和抵制科斯格羅夫口中的這種“通?！?。我們應(yīng)認識到過去的建筑師和風景園林師致力于建造的環(huán)境一定程度上有違健康公平性，要關(guān)注和思考如何消除這些結(jié)構(gòu)性不平等所帶來的遺留問題，并避免在未來繼續(xù)對社會中最弱勢群體的健康權(quán)益造成影響。

2 范佐洛地區(qū)埃莫別墅的水體、灌溉和勞作

埃莫家族是從公共資助的非耕地改造中獲利的威尼斯貴族家庭之一。早在水利部成立的半個世紀之前，特雷維索平原上就已經(jīng)修建起了一條灌溉渠，使得該地區(qū)處于水力控制之下。在范佐洛地區(qū)，喬治·埃莫（Giorgio Emo）是最早的土地所有者之一。他的兒子萊昂納多·迪·喬瓦尼·埃莫（Leonardo di Giovanni Emo）繼承了田產(chǎn)，并于1509年獲得了更多土地，進而通過不斷投資莊園農(nóng)業(yè)來獲得盈利。萊昂納多的努力取得了成效，兩代人之后，他的孫子萊昂納多·迪·阿爾維斯·埃莫（Leonardo di Alvise Emo）委托安德烈亞·帕拉第奧在他繼承的莊園中心建造一座新別墅。這座帕拉第奧式別墅的建造始于1555年前后，標志著對該處家產(chǎn)的再次投資[10]。意料之中的是，帕拉第奧在設(shè)計中將別墅建筑作為家族持續(xù)繁榮的顯性象征來打造。雖然建筑的外立面處理和涼廊的柱式排列都較為簡樸，并未直接體現(xiàn)家族財力，但建筑物的形制還是體現(xiàn)出得當?shù)耐恋毓芾砗洼^高的農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)力水平[10]。在帕拉第奧的設(shè)計中可以看到“地窖、糧倉、馬廄和其他從屬于別墅的空間，都分布在住宅兩側(cè)”，兩個翼從住宅中心對稱地向外延伸（圖2）。雖然以兩翼作為農(nóng)房是典型的別墅建筑布局，但埃莫別墅的兩翼顯得尤其長[10]。這不同尋常的長度意味著有大量盈余的收成，需要占用額外的儲存空間。換言之，兩翼農(nóng)房的長度代表了積累的財富。

2 埃莫別墅軸測圖，展示了真實存在的和想象中的風景The Villa Emo, showing the real and imaginary landscape

此外，埃莫家族對繁榮的重視從別墅建筑延伸到對周圍的田地和作物的選擇上。利用附近的運河，埃莫家族將水引到莊園里灌溉田地，這種做法符合別墅選址的一貫原則。例如，帕拉第奧談到選址時曾說過：“如果沒有可通航的河流，就必須想辦法在其他流動水體附近建造別墅；最重要的是遠離死水，因為它們會產(chǎn)生非常糟糕的空氣。”[11]通常，將流水引到別墅場地有助于種植小麥，以此滿足公眾的日常生活所需。居民對小麥的高需求一開始的確推動了配水渠的建設(shè)。然而，在埃莫別墅，灌溉農(nóng)作物并不是為了滿足威尼斯人的飲食需求，而是利用密集的灌溉來培育水稻，而這種奢侈的農(nóng)作物能迅速銷往國際市場且利潤極高[4]。通過利用公共基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施來積累個人和代際財富在精英階層中變得如此普遍，以至于威尼斯共和國近半數(shù)的水稻種植在16世紀末被宣告終止[4]。

種植奢侈的農(nóng)作物并非用于滿足當?shù)鼐用竦娘嬍承枨?，這本身就是一種不公平，然而水稻種植還存在其他負面影響。一方面，無論從所需工人的數(shù)量還是耕作的體力需求來看，水稻種植都屬于勞動密集型農(nóng)業(yè)。此外，住在埃莫別墅主干道對面的工人處于非常糟糕的境地，因為他們沒有自己的土地，而且在新開發(fā)耕地的雇傭勞動制度下，雇主通常用現(xiàn)金來支付工資[12]。如果因小麥短缺造成食品價格上漲，那么他們所獲得的現(xiàn)金工資甚至難以支付一頓能果腹的餐食。另一方面，水稻的種植除灌溉外還需要積水形成水田，正如帕拉第奧所警告的那樣，這會增加感染瘧疾的風險。更糟糕的情況是，積水的存在使工人無法在排水良好的麥田中通過套種橄欖樹或葡萄藤而獲得遮陰。結(jié)果就是工人缺乏食物、住房和土地的保障，這迫使他們在不健康的環(huán)境中勞動的同時損害了個人健康。羅伯特·薩拉雷斯（Robert Sallares）描述了在羅馬以南平原農(nóng)田中類似的情況，并重申了雷納托·曼穆卡里（Renato Mammucari）的嚴肅論斷，“在饑餓直接造成的死亡和瘧蚊可能導致的死亡之間，后者幾乎總是首選……男人們?yōu)榱酥\生可以不畏死亡”[13]。埃莫家族用暴利為自己的快樂和健康買單，卻最終葬送了許多人的生命。

壁畫是莊園住宅中的一項重要開支，通過一系列壁畫對墻后存在的外部景觀進行想象與描摹，貴族既能觀賞美景又遠離任何帶有威脅的瘧疾區(qū)域。而這與現(xiàn)實情況存在著巨大差異，這些畫作不僅描繪了在絕對富足的情況下極度理想化的健康生活，還將田間勞作的情景從畫面中完全抹除。如果正如討論的那樣，園林繪畫是對世界的理想化表達，那么16世紀威尼斯貴族在烏托邦式的幻想中徹底否認了使他們的生活方式成為可能的勞動階級的存在[14]。這種抹除畫面的行為延續(xù)了多年前羅馬學者馬庫斯·特倫蒂烏斯·瓦羅（Marcus Terentius Varro）所描述的趨勢，他提道：“別墅莊園越是被界定為以市場為導向、以利潤為驅(qū)動的企業(yè)，就越應(yīng)該將農(nóng)業(yè)從家族獲利手段中拆分出來并加以掩蓋?！盵8]事實上，瓦羅對別墅莊園的描述已經(jīng)被當代學者所推廣，他們普遍質(zhì)疑景觀和園林設(shè)計，認為“‘景觀’一詞總是掩蓋了存在農(nóng)村勞動力和社會不平等的事實，將鄉(xiāng)村變成逃避現(xiàn)實的風景，而非一個工作的場所（或者一個真正意義上的‘工人’被隱藏的地方）”[15]。在別墅內(nèi)部通過圖像抹除以展現(xiàn)理想化景觀的邏輯實際上也體現(xiàn)在了別墅建筑外部的世界中，尤其是在周圍的花園里。

雖然帕拉第奧對埃莫別墅原始花園的描述很少，但他確實提出了幾點意見：“在建筑結(jié)構(gòu)”或建筑平面圖的后面，“有一個占地約80個特雷維索廣場（意大利語：campi trevigiani）大小的方形花園”，大約100英畝（約40.47 hm2），“中間有一條小河，這使場地變得美麗且令人愉悅”[11]。這一“美麗”的水景提醒我們，室外花園與在室內(nèi)想象的景色一樣，都是我們對周邊景觀的理想化縮影[16]?；▓@的重建保障了周圍廣闊農(nóng)田的灌溉和耕作。但花園與周邊景觀（例如田地、果園或廚房花園）的不同之處在于，從最初的構(gòu)思開始，它就被設(shè)定為一個休閑和勞動的場所。14世紀佛羅倫薩作家喬萬尼·薄伽丘（Giovanni Boccaccio）率先將花園描述為一種特定的類型，他曾表示“在花園中不應(yīng)考慮勞作”[17]。然而我們知道，如果缺乏管護，景觀將不會維持“令人愉悅”的狀態(tài)，尤其是一個規(guī)模如此之大的花園。因此，將花園與周邊景觀區(qū)分開來的根本問題不是勞作與否，而是因勞作產(chǎn)生的想象會使花園與眾不同?；▓@是介于豪華住宅和耕種田地之間的過渡空間，精英們在這里參與了勞作，盡管他們的勞動并沒有形成實質(zhì)上的生產(chǎn)力[6]。畢竟，生產(chǎn)力能將鍛煉與田間勞作區(qū)分開來，而對精英階層來說勞作是非必需的。因此，花園不再用作生產(chǎn)用途，轉(zhuǎn)而用作進行散步、游泳、吃飯、交談和睡覺等療愈活動[14]。這種觀點也得到了羅馬詩人昆圖斯·賀拉提烏斯·弗拉庫斯（Quintus Horatius Flaccus）的認同，對賀拉提烏斯而言，“花園的價值不在于生產(chǎn)力，而是能夠從城市生活的煩躁和憂慮中得到喘息，享受勝人一籌的花園生活樂趣”[14]?，F(xiàn)在就很容易理解花園是如何體現(xiàn)社會地位的了：解除部分土地的生產(chǎn)用途是財富過剩的明顯表現(xiàn)，尤其是在勞動者無法擁有任何屬于自己的土地的情況下。當然，花園對城市壓力的緩解機制仍待進一步研究。

重新關(guān)注到自然環(huán)境作用于健康的各種機制，包括生理、物理、社會和心理過程，花園無疑是一個促進整體健康的空間，前文已經(jīng)涉及花園在生理（水系的組織）、物理（運動）和社會（權(quán)力和財富的展現(xiàn)）等方面的作用，此外還必須考慮勞作中的心理過程。雷切爾·卡普蘭（Rachel Kaplan）和史蒂芬·卡普蘭（Stephen Kaplan）的“注意力恢復(fù)理論”是解釋綠色空間促進健康的最受歡迎的理論之一。雖然卡普蘭夫婦直到1989年才發(fā)表他們的基礎(chǔ)著作《自然的體驗：基于心理學視角》（The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective），但有人認為，健康的心理決定因素在漫長進化過程中變化不大。如果這一說法成立，那么應(yīng)該可以認為如今環(huán)境對健康的作用路徑與16世紀無異。

“注意力恢復(fù)理論”認為，人類有直接和間接兩種不同的注意力模式。當一個人在精神上專注于手頭的任務(wù)時，直接注意力是活躍的；而當大腦處于休息狀態(tài)時，間接注意力是活躍的。該理論基于以下論斷：當一種注意力模式活躍時，另一種可以得到恢復(fù)。因此，對于日常工作中需要直接注意力的城市居民來說，當身處自然之中時，可為其提供一個調(diào)動間接注意力并恢復(fù)直接注意力儲備的機會。正如前文所述，賀拉提烏斯闡明了同樣的觀點，他認為花園的最大價值是“從城市生活的煩躁和憂慮中得到喘息”。因此很容易得出以下結(jié)論：對于威尼斯貴族來說，花園是一個有助于整體健康的空間。然而，當談及16世紀在別墅莊園田間勞作的工人時，“注意力恢復(fù)理論”需要被重新論證。因為根據(jù)這一理論，可以合乎邏輯地進行推論：勞工通過不斷重復(fù)的近乎機械化的農(nóng)耕活動，在自然中度過了更長的時間，因此將成為社會上最健康的階層；他們只需要每隔一段時間進行一次劇烈的直接腦力活動，就可以恢復(fù)耗盡的間接注意力。顯而易見，這種情況與事實相去甚遠——雖然那些田間勞作的人完全沉浸在大自然中，但只有精英才能享受自然的療愈作用。正如詹姆斯·阿克曼（James Ackerman）所述：“歷史上幾乎沒有證據(jù)表明那些別無選擇，只能留在當?shù)氐霓r(nóng)民或奴隸體驗到了別墅文學中描繪的鄉(xiāng)村生活的魅力。事實上，正是勞動者額頭上的汗水使莊園主們享受到了田園生活的樂趣?！盵6]

埃莫別墅通過調(diào)控水來灌溉高產(chǎn)的稻田，出口大米所產(chǎn)生的利潤又用來投資建筑和花園的物理空間與象征意義，從而改善了家族的健康。然而，相應(yīng)的設(shè)計決策會直接影響更多個體的健康。灌溉田地的積水增加了因感染瘧疾而死亡的可能性，而勞動者在不斷努力爭取食物和住所的過程中犧牲了他們的身體健康。這個例子表明，拋開個體所處的社會和政治環(huán)境來討論自然的健康供給是毫無意義的。當然，有感染瘧疾風險的不僅是勞動者。雖然富有的威尼斯人通?？梢酝ㄟ^在城郊別墅避暑以減少感染風險，但瘧蚊的傳播方式仍然與威尼斯人的觀念一致，即瘧疾是由危險的死水散發(fā)出的水汽擴散所致。正如即將看到的那樣，為了應(yīng)對糟糕的空氣質(zhì)量，帕拉第奧在圓廳別墅中延續(xù)壓迫和呼吸不平等的空間模式以維持莊園主健康。

3 維琴察圓廳別墅的空氣、地坪高度和監(jiān)視

1565年，神父保羅·阿爾梅里科（Paolo Almerico）從梵蒂岡的宗教事務(wù)中退休后回到威尼斯內(nèi)陸家中，委托帕拉第奧在維琴察市郊1/4英里（約0.4 km）處設(shè)計他的新居——著名的圓廳別墅（Villa Rotonda）。該建筑成為帕拉第奧最負盛名的作品，甚至被稱為文藝復(fù)興時期建筑中最有影響力的典范[18]。該設(shè)計體現(xiàn)出與埃莫別墅的幾個顯著差異，正如帕拉第奧所描述的那樣，圓廳別墅甚至不符合對別墅的傳統(tǒng)定義。它既沒有用于打谷的庭院，也沒有與之相對應(yīng)的向兩翼延伸的農(nóng)房，取而代之的是一個坐落在花園和農(nóng)田之間的避暑別墅。因為沒有相鄰的服務(wù)建筑，主體住宅可以圍繞中央圓廳形成雙邊對稱的4個入口（圖3）。這種新穎的鄉(xiāng)村住宅設(shè)計手法使得帕拉第奧在1570年出版的《建筑四書》中將圓廳別墅歸類為其他聯(lián)排別墅，而不是埃莫別墅這樣的內(nèi)陸別墅。盡管如此，圓廳別墅確實坐落在一個寬敞的有圍墻限定的花園中心，四周被農(nóng)田包圍。在保羅·阿爾梅里科之后，第二任莊園主決定增設(shè)一座農(nóng)業(yè)服務(wù)用房，這進一步證實了這些土地的重要性。另一位著名的威尼斯建筑師文森佐·斯卡莫齊（Vincenzo Scamozzi）設(shè)計了這座新的附屬建筑，它位于通往圓廳的西北通道一側(cè)。

3 圓廳別墅軸測圖，強調(diào)從地坪高度以上進行視線控制The Villa Rotonda, emphasizing visual control from elevation

除了建筑上的區(qū)別以外，埃莫別墅和圓廳別墅之間最顯著的差別在于相對高程。埃莫別墅的場地相對平坦，而圓廳別墅則處于平緩上升的山坡頂部。用帕拉第奧的話來說：“這個場地是所能找到的最宜人和最令人愉悅的地方；因為它位于一座小山丘上，可達性高，旁邊就是一條可通航的河流——巴齊里奧內(nèi)河?！盵11]在埃莫別墅案例中已經(jīng)論述過：水資源管理是環(huán)境健康的決定要素之一。在圓廳別墅中，筆者將論證通過地坪高度和空間組織實現(xiàn)對空氣的調(diào)節(jié)，從而改善環(huán)境和莊園主的健康。與此同時，由于對空氣的管理并不公平，導致更嚴重的健康風險、持續(xù)的監(jiān)視和對農(nóng)業(yè)勞動者以及別墅仆人的進一步壓迫。

帕拉第奧在一份選址說明書中詳細闡述了圓廳別墅建造在小山坡頂部的優(yōu)勢。正如前文所述，帕拉第奧建議“首先要遠離死水，因為它們會產(chǎn)生非常糟糕的空氣”，他補充道：“如果建在高處和令人愉悅的地方，我們可以輕易地避免糟糕的空氣?？諝鈺蝻L的不斷吹動而移動；而地表由于坡度的傾斜，可以清除所有有害的水汽和濕氣。”[11]對于威尼斯人來說，涼爽干燥又循環(huán)流通的空氣，如同流動的水體一樣，被認為是最健康的環(huán)境條件，而通過地坪高度的提升就能很好地將之實現(xiàn)。帕拉第奧進一步敏銳地指出，在高地上，“居民們健康快樂，保持著良好的膚色，不受蚊蟲和其他因沼澤靜水腐爛所衍生的小動物侵擾”[11]。雖然當時的人們并不知道蚊子會傳播瘧疾，但帕拉第奧的觀察闡明了蚊子與引發(fā)瘧疾的環(huán)境狀況或不健康的空氣狀態(tài)有著較大聯(lián)系。正是由于這種正確的關(guān)聯(lián)，在高地尋求循環(huán)流通的空氣是一個良好的健康建議。正如羅伯特·薩拉雷斯如今所證實的那樣，蚊子“是弱小的飛行者，不喜歡向上飛行，也不喜歡有風的地方”[13]。在考慮威尼斯周圍的內(nèi)陸或羅馬周圍平原的類似情況時，我們意識到，進入高地是那些能夠從低洼的農(nóng)業(yè)耕作區(qū)搬離的人的特權(quán)。因此，瘧疾造成了不平等的局面。在區(qū)域范圍內(nèi)，教皇西克斯圖斯五世（Pope Sixtus V）甚至出臺政策，通過將定居點從低地轉(zhuǎn)移到更健康的山丘來改善人口的整體健康狀況。然而具有諷刺意味的是，西克斯圖斯五世于1590年參觀完一項由他發(fā)起的土地開墾項目后死于瘧疾[13]。在區(qū)域尺度上，遷往高地意味著地形風險的增加。對于圓廳別墅，筆者將探討通過設(shè)計提升高度和透氣性所帶來的健康效果。

在帕拉第奧的《建筑四書》的插圖中，標注了埃莫別墅和圓廳別墅的底層高度分別為11英尺和10英尺。需要說明的是，該標注采用的是以往的維琴察尺寸，每英尺可能更接近14英寸，而不是如今的12英寸（現(xiàn)1英寸=0.025 4 m）。此外，帕拉第奧將他設(shè)計的大部分別墅都抬高到了周圍土地之上。與帕拉第奧同時代的建筑師塞巴斯蒂亞諾·塞利奧（Sebastiano Serlio）在其《建筑七書》第六冊中解釋了抬升別墅的重要性：“我一直認為城市外的房屋（以及城市內(nèi)的房屋，只要相鄰的建筑物不受此限制）應(yīng)從地面上被抬升。這樣做是為了讓建筑外立面更宏偉，底層房間更健康，同時使地下室發(fā)揮作用，成為別墅中所有仆人的工作間……”[19]

他的建議非常明確，抬升的地坪使建筑立面具有象征意義的優(yōu)勢，改善了室內(nèi)環(huán)境的健康狀況，并利用了相應(yīng)的半地下空間。對塞利奧而言，他強調(diào)將一座典型的別墅抬高5英尺（1英尺=0.304 8 m），將地下室再下沉5英尺，這使得帕拉第奧式建筑顯得更加宏偉。但無論如何，這個建議體現(xiàn)了一種明顯的呼吸不平等：通過迫使為他們服務(wù)的人進入地下室這種不健康的環(huán)境，主人、家人和客人在地上樓層的房間內(nèi)獲得健康。帕拉第奧通過將該案例與人類信仰進行類比，為這一不平等做法尋求合理化解釋：

“正如我們稱頌的造物主所告誡的那樣，最美麗的事物應(yīng)置于最明顯、醒目的地方，而不那么美的東西要加以隱蔽；所以在建筑中也是……因此，我認為在建筑結(jié)構(gòu)的最底層也就是地下室中，可以布置地窖……仆人室、洗手間、烤箱和存放日常用品?！盵11]

這個論點可能在16世紀足夠有說服力，但今天它并不成立，特別是因為地下空間布局仍然體現(xiàn)了以往的壓迫模式。例如隱蔽門廊（cryptoportio）旨在隱藏奴隸的地下服務(wù)通道，或在私人監(jiān)獄（ergastulum）中用鎖鏈囚禁奴隸迫使其在地下過夜或被判處長期勞作[8]。無論是哪種情況，對于被關(guān)押在地下的仆人或奴隸來說，都受制于封閉的、視線無法看出去的地下空間。除了形成地下服務(wù)空間外，抬高別墅底層還有另一個好處，那就是看向別墅外部的視點提高，使得廣闊田野中的勞動者清晰可見。

帕拉第奧除描述圓廳別墅位于一座小山頂上，一側(cè)被河流包圍的位置外，進一步闡述了圓廳別墅的選址。他寫道：“在另一邊，周圍環(huán)繞著最令人愉悅的斜坡，看起來像一個非常大的劇院，并且經(jīng)過精心栽植，有著最優(yōu)質(zhì)的果實和最精致的葡萄藤。因此，從別墅的每個角落都可以欣賞到最美麗的景色，其中有些景致互為遮掩，有些則更為開闊，而有的景致視線深遠直至消失于地平線。”[11]當今天讀到這段話時，我們傾向于想象風景本身是美麗的，但仔細看，會發(fā)現(xiàn)帕拉第奧強調(diào)了農(nóng)田突出的視覺效果。事實上，在帕拉第奧去世后20年，克勞德·洛蘭（Claude Lorrain）和尼古拉斯·普桑（Nicolas Poussin）才出生，他們通過對瘧疾肆虐的羅馬平原的繪畫創(chuàng)作，繼續(xù)塑造西方的風景觀念[20]。在別墅中觀賞勞動者的工作，是一種既定的令人愉悅的審美范式。早在多年前，幾代有影響力的羅馬作家就強調(diào)了這一模式，其中包括馬爾庫斯·圖留斯·西塞羅（Marcus Tullius Cicero）、小普林尼（Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus）和馬格努斯·奧勒留斯·卡西奧多魯斯（Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus）?？ㄎ鲓W多魯斯曾稱贊一座別墅擁有許多房間，可以看到人們“迷人地勞動”[8]。更直接的是，我們可以從塞利奧的建議中認識到“有些人希望不斷地查看他們的農(nóng)民在做什么，并密切關(guān)注他們的來來往往”[19]。塞利奧建議將勞工宿舍靠近主體住宅但保持分離。當然，持續(xù)監(jiān)視勞工的勞動并不是良性的行為；反過來看，這是在行使一種控制工人行為的權(quán)力。圓廳別墅的顯著特點之一是對周圍景觀的開放性。帕拉第奧早期的許多別墅都有圍墻，在帕拉第奧之前，別墅通常被設(shè)計為帶護城河與炮樓的防御工事。在認識到鄉(xiāng)村中的威脅、風景和安全之間的關(guān)系時，圓廳別墅可以被理解為一種新的權(quán)力展示形式。視線從圓廳別墅內(nèi)部向外，掠過一片片田地投向遠方，而田地中有許多勞工在勞作。然而，盡管財富和獲得食物的機會極度不平等，但莊園主聲稱不需要人身保護?？紤]到安全問題和人身威脅，從田地到圓廳別墅的視線同樣重要。別墅的抬升使勞工始終處于莊園主的視野之中，并建立了持續(xù)監(jiān)視的關(guān)系。因此，圓廳別墅成為“心理征服”的典型，通過投射莊園主的權(quán)力和影響力，使整片土地上人們的生活都受其影響和控制[14]。

前文討論了“注意力恢復(fù)理論”，這是關(guān)于自然接觸對心理健康促進機制的既有理論。另一個理論是杰·阿普爾頓（Jay Appleton）在1975年出版的《景觀的體驗》（The Experience of Landscape）中提出的“瞭望–庇護理論”。該理論推測人類在進化過程中形成了一種既希望看到外界同時又不想被外界看到的景觀偏好，或者更確切地說，通過同時擁有開闊的視野和隱秘的居所這兩種可以看得見的保護，人們得以免受威脅，從而有更大的機會保持健康。這一理論與從圓廳別墅向外眺望時所看到的“美麗景色”非常吻合。然而，該理論忽略了討論在更為復(fù)雜的社會和政治因素影響下，權(quán)力是如何決定各階層對不同高程空間的使用這一問題。例如，人們都知道控制高地對軍事成功的重要性。同樣，當阿普爾頓描述“將前景延伸到花園庇護所以外的鄉(xiāng)村”，然后“合乎邏輯地基于美學目的對更廣闊的景觀進行改造，最初是通過將道路延伸到圍墻的界限之外而實現(xiàn)的”。當然不能如此理想化地相信，將景觀與基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和農(nóng)業(yè)用地結(jié)合全然是出于美學的目的[21]。如果像阿普爾頓所說，早期的景觀設(shè)計是“將房屋或城堡延伸到戶外的一種形式”，那么還應(yīng)記住羅馬歷史學家普布利烏斯·科爾涅利烏斯·塔西陀（Publius Cornelius Tacitus）的言論：“以前，不良自然條件通常是被回避或克服，自然是……被控制的；一種新的空間表達方式是（尋求）將戶外環(huán)境馴化?！盵21-22]換句話說，被馴化的不僅僅是自然，還有仆人和勞動者，他們從身體和象征意義上都與自然息息相關(guān)。精英們?yōu)榱俗约旱睦娑{(diào)節(jié)空氣，而對于內(nèi)陸居民來說，這意味著他們要么屈服于被俯瞰的監(jiān)視中，要么隱藏在看不見的地下室。在這兩種情況下，大多數(shù)人在精神上和身體上都處于不健康的狀態(tài)。建筑和景觀使個人處于被監(jiān)視的負面心理影響之中、面臨感染瘧疾的更大風險和遭受蓄意的不人道待遇。由于這一觀念所帶來的持續(xù)影響，使人充分認識到16世紀建筑、園林和景觀中隱藏的壓迫歷史是有研究價值的。以勞倫·帕特里奇（Loren Partridge）的結(jié)論為例，他認為：“圓廳別墅成為文藝復(fù)興時期最具影響力的建筑作品，也是全世界數(shù)百座政府大樓的設(shè)計藍本。廣受歡迎的原因在于政府希望宣揚的理念與設(shè)計所傳達出的信息密切對應(yīng)——穩(wěn)定、集中、等級、統(tǒng)一與和諧，以及地球（以方形和立方體為象征）和天堂（以圓形和半球表示）之間的協(xié)調(diào)?！盵18]

顯然，設(shè)計所表達的不僅僅是穩(wěn)定性、層次感與和諧，透視關(guān)系也很重要。對于某些人來說，圓廳別墅代表著壓迫、監(jiān)視、征服、不平等和風險，而這主要是通過對地坪高度的嚴格把控以及隨之而來的對大氣和健康空氣的調(diào)節(jié)而實現(xiàn)的。

4 結(jié)論

安德烈亞·帕拉第奧的《建筑四書》時至今日仍然是最有影響力的建筑書籍之一。眾所周知，他的這部著作對建筑和風景園林行業(yè)的影響甚至比其建筑作品更為深遠。他的書中最突出的特點是對于精確性和簡潔性的重視[23]。正如黛博拉·霍華德（Deborah Howard）所寫的那樣：“清晰也是寫作的精髓。雖然這本書本質(zhì)上是理論性的，但帕拉第奧的寫作卻很好地從抽象哲學的表述中抽離出來?！盵23]然而，筆者相信正是由于缺乏哲學討論，在一定程度上引發(fā)了人們對書中內(nèi)容的持續(xù)回應(yīng)。通過擬建和已建別墅的實測圖和平面圖對比表明，建筑可以脫離文化時代背景、物質(zhì)景觀和政治環(huán)境而存在。而實際情況遠非如此，在埃莫別墅和圓廳別墅的案例中，帕拉第奧有意通過設(shè)計來改善莊園主以及他們所居住的大環(huán)境的健康狀況。然而，在實施這些建造行為的同時，卻因為損害了其他人享有健康環(huán)境的同等權(quán)利而造成了結(jié)構(gòu)性不平等。

呼吸不平等是一面透鏡，有助于探索植物和人類如何在環(huán)境中自由呼吸以及相互的作用機制。在埃莫別墅，工人們在種植珍稀水稻的灌溉田里掙扎著呼吸；而圓廳別墅的設(shè)計則揭示了貴族們?yōu)檎紦?jù)高位和呼吸清潔空氣所采取的措施。在這個案例中，別墅通過分配空氣、水和土地等資源的使用權(quán)限以促進莊園主等少數(shù)特權(quán)階層的健康。然而，正如我們所看到的，威尼斯精英們的健康是通過剝奪其他人的同等權(quán)利來加以保障的。在全面理解帕拉第奧式建筑對健康的影響之后，同樣需要關(guān)注當代在創(chuàng)造健康世界的過程中，實踐和設(shè)計領(lǐng)域出現(xiàn)的不平等現(xiàn)象。鑒于目前在全球范圍內(nèi)為控制空氣傳播疾病所做的斗爭，呼吸和空氣循環(huán)受到高度關(guān)注。然而，呼吸本應(yīng)是人類之間平等共享的一種行為。正如阿喀琉斯·姆本貝（Achille Mbembe）指出的那樣，基于這一事實，可能要“超越純粹的生物學含義，而將呼吸視為人類共同擁有的東西”，因此可以將呼吸理解為普遍權(quán)利的基礎(chǔ)和設(shè)計生成的驅(qū)動力[3]。

圖片來源：

圖1由 作 者 改 繪 自Luigi Torelli的Carta della malaria dell’Italia（1882年）；圖2、3由 作 者 改 繪 自O(shè)ttavio Bertotti Scamozzi的Le fabbriche e i disegni di Andrea Palladio（1776年）。

（編輯/劉玉霞 李衛(wèi)芳）

Towards a Landscape of Equality: Design of the Palladian Villa to Control Access to Health

Author: (CAN) Fionn Byrne Translator: LUO Rongrong

0 Introduction

Health is not a neutral state but a positive condition. The World Health Organization (WHO)defines health as “a state of complete physical,mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[1]The WHO also acknowledges the interplay between environmental and individualized factors in determining health outcomes, and they increasingly recognize that access to nature significantly promotes overall health. Mirroring the WHO’s definition, the pathways involved include “physiological processes(clean air, etc.), physical process (by offering opportunities for physical activity), social process(by increasing the likelihood of social contact)and psychological process (such as relaxation and restoration).”[2]Within this framework, the two most influential theories to explain the positive impacts of natural environments on human health are the Attention Restoration Theory and Prospect-Refuge Theory. Ultimately the fundamental and universal right to breathe freely is necessary for any relevant measure of health, as without both an environment of clean air and unobstructed airways,it is impossible to live a healthy life[3].

With varying degrees of success over the years, building and landscape architects have sought to design environments to realize good health. One of the best known and most frequently imitated efforts is the work of sixteenth-century Venetian patricians and professionals who constructed rural villas to reshape theterrafermaand situate themselves in the center of a harmonious relationship with nature[4]. Before being reshaped by their efforts, the low-lying Venetianterrafermawas a significant habitat for mosquitoes. Though not as bad as the RomanCampagna,theterrafermawas still considered unhealthy (Fig. 1). While it was not until the nineteenth century that mosquitoes were known to transmit malarial disease, during the sixteenth century, malaria, ormal’ ariain Italian, was believed to be an environmental condition of bad air. It was an accepted belief that decaying organic matter in marshy and damp landscapes produced an airborne poison[5]. The design of a villa, including landscapes, gardens, and architecture, was deployed to reorganize the properties of air, water, and land,as well as associated human activities and the lives of plants and animals, all to promote good air and the health of a few privileged landowners. This act of utopian world-building organized the physical environment to control atmospheric conditions,and ultimately the health of all living beings.

This essay will study two of Andrea Palladio’s well-known villas constructed in the sixteenth century on theterrafermaoutside of Venice as a means to reveal a consistent system of oppression and unequal access to conditions that enable environmental and personal health. In both cases, designs to promote health will contrast with corresponding and intentionally designed conditions of oppression. I will focus this study on atmospheric inequality, defined as the unjust distribution of access to breathe freely in an environment with good air. Furthermore, I will show that a positive state of health for sixteenthcentury Venetians was not just made available to a privileged few but actively required the direct negation of healthy conditions for many unknown and unnamed others. A Venetian’s ability to be healthy and live in a healthy environment required dispossessing others of the same rights. In this context, to breathe freely was made possible by limiting the respiration of others, while efforts to secure fresh air resulted in other environments being made unhealthy.

Considering the contemporary challenges of designing for health, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic that has prematurely and permanently ended the breathing of millions of people worldwide, this essay will expose past injustice to help mitigate and avoid further expansion of structural inequalities. Let us endeavour in our time to find it unacceptable that the health of a few comes at the expense of the health of many.

1 Controlling the Terraferma

Modern capitalism emerged in city-states of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. The Republic of Venice, for example, had a robust and highly profitable system of mercantilism that saw the nobility acquire considerable personal fortunes. As trade routes began to diversify when the Republic of Genoa expanded transatlantic shipping, the Venetian nobility, known as patricians, began to invest their profits beyond the city’s fortifications.As Venice acquired territory on the mainland, called theterrafermaas a means to distinguish this solid ground from the Venetian islands, the Republic began to develop an agrarian economy. This change prompted Girolamo Priuli, the ruler of Venice, to express disappointment at the number of patricians who had abandoned maritime activities for country life, even though investment in land proved to be more profitable than shipping[6]. This is especially true in the case of marginal marshlands that were reclaimed and subsequently brought into productive agricultural use.

Despite the claiming of former marshlands by private individuals, the work to coordinate,finance, and carry out hydraulic schemes emerged as a subject of public concern, as demonstrated by the 1501 establishment of a Ministry of Water. Advised by the Ministry, a newly emerging profession of surveyor-engineers rendered land productive by controlling the hydraulic regime of vast low-lying territories. The cumulative result of these numerous geometrically regular acts of drainage amounted to a radical environmental transformation[4]. Both drainage and irrigation controlled the interactions between water and land, turned marshes into fields, and consequently reduced malaria. We can recognize today that drainage would have eliminated mosquito breeding grounds. However, for sixteenth-century Venetians,to cure noxious air and make the land healthy required bringing water into circulation and clearing the land of decaying plant matter. The often-cited Hippocratic textAirs,Waters,Placesgrounded this belief in a long-enduring theory that“air was the carrier of disease engendered in water and among vegetation.”[7]Thus, to achieve a state of environmental health, one must avoid stagnant waters, contaminated air, and decaying vegetation.When building on theterraferma, architects tried to avoid siting residences in unhealthy locations and designed site modifications to overcome the existing natural conditions. In this way, architecture and nature were not separate realms but bound by design considerations of health. In no case was this interplay more apparent than in the construction of the villa.

The term “villa” denotes a combination of buildings and land engaged in agricultural production. When constructed on theterraferma,we can refer specifically to the villa as avilla rustica, or a country villa. “Rustica,” however,was only a term later applied to distinguish mainlandterrafermasites from coastal locations,which would be calledvilla maritima, and will remain outside the scope of this study[8]. As the preeminent site of agricultural production, the villa type includes rationally organized working fields, a courtyard which serves as a threshing floor,a barn orbarchesse, and a temporary residence for the owner, or “master,” of the property. The landowner’s residence also serves an agrarian function by storing the excesses of production above and below the living quarters, with gain lifted to the attic and wine stored below ground.In this way, the hierarchical nature of the residence building becomes a symbol representing the power over production, storage, and security that the villa provided[9].

The most celebrated villa architect of the sixteenth century was Andrea Palladio. His work has had a significant impact on the development of European and North American architecture and gardening, and many historians have intensively studied his legacy[4]. By focusing on the relationships between architecture, landscape,gardens, and health, this essay will show that achieving conditions for good health was a significant driver of Palladio’s work. However, his villa designs simultaneously produced structural inequalities in accessing those healthy living conditions. I will explore the Villa Emo through the context of water and agricultural labour and the Villa Rotonda through the lens of air and visual control. In so doing, I will show that determinants of health in design are far from apolitical. Instead,our continued efforts to design a healthy world must recognize moments of unequal access.

InThe Palladian Landscape, Denis Cosgrove reminds us that “as usual in human affairs, it was the weakest, those with the smallest stake in society,who paid the heaviest burden, while the rich and powerful, patrician landowners – both Venetian and provincial – amassed lands and fortunes at their expense.”[4]Just as for lands and fortunes,perhaps personal health is secured only by denying it to others. If, however, this is not true, then the challenge for designers today must address and counteract Cosgrove’s “as usual.” Recognizing that building and landscape architects of the past have worked to construct a purposefully oppressive world draws our attention to the need to undo the legacies of these structural inequalities and avoid perpetuating the continued exploitation of the weakest members of our society in the future.

2 Water, Irrigation, and Labour at the Villa Emo at Fanzolo

One of the Venetian patrician families that benefited from publicly-funded improvements to non-arable lands was the Emos. Even half a century before the Ministry of Water’s formation,an irrigation canal had already been built in the Treviso plain, bringing the territory under hydraulic control. Here, in the region of Fanzolo,Giorgio Emo was one of the first landholders.His son, Leonardo di Giovanni Emo inherited this property and acquired more land in 1509,continuously investing in making farming of the estate profitable. Leonardo’s efforts succeeded,and two generations later, his grandson, Leonardo di Alvise Emo, commissioned Andrea Palladio to build a new villa at the center of his inherited family property. Construction of the Palladian villa,which began around 1555, signaled a reinvestment in the property[10]. Not surprisingly, Palladio designed the villa building as a direct symbol of the family’s continuous prosperity from the land.While a display of wealth is not evidenced in the architectural treatment of the exterior fa?ade or in the column order of the loggia, which was rather plain, instead, it is the proportions of the building that communicate proper land management and agricultural productivity[10]. Palladio directs us to see that “the cellars, the granaries, the stables, and the other places belonging to a villa, are on each side of the master’s house,” and these two wings extend symmetrically from the residence at the center(Fig. 2). While adjacent farming wings are typical of villa architecture, these wings are unusually long in the case of the Villa Emo[10]. Their irregular length denotes abundance from a surplus harvest that requires additional storage, and by extension,the wings represent an accumulation of wealth.

Furthermore, the Emo’s emphasis on prosperity extended back out from the villa building to the surrounding fields and the family’s choice of crops. Taking advantage of the nearby canal, the Emo family redirected water to their property and irrigated their fields. This practice conformed to the general advice on villa siting.Palladio, for example, said of site selection that “if navigable rivers cannot be had, one must endeavor to build near some other running water; and above all to get at a distance from standing waters,because they generate very bad air.”[11]Typically,bringing running water to the villa grounds helped grow wheat and secure a domestic supply necessary to feed the general population. Indeed, the high demand for wheat prompted the construction of water distribution canals in the first place. Yet, at the Villa Emo, irrigation was used contrary to the Venetian dietary need. Instead, intensive irrigation helped cultivate rice, an extremely profitable luxury grain quickly sold to an international market[4]. The accumulation of personal and intergenerational wealth through the leveraging of public infrastructure became so widespread among the elite that almost half of all rice cultivation in the Venetian Republic was terminated by proclamation after the end of the sixteenth-century[4].

Growing a luxury crop instead of meeting the dietary needs of the local population is itself an injustice, but rice cultivation had other negative ramifications. On the one hand, rice cultivation was labour intensive, both in terms of the number of workers required and the physical demands of the task. What’s more, the workers, housed across Villa Emo’s main road, were in a highly precarious situation, as they were themselves landless and often paid with cash in aboariasystem of wage labour[12]. If a shortage of wheat drove up the price of food, then cash wages would be much less valuable than a guaranteed meal. On the other hand, the irrigation of fields to grow rice required a landscape with standing water, and precisely as Palladio had warned, this resulted in an elevated risk of contracting malaria. While it is hardly possible to make matters worse, the presence of standing water denied workers the shade that olive trees or grape vines would otherwise give when interplanted in well-drained wheat fields. As a result, workers experienced food, housing, and land insecurity, that weakened their individual health while being forced to labour in an unhealthy environment. Describing a similar situation in the agricultural lands of the RomanCampagnafurther south, Robert Sallares restates this grim summary from Renato Mammucari, “Between the certain death from starvation and the probable death caused by theAnophelesmosquito, the latter was almost always preferred… men defied death in order to make a living.”[13]The Emo family’s excessive profits, spent for their pleasure and good health, ultimately cost many others their lives.

One significant expenditure within the family residence, and distanced from any threatening malarial fields, is a series of frescoes drawn of imaginary views of the exterior landscape that existed behind the walls. In a spectacular inversion of reality, these views do not just depict an exaggerated healthy life enjoyed in a state of absolute abundance but illustrate a total erasure of labour from the fields. If, as argued, garden paintings are an idealized representation of the world, then utopian visions of sixteenth-century Venetian patricians denied the very existence of the labouring class that made their lifestyle possible[14].This pictorial act of erasure continued a trend that had been described many years earlier by the Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro, who said,“the more the villa system was refined as a marketoriented, profit-motivated enterprise, the more important it became to make a separation between profits of agriculture… and the means by which those profits were realised, and to gloss over the latter.”[8]Indeed, Varro’s characterization of the villa system has been extended by contemporary scholars who indict landscape and garden design at large and argue that “the term ‘landscape’alwaysveils the reality of rural labour and social inequality,transforming the countryside into escapist scenery rather than a place of work (or a place from which authentic ‘workers’ have been cleared).”[15]The logic of pictorial erasure that represented an idealized landscape inside the villa is also physically built in the world outside the villa building, especially in the surrounding gardens.

While descriptions of the Villa Emo’s original garden are sparse, Palladio does make several comments: “behind the fabrick,” or the architectural plan, “there is a square garden of eightycampi trevigiani,” approximately one hundred acres, and “in the middle of which runs a little river, which makes the situation very delightful and beautiful.”[11]This “beautiful” water feature reminds us that the garden outside, as with the illusory interior views, is defined as an idealized microcosm of the surrounding landscape[16]. The garden reconstructs the essential qualities of the surrounding horizontal expanse of irrigated and cultivated land. Yet, what marks the garden as distinct from the surrounding landscape, for example, the fields, the orchard, or the kitchen garden, is that even from its first conception, it emerges as a site of leisurely labour. “No toil is contemplated in the gardens,” or so remarks the fourteenth-century Florentine writer Giovanni Boccaccio, who is said to have first described the garden as a distinct type[17]. However, we know that a landscape will not remain in a “delightful” state without work, especially a garden at so large a scale.So, it is not a fundamental question of labour that distinguished the garden from the surrounding landscape, but rather it is the imagined qualities of that work that set the garden apart. The garden is an interstitial space, between the luxurious interior and the laborious fields, that the elite participated in cultivating, although without their labour being materially productive[6]. Productivity is, after all,what distinguishes exercise from work in the fields,having the means to labour without the need.Therefore, the garden is removed from profitable use and instead given over to therapeutic activities such as walking, swimming, eating, talking, and sleeping[14]. This sentiment is shared by the Roman poet, Quintus Horatius Flaccus, where “for Horace,the value of his garden lies not in its productive capacity, but in the respite from the irritations and concerns of city living and in the pleasure of social one-upmanship.”[14]The display of social status is now easy to understand: removing land from productive use is a clear display of excess wealth,especially given a context where labourers struggle for resources without access to any land of their own. Respite from the stress of the city is worth examining further.

Returning our attention to the various pathways to health provided by natural environments, including physiological, physical,social, and psychological processes, the garden is unequivocally a space that promotes overall health.Having already touched on some physiological(organization of water), physical (exercise), and social (display of power and wealth) aspects of the garden, we must consider the psychological processes at work as well. Rachel and Stephen Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory is one of the most popular frameworks to explain the health benefits of green spaces. While the Kaplans did not publish their foundational textThe Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspectiveuntil 1989, it is argued that psychological determinants of health have longstanding evolutionary causes.If this is true, then we should witness the same environmental pathways to health operating today as in the sixteenth century.

The Attention Restoration Theory argues that humans have two distinct modes of attention,direct and indirect. Direct attention is active when one is mentally focused on a task at hand, while indirect attention is engaged when the mind is at rest. The theory is grounded by the assertion that when one mode of attention is active, the other can recover. Thus, for the city dweller whose daily tasks demand direct attention, time in nature provides an opportunity to engage indirect attention and restore their depleted reserves. As we have already seen, Horace has articulated the same principle,with the greatest value of his garden being a “respite from the irritations and concerns of city living.”We can comfortably conclude that for the Venetian patrician, the garden is a space that contributes to overall health. However, when we consider the day labourers in the fields of a sixteenth-century villa, the Attention Restoration Theory requires reevaluation. According to the theory, we could logically conclude that by spending extended time in nature, repeating agricultural motions made automatic through repetition, labourers would be the healthiest class in society. They need only to engage in strenuous direct mental exertion every once in a while, to recover their depleted indirect attention. This situation is, of course, far from the truth. While those who worked the fields were immersed fully in nature, its healing qualities were only available to the elites. As James Ackerman recounts, “history records little evidence that farmers, peasants or slaves – who have no option but to stay put – experienced the charms of rural life depicted in the villa literature. Indeed, it was typically by the sweat of the labourer’s brow that the delights of rusticity were made available to the proprietors.”[6]

The Villa Emo controlled water to irrigate highly productive rice fields. Exporting rice generated profits later invested in the architecture and gardens’ physical and symbolic structures,which improved the family’s health. However, the same set of spatial decisions directly impacted the health of many more individuals. Standing water on the irrigated fields increased the likelihood of dying by contracting malaria, and labourers exchanged their physical wellbeing in a constant struggle to secure food and shelter. This example has shown that the affordances of health that nature provides are meaningless without acknowledging the social and political circumstances that structure an individual’s life. Of course, it is not just labourers that risk contracting malaria. While wealthy Venetians could generally reduce their exposure by spending the summer at their villas outside the city, mosquitoes still spread in ways that matched the Venetian’s belief in the dispersion patterns of vapours emanating from dangerous stagnant waters. As we will see, in an attempt to counter the unhealthy qualities of air, Palladio’s Villa Almerico conferred health to the landowner while continuing patterns of oppression and atmospheric inequality.

3 Air, Elevation, and Surveillance at the Villa Almerico at Vicenza

Upon returning home to the Venetianterrafermaafter retiring from religious service in the Vatican, the priest Paolo Almerico,commissioned Andrea Palladio to design his new residence a quarter-mile outside the city of Vicenza. Construction on his home, which came to be known as the Villa Rotonda, would have begun shortly after Almerico’s retirement in 1565.The work that Palladio conceived remains the most celebrated of his villas, even called the most influential example of Renaissance architecture[18].The design displays several notable differences from the Villa Emo, and as described by Palladio,the Rotonda does not even conform to the conventional definition of a villa. It has neither a courtyard for threshing grains nor opposingbarchesseextensions. Instead, only a summer residence sits among gardens and agricultural lands. Without adjacent service buildings, the primary residence can capitalize on four bilaterally symmetrical entries mirrored around a central domed room (Fig. 3). This novel approach to a country residence led Palladio to count the Villa Almerico among other town-houses instead of withterrafermavillas, such as the Villa Emo, in his 1570I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura(Four Books Architecture). Nonetheless, the Villa Almerico did sit at the center of a generous walled garden surrounded by working fields. After Paolo Almerico, the second owner’s decision to add an agricultural service building is further evidence of the importance of these lands. Another famous Venetian architect, Vincenzo Scamozzi,designed the new outbuilding to sit alongside the northwestern approach to the Rotonda.

Beyond architectural distinctions, the most notable difference between the Villa Emo and the Villa Almerico was their relative elevations.The Villa Emo site was relatively flat, whereas the Villa Almerico was at the top of a gentle rise.In Palladio’s words, “the site is as pleasant and as delightful as can be found; because it is upon a small hill, of very easy access, and is watered on one side by theBacchiglione, a navigable river.”[11]As has been established in the example of the Villa Emo, controlling water was a determinant of environmental health. At the Villa Almerico,I will argue that controlling air, achieved through both elevation and architectural organization,improved the health of the environment and of the landholders. Simultaneously, strategies to manage the atmosphere were unequally distributed and led to more significant health risks, constant surveillance, and further oppression of agricultural labourers and villa servants.

Palladio elaborates on the advantageous qualities of the Rotonda’s situation at the top of a small hill in a general description of site selection.As has been already noted, Palladio advised,“above all to get a distance from standing waters,because they generate a very bad air,” which,he continues, “we may very easily avoid, if we build upon elevated and cheerful places, where the air is, by the continual blowing of the winds,moved; and the earth, by its declivity, purged of all ill vapours and moisture.”[11]For Venetians,cool and dry blowing air, like running water, was believed to be the healthiest situation and could be best secured through elevation. Palladio makes a further perceptive remark that at heights, “the inhabitants are healthy and cheerful, and preserve a good colour, and are not molested by gnats and other small animals, which are generated by the putrefaction of still fenny waters.”[11]While remembering that mosquitoes were not known at the time to carry the disease malaria, Palladio’s observation clarifies that mosquitoes were secondarily associated with the environmental expression of malaria, or a state of unhealthy air.Due to this correct association, the advice to seek circulating air at elevation is a healthy suggestion.As Robert Sallares confirms today, mosquitoes “are weak fliers, dislike flying upwards and dislike windy locations.”[13]Rather immediately when considering theterrafermasurrounding Venice or the similar relation of theCampagnaaround Rome, we are aware that access to elevation is a privilege for those who can remove themselves from the lowlying agricultural fields. Malaria, then, creates a topography of inequality. At a regional scale, Pope Sixtus V even initiated policies to improve the population’s overall health by shifting settlement from low areas to the healthier hills. Ironically,however, Sixtus V died in 1590 of malaria after visiting one of his land reclamation efforts[13]. At regional scales, access to elevation corresponds to topographies of risk. Returning to the Rotonda, we will consider the health consequences of designing to gain height and permeability to air.

Illustrations of the Villa Emo and the Villa Almerico in Palladio’sFour Books of Architectureannotate the villas’ ground floors at eleven feet and ten feet, respectively. For clarity, each foot is an outdated Vicenza measure likely closer to fourteen inches instead of our twelve. Moreover,Palladio raised the majority of his villas above their surrounding lands. A contemporary of Palladio, the architect Sebastiano Serlio explains the importance of lifting a villa in the sixth book of hisSette Libri dell’Architettura(Seven Books of Architecture):“It has always been my opinion that houses outside cities (and also those inside cities, provided neighbouring buildings are not a constraint to this) should be raised above general ground level.This is so as to give grandeur to the appearance,healthiness to the ground-floor rooms and so as to have the commodity of the underground rooms which will provide for all the servants’ workrooms for the house...”[19]

His advice is clear, elevation provides a symbolic advantage, improves the interior environment’s health, and opens a corresponding semi-submerged cavity. For his part, Serlio prescribes lifting a typical house by five feet and sinking the underground rooms by another five feet, which makes Palladio’s measure seem even grander. In any case, this advice demonstrates a clear atmospheric inequality: rooms on the main floor for the master of the house, his family and guests, gain access to a healthy environment by forcing those who serve them into an unhealthy situation. Palladio rationalizes this inequality by comparing the case to the human body:

As our Blessed Creator has ordered these our members in such a manner, that the most beautiful are in places most exposed to view, and the less comely more hidden; so in building also…I approve therefore that in the lowest part of the fabric, which I make somewhat underground,may be disposed the cellars… servantshalls, washhouses, ovens, and such like things necessary for daily use[11].

This argument may have been sufficient in the sixteenth century to excuse the subjugating of others, but it will not hold today, especially because the underground service area remains bound to previous architectural modes of oppression. Thecryptoportico, for example, underground service tunnels designed to hide slaves from view, or theergastulum, where chained slaves were confined underground overnight or more permanently sentenced to work[8]. In each case, for servants or slaves, to be held underground was to be spatially confined while being removed from view. In addition to producing an underground service space, there was another consequence of raising the villa’s ground floor. Views out from the villa were lifted and rendered labourers in the expansive fields highly visible.

After describing the Rotonda’s location at the top of a small hill and contained by a river on one side, Palladio elaborates further on the siting of the Villa Almerico. He writes, “on the other [sides] it is encompassed with most pleasant risings, which look like a very great theatre, and are all cultivated, and abound with most excellent fruits, and most exquisite vines: and therefore, as it is enjoys from every part most beautiful views,some of which are limited, some more extended,and others that terminate with the horizon.”[11]When we read this passage today, we are inclined to imagine that it is the perspective of the landscape itself that is beautiful, but looking carefully, we see that Palladio emphasized the theatrical activity of cultivating the fields. Indeed, it would still be two decades after Palladio’s death that both Claude Lorrain and Nicolas Poussin would be born and go on to shape Western notions of landscape through their paintings of the intensively malarial RomanCampagna[20]. Organizing views from a villa to enjoy watching labourers at work was instead an established mode of aesthetic pleasure emphasized years earlier by several generations of influential Roman writers, including Marcus Tullius Cicero, Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), and Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus.Cassiodorus famously praised a villa for its many rooms that provided views of people “charmingly laboring.”[8]More immediately, we can read Serlio’s advice that “there are some who wish to survey continually what their peasants are doing and to keep an eye on their comings and goings.”[19]Serlio advises placing the labourers’ dormitories close but separate from the primary residence. Of course, continuous surveillance is not a benign act; instead, it is an exercise of power to control the workers’ behaviour. One of the distinguishing qualities of the Villa Almerico is its openness to the surrounding landscape. Many of Palladio’s earlier villas included a perimeter wall, and before Palladio, villas were commonly designed as fortified units, complete with moats and defensive towers.In recognizing a relationship in the countryside between threats, views, and security, the Rotonda can be read as a new form of the display of power.From inside the Rotonda, views extend out to the horizon across fields occupied by a large labour force. However, despite the extreme inequality of wealth and access to food, the owner asserts no need for physical protection. Regarding safety and pacifying threats, the view from the fields to the Rotonda is equally important. The elevation of the villa places it in constant view and establishes a relationship of ongoing surveillance. The Villa Almerico, then, acts as a model of “psychological subjugation” by projecting the owner’s power and influence over others’ lives out across the landscape[14].

Earlier, we discussed the Attention Restoration Theory, an established description of a psychological pathway to health improved by exposure to nature. A second framework is the Prospect Refuge Theory that Jay Appleton developed in his 1975 publicationThe Experience of Landscape. The theory predicts that humans have an evolutionary preference for landscapes that confer the ability to see without being seen.Or, more specifically, we have the most significant opportunity to be healthy when visually protected from threats, both by having expansive views and places to hide. This theory aligns well with the“beautiful views” made available to those looking out from Villa Almerico’s prospect. However, the theory omits a discussion of the more complicated social and political implications of how power operates across differential access to elevation.None of us, for example, are unaware of the importance of controlling high ground for military success. Similarly, when Appleton described “the extension of the prospect into the countryside beyond the refuge of the garden,” which then “l(fā)ed logically to the modification of the wider landscape also for aesthetic purposes, initially by extending the avenues beyond the limits of the enclosure,” we cannot be so idealistic to believe that subjecting the landscape to infrastructural and agricultural control was done for detached aesthetic purposes[21]. If early landscape design, according to Appleton, is “a kind of extension of the house or castle into the open air,” we should also remember the Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus’ observation that “where nature had formerly been avoided or overcome, it [is]… controlled; and a new kind of spatial expression [seeks] to domesticate the open air.”[21-22]In other words, it is not exclusively nature that is being domesticated but also servants and labourers who are physically and symbolically bound to nature. For theterrafermapopulation,the elite’s control of the air for their benefit meant being either subjugated to constant observation from above or hidden from view underground.In both cases, the majority become subjected to an unhealthy environment, both mentally and physically. Architecture and landscape expose individuals to the psychological impacts of surveillance, to greater risk of contracting Malaria,and to deliberate inhuman treatment. In part because of its lasting significance, recognizing this history of oppression ensconced in the architecture,gardens, and landscape of the sixteenth century is a worthwhile endeavour. Take Loren Partridge’s conclusion, for example, where he argues that: “The Villa Rotonda became the most influential example of Renaissance architecture. It constitutes the ursource of literally hundreds of governmental buildings throughout the world. This enormous popularity resulted from the close correspondence between what governments wanted to believe they represented and what the design expressed –stability, focus, hierarchy, unity, harmony, and mediation between earth (symbolized by the square and cube) and heaven (signified by the circle and hemisphere).”[18]

Clearly, the design expressed more than stability, hierarchy, and harmony. Perspective counts. For some, the Villa Rotonda would have represented oppression, surveillance, subjugation,inequality, and risk, primarily through the formal command of elevation and consequent control of atmosphere and healthy air.

4 Conclusion

Andrea Palladio’sFour Books of Architectureremains one of the most influential books on architecture. His writing is known to have had a more significant impact than his constructions on the professions of building and landscape architecture. What characterizes his book above all else is the emphasis of his wiring on precision and brevity[23]. As Deborah Howard writes, “clarity is also the essence of the writing.Although the book is essentially theoretical,Palladio’s text is refreshingly free from abstract philosophizing.”[23]However, I believe it is partly this lack of philosophical discussion that elicits new responses to the work. The measured and detached architectural plans of proposed and constructed villas suggest that architecture can be divorced from a cultural moment, a physical landscape, and a political environment. Nothing is further from the truth. In the case of the Villa Emo and Villa Almerico, Palladio made intentional design decisions to improve the landowner’s health and the health of the larger environment that they occupied. However, these acts of construction simultaneously produced structural inequalities in accessing the same conditions of healthy living.

Atmospheric inequality is a lens to explore the free access to and control of respiration in plants, the breathing of humans, and the air patterns of environments. At the Villa Emo,labourers struggled to breathe in irrigated fields of luxury crops. Through the Villa Almerico, we explored patricians’ efforts to occupy elevated positions and breathe clean air. In both cases, villa organized the properties of air, water, and land to promote a few privileged landowners’ health.Still, as we have seen, a Venetian’s ability to be healthy was secured by dispossessing others of the same rights. More completely understanding the consequences of Palladio’s architecture on health calls for a comparable focus on contemporary practice and ongoing designed inequality in access to a healthy world. Given the current struggle to control airborne disease transmission globally,breathing and the circulation of air are rendered highly visible. Yet respiration is also an act shared between us. As Achille Mbembe notes, by this fact,we might “conceive of breathing beyond its purely biological aspect, and instead as that which we hold in common,” we might conceive breathing as the foundation of a universal right and a generative driver of design[3].

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1 adapted from Luigi Torelli’sCarta della malaria dell’Italia, 1882. Source: Fionn Byrne, 2021. Fig. 2-3 adapted from Ottavio Bertotti Scamozzi’sLe fabbriche e i disegni di Andrea Palladio, 1776. Source: Fionn Byrne,2021.

(Editors / LIU Yuxia, LI Weifang)