Verbal language, unavoidably, constitutes a primary metalanguage of the commentary on other semiotic systems, including architecture. Unsurprisingly, a dominant figure in the poetic renderings of architecture has been metaphor. My concern is its prominent example – A BUILDING IS A HUMAN BODY. With its roots in Greek antiquity, made famous owing to the influence of Vitruvius and visualized in da Vinci’s drawing of The Vitruvian Man, the metaphor of the alleged corporeality of architecture focuses on the anthropomorphic nature of architectural constructions. In his Phenomenology of the Visual Arts (2009), Crowther provides other bodily connotations triggered by various architectonic elements, e.g. A TRIUMPHAL ARCH IS A VICTOR. Since the buildings are not meant for external examination only but primarily for the engagement of human beings with their interiors, a walk inside a building can also lead to identifying its internal organs, e.g. THE MAIN ALTAR IS THE HEART/HEAD OF THE CHURCH’S INTERIOR.The fact of this embodied cognition was voiced already by Wölfflin (1886), claiming that “Our own bodily organization is the form through which we apprehend everything physical”, the idea further elaborated by Merleau-Ponty (1961) and by cognitive studies in general. The human penchant for personification seems to be corroborated by neuroscientific research as LeDoux (2015) points out that anthropomorphization may well be an innate function of the human brain. This is definitely reflected in the way verbal language imposes a figurative conceptualization on architecture in its double capacity as a spatial-visual reality and a non-verbal artistic text.