To an approximate scale of 1:120

[Drawing] EIVSDEM (‘Of the same’ [i.e. the same building as in Fol. 27r/Ashby 43]); 42 [early seventeenth-century hand]
[Mount] 45 [x2]

• c.1513/14
  Datable to c.1513/14

[Drawing] Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over stylus lines and compass pricks; on laid paper (262x169mm), stitching holes along left edge, rounded corner at bottom right, inlaid (window on verso of mount)
[Mount] Frame lines, in pen and dark brown ink, 10mm apart

Bernardo della Volpaia

[Drawing] None [Mount] None

In the original incarnation of the codex, this orthogonal elevation of the lower terrace was on the page directly facing the perspectival elevation (Fol. 27r/Ashby 43). Thus, the word eiusdem (‘of the same’) written in antique-style capitals, refers to the subject of this once-facing drawing and not the drawing now preceding it (Fol. 27v/Ashby 44), which relates to the Cortile’s upper terrace. The orthogonal elevation is drawn at a larger scale than the perspectival depiction, filling most of the sheet but showing two rather than three full bays. The many annotated measurements include the overall heights of the two lower storeys and the heights of their respective pilasters, but these are by no means consistent with their sizes the drawing. For example, the drawn height of the Ionic pilasters is decidedly too tall in relation to the measurements given – unlike in the perspectival elevation where it is too short – suggesting that this drawing (like the other one) was composed largely by eye and not to scale. Drawing by eye and then overlaying the measurement rather than producing a scaled drawing is an approach typical of the Coner depictions in general.

The drawing is notably similar to another early depiction now in Kassel, which also excludes the upper reaches of the top storey, but differs in minor ways, such a showing just one whole bay and parts of those to either side, and omitting the pediment of the middle storey window. This may suggest that Bramante’s final detailing of the elevation was only decided at a very late moment, which would also explain yet other differences seen in the plate first published by Sebastiano Serlio in 1540, where the window again lacks a pediment but instead has panelling above and to the sides.

OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Anon.] Kassel, Schloss Wilhelmshöhe, Graphische Sammlung, Kassel Codex, fol. 22v (Günther 1988, p. 372 and pl. 120a); Serlio 1619, fol. 119r

OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 15r/Ashby 25; Fol. 27r/Ashby 43; Fol. 27v/Ashby 44; Fol. 28v/Ashby 46; Fol. 46v/Ashby 78; Fol. 53v/Ashby 92; Fol. 54r/Ashby 93; Fol. 68r/Ashby 116; Fol. 69r/Ashby 117; Fol. 72r/Ashby 122

Ashby 1904, p. 32
Ackerman 1954, p. 196
Günther 1988, p. 337

Drawing

Digitisation of the Codex Coner has been made possible through the generosity of the Census of Antique Works of Art and Architecture Known in the Renaissance, Berlin

If you have any further information about this object, please contact us: drawings@soane.org.uk