Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Folio 25 verso of flap (Ashby 39A): Colosseum
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/39a
Purpose
Folio 25 verso of flap (Ashby 39A): Colosseum
Aspect
Cross section combined with perspectival elevation
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:340
Inscribed
[Drawing] 39A
Signed and dated
- c.1513/14
Datable to c.1513/14
Medium and dimensions
[Drawing] Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over stylus lines and compass pricks; on half of a double sheet of laid paper (233x336mm) treated as a flap, rounded corners at left
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Watermark
See recto
Notes
This section is one of three of the Colosseum that are very closely related to each other. In the original compilation all three were drawn on the same sheet of paper positioned at the centre of the gathering, with the double-page drawing on one side and the other two on its back. This particular section – the last in the sequence as originally bound (see also Fol 25v/Ashby 40) – shows the internal arrangement of the staircases and it was intended to complement the section immediately beside it on the sheet prior to binding, which is through the entrance corridor lying on the building’s transverse axis.
Although the drawing might appear at first sight to be a straightforward section, it is in fact a composite image of three sections through three adjacent wedges of the amphitheatre’s plan superimposed on each other, with the aim of showing the positioning and arrangement of the different stairway types in respect to the annular corridors. The drawing depicts two stairways rising from ground level, one occupying two wedges in the plan, and the other just one wedge that is adjacent to the other two (see Fol. 2v/Ashby 3). There was evidently some difficulty, however, in representing the two stairways, which makes the drawing hard to read. The first stairway is shown as rising from the inner of the two paired annular corridors running around the building’s outer periphery, and as moving inwards towards the arena. As it rises, besides omitting a half landing, the drawing fails to include the steps at the top of the flight, making the stairway appear to finish in mid-air, whereas it should have been shown as continuing upwards, cutting across the stairs running in the opposite direction, so that it reached the vaulted area on the mezzanine, which is shown here as a small arched space. This stairway is then correctly shown as turning back on itself and moving away from the arena, although a half landing is again omitted, and as continuing up to one of the outer annular corridors on the first floor. The second stairway is shown as rising from the annular corridor, and as moving away from the arena to one of the paired annular corridors on the first floor. This stairway rises far more steeply than the first, reaching the same height without having to double back on itself. As with the first stairway, however, its depiction is incomplete, and it was subject to a series of corrections: the flight was begun with the drawing of the bottom steps, but at an angle that was too acute and so had to be corrected as the drawing progressed; and, in addition, the upper steps never had their risers inked-in, perhaps indicating some frustration in how the staircase should best be shown. Similar shortcomings can be seen in the representation of the steps in the storey up above, the staircase rising to the arena being depicted with a half-landing where one does not exist. Such uncertainty over how to represent the stairways perhaps suggests that the drawing was executed before the cross section on the double-page that follows (Folio 25r and flap/Ashby 39), which shows them now correctly and with a much greater degree of clarity. That this was left unfinished is implied not just by some of the steps not being fully inked-in but also by the summary treatment of the third and fourth storeys, depicting just a section through external wall and a fragment of the third-storey wall that faced the arena, as well as by the presence of some faint underdrawing for the seating of the cavea seen from a high viewpoint which was not inked it at all.
The drawing is very similar to the section of the Colosseum included in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini – especially in amalgamating the stairways from three neighbouring wedges of the amphitheatre’s plan – and this has led to the suggestion that it was based on the Barberini section (implied by Nesselrath 1992, p. 148). There are good reasons, however, for concluding that this was not the case. One concerns the difficulty seen in the Coner drawing of understanding and representing the staircases, because if the drawing was dependent on the Barberini section, which has the staircases depicted much more logically, then there would have been no such difficulty. There are differences, too, in what the two drawings include and exclude. Among the features of the Barberini section not seen in the Coner drawing are the wooden poles and rigging that were used to support the canvas velarium, as well as the arched opening giving access to the cavea, the air vent over the innermost annular corridor. A feature of the Coner drawing not seen in the Barberini section is the gutter on top of the fourth-level entablature. These differences suggest that the two sections are likely to have been derived independently from drawings produced as part of the rigorous survey of the building undertaken in 1513 (see Fol. 2r/Ashby 2). Given that Codex Coner appears to have been made in 1513/14, it is even possible that the Coner section predates the Barberini one.
The Codex Coner drawing, despite its shortcomings, is far more accurate than earlier representations. Francesco di Giorgio’s rendition of the section is little more than diagrammatic. Giuliano da Sangallo’s section in his Taccuino Senese constitutes an appreciable advance but still makes several major errors, such as in showing the paired outer annular corridors on the second level as being of the same height without the inner one being subdivided, as well as in adding a squat corridor over the innermost annular corridor, in representing the staircases incorrectly, and in reconstructing the interiors of the top two storeys probably on little evidence. The Coner drawing, however, was still not of the standard of the one on the double page that follows (Fol. 25 recto and flap/Ashby 39).
RELATED IMAGES: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 68r (Hülsen 1910, 1, p. 71; Borsi 1985, pp. 254–59)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Francesco di Giorgio] Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Codex Saluzziano 148, addendum, fol. 71r (Maltese 1967, 1. p. 275); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Siena, BCS, Ms. S.IV.8 (Taccuino Senese), fol. 5v (Borsi 1985, pp. 254–59)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 2r/Ashby 2; Fol. 2v/Ashby 3; Fol. 3r/Ashby 4; Fol. 3v/Ashby 5; Fol. 25r and flap/Ashby 39; Fol. 25v/Ashby 40; Fol. 26r/Ashby 41; Fol. 66r/Ashby 113; Fol. 66v/Ashby 114; Fol. 83v/Ashby 137
Although the drawing might appear at first sight to be a straightforward section, it is in fact a composite image of three sections through three adjacent wedges of the amphitheatre’s plan superimposed on each other, with the aim of showing the positioning and arrangement of the different stairway types in respect to the annular corridors. The drawing depicts two stairways rising from ground level, one occupying two wedges in the plan, and the other just one wedge that is adjacent to the other two (see Fol. 2v/Ashby 3). There was evidently some difficulty, however, in representing the two stairways, which makes the drawing hard to read. The first stairway is shown as rising from the inner of the two paired annular corridors running around the building’s outer periphery, and as moving inwards towards the arena. As it rises, besides omitting a half landing, the drawing fails to include the steps at the top of the flight, making the stairway appear to finish in mid-air, whereas it should have been shown as continuing upwards, cutting across the stairs running in the opposite direction, so that it reached the vaulted area on the mezzanine, which is shown here as a small arched space. This stairway is then correctly shown as turning back on itself and moving away from the arena, although a half landing is again omitted, and as continuing up to one of the outer annular corridors on the first floor. The second stairway is shown as rising from the annular corridor, and as moving away from the arena to one of the paired annular corridors on the first floor. This stairway rises far more steeply than the first, reaching the same height without having to double back on itself. As with the first stairway, however, its depiction is incomplete, and it was subject to a series of corrections: the flight was begun with the drawing of the bottom steps, but at an angle that was too acute and so had to be corrected as the drawing progressed; and, in addition, the upper steps never had their risers inked-in, perhaps indicating some frustration in how the staircase should best be shown. Similar shortcomings can be seen in the representation of the steps in the storey up above, the staircase rising to the arena being depicted with a half-landing where one does not exist. Such uncertainty over how to represent the stairways perhaps suggests that the drawing was executed before the cross section on the double-page that follows (Folio 25r and flap/Ashby 39), which shows them now correctly and with a much greater degree of clarity. That this was left unfinished is implied not just by some of the steps not being fully inked-in but also by the summary treatment of the third and fourth storeys, depicting just a section through external wall and a fragment of the third-storey wall that faced the arena, as well as by the presence of some faint underdrawing for the seating of the cavea seen from a high viewpoint which was not inked it at all.
The drawing is very similar to the section of the Colosseum included in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini – especially in amalgamating the stairways from three neighbouring wedges of the amphitheatre’s plan – and this has led to the suggestion that it was based on the Barberini section (implied by Nesselrath 1992, p. 148). There are good reasons, however, for concluding that this was not the case. One concerns the difficulty seen in the Coner drawing of understanding and representing the staircases, because if the drawing was dependent on the Barberini section, which has the staircases depicted much more logically, then there would have been no such difficulty. There are differences, too, in what the two drawings include and exclude. Among the features of the Barberini section not seen in the Coner drawing are the wooden poles and rigging that were used to support the canvas velarium, as well as the arched opening giving access to the cavea, the air vent over the innermost annular corridor. A feature of the Coner drawing not seen in the Barberini section is the gutter on top of the fourth-level entablature. These differences suggest that the two sections are likely to have been derived independently from drawings produced as part of the rigorous survey of the building undertaken in 1513 (see Fol. 2r/Ashby 2). Given that Codex Coner appears to have been made in 1513/14, it is even possible that the Coner section predates the Barberini one.
The Codex Coner drawing, despite its shortcomings, is far more accurate than earlier representations. Francesco di Giorgio’s rendition of the section is little more than diagrammatic. Giuliano da Sangallo’s section in his Taccuino Senese constitutes an appreciable advance but still makes several major errors, such as in showing the paired outer annular corridors on the second level as being of the same height without the inner one being subdivided, as well as in adding a squat corridor over the innermost annular corridor, in representing the staircases incorrectly, and in reconstructing the interiors of the top two storeys probably on little evidence. The Coner drawing, however, was still not of the standard of the one on the double page that follows (Fol. 25 recto and flap/Ashby 39).
RELATED IMAGES: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 68r (Hülsen 1910, 1, p. 71; Borsi 1985, pp. 254–59)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Francesco di Giorgio] Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Codex Saluzziano 148, addendum, fol. 71r (Maltese 1967, 1. p. 275); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Siena, BCS, Ms. S.IV.8 (Taccuino Senese), fol. 5v (Borsi 1985, pp. 254–59)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 2r/Ashby 2; Fol. 2v/Ashby 3; Fol. 3r/Ashby 4; Fol. 3v/Ashby 5; Fol. 25r and flap/Ashby 39; Fol. 25v/Ashby 40; Fol. 26r/Ashby 41; Fol. 66r/Ashby 113; Fol. 66v/Ashby 114; Fol. 83v/Ashby 137
Literature
Ashby 1904, p. 30
Günther 1988, p. 337
Census, ID 43743
Günther 1988, p. 337
Census, ID 43743
Level
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