Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Folio 26 verso (Ashby 42): Theatre of Marcellus (one bay and two half bays)
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/42
Purpose
Folio 26 verso (Ashby 42): Theatre of Marcellus (one bay and two half bays)
Aspect
Perspectival elevation, with measurements
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:140
Inscribed
[Mount] Part of the Theatre of Marcellus [in pencil]; 42 [x2]
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 laid paper (232x168mm), damage relating to stitching holes along right edge, rounded corners at left, inlaid
[Mount] Pen and ink and pencil, frame lines 10 mm apart; window (224x159mm)
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Watermark
See recto
Notes
This drawing of the Theatre of Marcellus, completed 17 BCE (LTUR 1993–2000, 5, pp. 31–35), shows a little more than one full bay of what survived and still survives of the building’s exterior, which has two storeys of arches and piers with attached half-columns. Its positioning on the right of the page and its oblique perspective, together with some preparatory drawing on its left, make it clear that the original intention was to record three full bays but this was abandoned before completion, which may also explain why the drawing has no caption identifying its subject. The structure is imagined as if viewed from a high vantage point, a convention commonly used in the codex, as illustrated by such drawings as the interior of the Pantheon (Fol. 23v/Ashby 36), the Mausoleum of Caecilia Metella (Fol. 35v/Ashby 57) and, above all, the exterior of the Colosseum (on the previous page: Fol. 25r/Ashby 39), which, as initially intended for the Theatre of Marcellus, is of three bays in extent. Representing the theatre’s exterior in this way meant that it could indicate the thickness of the piers, and show how the upper-storey pedestals are set back behind the cornice and frieze beneath.
Although the drawing is in general an accurate record of the building, there are certain discrepancies. In the first place, it shows the Doric half-columns of the lower storey as having bases rather than shafts rising directly from the ground, corrected in subsequent depictions such as one by Giovanni Battista da Sangallo, and the illustration published by Sebastiano Serlio in the third book of his treatise (first issued in 1540). This is understandable given that the half-columns were then too deeply buried for their bottoms to be easily inspected, as is implied by an early drawing in the Codex Escurialensis, which omits their lower reaches entirely. Secondly, it excludes the heads once ornamenting the keystones of the upper-storey arches, which have vanished today but are recorded in several early drawings such as those in the Codex Escurialensis and by Giovanni Battista da Sangallo, although their omission in the Coner depiction could well be a result of the recording practices adopted for the codex whereby sculptural embellishments are very often excluded. Lastly, it wrongly shows the Ionic capitals of the upper storey as having necks, which may just be a simple slip (dependent on a standard formula) since the correct form is shown in the other early drawings just mentioned. The drawing, however, is generally more accurate than other early depictions of it, such as the wayward view in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini or the one in the Codex Escurialensis, which like other early representations tend to make the piers too narrow in comparison with the arches between them. Especially carefully observed (if the annotated measurements are ignored, for which see below) is the difference in the widths of the piers and arches on the two storeys, the ground-storey piers being broader, and the arches between them correspondingly narrower, than those on the storey above (cf. Desgodetz 1682, p. 293). This feature often went unnoticed, even in the later representations in Sebastiano Serlio’s treatise (first published in 1540) and a drawing by Andrea Palladio.
The Coner drawing has a special relationship with one included in the early sixteenth-century Codex Strozzi (produced by a Florentine draughtman), which bears an annotation stating that the measurements were provided by Bernardo della Volpaia and a certain ‘Simone’ (leuate dimano a bernardo della golpaia e quelle delle chornice auemo da simone. Although the Coner drawing is perspectival and the Strozzi one orthogonal, their parallels are striking in that they both show that the lower piers as being wider than the upper ones, while also omitting the heads that once adorned the keystones of the upper arches and giving the Doric order a base and the Ionic capital a neck. However, they also both make the same mistake in the dimensions they specify for the arches, giving the lower arches a width of 5 braccia and the upper ones a width of 4¼ braccia rather than the other way around. This raises the intriguing problem of the relationship between the two, which otherwise do not wholly agree in their annotated dimensions, but it is fairly safe to say that the two drawings were produced independently, even though the Codex Strozzi dimensions were largely based on measurements previously obtained by Bernardo della Volpaia. The Codex Strozzi drawing is far more likely to have been based on an earlier drawing by Bernardo that bore a slightly different set of measurements.
The Coner drawing was produced some short time before the far more exacting representation of the surviving structure’s exterior was produced by Giovanni Battista da Sangallo, Antonio the Younger’s brother, in orthogonal projection and with an accompanying section, and before the detailed and systematic surveys of the theatre were undertaken by Antonio and especially Baldassare Peruzzi, which are recorded in drawings in the Uffizi (e.g. GDSU, 1122 Ar, 603 Ar and 604 Ar; see Calza Bini 1953, pp. 38–45). This was when, in spite of the theatre’s location in a very densely developed area of the medieval city, its likely layout was established, and when it was first proposed that the surviving portion of the exterior was originally surmounted by a third storey. These researches would later provide a basis for the perspectival reconstruction of the building produced as an engraving by Pirro Ligorio. The Coner drawing certainly marks the start of the theatre’s influence on modern architecture. The arcaded exterior provided an immediate prototype for the Doric interior of Antonio da Sangallo the Elder’s church of the Madonna di San Biagio in Montepulciano (1518), the courtyard of Antonio the Younger’s Palazzo Farnese in Rome (c.1515) and, later, the façade of Jacopo Sansovino’s Library of St Mark’s in Venice (1537). Especially influential, too, were the actual forms of the building’s Doric and Ionic orders (see Fols 45v/Ashby 76, 54r/Ashby 93 and 72r/Ashby 119).
Because the drawing lacks a caption, the building is instead identified by a nineteenth-century annotation on the mount.
RELATED IMAGES: [Anon.] Florence, GDSU, Codex Strozzi, 1602 Av (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 29)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 4 (Hülsen 1910, 1, p. 9; Borsi 1985, p. 50); [Anon.] El Escorial, Real Monasterio, 28-II-12 (Codex Escurialensis), fol. 54r (Egger 1905–06, p. 132); [Giovanni Battista da Sangallo] Florence, GDSU, 1966 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, p. 97; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, p. 211); Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 1122 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 80; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, pp. 102–03); [Baldassare Peruzzi], Florence, GDSU, 603 Ar and 604 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 56); Serlio 1619, 3, fol. 71r; [After Pirro Ligorio] in Speculum romanae magnificentiae (Hülsen 1921, p. 146, no. 21a)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 45v/Ashby 76; Fol. 54r/Ashby 93; Fol. 67r/Ashby 115; Fol.72r/Ashby 122
Although the drawing is in general an accurate record of the building, there are certain discrepancies. In the first place, it shows the Doric half-columns of the lower storey as having bases rather than shafts rising directly from the ground, corrected in subsequent depictions such as one by Giovanni Battista da Sangallo, and the illustration published by Sebastiano Serlio in the third book of his treatise (first issued in 1540). This is understandable given that the half-columns were then too deeply buried for their bottoms to be easily inspected, as is implied by an early drawing in the Codex Escurialensis, which omits their lower reaches entirely. Secondly, it excludes the heads once ornamenting the keystones of the upper-storey arches, which have vanished today but are recorded in several early drawings such as those in the Codex Escurialensis and by Giovanni Battista da Sangallo, although their omission in the Coner depiction could well be a result of the recording practices adopted for the codex whereby sculptural embellishments are very often excluded. Lastly, it wrongly shows the Ionic capitals of the upper storey as having necks, which may just be a simple slip (dependent on a standard formula) since the correct form is shown in the other early drawings just mentioned. The drawing, however, is generally more accurate than other early depictions of it, such as the wayward view in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini or the one in the Codex Escurialensis, which like other early representations tend to make the piers too narrow in comparison with the arches between them. Especially carefully observed (if the annotated measurements are ignored, for which see below) is the difference in the widths of the piers and arches on the two storeys, the ground-storey piers being broader, and the arches between them correspondingly narrower, than those on the storey above (cf. Desgodetz 1682, p. 293). This feature often went unnoticed, even in the later representations in Sebastiano Serlio’s treatise (first published in 1540) and a drawing by Andrea Palladio.
The Coner drawing has a special relationship with one included in the early sixteenth-century Codex Strozzi (produced by a Florentine draughtman), which bears an annotation stating that the measurements were provided by Bernardo della Volpaia and a certain ‘Simone’ (leuate dimano a bernardo della golpaia e quelle delle chornice auemo da simone. Although the Coner drawing is perspectival and the Strozzi one orthogonal, their parallels are striking in that they both show that the lower piers as being wider than the upper ones, while also omitting the heads that once adorned the keystones of the upper arches and giving the Doric order a base and the Ionic capital a neck. However, they also both make the same mistake in the dimensions they specify for the arches, giving the lower arches a width of 5 braccia and the upper ones a width of 4¼ braccia rather than the other way around. This raises the intriguing problem of the relationship between the two, which otherwise do not wholly agree in their annotated dimensions, but it is fairly safe to say that the two drawings were produced independently, even though the Codex Strozzi dimensions were largely based on measurements previously obtained by Bernardo della Volpaia. The Codex Strozzi drawing is far more likely to have been based on an earlier drawing by Bernardo that bore a slightly different set of measurements.
The Coner drawing was produced some short time before the far more exacting representation of the surviving structure’s exterior was produced by Giovanni Battista da Sangallo, Antonio the Younger’s brother, in orthogonal projection and with an accompanying section, and before the detailed and systematic surveys of the theatre were undertaken by Antonio and especially Baldassare Peruzzi, which are recorded in drawings in the Uffizi (e.g. GDSU, 1122 Ar, 603 Ar and 604 Ar; see Calza Bini 1953, pp. 38–45). This was when, in spite of the theatre’s location in a very densely developed area of the medieval city, its likely layout was established, and when it was first proposed that the surviving portion of the exterior was originally surmounted by a third storey. These researches would later provide a basis for the perspectival reconstruction of the building produced as an engraving by Pirro Ligorio. The Coner drawing certainly marks the start of the theatre’s influence on modern architecture. The arcaded exterior provided an immediate prototype for the Doric interior of Antonio da Sangallo the Elder’s church of the Madonna di San Biagio in Montepulciano (1518), the courtyard of Antonio the Younger’s Palazzo Farnese in Rome (c.1515) and, later, the façade of Jacopo Sansovino’s Library of St Mark’s in Venice (1537). Especially influential, too, were the actual forms of the building’s Doric and Ionic orders (see Fols 45v/Ashby 76, 54r/Ashby 93 and 72r/Ashby 119).
Because the drawing lacks a caption, the building is instead identified by a nineteenth-century annotation on the mount.
RELATED IMAGES: [Anon.] Florence, GDSU, Codex Strozzi, 1602 Av (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 29)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 4 (Hülsen 1910, 1, p. 9; Borsi 1985, p. 50); [Anon.] El Escorial, Real Monasterio, 28-II-12 (Codex Escurialensis), fol. 54r (Egger 1905–06, p. 132); [Giovanni Battista da Sangallo] Florence, GDSU, 1966 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, p. 97; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, p. 211); Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 1122 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 80; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, pp. 102–03); [Baldassare Peruzzi], Florence, GDSU, 603 Ar and 604 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 56); Serlio 1619, 3, fol. 71r; [After Pirro Ligorio] in Speculum romanae magnificentiae (Hülsen 1921, p. 146, no. 21a)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 45v/Ashby 76; Fol. 54r/Ashby 93; Fol. 67r/Ashby 115; Fol.72r/Ashby 122
Literature
Ashby 1904, p. 30
Ashby 1913, p. 200
Census, ID 44297
Ashby 1913, p. 200
Census, ID 44297
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