To an approximate scale of 1:200

.TENPLI. BACHI. APUD. SA[CN]TAM. AGNEXIA[M]. (‘Of the Temple of Bacchus by Sant’Agnese’); .M[eridies]. (‘South’); altitudines./ colu[m]na[rum]/ sunt. b.7 1/1 (‘The heights of the columns are 7½ braccia.’); .S[eptentrio]. (‘North’); uacuum. plateae. est. b.250. lu[n]gitudo. et latitudo. est. b.51– (‘The space of the piazza is 250 braccia in length and the width is 51 braccia.); [numerous measurements]

• c.1513/14
  Datable to c.1513/14

Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over stylus lines and compass pricks

Bernardo della Volpaia

The drawing, as indicated by the caption written in pseudo-antique capitals, shows the plan of Santa Costanza (c.350 CE), which is located next to the church of Sant’Agnese fuori le Mura on the Via Nomentana, northeast of Rome’s city walls (LTUR: Suburbium 2001–08, 2, pp. 140–47). Originally built as a mausoleum attached to Sant’Agnese’s covered cemetery (coemeterium; LTUR Suburbium 2001–08, 1, pp. 33–36), it is considered by many to be the resting place of Constantine’s daughter Constantina, later venerated as a saint (Deichmann in Rasch–Arbeiter 2007, pp. 5–8). During the Renaissance, however, it was universally believed to be an ancient Roman temple dedicated to Bacchus, as had been suggested by the cavorting putti with bunches of grapes depicted in the mosaics of the ambulatory vault. This tradition goes back as far at least as the fifteenth century, the building being labelled as such in a drawing by Francesco di Giorgio, and it is the identification made in the Coner drawing.

The circular building is here shown with its internal ambulatory of paired columns, and as preceded by a vestibule connected to the cemetery wall, which is represented in scaled-down form so that its curved end fits on the page, although its actual dimensions are provided in an annotation. These were perhaps copied from an earlier survey, given that a compass orientation is featured on the drawing. The building’s thick outer wall and the equally spaced internal niches, for the most part alternately rectangular and semi-circular in shape, are accurately depicted. The niches on both the main and cross axes are also shown correctly as larger than the others, and – unlike the others – they are depicted without lines across their fronts, indicating correctly that they extend down to floor level. In certain other respects, however, the plan is inaccurate, the most notable of these errors relating to the ring of paired columns, which have been increased in number from twelve to sixteen so that that the spaces between them correspond in both number and position with the niches, thus giving the building a greater regularity. The circular staircase behind the vestibule’s left-hand side is also incorrectly represented, as being accessible from the first niche to the left of the entrance rather than being positioned behind the second niche, which does not exist in the structure as built, there being simply a door in the wall in that position. The depicted staircase is then wrongly paired in the drawing by an equivalent space on the right, thereby misrepresenting the layout by giving it a further degree of symmetry. As for the vestibule, which was already largely ruined, this is a mix of reality and fancy. The internal space is depicted correctly with deep niches to either side of the portal but the exterior is an imaginative reconstruction, in that there is no evidence for the six columns at the front or the pilasters beside them, while the vestibule’s outer sides are shown as flat rather than curved.

Despite these errors, the drawing is in some ways more accurate than other representations of the building. The principle of regularising or reconfiguring the design was already established in previous depictions of the building (for discussion, see Buddensieg 1976), but the two earlier versions of the plan by Giuliano da Sangallo in the Codex Barberini do so in a different way, by showing the correct number of paired columns (twelve) but reducing the number of niches so that they also correspond with the spaces between the columns. The one that includes an internal staircase (fol. 16r), moreover, shows it incorrectly by locating it on the right side of the building. A slightly later drawing in the Codex Mellon shows the correct number of paired columns, but again has too many niches, and it is also wrong in other details, such as showing internal staircases of rectangular configuration and with straight flights. Certain later drawings improve on the Coner plan, including the one by the Anonymous C of 1519 in Vienna and a pair of drawings by Lorenzo Donati in the Uffizi, which all register the internal columns, niches and staircase correctly. Among the least accurate later representations is the one published by Palladio in 1570, which was presumably based on earlier drawings and shows too few niches, making most of them semi-circular in shape, and it omits staircases entirely.


OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Francesco di Giorgio] Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Codice Saluzziano 148, addendum, fol. 88r (Maltese 1967, p. 285); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fols 16r and 39r (Hülsen 1910, 1, pp. 27 and 55; Borsi 1985, pp. 202–03); [Domenico Aimo (Il Varignana), attr.] New York, Morgan Library, Codex Mellon, fol. 59v; [Anon. Italian C of 1519] Vienna, Albertina, inv. Egger no. 9v (Egger 1903, p. 18; Valori 1985, pp. 106–07; Günther 1988, p. 341 and p. 32b); [Lorenzo Donato] Florence, GDSU, 1842 Av and 1983 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 107); Palladio 1570, 4, p. 85.

OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 12v/Ashby 21 (Drawing 2 on this page)

Ashby 1904, pp. 20–21
Ashby 1913, p. 194
Census, ID 44094

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