Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Folio 13 recto and flap (Ashby 22): Baths of Caracalla
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/22
Purpose
Folio 13 recto and flap (Ashby 22): Baths of Caracalla
Aspect
Plan
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:1100
Inscribed
[Drawing] Termar[um]. antonianae (‘Of the Antonine Baths’); S[eptentrio] (‘North’); 15 [early seventeenth-century hand]
[Verso of inlaid half of double sheet] 14 [early seventeenth-century hand]
[Mount] 22 [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 a double sheet of laid paper (232x335mm), tears and holes down centre, rounded corners at left and right, left half inlaid (window on verso of mount) and right half folded to cover it
[Verso] Blank
[Mount] Frame lines, in pen and dark brown ink, 10mm apart
[Verso of mount] Window (223x160mm)
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Watermark
[Drawing] Anchor in circle topped with six-pointed star (variant 1; straddling fold) [Mount] None
Notes
This drawing shows the layout of a little more than the northwestern half of the Baths of Caracalla, or the ‘Antonine’ baths as they are identified in the caption, which are located in southern Rome and were built in 212–16 CE (LTUR 1993–2000, 5, pp. 42–48; Lombardi–Corazza 1995). With the complex’s principal axis towards the bottom of the double sheet, it includes all the main bathing spaces in their entirety, these being the vast circular caldarium projecting from the large block at the complex’s centre (running across the fold in the sheet), the frigidarium to its right lined with eight massive columns, and the natatio or swimming pool at the far right. The isolated central block is surrounded by a circuit of other structures, which include reservoirs, and a stadium with a fountain at the centre.
The plan is among the earliest to survive of the complex, and it was perhaps based on a survey that was possibly conducted around 1510. It is much more rigorous than a very large earlier plan in the Codex Barberini by Giuliano da Sangallo, although this latter drawing was an achievement in its own right, and certainly creates an illusion of completeness and detail through the gratuitous addition of such features as columns, colonnades and spiral staircases, and by frequently increasing the numbers of interior niches. The Coner drawing’s much greater reliability becomes immediately apparent when the two are compared to modern-day archaeological surveys of the site (Lombardi–Corazza 1995, pp. 47 and 50; Delaine 1997, p. 17). With respect to the perimeter structures, this greater rigour is especially evident in the representation on the southwestern periphery of the stadium seating and the neighbouring reservoirs (at left of sheet), where a watercourse and fountain are shown on the main axis (Lombardi–Corazza 1995, pp. 53 and 60–61); in that of the vast apsidal suite and the ambulatories behind it on the north-western side (at top of sheet), where the interiors to either side the central space are correctly shown to be of more regular shape (one of them of more elaborate design); and in the aligning of the semi-circular exedra nearby with the transverse axis of the central block, which is not shown at all in the Barberini plan. As for the central block itself, it is also notable that the Coner plan correctly registers the already-nearly-vanished caldarium as being circular in shape rather than octagonal as in the Barberini drawing, and records the niches on the exterior wall of the natatio which are omitted from the Sangallo plan.
The drawing is extremely accurate, too, in the relative sizing of the main elements and various interiors, even though no specific measurements are given, which suggests it is likely to be a faithful copy of a previous master plan that was based on the preceding survey, as is rather suggested by the compass point for ‘north’ (S) being included. This presumed earlier plan may have involved the surveying of just the right-hand part of the periphery, which modern-day archaeological plans show to be in a much better condition, restricting itself to the careful charting of what could be seen to be in physical existence. Of particular significance, therefore, is the fact that walls are only sometimes bordered with definitive ink lines, and that their outlines – sometimes with pentimenti – are often faint or are missing entirely. Thus it may well be, as Ashby concluded, that some of the walls are more conjectural than others – omitting boundary lines in instances of uncertainty as is seen in many other Coner drawings of both antiquities and modern buildings; but it may also be that the drawing actually documents an ongoing process, whereby the overall composition of the complex was being determined as precisely as possible before specific parts of it were then made the subjects of even greater scrutiny. This could thus explain why the area between the caldarium and frigidarium is left blank and why even the apses shown on the Barberini plan on the caldarium side of the frigidarium were omitted, as this would imply that this whole zone was yet to be adequately explored.
The draughtsman responsible for this original survey remains unknown, but it was unquestionably carried out during Bramante’s lifetime and presumably with his knowledge. His own interest in the site is reflected, for example, in the Cortile del Belvedere where the vast semi-circular exedra at the end (see Fol. 15r/Ashby 25), which is partly screened at the sides and has niches lining the inside wall, was clearly inspired by the semi-circular halls overlooking the internal courtyards to either side of the frigidarium (one shown above it in this drawing); and reflected as well in the ‘Parchment Plan’ for St Peters of c.1505/10, where the entrance vestibules resemble the layout of the natatio. All this may suggest, therefore, that the survey work was conducted under the supervision either of Bramante himself or a close associate such as Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, and that it involved co-opting the surveying expertise and attendant manpower being assembled for work on St Peter’s. The Coner drawing, therefore, would be an indirect product of this survey, which, in having had so much effort expended on it, would also provide a firm foundation for later explorations of the site.
Later drawings of the complex that were dependent on this early survey accommodate newly observed details and judiciously incorporate lost but plausible features such as colonnades and column screens. They include near-identical half-plans by Baldassare Peruzzi and Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, both of which amend the design of the circular caldarium such as by giving it walls that are very much thicker, although they omit the exedra on the periphery’s cross axis and the fountain at the centre of the stadium. Another such drawing is a half-plan of the main block in a sketchbook in Vienna by the Anonymous Italian C of 1519, which further amends the caldarium by now showing it with wider openings and massive piers containing spiral staircases, and also registers the layout, next to the caldarium, of the square tepidarium, this being left as undefined in earlier drawings; and yet another is the overall survey plan executed by Palladio probably around the mid-century (see Hemsoll 2019, pp. 228–30), which again includes the new arrangement of the caldarium and tepidarium, and also shows gaps on the periphery corresponding to the exedra registered on the Coner drawing, indicating perhaps some lingering uncertainty over the precise arrangement of this area. One further plan of the complex is of some interest here, this being one of two drawings of baths appended to the manuscript of Bernardo Rucellai’s De urbe Roma in Florence’s Biblioteca Ricciardiani (Bulgarelli 2005, p. 155), its partner being that of the Baths of Diocletian (see Cat. Fol. 5r and flap/Ashby 8). It is inaccurate in several of its details, but it probably dates from sometime after the Coner plan as it shows the caldarium as having very thick walls (although with just four apertures that are incorrectly positioned), and, although the frigidarium is completed, it is positioned much too near the caldarium with only a minimal distance between them and no space left for the tepidarium, which is probably why the layout as a whole was adjusted in its depth.
The drawing runs across a double page and was therefore originally at the centre of one of the original codex’s gatherings.
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fols 66v–67r (Hülsen 1910, 1, p. 71; Borsi 1985, pp. 237–38); [Bramante] Florence, GDSU, 1 Ar (Parchment Plan) (Bruschi 1969, pp. 885–94); [Anon.] Florence, Biblioteca Ricciardiano, Ms. 754, fols 275v–276r; [Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 1133 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 97; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, p. 107); [Baldassare Peruzzi] Florence, GDSU, 476 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 57; Wurm 1984, pl. 467); [Anon. Italian C of 1519] Vienna, Albertina, inv. Egger no. 11v–12r (Egger 1903, pp. 18–19; Valori 1985, pp. 111–15; Günther 1988, p. 341 and pl. 35); [Andrea Palladio] London, RIBA, Palladio VI, 1r (Zorzi 1959, p. 68).
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 59r/Ashby 100
The plan is among the earliest to survive of the complex, and it was perhaps based on a survey that was possibly conducted around 1510. It is much more rigorous than a very large earlier plan in the Codex Barberini by Giuliano da Sangallo, although this latter drawing was an achievement in its own right, and certainly creates an illusion of completeness and detail through the gratuitous addition of such features as columns, colonnades and spiral staircases, and by frequently increasing the numbers of interior niches. The Coner drawing’s much greater reliability becomes immediately apparent when the two are compared to modern-day archaeological surveys of the site (Lombardi–Corazza 1995, pp. 47 and 50; Delaine 1997, p. 17). With respect to the perimeter structures, this greater rigour is especially evident in the representation on the southwestern periphery of the stadium seating and the neighbouring reservoirs (at left of sheet), where a watercourse and fountain are shown on the main axis (Lombardi–Corazza 1995, pp. 53 and 60–61); in that of the vast apsidal suite and the ambulatories behind it on the north-western side (at top of sheet), where the interiors to either side the central space are correctly shown to be of more regular shape (one of them of more elaborate design); and in the aligning of the semi-circular exedra nearby with the transverse axis of the central block, which is not shown at all in the Barberini plan. As for the central block itself, it is also notable that the Coner plan correctly registers the already-nearly-vanished caldarium as being circular in shape rather than octagonal as in the Barberini drawing, and records the niches on the exterior wall of the natatio which are omitted from the Sangallo plan.
The drawing is extremely accurate, too, in the relative sizing of the main elements and various interiors, even though no specific measurements are given, which suggests it is likely to be a faithful copy of a previous master plan that was based on the preceding survey, as is rather suggested by the compass point for ‘north’ (S) being included. This presumed earlier plan may have involved the surveying of just the right-hand part of the periphery, which modern-day archaeological plans show to be in a much better condition, restricting itself to the careful charting of what could be seen to be in physical existence. Of particular significance, therefore, is the fact that walls are only sometimes bordered with definitive ink lines, and that their outlines – sometimes with pentimenti – are often faint or are missing entirely. Thus it may well be, as Ashby concluded, that some of the walls are more conjectural than others – omitting boundary lines in instances of uncertainty as is seen in many other Coner drawings of both antiquities and modern buildings; but it may also be that the drawing actually documents an ongoing process, whereby the overall composition of the complex was being determined as precisely as possible before specific parts of it were then made the subjects of even greater scrutiny. This could thus explain why the area between the caldarium and frigidarium is left blank and why even the apses shown on the Barberini plan on the caldarium side of the frigidarium were omitted, as this would imply that this whole zone was yet to be adequately explored.
The draughtsman responsible for this original survey remains unknown, but it was unquestionably carried out during Bramante’s lifetime and presumably with his knowledge. His own interest in the site is reflected, for example, in the Cortile del Belvedere where the vast semi-circular exedra at the end (see Fol. 15r/Ashby 25), which is partly screened at the sides and has niches lining the inside wall, was clearly inspired by the semi-circular halls overlooking the internal courtyards to either side of the frigidarium (one shown above it in this drawing); and reflected as well in the ‘Parchment Plan’ for St Peters of c.1505/10, where the entrance vestibules resemble the layout of the natatio. All this may suggest, therefore, that the survey work was conducted under the supervision either of Bramante himself or a close associate such as Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, and that it involved co-opting the surveying expertise and attendant manpower being assembled for work on St Peter’s. The Coner drawing, therefore, would be an indirect product of this survey, which, in having had so much effort expended on it, would also provide a firm foundation for later explorations of the site.
Later drawings of the complex that were dependent on this early survey accommodate newly observed details and judiciously incorporate lost but plausible features such as colonnades and column screens. They include near-identical half-plans by Baldassare Peruzzi and Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, both of which amend the design of the circular caldarium such as by giving it walls that are very much thicker, although they omit the exedra on the periphery’s cross axis and the fountain at the centre of the stadium. Another such drawing is a half-plan of the main block in a sketchbook in Vienna by the Anonymous Italian C of 1519, which further amends the caldarium by now showing it with wider openings and massive piers containing spiral staircases, and also registers the layout, next to the caldarium, of the square tepidarium, this being left as undefined in earlier drawings; and yet another is the overall survey plan executed by Palladio probably around the mid-century (see Hemsoll 2019, pp. 228–30), which again includes the new arrangement of the caldarium and tepidarium, and also shows gaps on the periphery corresponding to the exedra registered on the Coner drawing, indicating perhaps some lingering uncertainty over the precise arrangement of this area. One further plan of the complex is of some interest here, this being one of two drawings of baths appended to the manuscript of Bernardo Rucellai’s De urbe Roma in Florence’s Biblioteca Ricciardiani (Bulgarelli 2005, p. 155), its partner being that of the Baths of Diocletian (see Cat. Fol. 5r and flap/Ashby 8). It is inaccurate in several of its details, but it probably dates from sometime after the Coner plan as it shows the caldarium as having very thick walls (although with just four apertures that are incorrectly positioned), and, although the frigidarium is completed, it is positioned much too near the caldarium with only a minimal distance between them and no space left for the tepidarium, which is probably why the layout as a whole was adjusted in its depth.
The drawing runs across a double page and was therefore originally at the centre of one of the original codex’s gatherings.
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fols 66v–67r (Hülsen 1910, 1, p. 71; Borsi 1985, pp. 237–38); [Bramante] Florence, GDSU, 1 Ar (Parchment Plan) (Bruschi 1969, pp. 885–94); [Anon.] Florence, Biblioteca Ricciardiano, Ms. 754, fols 275v–276r; [Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 1133 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 97; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, p. 107); [Baldassare Peruzzi] Florence, GDSU, 476 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 57; Wurm 1984, pl. 467); [Anon. Italian C of 1519] Vienna, Albertina, inv. Egger no. 11v–12r (Egger 1903, pp. 18–19; Valori 1985, pp. 111–15; Günther 1988, p. 341 and pl. 35); [Andrea Palladio] London, RIBA, Palladio VI, 1r (Zorzi 1959, p. 68).
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 59r/Ashby 100
Literature
Ashby 1904, p. 21
Census, ID 44140
Census, ID 44140
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