Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Drawing 3: Ephemeral theatre on the Capitoline Hill
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/23c
Purpose
Drawing 3: Ephemeral theatre on the Capitoline Hill
Aspect
Plan, with measurements
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:540
Inscribed
.TEATRI. CHAPITOLII. (‘Of the theatre of the Capitol’); [measurements]
Signed and dated
- c.1513/4
Datable to c.1513/4
Medium and dimensions
Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over stylus lines and compass pricks
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Notes
The drawing – as the caption written in antique-style capitals indicates – is of the temporary theatre on the Capitoline Hill erected for the festivities associated with conferring Roman citizenship on Pope Leo X’s brother, Giuliano de’Medici (the soon-to-be Duke of Nemours), and his nephew Lorenzo de’Medici (the future Duke of Urbino), that began on 13 September 1513 (Ashby 1913). This theatre, located close to Rome’s medieval civic palaces, Palazzo Senatorio and Palazzo dei Conservatori, was among the first autonomous, purpose-built structures of its kind since antiquity, and it was extensively described at the time (Cruciani 1968).
As shown in the drawing, the theatre is rectangular in shape, with elevated, tiered seating running around three of its sides, except where interrupted at the entrance, and by a raised stage at the opposite end complete with an altar at its centre. The four walls are divided internally into bays, five wide and seven long, by extremely tall pilasters, which are folded at the corners. On three of the walls, however, the pilasters are partly covered over by the seating, and they only extend to their full height in the area around the stage (see Bruschi 1968, pl. 3 and 5), which in the building as realised, as the written descriptions testify, was richly embellished with painted panels and other ornaments. This problem of obscuring the lower parts of the pilasters might perhaps have been avoided by employing shorter ones standing on very tall pedestals, like the painted pilasters in the richly decorated salone of the episcopal palace in Ostia, which was executed to Baldassare Peruzzi’s design in 1511–13 (see Tessari 1995, pp. 34 and 37–38). The side walls in the plan then each accommodate four windows or openings in alternate bays, while the wall behind the stage has apertures in all of its five bays, which written descriptions of the theatre-as-built describe as doors (accessible from the steps of the Palazzo Senatorio behind) that were surmounted by painted panels. The building’s exterior is otherwise plain apart from the façade, which is marked out by six free-standing columns positioned in front of pilasters, attached in turn to wider supports projecting from the wall surface behind. Such an arrangement suggests that the façade was conceived in the manner of the Arches of Constantine and Septimius Severus (Fols 33r/Ashby 53 and 34r/Ashby 54), which both have free-standing columns positioned in front of pilasters attached to piers that support arches. Like these ancient examples, there would have been an attic storey up above (see Bruschi 1968, pp. 144–50 and pl. 3), the height of the main storey being commensurate with column diameters that are rather smaller than the widths of the internal pilasters. The blind arches of the side bays provided space for external embellishments of the kind detailed in the descriptions of the executed building, rather like on the front of the Mausoleum of the Plautii near Tivoli (Fol. 31r/Ashby 49), where the side arches housed inscription plaques.
Although the Coner plan is broadly consistent with the various written accounts of the theatre as built (re-published in Crucciani 1968), there are still major discrepancies. They disagree, for example, about the size of the structure. The Coner plan has an interior measuring 58 x 80 braccia (34 x 54m), and an exterior of 70 x 97 braccia (41 x 57m), allowing 5 braccia for the depth of the façade, a measurement not given on the drawing. Accordingly, it has been argued (S. Frommel 2014, p. 352) that the executed building only just fitted into the space on the Capitoline Hill in the angle between Palazzo Senatorio (behind) and Palazzo dei Conservatori (to the right), even though it was positioned awkwardly close to both of them (see Bruschi 1974, p. 192 fig. 29). However, the structure depicted in the Coner drawing is far larger than the one described in most of the written accounts. Closest to the Coner dimensions but still very much smaller are those provided in Aurelio Sereno’s description, which records the interior as 50 x 78 braccia (29.2 x 45.5 m). Others are significantly smaller, especially in length. According to Marcantonio Altieri, perhaps a more reliable witness as he was a member of the organising committee, the interior had a width measuring 14 Roman canne (31m rather than 34m), but a length only of 16 Roman canne (36m as opposed to 54m (Ashby 1913; Bruschi 1968, pp. 143–44; Bruschi 1974, pp. 191–96). This could mean that the Coner drawing was of a preliminary scheme that was modified and reduced in size before construction, perhaps because of siting difficulties, as has long been argued (Bruschi 1968, pp. 157–62; Bruschi 1974, pp. 205–10), but the extent of the changes may well have been far greater than has hitherto been suspected. Precisely what the final structure looked like is difficult to determine but some broad conclusions are possible. One is that the shape of the constructed building, being far closer to a square than the approximately 3-by-5 rectangle depicted in the Coner plan, would have affected the internal scansion of five-by-seven equally sized bays, and would have thus required bays of different numbers or size; and another is that, rather than being articulated internally with pilasters, it had different supports, which are what Paolo Palliolo described specifically as ‘square columns’ (colonne quadre).
If the final building was ready for use by September 1514, then the definitive design for it must have been established well beforehand, which means that the Coner scheme would have been devised at some point before that time but sometime after the accession of Leo X in March 1514. It was almost certainly designed in the Sangallo circle, which helps explain why it came to be recorded by Bernardo della Volpaia. Alfieri names the architect of the executed design as the Florentine draftsman, woodworker and engineer Pietro Rosselli, who was intimately acquainted with Giuliano da Sangallo and his nephew Antonio the Younger, but Rosselli is not otherwise recorded as an architect, and so, although he may well have supervised the final construction, he would hardly have been responsible for the original proposal for such a culturally and politically significant venue. Much more likely, therefore, is Bruschi’s suggestion that the original design was set down by Giuliano da Sangallo, who had been summoned to Rome by the new pope and had arrived there by the summer of 1514. The design certainly has features that are paralleled in earlier schemes by Giuliano, such as his project recorded in the Codex Barberini for a palace for the king of Naples of 1488, which has a monumental entrance marked out by six free-standing columns, and an open-air theatre at the centre with a similar entrance and similarly tiered seating.
Although the evocation of antiquity played a large part in this original design, as exemplified by the façade’s affinities with ancient triumphal arches, this was subservient to the building’s practical requirements coupled with its need to be as eye-catching as possible. Thus, it may well be the case that the five doors behind the stage had been consciously likened to the five doors mentioned by Vitruvius as belonging to the scaenae frons of an ancient theatre (Vitruvius, De architectura, Book 5, chapter 6), and that the altar conceptually replaced the pulpitum (ibid.); but the principal aim was to provide a suitably all’antica setting for a modern-day spectacle rather than re-create an ancient theatre in the manner of the one subsequently planned for Raphael’s Villa Madama (c.1518). This is not to say, however, that ancient buildings were not sought out as potential models for the design as a whole; and one that could well have served this very purpose is the part-surviving lower hall of the Temple of Fortuna at Palestrina, from which the celebrated Nile mosaic was eventually recovered (see Whitehouse 2001, pp. 71–87). A plan of this hall is included in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini (illustrated but not discussed in Bruschi 1974), having been added to it by his son Francesco at presumably around this very time. It has a five-bay façade fronted by columns and an interior that is remarkably like the one shown in the theatre plan – having an altar at the end, pilasters around the sides (folded at the corners), and a raised platform running around the periphery but interrupted at the entrance. The only major difference is the presence of a large apse. In other words, the Palestrina plan appears as though it could have easily served the Capitoline Theatre not just as a model but as one designed and configured for a strikingly similar purpose.
The plan was presumably included on this folio of the codex because of its general comparability with the two ancient rectangular buildings illustrated next to it.
OTHER DRAWINGS MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fols 8v and 39v [palace for the King of Naples] (Hülsen 1910, 1, pp. 16 and 56; Borsi 1985, pp. 395–404); [Francesco da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 43r (Hülsen 1910, 1, p. 58; Borsi 1985, pp. 213–14)
As shown in the drawing, the theatre is rectangular in shape, with elevated, tiered seating running around three of its sides, except where interrupted at the entrance, and by a raised stage at the opposite end complete with an altar at its centre. The four walls are divided internally into bays, five wide and seven long, by extremely tall pilasters, which are folded at the corners. On three of the walls, however, the pilasters are partly covered over by the seating, and they only extend to their full height in the area around the stage (see Bruschi 1968, pl. 3 and 5), which in the building as realised, as the written descriptions testify, was richly embellished with painted panels and other ornaments. This problem of obscuring the lower parts of the pilasters might perhaps have been avoided by employing shorter ones standing on very tall pedestals, like the painted pilasters in the richly decorated salone of the episcopal palace in Ostia, which was executed to Baldassare Peruzzi’s design in 1511–13 (see Tessari 1995, pp. 34 and 37–38). The side walls in the plan then each accommodate four windows or openings in alternate bays, while the wall behind the stage has apertures in all of its five bays, which written descriptions of the theatre-as-built describe as doors (accessible from the steps of the Palazzo Senatorio behind) that were surmounted by painted panels. The building’s exterior is otherwise plain apart from the façade, which is marked out by six free-standing columns positioned in front of pilasters, attached in turn to wider supports projecting from the wall surface behind. Such an arrangement suggests that the façade was conceived in the manner of the Arches of Constantine and Septimius Severus (Fols 33r/Ashby 53 and 34r/Ashby 54), which both have free-standing columns positioned in front of pilasters attached to piers that support arches. Like these ancient examples, there would have been an attic storey up above (see Bruschi 1968, pp. 144–50 and pl. 3), the height of the main storey being commensurate with column diameters that are rather smaller than the widths of the internal pilasters. The blind arches of the side bays provided space for external embellishments of the kind detailed in the descriptions of the executed building, rather like on the front of the Mausoleum of the Plautii near Tivoli (Fol. 31r/Ashby 49), where the side arches housed inscription plaques.
Although the Coner plan is broadly consistent with the various written accounts of the theatre as built (re-published in Crucciani 1968), there are still major discrepancies. They disagree, for example, about the size of the structure. The Coner plan has an interior measuring 58 x 80 braccia (34 x 54m), and an exterior of 70 x 97 braccia (41 x 57m), allowing 5 braccia for the depth of the façade, a measurement not given on the drawing. Accordingly, it has been argued (S. Frommel 2014, p. 352) that the executed building only just fitted into the space on the Capitoline Hill in the angle between Palazzo Senatorio (behind) and Palazzo dei Conservatori (to the right), even though it was positioned awkwardly close to both of them (see Bruschi 1974, p. 192 fig. 29). However, the structure depicted in the Coner drawing is far larger than the one described in most of the written accounts. Closest to the Coner dimensions but still very much smaller are those provided in Aurelio Sereno’s description, which records the interior as 50 x 78 braccia (29.2 x 45.5 m). Others are significantly smaller, especially in length. According to Marcantonio Altieri, perhaps a more reliable witness as he was a member of the organising committee, the interior had a width measuring 14 Roman canne (31m rather than 34m), but a length only of 16 Roman canne (36m as opposed to 54m (Ashby 1913; Bruschi 1968, pp. 143–44; Bruschi 1974, pp. 191–96). This could mean that the Coner drawing was of a preliminary scheme that was modified and reduced in size before construction, perhaps because of siting difficulties, as has long been argued (Bruschi 1968, pp. 157–62; Bruschi 1974, pp. 205–10), but the extent of the changes may well have been far greater than has hitherto been suspected. Precisely what the final structure looked like is difficult to determine but some broad conclusions are possible. One is that the shape of the constructed building, being far closer to a square than the approximately 3-by-5 rectangle depicted in the Coner plan, would have affected the internal scansion of five-by-seven equally sized bays, and would have thus required bays of different numbers or size; and another is that, rather than being articulated internally with pilasters, it had different supports, which are what Paolo Palliolo described specifically as ‘square columns’ (colonne quadre).
If the final building was ready for use by September 1514, then the definitive design for it must have been established well beforehand, which means that the Coner scheme would have been devised at some point before that time but sometime after the accession of Leo X in March 1514. It was almost certainly designed in the Sangallo circle, which helps explain why it came to be recorded by Bernardo della Volpaia. Alfieri names the architect of the executed design as the Florentine draftsman, woodworker and engineer Pietro Rosselli, who was intimately acquainted with Giuliano da Sangallo and his nephew Antonio the Younger, but Rosselli is not otherwise recorded as an architect, and so, although he may well have supervised the final construction, he would hardly have been responsible for the original proposal for such a culturally and politically significant venue. Much more likely, therefore, is Bruschi’s suggestion that the original design was set down by Giuliano da Sangallo, who had been summoned to Rome by the new pope and had arrived there by the summer of 1514. The design certainly has features that are paralleled in earlier schemes by Giuliano, such as his project recorded in the Codex Barberini for a palace for the king of Naples of 1488, which has a monumental entrance marked out by six free-standing columns, and an open-air theatre at the centre with a similar entrance and similarly tiered seating.
Although the evocation of antiquity played a large part in this original design, as exemplified by the façade’s affinities with ancient triumphal arches, this was subservient to the building’s practical requirements coupled with its need to be as eye-catching as possible. Thus, it may well be the case that the five doors behind the stage had been consciously likened to the five doors mentioned by Vitruvius as belonging to the scaenae frons of an ancient theatre (Vitruvius, De architectura, Book 5, chapter 6), and that the altar conceptually replaced the pulpitum (ibid.); but the principal aim was to provide a suitably all’antica setting for a modern-day spectacle rather than re-create an ancient theatre in the manner of the one subsequently planned for Raphael’s Villa Madama (c.1518). This is not to say, however, that ancient buildings were not sought out as potential models for the design as a whole; and one that could well have served this very purpose is the part-surviving lower hall of the Temple of Fortuna at Palestrina, from which the celebrated Nile mosaic was eventually recovered (see Whitehouse 2001, pp. 71–87). A plan of this hall is included in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini (illustrated but not discussed in Bruschi 1974), having been added to it by his son Francesco at presumably around this very time. It has a five-bay façade fronted by columns and an interior that is remarkably like the one shown in the theatre plan – having an altar at the end, pilasters around the sides (folded at the corners), and a raised platform running around the periphery but interrupted at the entrance. The only major difference is the presence of a large apse. In other words, the Palestrina plan appears as though it could have easily served the Capitoline Theatre not just as a model but as one designed and configured for a strikingly similar purpose.
The plan was presumably included on this folio of the codex because of its general comparability with the two ancient rectangular buildings illustrated next to it.
OTHER DRAWINGS MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fols 8v and 39v [palace for the King of Naples] (Hülsen 1910, 1, pp. 16 and 56; Borsi 1985, pp. 395–404); [Francesco da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 43r (Hülsen 1910, 1, p. 58; Borsi 1985, pp. 213–14)
Literature
Ashby 1904, pp. 22–23
Ashby 1913, pp. 194–97
Bruschi 1968
Günther 1988, p. 338
S. Frommel 2014, pp. 352–53
Ashby 1913, pp. 194–97
Bruschi 1968
Günther 1988, p. 338
S. Frommel 2014, pp. 352–53
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