Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Folio 23 verso (Ashby 36): Pantheon, rotunda
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/36
Purpose
Folio 23 verso (Ashby 36): Pantheon, rotunda
Aspect
Hybrid cross section combined with part-perspectival and part-axonometric elevation
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:350
Inscribed
[Drawing] .T[enpli]. Panteonis. id./ .S. mariae. rotundae. (‘Of the Temple of the Pantheon, that [is] Santa Maria Rotunda’)
[Mount] 36 [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 (232x167mm), rounded corners at left, inlaid
[Mount] Pen and dark brown ink; frame lines, 10mm apart; window (225x160mm)
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Watermark
See recto
Notes
This section, unlike the one on the previous page, shows an entire half of the Pantheon’s interior, but, as Nesselrath has noted (2015, pp. 292–93), it is in some respects rather unusual in conception. Unlike the previous drawing which includes the grand half-domed apse at the centre of the interior, this one has at its centre one of the curved exedrae that lie on the building’s transverse axis, which might suggest that it is a longitudinal section, but this is not the case since neither the grand apse nor the barrel-vaulted entrance that lie on that axis are shown. Instead, there is a rectangular exedra on the left and a semi-circular one on the right, an asymmetry that is not found in the building, which means that this apparent section is one that does not exist. Instead, the drawing can be thought of as a composite image of the Pantheon’s interior, providing complementary information about the exedrae by showing the one in the centre frontally and the two at the sides – one of each type – sectionally. This rearrangement of elements from the same building to create a composite image is seen elsewhere in the codex, most notably in the section of Bramante’s Tempietto (Fol. 22r/Ashby 34) which is especially close in approach, and that of the Temple of Portunus at Porto (Fol. 7v/Ashby 12), and also the depictions of the Mausoleum of Caecilia Metella (Fol. 35v/Ashby 57) and of the exterior wall of the Forum of Augustus and the Cancelleria (Fol. 32r/Ashby 51) which are again comparable. All such images were no doubt conceived to save the effort of producing multiple drawings in providing the necessary information. The building’s unconventional rendition may also help explain why so few measurements are indicated, and why the drawing was preceded by the other section (Fol. 23r/Ashby 35), this being a more ‘accurate’ representation of the building that could be used for reference and comparison.
At first sight, the drawing might appear to be a perspectival view seen from a very high vantage point half-way up the dome, but it is in fact an unusual and very cleverly conceived hybrid of representational techniques, in part a precocious form of axonometric projection and in part a perspectival view. The drawing was begun by producing an orthogonal section from which the main horizontal divisions of the cylindrical interior were drawn as successions of curved lines, all identical in their curvature, in a manner akin to an axonometric projection. These curves, however, are arcs not of circles but of ovals, being a little tighter at the sides and a little flatter towards the centre. The great virtue of this system is that the heights of columns and other features on the same levels remain equal. The system, however, has the disadvantage of leaving little space for rendering the coffering of the dome, for which the pseudo-axonometric treatment of the cylindrical drum has been replaced by a perspectival one, in which the perspective is exaggerated and the curvature changes radically at every level, so that the coffers are rather squashed as a result.
Despite the care taken to render the curvature of the interior accurately, the drawing still reveals some errors in its execution. The number of coffers in each quarter circuit are shown as six rather than seven, and the pediment of the second tabernacle from the left is shown as if seen not from above like he others but from below. Also incorrect, but perhaps a simple drafting error, is that the pediments of the tabernacles are not in the correct order, since they should be arranged in a symmetrical sequence (on the long axis of triangular, segmental, segmental, triangular) rather than, as here, in one of matching pairs (segmental, segmental, triangular, triangular). There is also a large and obvious pentimento on the left side of the dome in the depiction of the steps encircling its exterior.
This unconventional way of conceiving an interior view has no close precedents that are known. It is nevertheless anticipated to a degree in a drawing by Francesco di Giorgio which, although grossly inaccurate in many respects, represents the interior as an open-fronted semi-cylinder with a crowning dome, the whole being divided up by curving arcs. It also finds something of a precedent in a drawing of the interior in the earlier Codex Escurialensis, copied by Raphael among several others (see e.g. Shearman 1977), which shows a large portion of the interior up to just above the level of the upper-storey cornice and sets out the two storeys through a succession of curving arcs (aside from the alignment at the bottom which is largely straight). It also shares some features with a later drawing included in the so-called Ripanda Sketchbook in Oxford which combines a rudimentary section with an interior view, which would indicate some connection, although the perspectival system is conceptually very different in having a vantage point at floor level rather than high up the dome, which suggests it is not directly related to the Coner depiction. It could be, therefore, that the Coner representation was the brainchild of its author, Bernardo della Volpaia, particularly in view of the fact that the basic principle of combining a section with a projected view underlies very many other drawings of buildings in the codex, including the depiction of the Pantheon exterior on the following page, and many drawings too of details. Certain characteristics of the drawing, nevertheless, find close parallels in other early-sixteenth-century drawings of the building, such as showing the upper storey without any articulation (like in Fol. 23r/Ashby 35), which is similarly a feature of an orthogonal section of the Pantheon by Peruzzi.
It is not clear exactly why the drawing was positioned towards the bottom of the sheet, but it may be that other drawings, perhaps of the Pantheon, were originally intended to be added above it. The drawing was waywardly copied by Aspertini who made no distinction in the sections of the exedrae at left and right.
RELATED IMAGES: [Amico Aspertini] London, BM, Aspertini Sketchbook II, fol. 42v (Bober 1957, p. 89)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Francesco di Giorgio] Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Codex Saluzziano 148, addendum, fol. 80r (Maltese 1967, 1, p. 280-81 and pl. 146; Buddensieg 1971, pp. 263–67); [Anon.] El Escorial, Real Monasterio, 28-II-12 (Codex Escurialensis), fol. 30r (Egger 1905–06, pp. 93–94); [Raphael] Florence, GDSU, 164 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 24); [Anon.] Oxford, Ashmolean, inv. KP668 (Ripanda Sketchbook), fol. 24r (Cafà 2002, pp. 155–56); [Baldassare Peruzzi] Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea, Ms. I 217, busta 4, no. 8r (Burns 1965/66; Wurm 1984, p. 473)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 8r/Ashby 13; Fol. 23r/Ashby 35; Fol. 24r/Ashby 37; Fol. 24v/Ashby 38; Fol. 38r/Ashby 61; Fol. 38v/Ashby 62; Fol. 39r/Ashby 63; Fol. 40r/Ashby 65; Fol. 50v; Ashby 86; Fol. 65r/Ashby 111
At first sight, the drawing might appear to be a perspectival view seen from a very high vantage point half-way up the dome, but it is in fact an unusual and very cleverly conceived hybrid of representational techniques, in part a precocious form of axonometric projection and in part a perspectival view. The drawing was begun by producing an orthogonal section from which the main horizontal divisions of the cylindrical interior were drawn as successions of curved lines, all identical in their curvature, in a manner akin to an axonometric projection. These curves, however, are arcs not of circles but of ovals, being a little tighter at the sides and a little flatter towards the centre. The great virtue of this system is that the heights of columns and other features on the same levels remain equal. The system, however, has the disadvantage of leaving little space for rendering the coffering of the dome, for which the pseudo-axonometric treatment of the cylindrical drum has been replaced by a perspectival one, in which the perspective is exaggerated and the curvature changes radically at every level, so that the coffers are rather squashed as a result.
Despite the care taken to render the curvature of the interior accurately, the drawing still reveals some errors in its execution. The number of coffers in each quarter circuit are shown as six rather than seven, and the pediment of the second tabernacle from the left is shown as if seen not from above like he others but from below. Also incorrect, but perhaps a simple drafting error, is that the pediments of the tabernacles are not in the correct order, since they should be arranged in a symmetrical sequence (on the long axis of triangular, segmental, segmental, triangular) rather than, as here, in one of matching pairs (segmental, segmental, triangular, triangular). There is also a large and obvious pentimento on the left side of the dome in the depiction of the steps encircling its exterior.
This unconventional way of conceiving an interior view has no close precedents that are known. It is nevertheless anticipated to a degree in a drawing by Francesco di Giorgio which, although grossly inaccurate in many respects, represents the interior as an open-fronted semi-cylinder with a crowning dome, the whole being divided up by curving arcs. It also finds something of a precedent in a drawing of the interior in the earlier Codex Escurialensis, copied by Raphael among several others (see e.g. Shearman 1977), which shows a large portion of the interior up to just above the level of the upper-storey cornice and sets out the two storeys through a succession of curving arcs (aside from the alignment at the bottom which is largely straight). It also shares some features with a later drawing included in the so-called Ripanda Sketchbook in Oxford which combines a rudimentary section with an interior view, which would indicate some connection, although the perspectival system is conceptually very different in having a vantage point at floor level rather than high up the dome, which suggests it is not directly related to the Coner depiction. It could be, therefore, that the Coner representation was the brainchild of its author, Bernardo della Volpaia, particularly in view of the fact that the basic principle of combining a section with a projected view underlies very many other drawings of buildings in the codex, including the depiction of the Pantheon exterior on the following page, and many drawings too of details. Certain characteristics of the drawing, nevertheless, find close parallels in other early-sixteenth-century drawings of the building, such as showing the upper storey without any articulation (like in Fol. 23r/Ashby 35), which is similarly a feature of an orthogonal section of the Pantheon by Peruzzi.
It is not clear exactly why the drawing was positioned towards the bottom of the sheet, but it may be that other drawings, perhaps of the Pantheon, were originally intended to be added above it. The drawing was waywardly copied by Aspertini who made no distinction in the sections of the exedrae at left and right.
RELATED IMAGES: [Amico Aspertini] London, BM, Aspertini Sketchbook II, fol. 42v (Bober 1957, p. 89)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Francesco di Giorgio] Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Codex Saluzziano 148, addendum, fol. 80r (Maltese 1967, 1, p. 280-81 and pl. 146; Buddensieg 1971, pp. 263–67); [Anon.] El Escorial, Real Monasterio, 28-II-12 (Codex Escurialensis), fol. 30r (Egger 1905–06, pp. 93–94); [Raphael] Florence, GDSU, 164 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 24); [Anon.] Oxford, Ashmolean, inv. KP668 (Ripanda Sketchbook), fol. 24r (Cafà 2002, pp. 155–56); [Baldassare Peruzzi] Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea, Ms. I 217, busta 4, no. 8r (Burns 1965/66; Wurm 1984, p. 473)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 8r/Ashby 13; Fol. 23r/Ashby 35; Fol. 24r/Ashby 37; Fol. 24v/Ashby 38; Fol. 38r/Ashby 61; Fol. 38v/Ashby 62; Fol. 39r/Ashby 63; Fol. 40r/Ashby 65; Fol. 50v; Ashby 86; Fol. 65r/Ashby 111
Literature
Ashby 1904, p. 29
Nesselrath 2015, pp. 292-293
Census, ID 46698
Nesselrath 2015, pp. 292-293
Census, ID 46698
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