Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Folio 33 recto (Ashby 53): Arch of Constantine
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/53
Purpose
Folio 33 recto (Ashby 53): Arch of Constantine
Aspect
Perspectival elevation and raking side view, with measurements
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:120
Inscribed
[Drawing] [measurements]; 47 [early seventeenth-century hand]
[Inscribed on monument]
[in attic] .IMP. CAES. FL. COSTANTINOMAXXIMO./ .P.F. AVGVSTO. S. P. Q. R./ QVODINSTINCTV. DIVINITATIS. TAENTI./ MAGNITVDINE. CVM. EXERCITVSVO. TAM. DE TYRAN[N]O. QVAM, DE. OMN LIETVS./ .FATIONE. VNO. TEMPORE. IVSTIS./ .REM./ PVBLICA. MVLTVS ESTAR. MIS./ . ARCVM. TRIVMPHIS. INSIGNEM. DICAVIT; [above left arch] VOT ISXI; [above right arch] VOTIS XX; [inside central arch] LIBERATOR VRB/ IS
(= CIL, 6, 1139: [in attic] IMP[ERATORI] CAES[ARI] FL[AVIO] CONSTANTINO MAXIMO/ P[IO] F[ELICI] AVGVSTO S[ENATVS] P[OPVLVS]Q[VE] R[OMANVS]/ QVOD INSTINCTV DIVINITATIS MENTIS/ MAGNITVDINE CVM EXERCITV SVO/ TAM DE TYRANNO QVAM DE OMNI EIVS/ FACTIONE VNO TEMPORE IVSTIS/ REM PVBLICAM VLTVS EST ARMIS/ ARCVM TRIVMPHIS INSIGNEM DICAVIT; [above left arch] VOTIS X[DECENNALIBVS]; [above right arch] VOTIS XX[VICENNALIBVS]; [inside central arch] LIBERATORI VRBIS)
[Mount] 53 [x2]; Triumphal Arch of Constantine. [in pencil]
Signed and dated
- c.1513/14
Datable to c.1513/14
Medium and dimensions
[Drawing] Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over compass pricks; on laid paper (165x228mm), rounded corners absent (formerly top), inlaid (sheet rotated anticlockwise through 90 degrees with respect to original foliation; window on verso of mount)
[Verso] Blank and covered in glue and paper residue
[Mount] Frame lines, in pen and dark brown ink, 10mm apart
[Verso of mount] Window (158x222mm)
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Watermark
[Drawing] None [Mount] None
Notes
The Arch of Constantine, located close to the Roman Forum and the Colosseum, was one of the most conspicuous and well known of Rome’s ancient monuments. It was constructed under the Emperor Constantine, following his victory over Maxentius in 312 CE (LTUR 1993–2000, 1, pp. 86–91), using spolia from earlier structures (see e.g. Pensabene–Panella 1999, pp. 13–42); and it was then incorporated in the middle ages into a fortress belonging to the Frangipane family and survived thereafter in a relatively unscathed condition, although as part of this adaptation it was given some sort of superstructure, remains of which are seen in a drawing included in the early sixteenth-century Codex Escurialensis. This addition, however, is not recorded in the Coner drawing or in any of the other more ‘architectural’ records dating from the Renaissance period.
In this drawing, the arch is depicted from the north, as is clear from the recorded inscription over the side arches, but with a raking view of the western side, a format seen in many other Coner drawings but not in other images of the monument. The earliest drawings of the arch to survive date from the late fifteenth century and include two by Giuliano da Sangallo, one in his Taccuino Senese and the other, more finely wrought, in the Codex Barberini. This follows the convention seen in other early examples of representing the arch frontally but with a vanishing point at the centre, and it records – with remarkable accuracy – both the overall composition and the details, including the façade’s inscriptions and its abundant sculptural embellishments. The Coner drawing departs from this model by adopting an oblique perspectival format that has the advantage of allowing the structure’s flank to be shown, and of clarifying how the engaged columns respond to the pilasters behind them. It also places an emphasis firmly on the architecture, through not detailing the numerous sculpted reliefs or the four statues of Dacian barbarians standing on the projecting pedestals of the attic. The drawing differs, too, from most subsequent representations of the arch, such as the drawing in the early sixteenth-century Codex Mellon and the one dating to around 1519 in Vienna, as well as those later by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and Palladio, which are all orthogonal, although most of these similarly ignore the sculptural elements. The arch, at the top, is shown as terminating with the entablature of the attic, and so without the short additional level shown in Antonio da Sangallo’s drawing, and later illustrated too by Desgodetz (1682, pp. 230–31), fragments of which may have been antique but are no longer there.
The Coner drawing simplifies all the mouldings (with the curious exception of the architrave on the flank), perhaps in the knowledge that the principal details were to be drawn elsewhere in the codex, and perhaps also because too much complication would have made the design less readable. It also makes some minor errors. It wrongly shows, for instance, the impost mouldings of the central arch as having a considerable space beneath its cornice and its lower astragal (cf. Fol. 51v/Ashby 88), and the attic pedestals as being much narrower than in reality, errors that may indicate that the drawing was mainly informed by others produced beforehand that were similarly defective. The proportions of the structure are also notably wayward – even though the drawing is supplied with numerous measurements. The height of the columns (given fairly accurately as 14.77 braccia) and the widths of the three façade bays are roughly correct in respect to each another, but the attic is too low and the pedestals beneath the columns, and the parts of the structure corresponding with them, are much shorter than they should be, this inaccuracy perhaps partly explained by the fact that they were still partly buried, as can be seen in a raking view from the 1530s by Maarten van Heemskerck. The main reason for these proportional shortcomings, however, relates to the drawing’s manner of execution, which was not drawn to scale but simply by eye, with the dimensions added subsequently, like all the other elevational depictions in the codex, even though in this case the result was to make the arch appear much squatter than it is in reality.
The inscriptions, recorded previously by Francesco Albertini in his guide to Rome (Albertini 1510, 2, chapter 8, fol. Piii), would appear to have been regarded as obviating any need for an identifying caption, although one was added in the to the nineteenth century to the mount. They were presumably of some importance for the codex’s intended recipient, even though they include several significant errors. The line in the attic inscription that reads TAM DE TYRANNO QUAM DE OMNI EIVS appears as TAM DEYRANNO QVAM DE OMNLIETVS, while the one reading REM PVBLICAM VLTVS EST ARMIS is rendered as REM PVBLICA MVLTUS EST AR MIS. Likewise unintelligible is the inscription over the left archway, which should read VOTIS X but is instead recorded as VOT ISXI. The drawing was mostly copied (bar the inscriptions) by Michelangelo, except that he altered the corner of the attic so that the final pilaster is made taller and, rather than being set back, is positioned directly over the column beneath, like the end-pilaster of the Arch of Septimius Severus (Fol. 34r/Ashby 54).
The back of the sheet is covered in glue and remnants of the surface of another sheet of paper, indicating that it had once been laid down and then carefully removed from that mount sheet. At least one other sheet in the codex underwent this procedure, the one for the drawing, also of a triumphal arch, of the Arch of Janus (Fol. 36r/Ashby 58), which is perhaps significantly also blank on the verso, and this must have occurred before the sheet was window-mounted for the album.
RELATED IMAGES: [Michelangelo] Florence, CB, 8Ar: right side (De Tolnay 1975–80, 4, p. 46; Agosti–Farinella 1987, pp. 102–03)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Siena, BCS, Ms. S.IV.8 (Taccuino Senese), fol. 23v (Borsi 1985, pp. 122–25); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 19v (Hülsen 1910, pp. 29–30; Borsi 1985, pp. 116–22); [Anon.] El Escorial, Real Monasterio, 28-II-12 (Codex Escurialensis), fol. 28v (Egger 1905–06, p. 92); [Domenico Aima (Il Varignana), attr.] New York, Morgan Library, Codex Mellon, fol. 75r); [Anonymous Italian C of 1519] Vienna, Albertina, Egger 1–19, fol. 1r (Egger 1903, p. 17; Valori 1985, pp. 76–78; Günther 1988, p. 340 and pl. 23a); [Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 2055 Av (Bartoli, 1914–22, 6, p. 91; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, 1, pp. 215–16); [Andrea Palladio] Vicenza, Museo Civico, D 14r (Zorzi 1958, p. 55; Puppi 1988, pp. 105–06); [Andrea Palladio] RIBA, Palladio 12, 5r (Zorzi 1958, p. 55); [Maarten van Heemskerck] Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, Inv. 79 D 2 (Heemskerck Album I), fol. 69 r (Hülsen–Egger 1913–16, 1, p. 49)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 51r/Ashby 87; Fol. 51v/Ashby 88; Fol. 62r/Ashby 105; Fol. 68r/Ashby 116
In this drawing, the arch is depicted from the north, as is clear from the recorded inscription over the side arches, but with a raking view of the western side, a format seen in many other Coner drawings but not in other images of the monument. The earliest drawings of the arch to survive date from the late fifteenth century and include two by Giuliano da Sangallo, one in his Taccuino Senese and the other, more finely wrought, in the Codex Barberini. This follows the convention seen in other early examples of representing the arch frontally but with a vanishing point at the centre, and it records – with remarkable accuracy – both the overall composition and the details, including the façade’s inscriptions and its abundant sculptural embellishments. The Coner drawing departs from this model by adopting an oblique perspectival format that has the advantage of allowing the structure’s flank to be shown, and of clarifying how the engaged columns respond to the pilasters behind them. It also places an emphasis firmly on the architecture, through not detailing the numerous sculpted reliefs or the four statues of Dacian barbarians standing on the projecting pedestals of the attic. The drawing differs, too, from most subsequent representations of the arch, such as the drawing in the early sixteenth-century Codex Mellon and the one dating to around 1519 in Vienna, as well as those later by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and Palladio, which are all orthogonal, although most of these similarly ignore the sculptural elements. The arch, at the top, is shown as terminating with the entablature of the attic, and so without the short additional level shown in Antonio da Sangallo’s drawing, and later illustrated too by Desgodetz (1682, pp. 230–31), fragments of which may have been antique but are no longer there.
The Coner drawing simplifies all the mouldings (with the curious exception of the architrave on the flank), perhaps in the knowledge that the principal details were to be drawn elsewhere in the codex, and perhaps also because too much complication would have made the design less readable. It also makes some minor errors. It wrongly shows, for instance, the impost mouldings of the central arch as having a considerable space beneath its cornice and its lower astragal (cf. Fol. 51v/Ashby 88), and the attic pedestals as being much narrower than in reality, errors that may indicate that the drawing was mainly informed by others produced beforehand that were similarly defective. The proportions of the structure are also notably wayward – even though the drawing is supplied with numerous measurements. The height of the columns (given fairly accurately as 14.77 braccia) and the widths of the three façade bays are roughly correct in respect to each another, but the attic is too low and the pedestals beneath the columns, and the parts of the structure corresponding with them, are much shorter than they should be, this inaccuracy perhaps partly explained by the fact that they were still partly buried, as can be seen in a raking view from the 1530s by Maarten van Heemskerck. The main reason for these proportional shortcomings, however, relates to the drawing’s manner of execution, which was not drawn to scale but simply by eye, with the dimensions added subsequently, like all the other elevational depictions in the codex, even though in this case the result was to make the arch appear much squatter than it is in reality.
The inscriptions, recorded previously by Francesco Albertini in his guide to Rome (Albertini 1510, 2, chapter 8, fol. Piii), would appear to have been regarded as obviating any need for an identifying caption, although one was added in the to the nineteenth century to the mount. They were presumably of some importance for the codex’s intended recipient, even though they include several significant errors. The line in the attic inscription that reads TAM DE TYRANNO QUAM DE OMNI EIVS appears as TAM DEYRANNO QVAM DE OMNLIETVS, while the one reading REM PVBLICAM VLTVS EST ARMIS is rendered as REM PVBLICA MVLTUS EST AR MIS. Likewise unintelligible is the inscription over the left archway, which should read VOTIS X but is instead recorded as VOT ISXI. The drawing was mostly copied (bar the inscriptions) by Michelangelo, except that he altered the corner of the attic so that the final pilaster is made taller and, rather than being set back, is positioned directly over the column beneath, like the end-pilaster of the Arch of Septimius Severus (Fol. 34r/Ashby 54).
The back of the sheet is covered in glue and remnants of the surface of another sheet of paper, indicating that it had once been laid down and then carefully removed from that mount sheet. At least one other sheet in the codex underwent this procedure, the one for the drawing, also of a triumphal arch, of the Arch of Janus (Fol. 36r/Ashby 58), which is perhaps significantly also blank on the verso, and this must have occurred before the sheet was window-mounted for the album.
RELATED IMAGES: [Michelangelo] Florence, CB, 8Ar: right side (De Tolnay 1975–80, 4, p. 46; Agosti–Farinella 1987, pp. 102–03)
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Siena, BCS, Ms. S.IV.8 (Taccuino Senese), fol. 23v (Borsi 1985, pp. 122–25); [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 19v (Hülsen 1910, pp. 29–30; Borsi 1985, pp. 116–22); [Anon.] El Escorial, Real Monasterio, 28-II-12 (Codex Escurialensis), fol. 28v (Egger 1905–06, p. 92); [Domenico Aima (Il Varignana), attr.] New York, Morgan Library, Codex Mellon, fol. 75r); [Anonymous Italian C of 1519] Vienna, Albertina, Egger 1–19, fol. 1r (Egger 1903, p. 17; Valori 1985, pp. 76–78; Günther 1988, p. 340 and pl. 23a); [Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 2055 Av (Bartoli, 1914–22, 6, p. 91; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, 1, pp. 215–16); [Andrea Palladio] Vicenza, Museo Civico, D 14r (Zorzi 1958, p. 55; Puppi 1988, pp. 105–06); [Andrea Palladio] RIBA, Palladio 12, 5r (Zorzi 1958, p. 55); [Maarten van Heemskerck] Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, Inv. 79 D 2 (Heemskerck Album I), fol. 69 r (Hülsen–Egger 1913–16, 1, p. 49)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 51r/Ashby 87; Fol. 51v/Ashby 88; Fol. 62r/Ashby 105; Fol. 68r/Ashby 116
Literature
Ashby 1904, p. 35
Census, ID 44397
Census, ID 44397
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