Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Folio 34 recto (Ashby 54): Arch of Septimius Severus
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/54
Purpose
Folio 34 recto (Ashby 54): Arch of Septimius Severus
Aspect
Perspectival elevation and raking side view, with measurements
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:120
Inscribed
[Drawing] [measurements]; 48 [early seventeenth-century hand]
[Inscribed on monument] IMP. CAES. LVCIO. SEPTIMIO. M. SIL. SEVERO. PIO. PERTINACIAVG PATRI. PATRIAE. PARTHICO. ARABICO. ET./PARTHICO. ADIABENICO. PONTIFIC. MAXIMO. TRIBVNIC. POTEST. XI. IMP. XI. COS. III. PROCOS. ET./ IMP. CAES. M. AVRELIO. L. SIL. ANTONINO. AVG. PIO FELICI. TRIBVUNIC. POTEST. VI. COS. PROCOS. ET./ OPTIMIS. FORTISSMIS. QVAE. PRINCIPIBVS./ .OB. REM. PVBLICAM. RESTITVTAM. IMPERVM. QVAE. POPVLI. ROMANI. PROPAGATVM./ .INSIGNIBVS. VIRTVTIBVS. EORVM. DOMI. FORISQVE. S. P. Q. R.
(= CIL, 6, 1033: IMP[ERATORI] CAES[ARI] LVCIO SEPTIMIO M[ARCI] FIL[IO] SEVERO PIO PERTINACI AVG[VSTO] PATRI PATRIAE PARTHICO ARABICO ET/ PARTHICO ADIABENICO PONTIFIC[I] MAXIMO TRIBVNIC[IA] POTEST[ATE] XI IMP[ERATORI] XI CO[N]S[VLI] III PROCO[N]S[VLI] ET/ IMP[ERATORI] CAES[ARI] M[ARCO] AVRELIO L[VCI] FIL[IO] ANTONINO AVG[VSTO] PIO FELICI TRIBVNIC[IA] POTEST[ATE] VI CO[N]S[VLI] PROCO[N]S[VLI] P[ATRI] P[ATRIAE] ET/ OPTIMIS FORTISSIMISQVE PRINCIPIBVS/ OB REM PVBLICAM RESTITVTAM IMPERIVMQVE POPVLI ROMANI PROPAGATVM/ INSIGNIBVS VIRTVTIBVS EORVM DOMI FORISQVE S[ENATVS] P[OPVLVS]Q[VE] R[OMANVS])
[Mount] 54 [x2]; Triumphal arch of Septimius Severus. [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 (168x232mm), rounded corners at top, inlaid (sheet rotated anticlockwise through 90 degrees with respect to original foliation, window on verso of mount)
[Mount] Frame lines, in pen and dark brown ink, 10mm apart
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Watermark
[Drawing] Anchor in circle topped with six-pointed star (variant 6; cut at bottom) [Mount] None
Notes
The Arch of Septimius Severus, in the Roman Forum, was constructed in 202–03 CE following the emperor’s victories over the Parthians (Brilliant 1967, p. 29; LTUR 1993–2000, 1, pp. 103–05), and had survived the ravages of the Middle Ages in a relatively unscathed condition, thanks to it having been adapted to serve as a fortress by the Ciminius family. This conversion, however, involved the construction of some sort of superstructure, remnants of which are documented in topographical drawings by Marten van Heemskerck and others, although not indicated in the Coner drawing or in similar depictions of an ‘architectural’ nature.
The Coner drawing follows the same format as many others in the codex in recording both the monument’s front (probably the south-eastern front) and a raking view of its right-hand side. As such, it differs from earlier representations, such as the one by Giuliano da Sangalllo in the Codex Barberini, which is perspectival but focused more centrally (as well as giving the structure a fictional crowning pediment). It also differs from many produced subsequently, such as one dating to around 1519 in Vienna and those later by Antonio da Sangallo and Andrea Palladio, which are orthogonal. The advantage of the Coner format is not just that it shows a side as well as the front, but also reveals other particulars that make a ground plan rather unnecessary. Thus, it allows side glimpses of the three archways, with their unusual interconnecting lateral arches (cf. Fol. 64v/Ashby 110), and of the pair of attached attic-level pillars (both extensively reworked in the drawing), as well as indicating the relationship between the attached Composite columns and respondent pilasters behind them.
Like many other elevation representations in the codex, especially those of triumphal arches, the drawing is decidedly schematic in its rendering of details. The entablature is depicted so as just to show its three basic components, and the various other cornices and mouldings are similarly simplified, while the coffers of the various arches are reduced to simple unembellished squares, with those of the smaller arches being rather too large. Certain smaller details included here, moreover, are misrepresented, such as the column bases being shown with single rather than double plinths, and the lateral arches being depicted without their keystones. Entirely lacking too is any indication of the relief sculpture adorning the spandrels of the arches, the ample spaces above the side arches and the pedestals beneath the columns. The drawing, although annotated with very many measurements, is notably wayward in its overall proportions. The columns have a specified height (4.5 braccia = 8.47m) that is considerably less than their actual height (around 8.80m as illustrated by Desgodetz: 1682, p. 201); and, although correctly proportioned with the attic storey, they are manifestly too short in relation to the widths of the three façade bays. In addition, the column pedestals are too short and are lacking their extra plinths, meaning that the three façade arches are significantly less tall than in reality, although this would not have then been appreciated since the arch was buried up to the level of the column bases, and the pedestals could only be inspected by carrying out excavations (resulting in pits like the one shown in a later topographical drawing by Giovannantonio Dosio). These proportional shortcomings can be partly explained, too, by the practice of executing the drawing by eye rather than to scale, and on probably basing it on a previous drawing with the specified dimensions being added subsequently, as was standard practice throughout the codex.
Recording the attic inscription (which appears on both the arch’s faces) would appear to have made any further identifying caption redundant. The inscription (not usually shown in later drawings) was previously published by Francesco Albertini in his guild to Rome (Albertini 1510, 2, chapter 8, fol. Pii v), and it is recorded here with reasonable accuracy, although there are still certain errors of transcription, such as rendering the word fil[io] in lines 1 and 3 as ‘sil’. As there is no identifying caption, one was added to the mount in the nineteenth century.
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 21v (Hülsen 1910, p. 31; Borsi 1985, pp. 129–32); [Anonymous Italian C of 1519] Vienna, Albertina, Egger No. 1–19, fol. 3r (Egger 1903, p. 17; Valori 1985, pp. 82–85; Günther 1988, p. 340 and pl. 26a); [Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 2055 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 91; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, 1, pp. 215–16); [Circle of Marten van Heemskerck],Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 79 D 2a (Heemskerck Album II), fol. 79v–80r (Hülsen–Egger 1913–16, 2, p. 44); [Andrea Palladio] Vicenza, Museo Civico, D 13v (Zorzi 1958, p. 56; Puppi 1988, pp. 104–05; [Andrea Palladio] London, RIBA, Palladio 12, 6r (Zorzi 1958, p. 56; [Giovannantonio Dosio] Florence, GDSU, 2521 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 131)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 56r/Ashby 95; Fol. 64v/Ashby 110; Fol. 89r/Ashby 147
The Coner drawing follows the same format as many others in the codex in recording both the monument’s front (probably the south-eastern front) and a raking view of its right-hand side. As such, it differs from earlier representations, such as the one by Giuliano da Sangalllo in the Codex Barberini, which is perspectival but focused more centrally (as well as giving the structure a fictional crowning pediment). It also differs from many produced subsequently, such as one dating to around 1519 in Vienna and those later by Antonio da Sangallo and Andrea Palladio, which are orthogonal. The advantage of the Coner format is not just that it shows a side as well as the front, but also reveals other particulars that make a ground plan rather unnecessary. Thus, it allows side glimpses of the three archways, with their unusual interconnecting lateral arches (cf. Fol. 64v/Ashby 110), and of the pair of attached attic-level pillars (both extensively reworked in the drawing), as well as indicating the relationship between the attached Composite columns and respondent pilasters behind them.
Like many other elevation representations in the codex, especially those of triumphal arches, the drawing is decidedly schematic in its rendering of details. The entablature is depicted so as just to show its three basic components, and the various other cornices and mouldings are similarly simplified, while the coffers of the various arches are reduced to simple unembellished squares, with those of the smaller arches being rather too large. Certain smaller details included here, moreover, are misrepresented, such as the column bases being shown with single rather than double plinths, and the lateral arches being depicted without their keystones. Entirely lacking too is any indication of the relief sculpture adorning the spandrels of the arches, the ample spaces above the side arches and the pedestals beneath the columns. The drawing, although annotated with very many measurements, is notably wayward in its overall proportions. The columns have a specified height (4.5 braccia = 8.47m) that is considerably less than their actual height (around 8.80m as illustrated by Desgodetz: 1682, p. 201); and, although correctly proportioned with the attic storey, they are manifestly too short in relation to the widths of the three façade bays. In addition, the column pedestals are too short and are lacking their extra plinths, meaning that the three façade arches are significantly less tall than in reality, although this would not have then been appreciated since the arch was buried up to the level of the column bases, and the pedestals could only be inspected by carrying out excavations (resulting in pits like the one shown in a later topographical drawing by Giovannantonio Dosio). These proportional shortcomings can be partly explained, too, by the practice of executing the drawing by eye rather than to scale, and on probably basing it on a previous drawing with the specified dimensions being added subsequently, as was standard practice throughout the codex.
Recording the attic inscription (which appears on both the arch’s faces) would appear to have made any further identifying caption redundant. The inscription (not usually shown in later drawings) was previously published by Francesco Albertini in his guild to Rome (Albertini 1510, 2, chapter 8, fol. Pii v), and it is recorded here with reasonable accuracy, although there are still certain errors of transcription, such as rendering the word fil[io] in lines 1 and 3 as ‘sil’. As there is no identifying caption, one was added to the mount in the nineteenth century.
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Giuliano da Sangallo] Rome, BAV, Barb. lat. 4424 (Codex Barberini), fol. 21v (Hülsen 1910, p. 31; Borsi 1985, pp. 129–32); [Anonymous Italian C of 1519] Vienna, Albertina, Egger No. 1–19, fol. 3r (Egger 1903, p. 17; Valori 1985, pp. 82–85; Günther 1988, p. 340 and pl. 26a); [Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 2055 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 91; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, 1, pp. 215–16); [Circle of Marten van Heemskerck],Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 79 D 2a (Heemskerck Album II), fol. 79v–80r (Hülsen–Egger 1913–16, 2, p. 44); [Andrea Palladio] Vicenza, Museo Civico, D 13v (Zorzi 1958, p. 56; Puppi 1988, pp. 104–05; [Andrea Palladio] London, RIBA, Palladio 12, 6r (Zorzi 1958, p. 56; [Giovannantonio Dosio] Florence, GDSU, 2521 Ar (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 131)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 56r/Ashby 95; Fol. 64v/Ashby 110; Fol. 89r/Ashby 147
Literature
Ashby 1904, p. 35
Census, ID 44442
Census, ID 44442
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