Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Drawing 2: Temple of Vespasian
Browse
Reference number
SM volume 115/67b
Purpose
Drawing 2: Temple of Vespasian
Aspect
Perspectival elevation and raking side view, with measurements
Scale
To an approximate scale of 1:100
Inscribed
tres. Colu[m]nae. sub. capitolio. (‘The three columns below the Capitol’); [measurements]
[Inscribed on monument] ESTITVER (surviving fragment of CIL, 6, 938)
Signed and dated
- c.1513/14
Datable to c.1513/14
Medium and dimensions
Pen and brown ink and grey-brown wash over stylus lines
Hand
Bernardo della Volpaia
Notes
The three Corinthian columns of the Temple of Vespasian, located close to the face of the Capitoline Hill at the western end of the Roman Forum, belong to the building usually known in the Renaissance as the Temple of Jupiter Tonans (Ridley 1989, pp. 79–80), which was constructed in the late first century CE and then restored in the early third century (LTUR 1993–2000, 5, pp. 124–25; De Angeli 1992). Specifically, they formed the right-hand corner of its portico. The entablature is unusual in having a plaque for an inscription at the front covering both the architrave and frieze, although the Arch of the Argentarii and Portico of Octavia provide close counterparts (Fols 37v/Ashby 60 and 39r/Ashby 63), and in having reliefs of ritual objects in the frieze at the side.
Although various views of the temple survive from this period, the depiction here is the only measured ‘site drawing’ charting the structure’s standing remains to survive from the sixteenth century, apart from a sheet featuring various details compiled perhaps a few years later by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (see Günther 1988, pp. 313, note 269) and a reconstruction of the whole building produced at around this same time by his brother Giovanni Battista. In format, the drawing follows the pattern of several others in the codex in combining a frontal depiction of the structure with a raking view of its side; but, like the one next to it, it is not at all precise in its execution. The columns are poorly proportioned, the bases are simplified, although their detailed design is recorded in another Coner drawing (Fol. 79r/Ashby 133), and the entablature is indicated only schematically, although the frontal plaque with the surviving letters of the inscription is shown, as is a bucranium in the frieze at the side, this being the first of the objects forming the extant relief. In other respects, however, the remnants are remarkably well-observed. The measurements are accurate, and especially notable is the inclusion of plinths beneath the bases. These plinths are not seen, for example, in Giovanni Battista’s reconstruction, but those beneath the frontal columns seem certainly to have been based on sound observation, since archaeological investigation of the building has shown that these columns were raised on plinths which had spaces between them for additional steps (De Angeli 1992, p. 83).
What is recorded in the fragmentary plaque fronting the entablature is the surviving part of the final word – RESTITVER[VNT] – of the dedicatory inscription, which has an ‘E’ as the first letter, unlike in the drawings by Antonio and Giovanni Battista da Sangallo where this letter is omitted and the inscription starts with the following ‘S’, Antonio commenting on one of his drawings (Uffizi 1140 Ar) that ‘this small part is in existence’ (questo pocho e in opera) and evidently not noticing the preceding ‘E’. Antonio also thought, erroneously, that he knew the whole inscription, and noted on the drawing what he believed this to be, stating that it was taken from the ‘book of inscriptions’ (quello e tratto dal libro delli epitaffij). The same mistaken inscription features on Giovanni Battista’s reconstruction.
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 1140 Ar–v (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 89; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, 1, p. 110); [Giovanni Battista da Sangallo] London, RIBA, Codex Rootstein-Hopkins, fols 16r and 17r (Campbell–Nesselrath 2006, pp. 75 and 77; Campbell in Frommel–Schelbert 2022, 1, pp. 253–54)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 79r/Ashby 133
Although various views of the temple survive from this period, the depiction here is the only measured ‘site drawing’ charting the structure’s standing remains to survive from the sixteenth century, apart from a sheet featuring various details compiled perhaps a few years later by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (see Günther 1988, pp. 313, note 269) and a reconstruction of the whole building produced at around this same time by his brother Giovanni Battista. In format, the drawing follows the pattern of several others in the codex in combining a frontal depiction of the structure with a raking view of its side; but, like the one next to it, it is not at all precise in its execution. The columns are poorly proportioned, the bases are simplified, although their detailed design is recorded in another Coner drawing (Fol. 79r/Ashby 133), and the entablature is indicated only schematically, although the frontal plaque with the surviving letters of the inscription is shown, as is a bucranium in the frieze at the side, this being the first of the objects forming the extant relief. In other respects, however, the remnants are remarkably well-observed. The measurements are accurate, and especially notable is the inclusion of plinths beneath the bases. These plinths are not seen, for example, in Giovanni Battista’s reconstruction, but those beneath the frontal columns seem certainly to have been based on sound observation, since archaeological investigation of the building has shown that these columns were raised on plinths which had spaces between them for additional steps (De Angeli 1992, p. 83).
What is recorded in the fragmentary plaque fronting the entablature is the surviving part of the final word – RESTITVER[VNT] – of the dedicatory inscription, which has an ‘E’ as the first letter, unlike in the drawings by Antonio and Giovanni Battista da Sangallo where this letter is omitted and the inscription starts with the following ‘S’, Antonio commenting on one of his drawings (Uffizi 1140 Ar) that ‘this small part is in existence’ (questo pocho e in opera) and evidently not noticing the preceding ‘E’. Antonio also thought, erroneously, that he knew the whole inscription, and noted on the drawing what he believed this to be, stating that it was taken from the ‘book of inscriptions’ (quello e tratto dal libro delli epitaffij). The same mistaken inscription features on Giovanni Battista’s reconstruction.
OTHER IMAGES MENTIONED: [Antonio da Sangallo the Younger] Florence, GDSU, 1140 Ar–v (Bartoli 1914–22, 6, p. 89; Frommel–Schelbert 2022, 1, p. 110); [Giovanni Battista da Sangallo] London, RIBA, Codex Rootstein-Hopkins, fols 16r and 17r (Campbell–Nesselrath 2006, pp. 75 and 77; Campbell in Frommel–Schelbert 2022, 1, pp. 253–54)
OTHER DRAWINGS IN CODEX CONER OF SAME SUBJECT: Fol. 79r/Ashby 133
Literature
Ashby 1904, p. 39
De Angeli 1992, pp. 42–43
Census, ID 48280
De Angeli 1992, pp. 42–43
Census, ID 48280
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