By Paul Davies and David Hemsoll, 2024


General Introduction

1. The Codex Coner: an ‘important series of drawings’

The Codex Coner is one of Sir John Soane’s Museum’s most prized possessions. In its present seventeenth-century state, it is an album of 100 mounted folios featuring 407 drawings. Most of the drawings date from the early sixteenth century, but these are supplemented by a small number produced subsequently. The early drawings, often beautifully and carefully executed, are for the most part of Rome’s antiquities, although some are of the city’s modern buildings, and as an ensemble they were described by Thomas Ashby (1874–1931), who first published the codex (Ashby 1904), as an ‘important series of drawings’. This is in no sense an exaggeration. Their significance rests in part on their early date, but also on the facts that they represent a new approach for their time to the recording of antiquities, and that they include various depictions of High Renaissance buildings in Rome which are among the earliest to survive, several designed by Donato Bramante (1444–1514).

Equally significant is that the drawings had a remarkable Nachleben. They were known to Michelangelo (1475–1564), who copied nearly a hundred of them soon after the original codex was completed. Then, at some point in the early seventeenth century, the compilation was acquired by the scholar and collector Cassiano dal Pozzo (1588–1657) for his celebrated ‘Paper Museum’, where it was seen by the young Francesco Borromini (1599–1667), who likewise made various copies. Later still, it passed through the hands of the architect Robert Adam (1728–92) and into the possession of the subsequent architect John Soane (1753–1837), who installed it in his London home, the future Sir John Soane’s Museum. This was where, at the turn of the twentieth century, it finally came to Ashby’s attention who published it in 1904. His publication was unquestionably a major landmark in the scholarly context of its time. It was especially remarkable for its success in identifying the monuments and their details, and for also discovering so many as-yet unpublished depictions of the same subjects in other compilations and collections of early drawings. This new study builds on Ashby’s pioneering work but focuses on new questions relating to how the drawings were produced and originally organised, and to their position in the developmental context of other Renaissance depictions of ancient architecture. In so doing, it uncovers the codex’s immense historical importance.

In its surviving condition, the Codex Coner is not in fact a ‘codex’ – a bound book made up of gatherings – but an album. When the compilation was acquired by Cassiano dal Pozzo in the seventeenth century, he transformed what had previously been a codex into the existing much grander, vellum-bound album. This conversion involved dismembering the codex, cutting the double-page spreads along their stitching folds, and inserting the individual pages into large mount sheets with windows cut into them, so that both sides of each drawing sheet could be seen. It also saw the original sequence of the drawings, as can be inferred from an earlier set of folio numbers, being partly disrupted. The album’s mount sheets, for their part, were not initially numbered, and it was only in the nineteenth century that numbers – incorrectly known as ‘Ashby numbers’ – were assigned to those mounts carrying sheets with drawings, but not to those with sheets that were blank, an ordering system that is unconventional and potentially misleading. For that reason, the drawings in this new catalogue are cited by both their ‘Ashby numbers’ and their de facto foliation numbers.

2. Dating, authorship, and patronage and purpose

The sixteenth-century drawings were produced in two separate campaigns. The majority, characterised by a much greater formal rigour and consistency as well as a far more laborious drawing process, belongs to an earlier phase and to the years 1513–14. This date range is suggested by annotations on two of the drawings, referring to the discoveries in 1512 of the Obelisk of Augustus (Fol. 42r/Ashby 69 Drawing 4) and in 1513 of an ancient portal (Fol. 53r/Ashby 91 Drawing 1), and it also tallies with the date of 1 September 1513 that appears on a copy in the codex of a letter written by a certain Andreas Coner (Fol. 29r/Ashby 47), as well as with the design dates of several of the modern buildings depicted. Most – or perhaps even all – of the drawings from this phase were produced, therefore, before about mid-1514 and thus even before Bramante’s death in April 1514. The other sixteenth-century drawings, usually of architectural details or of decorative objects or features, belong to a rather later phase. They differ from the earlier drawings in being much more cursory in execution, as well as in layout and identification, and they appear mainly towards the compilation’s end. They were certainly produced by the same draughtsman, however, since their occasional captions are in the same handwriting as the annotations on the other drawings. Although later, they must have been executed well before the time that drawings from both phases were copied by Michelangelo, most probably in December 1516.

Even for Ashby, the authorship of the drawings would become a matter of considerable contention. Ashby himself initially subscribed to a view (Ashby 1904, pp. 3–6) that they had been produced by the Andreas Coner who was named as the author of the drawings on the album’s seventeenth-century spine: Architec[tura] Civilis Andreae Coneris Antiqua Monume[nta] Rom[a]e (‘Civil architecture of Andrea Coner, the ancient monuments of Rome’). Ashby later changed his mind, however, realising that the well-educated Coner could not have been the draughtsman because the Latin of the drawing annotations was of such poor standard (Ashby 1913, pp. 189–90), and he left the matter unresolved. It was over six decades before the question was finally settled, when Tilmann Buddensieg noticed a remarkable similarity between the codex’s drawing of the entablature of the Temple of Castor and Pollux (Fol. 50r/Ashby 85) and one in the Uffizi of the same subject bearing the name ‘Bernardo’, which allowed the codex’s author to be identified as Bernardo della Volpaia (Buddensieg 1975, pp. 89–94 and passim).

Bernardo della Volpaia (c.1475–1521/22) was probably the son of Lorenzo della Volpaia (Pagliara 1989b), a well-respected and well-connected Florentine clockmaker, and he had long worked as a draughtsman in Rome with strong links to the building profession. He appears to have forged a close professional relationship with the up-and-coming architect Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (1484–1546), and to have had access to Antonio’s project drawings, including an early design recorded in the codex for the portal of his Palazzo Baldassini (Fol. 48v/Ashby 82). It was probably through Sangallo – Bramante's assistant on papal projects – that Bernardo became familiar with the many schemes by Bramante that feature in the codex. It may well have been through Sangallo too that he acquired detailed knowledge of the surveys of ancient monuments then being conducted, and he may have even been involved in them directly.

A question that has never previously been posed, however, concerns the Codex Coner’s purpose and whether it was produced for the architect’s own benefit or for that of a patron. It seems highly improbable, however, that Bernardo della Volpaia made it for himself. Most architect’s sketchbooks were assembled over lengthy periods, as is the case with the earlier Codex Barberini compiled by Antonio da Sangallo’s uncle, Giuliano da Sangallo (c.1445–1516), so the fact that the Codex Coner was executed over such a short period of time indicates a purpose that was different. This different purpose is also implied by the character of the drawings themselves. They offer a wholly novel approach to recording ancient buildings, one that largely avoids reconstruction; they employ captions and annotations that are written consistently in Latin rather than the vernacular; they reveal a special interest in ancient inscriptions; and they conform to a broadly consistent range of representational formats and an underlying imperative that they should be as informative and comprehensible as possible. These characteristics would all point to the likelihood that the book’s intended recipient was highly educated, and that he was an enthusiast of architecture and classical antiquity but not a practising architect.

Who this patron was is not known for certain, but he was probably a Florentine, considering that the Florentine braccio was the unit of measure used consistently throughout the compilation, as the title page makes so very clear (Fol. 1r/Ashby 1). A highly plausible candidate, however, would be Bernardo Rucellai (1448–1514), the uncle of Pope Leo X (r.1513–21), and a leading intellectual in late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Florence (Comanducci 2017), and, significantly, his name actually appears in the codex as the recipient of the letter written by Andreas Coner (Fol. 29r/Ashby 47). Bernardo Rucellai was, in fact, precisely the sort of patron who might have commissioned such a compilation. He was fascinated by classical antiquity, an interest that eventually culminated in a book of 1502–04, De urbe Roma, on the subject of Rome’s ancient topography, and he also nurtured a keen engagement with architecture by making drawings of ancient buildings (or having them made for him), as he noted in his De urbe Roma (Rucellai 1770, cols 820, 828, 844, 881–82 and 895). Moreover, in the years around 1513/14, he had begun to regain political prominence in Florence following the reinstatement of a Medici government there in September 1512 and the election of Pope Leo X in March 1513, which is precisely when the codex was being produced.

If the initial commission of the Codex Coner was indeed instigated by Rucellai, then the enterprise was presumably curtailed by the rapid decline in his health that would lead to his death on 7 October 1514, at which point the funding for the enterprise would have ceased. This turn of events would have left the codex in an unfinished state and would also explain why it appears to have been produced in two distinct phases, the first represented by the majority of the drawings that are carefully drawn according to consistent conventions, and the second by the other drawings that are much less rigorous and elaborate in their conception. The first set would be those produced for Rucellai, and the second those produced after his death, when the intended book could no longer serve its original purpose and became, in its continuation, much more akin to a typical sketchbook.

3. Realising the sixteenth-century drawings

Before exploring how the Coner drawings were conceived, it is helpful to begin with some consideration of the paper sheets that were used. The paper itself was probably bought in a single batch, as is clear from the watermarks all being of the same type, and the purchased sheets were all then cut in half, so that each half when folded would form a double folio in the eventual codex. The double-folios were not assembled into bound groups, or gatherings, at this early stage, however, since the drawings were executed before the binding took place, as is clear from four surviving double-page spreads that must have once been located at the centres of certain gatherings (Fols 5r/Ashby 8, 13r/Ashby 22, 25r/Ashby 39 and 97r/Ashby 161). Lines running across their central gutters show no signs of any interruptions, and so must have been drawn before the sheets were folded and bound. A similar conclusion is reached if the perspective constructions used for many of the elevational and sectional drawings are considered, as they have their vanishing points positioned some distance well beyond their sheets’ edges, which again implies that the drawings were executed flat on a table before the sheets were assembled into the gatherings and bound for an eventual book.

The drawings from the earlier phase of execution had their representational formats chosen from a range probably already in existence, to make them as informative and intelligible as possible, as is typified by the elevational drawings. These are almost all perspectival, rather than orthogonal, and most share the highly unusual feature of having their viewpoints fixed well above ground level, this being the case with almost all the drawings of triumphal arches (e.g. Fols 33r/Ashby 53 and 34r/Ashby 54), and especially evident in two drawings showing the Pantheon’s interior (Fols 23r–v/Ashby 35–36). Four-sided structures such as triumphal arches also have their viewpoints positioned just beyond their right-hand corners so that the principal façades are accompanied by depictions in steeply receding perspective of their right-hand sides. Representing them in this way provides a good sense of their layouts, and it offers the considerable advantage of allowing them to be understood from elevational drawings alone, thereby obviating the need for accompanying plans, which for the depictions of the triumphal arches are not supplied at all. Structures of circular plan, such as the Mausoleum of Caecilia Metella (Fol. 35v/Ashby 57) and Bramante’s Tempietto (Fol. 21r/Ashby 33), are instead shown head on. The exceptionally long elevations of the Colosseum (Fol. 26r/Ashby 41) and the Theatre of Marcellus (Fol. 26v/Ashby 42) are represented by showing just a small portion of their outsides perspectivally to convey an abridged impression of the whole; but, for the extremely long external wall of the Forum of Augustus and the enormous façade of Palazzo della Cancelleria (Fol. 32r/Ashby 51 Drawings 1 and 2), a rather different conceptual premise was employed, resulting in a hybrid representation of the structure made up from depictions of different parts. These composite depictions provided much information about the design of the whole building without all of it having to be drawn, and a similar conceptual premise was adopted for the sectional depiction of Bramante’s Tempietto (Fol. 22r/Ashby 34) and one of those of the Pantheon (Fol. 23v/Ashby 36).

The drawings of details are likewise handled in carefully considered ways that are well suited to their expository function. Most of the many depictions of entablatures combine an orthogonal section with a raking view of the front in a format that is akin to representations of whole buildings that unite the frontal elevation with a raking side view. The advantage of this sort of drawing is that the profile can be accurately recorded and supplied with measurements, while the view can provide coverage of all the decorative embellishments. In several drawings of Doric entablatures at the start of the codex’s extended entablatures series (Fols 43r/Ashby 71–48v/Ashby 82), the supporting capital is also included in a unified depiction that often occupies the entire sheet. Entablatures are sometimes represented, however, as if at a structure’s corner (some real corners but others hypothesised), and are shown frontally and in perspective from below, with their receding faces angled inwards and mostly hidden from view. Capitals drawn in isolation are usually shown from below – as if from a natural viewing angle – and include a small section of column shaft. They are depicted either frontally in the form of a section through the whole capital with glimpses behind of the undersides of projecting mouldings in perspective, or as a single profile with a raking view of a side. Bases are almost always shown in perspective from above and in one of three comparable formats. Unembellished bases are depicted as little more than just profiles with glimpses behind of projecting mouldings; unadorned bases associated with fluted shafts usually have the profile depicted, but with the bottom of the shaft projecting forwards from it to allow the fluting to be seen; and highly embellished bases are shown almost in their entirety to allow the surface decoration to be recorded, but with a quarter of it cut away to reveal the profile.

In the slightly later phase of work, the highly calculated range of representational formats used for capitals and bases was discarded in favour of far less sophisticated conventions. Drawings of capitals generally return to the formula, seen in early drawings in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini, of showing them frontally, with the upper mouldings of the shafts curving downwards at the sides but the crowning abacuses turning upwards. Drawings of bases are fewer but the paired examples seen on two sheets (Fols 77r–78r/Ashby 131–132) are especially indicative of a revised way of thinking, being in the form of regressively conceived perspectival views that have the profiles recorded with decidedly poor levels of accuracy.

Many – perhaps most – of the Coner drawings were derived, in some sense, from earlier drawings of the same subjects already in circulation. Given the speed in which the codex was produced such an approach is entirely understandable. Yet, discerning which particular drawings are copies of others is usually very difficult, since their prototypes – like the vast majority of depictions of architectural antiquities from the Renaissance period – no longer survive. Nevertheless, a telling clue as to whether a Coner drawing was copied – or closely derived – from an earlier depiction is when it has features that are patently erroneous. Perhaps the most obvious examples are the three Coner plans of ancient buildings located to the south of Rome (on Fols 11v/Ashby 19 and 12v/Ashby 21), which Bernardo della Volpaia is most unlikely to have seen in person.

Another means of identifying copies is when two extant drawings are very similar but not directly connected, because they both seemingly derive from the same lost original. This would apply to certain Coner depictions that are closely matched in drawings by Andrea Palladio (1508–80), such as one of the Basilica of Maxentius and another showing a couple of details from the Arch of Septimius Severus (Fols 37r/Ashby 59 and 64v/Ashby 110 Drawing 2), which were probably based not on the Coner drawings, as was once conjectured (Lotz 1962), but on their lost prototypes. Such a conclusion is inescapable in the Coner drawing of the details, since the presumed prototypes, later copied by Palladio, were misunderstood and merged together into an impossible combination.

Numerous other Coner drawings of details have similar problems and complications of ancestry. For example, the drawing of the Doric order of the Theatre of Marcellus (Fol. 45v/Ashby 76) has an obvious counterpart in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini, but the probably-earlier Barberini drawing is far from identical and is much less competent in its handling of the section-plus-view representational format. It could, however, have been informed by a lost original depicted in such a format, which perhaps provided the prototype for the Coner drawing, and, indeed, for several subsequent drawings of this entablature of the same format. The Coner drawing of the Doric entablature of the recently demolished Basilica Aemilia (Fol. 46r/Ashby 77) could likewise depend on an earlier drawing again of the section-plus-view format, one produced while the building was still standing, which would similarly serve as the model for other depictions of it from rather later times. It may even be that the sheer number of the other Coner entablature drawings following this same format implies that the format was now coming into widespread use, and that some of them were likewise based on similarly composed prototypes. By the same token, the many Coner drawings of capitals, bases, and other architectural elements represented in correspondingly elaborate formats, which have parallels in other surviving depictions even if these are of later date, would again suggest that at least some were similarly dependent on previous now-lost prototypes.

Although many Coner drawings were probably based closely on earlier drawings that often no longer survive, this does not apply to all of them. A great many others must have been derived from earlier depictions but transformed so that their formats would be consistent with those originally chosen. This means that selected examples of earlier drawings following these desired formats may well have provided compositional templates for very many new drawings, even though the new drawings may have still been based, for their design particulars, on earlier representations executed in formats that were different.

Coner drawings were often notable revisions of earlier depictions by virtue of being made more authentic and discriminating records of their ancient subjects. Such is the case with very many elevational drawings, although perhaps most markedly so with the one of the Arch of Titus (Fol. 35r/Ashby 56). This abruptly departs from the example of earlier depictions, such as the one in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini, by carefully omitting later accretions or fancifully reconstructed features, and focusing entirely on the parts of the monument that were genuinely ancient. A comparable approach is also seen in certain Coner depictions of architectural fragments or details, such as the one of the surviving columns of the Temple of Vespasian (Fol. 41r/Ashby 67 Drawing 2), which are shown, unlike in other early drawings, with pedestals beneath them, this being largely consistent with the building’s archaeological reality.

Some Coner drawings seem even to have been produced in accordance with a discernible method, which involved basing them on earlier depictions but adjusting certain particulars to accord with on-site observations. Such is apparent from the plan of the so-called Temple of Minerva Medica (Fol. 9r/Ashby 15), which is very similar to the one in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini, but is more faithful, in various telling particulars, to the building’s physical realities (Nesselrath 1992, p. 147). Thus, it corrected the design of the massive masonry piers between the domed central area and the two large flanking exedrae, and the shape on one side of the building’s exterior, and it also altered, again on one side, the area towards the building’s front, which even if not highly accurate could well have been seen as an attempt to make sense of the complex surviving archaeology.

Another form of improvement involved adapting established representational conventions to achieve a higher degree of communicative lucidity. A particularly good example is the large-scale sectional drawing of the Colosseum (Fol. 25r and flap/Ashby 39), which combines an orthogonal section with a perspectival view of the monument’s interior. In showing a panorama of the cavea along with a reconstruction of its seating, it is similar to one by Giuliano da Sangallo in his Taccuino Senese but it ingeniously adjusts the geometric construction. The seating in the Coner drawing is shown as curving upwards rather than downwards, as if viewed from above, which meant that all of it down to the level of the arena, as well as part of the arena itself, could now be covered. The two sectional drawings of the Pantheon are similar in conception (Fols 23r–v/Ashby 35–36). With their sequences of successive arcing levels, they are presaged by earlier depictions of the interior, such as one in the early sixteenth-century Codex Escurialensis, but they far surpass their predecessors in their ingenuity and ambition. This is especially so with the second of them, which represents the encircling wall in a succession of arcs that are of identical curvature, thereby allowing vertical elements such as columns and pilasters to be of constant height, and readily relatable to the corresponding parts of the accompanying section.

Several of the Coner drawings of antiquities appear very clearly to be indebted to recently conducted surveys, which include one of the Colosseum that was undertaken in 1513 (see Günther 1988, pp. 199–20). Its date is recorded in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Taccuino Senese, which may well imply Giuliano’s involvement, and the fruits of the survey are in part seen in an outline plan from soon after in his Codex Barberini, and in four plans in the Codex Coner (Fols 2r–3v/Ashby 2–5). These accurately record the precise shape of the oval layout, which had been significantly misrepresented in earlier drawings and required sophisticated surveying methods to establish its correct geometry. The carrying out of a surveying operation is also implied by the ground-level plan in the Codex Coner (Fol. 2r/Ashby 2) recording a compass bearing (see Günther 1988, pp. 172 and 175).

Along with Giuliano da Sangallo, it is perfectly possible that Bernardo della Volpaia himself played a part in in the Colosseum survey, especially given that his on-site measuring activities are mentioned in a drawing of the Theatre of Marcellus in the Uffizi’s Codex Strozzi (see Fol. 26v/Ashby 42). Surveying such an enormous monument, which existed in a part-ruined and part-buried condition, would have entailed much coordinated activity and even some danger, and would have required the efforts and technical abilities of many individuals. The results, later documented in detail in the Codex Coner, would have initially been recorded in a set of master drawings, in the form predominantly of plans of the building’s successive levels, complete with numerous measurements like the corresponding Coner plans, which were then augmented with elevations and sections drawn, at this initial stage, orthogonally to enable alignments and relationships in height to be all accurately registered. It was presumably a set of drawings of this sort on which the Coner drawings were based, even if the elevational formats were modified in the Coner equivalents (Fols 25r–26r/Ashby 39–41).

Other Coner drawings apparently indebted to recent site surveys are the large-scale plans of the Baths of Diocletian (Fol. 5r and flap/Ashby 8) and Baths of Caracalla (Fol. 13r and flap/Ashby 22), the plan of the so-called Temple of Minerva Medica (Fol. 9r/Ashby 15), and the recorded layout of the covered cemetery once attached to Santa Costanza (Fol. 12r/Ashby 20), all annotated with compass bearings. Yet others that probably depend to a greater or lesser degree on recent surveys include the remarkably accurate plans of the Basilica of Maxentius (Fol. 9v/Ashby 16), the so-called Temple of Romulus together with the ancient hall behind it (Fol. 14r/Ashby 23 Drawing 2), and Trajan’s Column (see Fol. 42r/Ashby 69 Drawing 1). The set of drawings that provides the most comprehensive coverage of a building – that of the Pantheon – was probably also based on one or more surveys. It comprises a plan (Fol. 8r/Ashby 13) and several elevations and sections (Fols 23r–24v/Ashby 35–38, 38r–39r/Ashby 61–63 and 40r/Ashby 65) as well as numerous details, which are remarkable both for the sheer amount of illustrative information they provide, and for the very many measurements they supply, which would have been impossible to obtain without a dedicated team of individuals who were jointly engaged on the task.

In utilising these surveys, the Coner drawings provide a colossal body of dimensional information, that must have been the fruit of various collective endeavours. Careful measurement was coming to be regarded as one of the principal requirements for recording antiquities, and the importance of dimensions in the Codex Coner is made abundantly clear on its opening page (Fol. 1r/Ashby 1), which proclaims that the subjects were measured in the Florentine braccio, this broken down into sixty ‘minutes’, so that everything could be ‘measured very minutely’. Measuring in braccia subdivided in this way may not have been so unusual (Günther 1988, p. 174), and many other practitioners of the period, especially those hailing from Florence or nearby including Giuliano da Sangallo (sometimes), Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and the author of the Codex Strozzi, employed the very same units, but the number and precision of such measurements in the Codex Coner are still exceptional.

As regards the sheer numbers of measurements found on the Coner drawings of details, these were probably amassed very often by relying heavily on previous drawings. Yet it would be unwise to maintain that all the dimensional information was derived from earlier drawings and that none of it was gathered by Bernardo della Volpaia himself, since, as noted previously, he is documented as having been involved in on-site measuring activities (see Fol. 26v/Ashby 42). The fact that the measurements on Coner drawings usually differ from those on drawings by other draughtsmen would illustrate how commonplace it now was for architects to measure their subjects and to record them in drawings even if these are now lost. That very many sets of measurements were now being produced is well illustrated by the Coner drawings of an ancient column shaft from the church of Santa Prassede (Fol. 41v/Ashby 68 Drawing 1) and of the base used for the Temple of Castor and Pollux (Fol. 80r/Ashby 134 Drawing 1) which differ in their dimensions from all the various other surviving drawings of them.

Coner drawings often carry enough measurements to provide a complete coverage of a building that is depicted, but the number on any single drawing is usually kept to a minimum, which avoids cluttering it with unnecessary duplication. The measurements, moreover, are often carefully distributed across a drawing in a manner that reveals a notable consistency of approach, and even indicates some kind of system for determining which ones are specified and where they are situated. On the page, for example, showing the exterior elevation and a section of the Colosseum (Fol. 26r/Ashby 41), the elevation covers three bays of the structure, and the measurements are largely confined to its right-hand side, those on the far right recording the widths of the piers at successive levels, and those just to their left recording the widths and heights of the successive orders. These measurements are then complemented by the ones on the neighbouring section, which provide information about the depths of the piers and orders as well as other dimensions that are not found on its partner; and the same dimensions given on these two drawings are sometimes also found on others of the building elsewhere in the codex. A similarly strategic approach is to be seen in elevational drawings of the Tempietto (Fol. 22r/Ashby 34) and the Cortile del Belvedere (Fols 27v–28r/Ashby 44–45), as well as in the various Coner depictions of the Pantheon and Trajan’s Column.

The provision of measurements, however, rather obscures the fact that the Coner drawings are not, strictly speaking, ‘scale drawings’. They were never constructed using the specified measurements but were instead drawn by eye and were only annotated with the correct measurements afterwards. The result of this practice is that the proportions of the buildings as drawn are often awry and sometimes decidedly so. This is especially evident, for example, in one of the elevational drawings of the Cortile del Belvedere (Fol. 27r/Ashby 43). where the middle storey is much too squat in comparison to the one below it, and in the drawings of the Arches of Constantine and of Septimius Severus (Fols 33r/Ashby 53 and 34r/Ashby 54), where the orders are clearly too short in comparison to the arches' overall widths.

The Coner drawings are frequently accompanied by textual notes in the form of captions, glosses and recorded inscriptions. The captions typically establish the identities of monuments, or else, in the case of stray fragments, their locations. The glosses tend to relate to measurements, although they occasionally provide additional comments of a more descriptive or even theoretical nature, such as one on the plan of the Pantheon explaining how the entablature to the rear of the portico projects further than it does over the frontal columns since these taper as they rise (Fol. 8r/Ashby 13), and another on the drawing of the Doric order of a tomb describing it as ‘Tuscan work’ (Fol. 45r/Ashby 75). All the annotations are written in Latin, which is highly unusual at this time, and suggests, even despite its defects, that the drawings were intended not for architects but for a much more educated readership. Many of the elevational drawings of monuments also make a point of recording their Latin inscriptions, and most of them imitating the ones on the actual monuments by being written in capitals and shown in their correct positions. Such an emphasis again suggests that the drawings were intended for an antiquarian readership, and for a particular patron. What may at first seem to be a little odd about the drawings that record inscriptions is that they never have identifying captions, meaning that the drawings of all the triumphal arches, and even the one of the Pyramid of Cestius (Fol. 34v/Ashby 55), were left to be identified by their inscriptions alone, once again suggesting a highly educated audience.

The recorded inscriptions, however, are often mis-transcribed, sometimes only slightly but on occasion very badly. Many of the same inscriptions, however, were accurately recorded in the recent guide to Rome (1510) published by the erudite Florentine writer Francesco Albertini, who is mentioned by name in an annotation on a drawing of Trajan’s Column (Fol. 42r/Ashby 69 Drawing 1), so it may be that on occasion it was Albertini’s text that was being mis-transcribed. It seems especially significant that Albertini is the only person in the codex other than Antonio da Sangallo to be explicitly named, so it could be that he was consulted more extensively.

Just as the drawings of antiquities were, in general, adjusted copies of other drawings, so too were the drawings of modern buildings. These are likely to have been based on workshop project drawings that happened to have been available, even though any measurements had to be converted into Florentine braccia for the sake of consistency. Thus, the Coner drawings of Bramante’s buildings assume a special significance in that they document actual designs for them that were produced during his lifetime. Some even appear to record provisional schemes developed before the design process was completed and finalised, as is most evident in the plan and elevations of the Tempietto (Fols 12v/Ashby 21 and 21r–22r/Ashby 33–34), which all differ significantly from the building as realised, and are presumably copies of early project drawings that were subsequently amended. As for the two Coner plans of New St Peter’s, one would appear to record an early scheme (Fol. 10r/Ashby 17), while the other was probably based on a recent site survey (Fol. 19r/Ashby 31), presumably supervised by one of Bramante’s close associates such as Antonio da Sangallo and probably made in connection with the accession of Pope Leo X in 1513. Other modern designs copied at an early stage include the one for the portal of Antonio da Sangallo’s Palazzo Baldassini (Fol. 48v/Ashby 82), and a plan devised for the temporary theatre constructed on the Capitoline Hill in 1513 (Fol. 14r/Ashby 23 Drawing 3), which can be shown to have been extensively altered soon afterwards.

4. The sixteenth-century compilation

In its original state, the codex was one of quarto format (233 x 168mm), with its pages assembled in folded gatherings. The individual sheets, of which 104 now survive (totalling 208 pages), remain in general close to their original states, despite having been cut along their original stitching folds. Most still have their original rounded corners on one side, and a few still have the vestiges of the stitching holes on the other, which are clearly seen on the four-surviving double-page spreads (Fols 5r/Ashby 8, 13r/Ashby 22, 25r/Ashby 39 and 97r/Ashby 161). Pages prior to mounting were only trimmed to remove unsightly stitching holes or minor damage at the margins, although in two cases (Fols 1 and 77/Ashby 1 and 131) they were cut down more significantly, perhaps because of more severe damage, or, as regards the title page, to make it appear more impressive in its mount.

Before its conversion into an album in the seventeenth century, the compilation possibly consisted, as Ashby surmised (Ashby 1904, p. 1), of two volumes. This is because the sheets have early seventeenth-century folio numbers in the top right-hand corners of their original rectos that run in two numerical sequences, the first from 1 to 99 and the second from 6 to 34, although both with lacunae. It is not impossible that the pages corresponding to the two sequences were bound together in a single original volume at the outset, and that this single volume was perhaps divided or broken subsequently into two halves, or that they were numbered for some reason in two sequences, but it is perhaps more likely the pages were originally bound as two separate volumes. In any event, however, the two numbered sequences certainly predate the creation of the album, considering that some of the numbers are hidden behind the mount sheets, and they can be taken as faithfully reflecting the ordering of the sheets as they were originally bound. This ordering, however, may not have been the same as the one envisaged in the project’s earliest stages.

The information provided by the seventeenth-century folio numbering provides a key for determining how much of the original compilation still survives, a calculation reckoned on the folio numbers that survive and the ones that are now missing. On this basis, it is clear that about four fifths of the ‘first volume’ is extant, but how much of the ‘second volume’ remains is less easy to determine. The folio numbering only goes as far as ‘34’, which if near its end would have resulted in the volume being unsuitably thin, so, presumably, it had an unknown number of further folios at the back.

It is probable that these missing sheets were mostly – if not all – blank on both their sides. One reason for supposing this is that some sheets that were originally blank on both sides still survive, having been employed for new drawings added to one of their sides in the seventeenth century before the compilation’s transformation into an album, which in turn implies that other completely blank sheets were discarded when the compilation was disassembled. A second reason is that the album appears to have been created with the aim of preserving something of the character of the original compilation, which was seemingly achieved by retaining all the sheets featuring drawings on at least one of their sides but discarding those that were entirely blank. A third reason can be inferred from the copying campaign conducted by Michelangelo probably in 1516. This saw him copying selected Coner drawings (almost all of details) strictly in sequence, and his copies include none that does not have an extant Coner equivalent, which means that none was based on a Coner drawing that is now lost.

From this analysis, it becomes possible to begin to calculate how many blank pages there were in the original compilation. As we have seen, 104 folios/208 pages now survive and are mounted in the album. Of these extant folios, 36 are blank on one side, and a further 26 pages were originally blank but had drawings added to them in the early seventeenth century. All this means that 62 out of the 208 surviving pages – or well over a quarter of the total – were originally blank. This number, however, increases enormously if the missing folios, which were almost certainly all blank on both sides, are taken into account, which takes the tally of blank pages to 128 out of 274, or nearly half of them, and it increases yet further if the presumed blank pages at the back of the ‘second volume’ are also added. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that more than half the pages in the original compilation were unused, but if the drawings from the second phase of the compilation’s initial execution are removed from the totals (those occupying 25 of the surviving 208 pages), then the number of pages that were blank when the initial project was interrupted now rises to at least 153 out of 274.

All this blank paper gives great force to the argument that the original project was abandoned when only partly completed. It can thus be assumed that several prominent buildings that are not featured in the codex were originally intended to be included, such as the Porta Maggiore, the podium of the Temple of Claudius, and the structure in the Via di Santa Maria de’Calderari later known erroneously as the Crypta Balbi. Another, the long-demolished Septizodium, is only covered in the original compilation by way of a minor detail (Fol. 68r/Ashby 116 Drawing 11), which strongly implies that other drawings of this monument were originally intended but never realised. As for the details of buildings more generally, there was plenty of space remaining in the compilation to include very many more.

The original compilation, like most books, was made up of gatherings, groups of double folios folded and stitched together. This means that each individual page was physically joined to another which could sometimes be located quite some distance away from it. Determining how the Coner drawings were paired with one another, therefore, will provide insight into the compilation’s original conception and planning. Reconstructing these pairings, and the compositions of the successive gatherings, turns out to be possible, and a starting point is provided by the four double-page spreads that were never divided and have drawings running across their central folds. These double-page spreads must have been located at the centres of their gatherings, so that their two halves could be seen together, and they therefore provide a set of ‘fixed points’ from which a reconstruction of all the gatherings can begin. The three double-page spreads from the ‘first volume’ are particularly instructive as they fall at the folios once numbered as ‘4’ and ‘5’, ‘14’ and ‘15’, and ‘34’ and ‘35’ (now Fols 5r/Ashby 8, 13r/Ashby 22 and 25r/Ashby 39). This immediately suggests that each of these early gatherings had five double folios stitched together (equivalent to 20 pages), giving rise to an initial hypothesis that many of the other gatherings were also of five double folios.

The makeup of the original gatherings is definitively established by examining, through the use of backlighting, the internal structures of all the paper sheets, specifically the positions of watermarks and the spacing of chain lines, which, in conjunction with the information provided by the seventeenth-century numbering, establishes the original pairings of the separated pages. Such pattern-matching allows both the composition and the number of the gatherings to be reconstructed, even though two sheets remain difficult to place (Fols 36r/Ashby 58 and 99r/Ashby 164), and it establishes that many but by no means all the Coner gatherings were indeed of five double folios. It makes it possible, too, to see how drawings of very different subjects were on sheets that were originally attached to one another even when these subjects were sometimes very different, the sheet showing the Basilica of Maxentius and the Arch of the Argentarii on its two sides being once attached to one with cornices on one side and a Doric capital on the other (Fols 37/Ashby 59–60 and 44/Ashby 73–74). It also makes it clear that Coner drawings were produced according to a predetermined plan, even though what was finally realised would appear to have evolved considerably during the course of the project’s execution.

5. Ordering the contents

The drawings, when bound, were arranged principally in accordance with their representational type (Ashby 1904, pp. 11–12; Günther 1988, pp. 177–79). The sequence begins with ground plans, which is then followed by elevations and sections, architectural details, and, finally, ornamental objects and designs – although these all belong to the second phase of execution. Two of the broad divisions are subdivided further. The elevations begin with whole buildings, before moving on to significant parts of buildings, and concluding with monumental columns and obelisks, while the details run in a preordained sequence – Doric entablatures, other entablatures, imposts, pedestals, capitals and bases.

A fuller understanding of the ordering, however, results from a consideration of the sequence of the compilation’s gatherings, since the material appears to have been distributed largely according to this sequence. Thus, the material found in the various gatherings was organised so as to tally with the codex’s overall structuring, and its progression from the general to the particular, and from whole buildings to their component parts; even though a consequence of adopting this structure was that drawings of the same subjects were often separated, as is particularly the case with those of the Colosseum, the Pantheon, Bramante’s Cortile del Belvedere and Trajan’s Column. Moreover, although the drawings were sorted into their respective groups and gatherings, their organisation within these groupings appears to have often been a mix of the planned and the haphazard, with the positioning only of some drawings being carefully and purposefully considered. These include the four plans of the Colosseum (Fols 2r–3v/Ashby 2–5), the series of elevations of the Cortile del Belvedere (Fols 27r–28v/Ashby 43–46), and the sequences of other drawings of individual buildings, although some thought also went into the clustering of buildings or details of the same general type. Care was sometimes given, as well, to having drawings of the same or comparable subjects appearing on facing pages, as was once the case with the two elevational drawings of the Tempietto (Fols 21r/Ashby 33 and 22r/Ashby 34). Many other drawings, however, were positioned or added in no special order and have no obvious connections with one another at all.

A degree of organisational strategy is also evident in the juxtaposition of objects of comparable type on the same page. This approach is apparent, for example, in the paired plans of the two circular peripteral temples in Rome and Tivoli (Fol. 14v/Ashby 24), the paired depictions of the vast frontages of two pedimented temples (Fol. 39v/Ashby 64), and those of the standing columns of the Temples of Castor and Pollux and of Vespasian in the Roman Forum (Fol. 41r/Ashby 67). Notable groupings on other pages that also make good sense, and even constitute tentative attempts to establish a taxonomy of forms, include sets of highly decorated Doric capitals (Fol. 70r/Ashby 119) and of profiles of bases that are all variants of those used for the Pantheon’s portico (Fol. 83r/Ashby 138), and a page of studies of pedestals (Fol. 69r/Ashby 117).

Yet, while the make-ups of individual pages often follow some kind of logic, it is also true that their underlying rationales can sometimes be very hard to divine. It is difficult to explain, for instance, why depictions of the Pantheon’s internal tabernacles should feature on the same page as an elevation of the Portico of Octavia (Fol. 38r/Ashby 61); or why certain details should appear on pages in the precise positions they do, or be accompanied by details of sometimes very different character, as in the case of the drawings of four ornamentally similar architraves being placed beneath the much larger detail of a far plainer cornice (Fol. 65v/Ashby 112) – apart from simply concluding that the cornice drawing was added to the page at a later moment. What all this very much implies, therefore, is that the compilation was originally planned in accordance with some general intention of bringing a great deal of material together and imposing some sort of overriding order onto it, but, as time went on, this ordering became increasing difficult to manage, and the plan had to be modified as work progressed. The result was that, within a fairly short space of time, individual drawings were simply being added to the compilation in positions that seemed ‘suitable enough’.

It has already been established that the compilation, as first planned, was far from complete when it was eventually assembled in book form. At this point, there were already very many pages that were still blank, but even more of them had been blank at some rather earlier stage when the original project was seemingly abandoned. The conclusion that this original project was aborted mid-completion is further supported by the fact that a good many of the pages are only partly filled with drawings, a notable example being of a page that has a drawing of a base awkwardly isolated in its bottom right-hand corner while being otherwise blank (Fol. 81r/Ashby 135). Several other pages similarly have drawings, usually of details, that are confined to corners, or else are on pages with large unused spaces. Various individual drawings, moreover, have clearly been left unfinished, including two sections of the Colosseum (Fols 25v of flap and 25v/Ashby 39A and 40), and the elevation of the Theatre of Marcellus (Fol. 26v/Ashby 42).

This picture of a book project begun and executed in a relatively short space of time but then jettisoned tallies well with the argument set out previously that the book was being prepared for Bernardo Rucellai in 1513–14 but was abandoned at or before his death in October 1514. A likely scenario, therefore, would be that Bernardo della Volpaia, on the demise of his patron, decided to keep what he had already finished, and to fill its blank pages with additional drawings of the kind that could be used in an architect’s workshop. Thus, as finally assembled, the compilation did not correspond at all closely with the book that was initially planned, and the drawings were subsequently bound in an order that was rather different from the one initially envisaged. These compromising changes were then exacerbated in the seventeenth century, when further drawings were added, and when the compilation was adapted to form an album, which involved discarding all the blank pages and having some sheets reversed. What we have been left with, therefore, is only a shadowy version of what was first envisaged, although enough can be glimpsed of this to appreciate the scope and magnitude of its underlying vision.

6. Copying from the compilation

By the time Michelangelo made his copies, the Coner project had presumably acquired a considerable reputation. It would certainly have been known in the immediate circle of Antonio da Sangallo and probably well beyond it too. Michelangelo, who must have known Bernardo della Volpaia personally given his later and documented connections with one of Bernardo’s brothers, would have examined the drawings, in all likelihood, while on a brief visit to Rome in December 1516. His purpose, as it has often been reasonably surmised (Lotz 1967; Brothers 2008, pp. 45–83), was to familiarise himself more thoroughly with all’antica architecture, feeling a pressing need to do so when vying for the prestigious commission to design the façade of Florence’s church of San Lorenzo. He certainly devoted much energy to Bernardo’s drawings, recording ninety-five or so of them (see De Tolnay 1975–80, 4, pp. 44–50; Agosti–Farinella 1987), by methodically going through the compilation page by page and copying the drawings in roughly the same order. That he was thinking at the same time of the San Lorenzo façade project, which he would design in its final form in 1517, is borne out by the fact that one of the sheets bearing Coner copies features an early study for the facade. What he chose to record from the Coner compilation also helps to confirm, as previously noted, the state of its completion by 1516. His drawings are mainly of details and, although he mainly copied Coner originals from the first campaign of production, a good many of the copied depictions are from the second campaign, implying that all the Coner drawings had already been executed by this time.

A sense of his reasoning for making particular copies becomes clearer when their subjects are considered more fully. Avoiding plans entirely, Michelangelo gave attention – aside from the depictions of details – to three elevational drawings, and all three would appear to connect with his immediate preoccupation with the San Lorenzo façade. One is of a column from the Temple of Castor and Pollux (Fol. 41r/Ashby 67 Drawing 1), and it is found on the same page as the early study for the façade. The two others are of the Mausoleum of the Plautii near Tivoli and the Arch of Constantine (Fols 31r/Ashby 49 and 33r/Ashby 53), which with their engaged columns provided suitable precedents for the façade’s chosen composition. The drawing of the Arch of Constantine, moreover, is especially like the San Lorenzo façade project in depicting it in a partly redesigned form with a tall attic pilaster rising directly above the final column, the arrangement used for the Arch of Septimius Severus on the codex’s following page (Fol. 34r/Ashby 54). As for Michelangelo’s very many copies of details, these eschewed the documentary function of the originals by ignoring labels and annotations, so that they simply provided him with an extensive repertory of forms that could be used for designs of his own. In fact, his copy of the window of the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli (Fol. 20r/Ashby 32) would later provide a prime prototype for the high-level windows with tapering sides in the New Sacristy of San Lorenzo (1519–).

After this time the codex’s precise whereabouts are impossible to ascertain, but it was somehow known to the Bolognese painter Amico Aspertini (c.1474–1551), who, at some point during the 1530s, included a number of rather slipshod versions – occasionally bordering on reinventions – of Coner originals in his so-called Second London Sketchbook (Bober 1957). These appear on six near-consecutive pages and most are of the Pantheon, comprising three elevational depictions (one of them inexplicably reversed), and drawings of both types of internal tabernacle and two further details. Also included are an elevational depiction of the Portico of Octavia, two of the Cortile del Belvedere, and a version of the section-plus-view drawing of the Colosseum; but this very limited selection certainly does not prove that Aspertini had direct access to the Coner compilation. If he did, then it is rather difficult to see why he placed such emphasis on the Pantheon, even to the extent of including details, and why he took no notice of drawings of other buildings such as triumphal arches that could have been useful to him for composing his paintings. It could be, therefore, that the copies were produced by way of intermediaries, perhaps dating from well before the 1530s and now lost, and that Aspertini simply reproduced this material on a group of pages in his sketchbook along with miscellaneous further material of differing origin.

It could even be that the Coner compilation had disappeared entirely from sight at around the time of Bernardo della Volpaia’s death in 1521/22. Aside from the Aspertini copies, the only other possible sightings are implied by rare impressions of two mid-century engravings of details (Nesselrath 1992, pp. 152 and 156) that are virtually identical to Coner drawings (Fols 48v/Ashby 84 Drawing 1 and 62r/Ashby 105 Drawing 1). Surviving impressions of the two are very scarce, but they include, in one early album, one of each that are found on the same page. This probably indicates, therefore, that drawn copies of the two Coner depictions had passed into circulation sometime previously, and these were now being made into prints. It may also be that the compilation only resurfaced when it entered the collection being amassed by Cassiano dal Pozzo perhaps in the 1620s. This was when it first came to the attention of Borromini who, perhaps attracted by the unconventional character of some of the drawings, made copies from it on two separate occasions (Thelen 1967, 1, pp. 11–13), the first possibly in the early 1620s and the second some years later. Almost all the drawings are of details which are sketchy and hurriedly executed, but they testify to the impact that the exemplary and recently acquired collection of documentary drawings had on a young architect of the highest ambition.

7. The seventeenth century, the making of the album, and the Paper Museum

Once Cassiano dal Pozzo had acquired the Coner compilation, he soon began making changes to it. The first of these was to add the folio numbers to its pages; but a much more significant intervention took place not long afterwards. It was to commission new drawings to fill pages that were previously blank, these found mostly on twenty-seven pages and executed around 1630 by two draughtsmen who were also responsible for other drawings in Cassiano’s collection (Campbell 2004, 2, pp. 479–81 and 597–655). The new drawings are of all antique subjects, Cassiano evidently wanting to prioritise the ancient over the modern. Four of them were copied from Giuliano da Sangallo’s Codex Barberini (Fols 4r/Ashby 6, 4v/Ashby 7, 5 verso of flap/Ashby 8a, and 5v/Ashby 9), a source also used for other copies in the Paper Museum. Most of the rest are closely related to mid- sixteenth-century drawings in collections in Berlin, Saint Petersburg and Naples, and, while it is conceivable that these were copied from different sketchbooks, it is perhaps more likely they all came from a single source that is now lost (Nesselrath 1992, pp. 158–60; Campbell 2004, 2, p. 597).

Some care was taken to position the new drawings in the compilation in accordance with its general organisation of plans, elevations, and details and ornaments. The choice of subject, however, was probably also dictated by the availability of drawings to copy rather than by any other strategy. In fact, the added drawings are distinctly heterogeneous in their subjects. They include plans of the Tor de’Schiavi and the Septizodium (Fols 4r–v/Ashby 6–7 and 5v/Ashby 9), and plans and elevations of tombs on the Via Latina (Fols 16v–18r/Ashby 27–30), as well as depictions of friezes, entablatures and capitals, plus a candelabrum base and an altar. How the task was organised is indicated by some of the drawings being faintly numbered in graphite. These numbers were almost certainly written on the pages before the drawings were made, so as to indicate where particular drawings were to be placed, and they follow a sequence that runs from 1 to 29, although the numbers 1 and 8 are missing, the first perhaps erased by the draughtsmen but the second impossible to explain in this way as there are no gaps in the sequence (Campbell 2004, 2, pp. 597–99). This numbering, however, does not apply to all the drawings, with several added separately as part of a different campaign, such as the Codex Barberini copies. What becomes clear from all this is that the plan to add new drawings to the compilation was not particularly coherent or smooth, and that its results were not especially successful in respect to the numbers of drawings produced, which is probably why it was abandoned.

Before the Coner drawings were finally mounted into the existing album, it appears that there was an intermediary stage in their history. Three pages, showing the Arch of Constantine, the Arch of Janus and two bases (Fols 33r/Ashby 53, 36r/Ashby 58 and 77r/Ashby 131), have their versos covered with glue and, in the two latter cases, are covered with paper residue. It therefore appears likely that these pages were laid down onto mounts before the plan was abandoned and they were carefully detached so that all the drawing sheets could be inserted into mounts with windows.

In the album that Cassiano created which survives today, the 100 mounted folios of drawings are bound between vellum-covered boards (measuring 464 x 338mm) which are joined by a spine carrying the album’s given title. Perhaps Cassiano’s chief reason for transforming the original compilation into an album was both to mask its previously obvious state of non-completion and to aggrandise it to enhance the high quality of the drawings it contained. Making the album, however, required the remaining sheets with drawings on one or both sides to be all accommodated in mount sheets. These were much larger in size (454 x 322mm) and were given windows just a little smaller than the sheets, which, for the pages with drawings, were all bordered by parallel ‘frame lines’ spaced 10mm apart. The most difficult problem was how to deal with the double-page spreads, which was solved by gluing one half to the window and having the other form a flap. The aim, generally, was to preserve the original compilation’s integrity by keeping its drawings in their previous order, which was followed with just minor adjustments, such as reversing a sheet to avoid having a blank side as the recto, as in the cases of three consecutive drawings of St Peter’s (Fol. 19r/Ashby 31), the apertures of the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli (Fol. 20r/Ashby 32), and the Tempietto (Fol. 21r/Ashby 33). Occasional pages, however, were reversed for other reasons, such as one with drawings of the Cortile del Belvedere on its front and back (Fol. 27/Ashby 43–44), which was probably turned around so that the side with the identifying caption came first.

When the album was created can be reckoned, albeit approximately, on the basis of current knowledge of the mounting practices used for Cassiano’s collection of drawings and prints (Claridge 2004, p. 11). The mount type used for the Coner album, which has come to be known as ‘Type A’, is especially refined and its characteristics are always the same. The mounts have their windows bordered by paired frame lines 10mm apart, and outer edges that, like the Coner album’s, are green tinted. The type has been shown to have been used extensively during an energetic campaign of mounting in 1635–38, which implies that the Coner album was made during this same period, and at the same time as the albums in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle titled Bassi Rilievi, given the fact that the mount sheets of the two albums bear watermarks that are found nowhere else in the Paper Museum.

As part of his so-called Paper Museum, the Codex Coner was originally located in the library of Cassiano’s house in Rome, along with many other albums of architectural drawings and prints, and very many books on architecture (Davies–Hemsoll 2013, 1, pp. 32–43, and 2, pp. 714–17), and it would have been a showpiece reference work in providing examples of so many ancient (and modern) buildings and fragments. As regards the drawings, the Coner album appears to have been one of two volumes that were especially prized, the other being the particularly impressive album, now at Windsor, bearing the title Architectura Civilis. In fact, the Codex Coner may well have been considered as a sort of companion to the Windsor volume, as they have very similar names, and both have mount sheets of the privileged ‘Type A’ variety. These two volumes, however, formed just a small part of the huge collection of architectural drawings that were amassed in the Paper Museum, most now housed either in the Royal Collection or in the six volumes, including the Codex Coner, belonging to the Sir John Soane’s Museum. The Codex Coner would still have stood out from all these other drawing compilations, as it was the earliest body of such material as well as being the most sustained and coherent treatment of its subject in both its appearance and its organisation.

8. After the Paper Museum

After Cassiano’s death in 1657, the Paper Museum was inherited by other members of his family. It eventually passed to a juvenile great nephew, whose mother, Anna Teresa Benzoni, added her seal to the first folio bearing a mounted image (Fol. 2r/Ashby 2), as she did to all the collection’s volumes of drawings and prints (Haskell–McBurney 2001). Very soon afterwards, the collection’s dispersal began (Haskell–McBurney 2001). In 1703 the Paper Museum was sold to Pope Clement XI Albani (r.1700–21), who, in 1714, gave it to his nephew the prodigious collector Alessandro Albani. In 1762, Albani, now a cardinal, sold the drawings and prints to King George III through the mediation of the architect James Adam, the younger brother of Robert. Some of the items relating to architecture, however, including the Codex Coner, remained in the hands of the Adam brothers (Thom 2021, pp. 66 and 68–69), until the Codex Coner, along with the five other Paper Museum volumes they owned, was sold at Christie’s in 1818, and acquired by John Soane. Soane brought his purchases to his newly rebuilt London house, and, at his death in 1837, he then bequeathed his collections and his house – which would become Sir John Soane’s Museum – to the nation (Darley 1999, pp. 300–04).

The Coner album became more widely known following the circulation of a printed booklet of 1878 cataloguing the Museum library’s holdings, which must have come to the attention of Thomas Ashby. Ashby, although living in Italy, arranged a visit to the museum to see it in 1901, an account of which he recorded in a letter that was published by the eminent archaeologist and close family friend Rodolfo Lanciani (1845–1929), in the first volume (1902) of his magisterial Scavi di Roma (Lanciani 1989–2002, 1, p. 213). There, Ashby revealed his intention to publish it, and he completed this task in 1904. What is so remarkable about the article, which effectively launched his career (Richmond–Gill 2004; Hodges 2000, pp. 40 and 117), is its pioneering character and the magnitude of its ambition. As a publication of a major compilation of drawings after the antique that includes a critical catalogue, scholarly apparatus and full set of photographic illustrations, it far surpasses the previous enterprises of German and Italian scholars, and it set the standard for the critical editions of comparable bodies of work that would be later produced by Hermann Egger, Christian Hülsen and Alfonso Bartoli.

Ashby’s achievement can be judged in good part from the longevity of his publication as a fundamental reference work for related studies and those in similar scholarly fields. His agenda was forged to a considerable extent from close contacts with those Italian and German contemporaries, including Hülsen and Egger, whom he specifically acknowledged in the publication (Ashby 1904, p. 12); and this agenda, similarly followed by Hülsen and Egger, underpins the publication’s success. The accomplishments of Ashby’s publication were centred on his ability to identify almost all the ancient buildings featured in the codex, even the unlabelled parts of them, in clarifying the Renaissance locations of stray fragments, and in recognising most of the modern subjects as well. Perhaps his greatest achievement, however, was to identify and list numerous other early drawings by Renaissance draughtsmen of the same subjects, which presumably required the use of photographic collections to gain knowledge of such earlier compilations as the Codex Barberini and Codex Escurialensis (both then unpublished) and of the drawing collections of Florence, Berlin and elsewhere. He also recognised that the Coner drawings were by more than one hand, with some of them dating from a later period, and he assigned the majority to around 1515 – although he was notably wrong about the identity of their draughtsman.

Ashby, however, was interested in the drawings primarily for what they could tell him about the state of Renaissance knowledge of Rome’s antiquities. He had little interest in a range of other matters that throw much light on the compilation’s intended purpose and on the historical importance of its drawings, which can be summarised as follows. First, he was not especially preoccupied about the significance of the compilation’s precise date, even though this now turns out to be a matter of great consequence, and he had nothing at all to say about why it was produced, let alone whether it was intended for a particular recipient. Secondly, he was not especially interested in the documentary function and precision of the Coner drawings. Thirdly, he was similarly unconcerned, even despite his Herculean endeavours in amassing drawings of the same subject in other collections, with considering the precise relationships between them and equivalent Coner depictions. Finally, he was not minded to explore how the drawings were conceived, or why they were executed in the very particular ways they were, and he had no interest either in investigating how and why the initial compilation was expanded before being converted in the seventeenth century into an album, or in giving thought to the original sequence of the drawings, which, as we have seen, throws much light on how the compilation was originally conceived.

Nevertheless, when Ashby introduced the Codex Coner to the scholarly world in 1904, he effectively established a pattern for the research on it conducted over the next century. The question of authorship was subsequently debated but only settled in 1975 when Buddensieg noticed the extraordinary similarity, discussed previously, between a Coner drawing and one by a ‘Bernardo’ in the Uffizi and concluded that the codex was the work of Bernardo della Volpaia (Buddensieg 1975). Other notable publications from the middle decades of the twentieth century include James Ackerman’s monograph on the Cortile del Belvedere, which examined the several Coner depictions of it (Ackerman 1954), and various studies discussing the relationships between Coner drawings and those of subsequent draughtmen. Phyllis Pray Bober looked at Amico Aspertini’s drawings (Bober 1958), and Wolfgang Lotz explored supposed connections with some of Palladio’s (Lotz 1962) before going on to examine the copies produced by Michelangelo (Lotz 1967), and then Heinrich Thelen addressed the copies by Borromini (Thelen 1967, pp. 11–13).

A rather different approach, however, would be taken in 1988 by Hubertus Günther in his highly ambitious overview of drawings of ancient architecture up until the mid- sixteenth century. He constructed his survey as a series of evolving moments represented by particular individuals and their drawings, one focusing on the Codex Coner (Günther 1988, pp. 165–202), and he also placed special emphasis on the sequence of details of the various architectural orders, which he saw as an early and prime manifestation of a new and much more systematic approach to the subject (ibid., pp. 177–79). In 1992, Arnold Nesselrath took the opportunity to re-examine a whole range of areas originally signalled by Ashby, although again concentrating on the connections of Coner drawings with others, by looking more closely, for example, at the relationships with earlier ones by Giuliano da Sangallo (Nesselrath 1992, pp. 147–50). He also charted the apparent knowledge of the codex after Bernardo della Volpaia’s time (ibid., pp. 154–58), and gave thought to the seventeenth-century drawings and their notable parallels in books of drawings from the mid- sixteenth century (ibid., pp. 158–60). His study bore immediate fruit in Ian Campbell’s re-cataloguing of the codex’s seventeenth-century drawings (Campbell 2004, 2, 597 and 479–80). In so doing, Campbell was able to throw much additional light on their origins, and he established that they were the work of two hands rather than just one, and that both were responsible for other Paper Museum drawings. Remarkably little further research on the codex has been conducted since that time.

The new research detailed in this present study moves beyond the approaches adopted by Ashby and subsequent writers and it mainly falls into two areas. One of these has been to explore the codex's original purpose and in the light of this to explain the character of the drawings and to reconstruct, as far as possible, the intended organisation of the original compilation, and how it was first expanded and then greatly altered subsequently. The other, which is detailed above all in the individual catalogue entries, has involved the further exploration of the evident relationships of the drawings with others from early times. Taken together, these lines of enquiry throw much new light both on the collection as a whole and on the individual drawings it contains, and this underpins the codex’s remarkable interest and historical significance. What has now been revealed is that the Codex Coner is a precious and unmatched document of new and fast-changing Renaissance approaches towards the documentation and representation of ancient architecture, and of the state of knowledge of the antique at a critical moment at the dawn of modern archaeology.


Bibliography

The bibliography below is of all the works cited in the catalogue and the introductory essay. For most drawings and monuments, additional references are to be found on the website of the ‘Census of Antique Works of Art and Architecture Known in the Renaissance’ (www.census.de).

Acidini 1976 = Cristina Acidini, in Giovanni Antonio Dosio: Roma antica e i disegni di architettura agli Uffizi, ed. Franco Borsi et al. (Rome 1976), pp. 27–166

Acidini Luchinat 2002 = Cristina Acidini Luchinat, The Medici, Michelangelo, and the Art of Late Renaissance Florence (New Haven 2002)

Ackerman 1954 = James S. Ackerman, The Cortile del Belvedere (Rome 1954)

Adam 1994 = Jean-Pierre Adam, Le Temple de Portunus au Forum Boarium (Rome 1994)

Agosti–Farinella 1987 = Giovanni Agosti & Vincenzo Farinella, Michelangelo: Studi di antichità dal Codice Coner (Turin 1987)

Alberi Auber 2011–12 = Paolo Alberi Auber, ‘L'Obelisco di Augusto in Campo Marzio e la sua Linea Meridiana: Aggiornamenti e proposte’, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, 84 (2011–12), pp. 447–580

Albertini 1510 = Francesco Albertini, Opusculum de mirabilibus novae et veteris urbis Romae (Rome 1510)

Albro 2016 = Sylvia Rodgers Albro, Fabriano: City of Medieval and Renaissance Papermaking (New Castle & Washington 2016)

Alföldy 1990 = Géza Alföldy, Der Obelisk auf dem Petersplatz in Rom: Ein historisches Monument der Antike (Heidelberg 1990)

Ambrogi 1985 = Annarena Ambrogi, ‘Frammento di un rilievo raffigurante il prospetto di un tempio’, in Museo Nazionale Romano: Le sculture, 1,8, part 1, ed. Antonio Giuliano (Roma 1985), pp. 104–08

Amelung 1903–56 = Walther Amelung, Die Sculpturen des Vatikanischen Museums, 3 vols (Berlin 1903–56)

Amici 2005 = Carla Maria Amici, ‘From Project to Monument’, in Carlo Giavarini Amici et al., The Basilica of Maxentius: The Monument, Its Materials, Construction, and Stability (Rome 2005), pp. 21–74

Amici 2006 = Carla Maria Amici, ‘The Basilica of Maxentius in Rome: Innovative Solutions in the Organisation of Construction Process’, in Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Construction History, ed. Malcolm Dunkeld et al. (Cambridge 2006), pp. 167–78

Angelelli 1998 = Walter Angelelli, ‘Affreschi medievali dalla perduta chiesa di San Basilio ai Pantani nel Foro di Augusto a Roma’, Bollettino d'arte, 6 (1998), 105/06, pp. 9–32

Argan–Contardi 1993 = Giulio Carlo Argan & Bruno Contardi, Michelangelo Architect (London 1993)

Armellini 1942 = Mariano Armellini, Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX. Nuova edizione con aggiunte inedite delll'autore, 2 vols (Rome 1942)

Ashby 1904 = Thomas Ashby, ‘Sixteenth-Century Drawings of Roman Buildings Attributed to Andreas Coner’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 2 (1904), pp. 1–96

Ashby 1913 = Thomas Ashby, ‘Addenda and Corrigenda to Sixteenth Century Drawings of Roman Buildings Attributed to Andreas Coner’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 6 (1913), pp. 184–210

Ashby 1914 = Thomas Ashby, La Campagna romana al tempo di Paolo III: Mappa della Campagna romana del 1547 di Eufrosino della Volpaia (Rome 1914)

Barbera–Magnani Cianetti 2019 = Mariarosaria Barbera & Marina Magnani Cianetti, Minerva Medica: ricerche, scavi e restauri (Milan 2019)

Barry 1999 = Fabio Barry, ‘“Building History”: The Baroque Remodellings of S. Anastasia al Palatino’, Storia dell'Arte, 95 (1999), pp. 45–102

Bartoli 1914–22 = Alfonso Bartoli, I monumenti antichi di Roma nei disegni degli Uffizi di Firenze, 6 vols (Florence 1914–22)

Bauer 1985 = Heinrich Bauer, ‘Ricerche sul muro perimetrale e sul portico del Foro di Augusto’, in Roma: Archeologia nel centro, l’area archeologica centrale (Rome 1985), pp. 229–240

Bauer 1988 = Heinrich Bauer, ‘Augustforum: Hallen und Exedren’, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (Berlin 1988), pp. 184–91

Beckmann 2011 = Martin Beckmann, The Column of Marcus Aurelius: The Genesis and Meaning of a Roman Imperial Monument (Chapel Hill 2011)

Bentivoglio 1982 = Enzo Bentivoglio, ‘Nel cantiere del palazzo del cardinale Raffaele Riario (la Cancelleria): Organizzazione, materiali, maestranze, personaggi’, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell'Architettura, 27 (1982), pp. 27–34

Bertoldi 1962 = Maria Elena Bertoldi, Ricerche sulla decorazione architettonica del Foro Traiano (Studi Miscellanei 3; Rome 1962)

Biondo 1548 = Flavio Biondo, Roma ristaurata, et Italia illustrata di Biondo da Forli, trans. Lucio Fontana (Venice 1548)

Bober 1957 = Phyllis Pray Bober, Drawings After the Antique by Amico Aspertini: Sketchbooks in the British Museum (London 1957)

Bober–Rubinstein 1986 = Phyllis Pray Bober & Ruth Rubinstein, Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture: A Handbook of Sources (London 1986)

Borsi 1970 = Franco Borsi, Giovanni Antonio Dosio: Le antichità di Roma (Rome 1970)

Borsi 1985 = Stefano Borsi, Giuliano da Sangallo: I disegni di architettura e dell'antico (Rome 1985)

Borsi 2006 = ‘La cavalcata di Leon Battista Alberti e Lorenzo il Magnifico’, in L’uomo del Rinascimento. Leon Battista Alberti e le arti a Firenze tra ragione e bellezza, ed. Cristina Acidini and Gabriele Morolli (Florence 2006), pp. 237-38

Brilliant 1967 = Richard Brilliant, The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum (Rome 1967)

Brothers 2002 = Cammy Brothers, ‘Reconstruction as Design: Giuliano da Sangallo and the “palazo di mecenate” on the Quirinal Hill’, Annali di architettura, 14 (2002), pp. 55–72

Brothers 2008 = Cammy Brothers, Michelangelo, Drawing, and the Invention of Architecture (New Haven 2008)

Brothers 2022 = Cammy Brothers, Giuliano da Sangallo and the Ruins of Rome (Princeton & Oxford 2022)

Brunetti–Todros 1990 = Giulia Brunetti & Rossella Todros, ‘I disegni dei secoli XV e XVI della Biblioteca Marucelliana di Firenze (Roma 1990)

Bruschi 1968 = Arnaldo Bruschi, ‘Ricostruzione e nota critica sull’architettura del teatro capitolino’, in Fabrizio Cruciani, Il teatro del Campidoglio e le feste romane del 1513 (Milan 1968), pp. 141–67

Bruschi 1969 = Arnaldo Bruschi, Bramante architetto (Bari 1969)

Bruschi 1974 = Arnaldo Bruschi, ‘Il teatro capitolino del 1513’, Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio, 16 (1974), pp. 189–218

Bruschi 1987 = Arnaldo Bruschi, ‘Problemi del S. Pietro bramantesco: ...”admodum surgebat non inopia pecuniae sed cunctatione Bramantis architecti ...”’, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell'Architettura, 1/10 (1983/87), pp. 273–92

Bruschi 1989 = Arnaldo Bruschi, ‘Edifici privati di Bramante a Roma: Palazzo Castellesi e palazzo Caprini’, Palladio, 2 (1989), pp. 5–44

Buchowiecki 1967–97 = Walther Buchowiecki, Handbuch der Kirchen Roms: Der römische Sakralbau in Geschichte und Kunst von der altchristlichen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart, 4 vols (Vienna 1967–97)

Buddensieg 1971 = Tilmann Buddensieg, ‘Criticism and Praise of the Pantheon in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance’, in Classical Influences on European Culture, A.D. 500–1500, ed. Robert R. Bolgar (Cambridge 1971), pp. 259–67

Buddensieg 1975 = Tilmann Buddensieg, ‘Bernardo della Volpaia und Giovanni Francesco da Sangallo: Der Autor des Codex Coner und seine Stellung im Sangallo-Kreis’, Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 15 (1975), pp. 89–108

Buddensieg 1976 = Tilmann Buddensieg, ‘Criticism of Ancient Architecture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Classical Influences on European Culture, A.D. 1500–1700, ed. Robert R. Bolgar (Cambridge 1976), pp. 335–48

Bulgarelli 2005 = Massimo Bulgarelli, ‘1450–1471: Roma e Firenze’, in La Roma di Leon Battista Alberti, ed. Francesco Paolo Fiore & Arnold Nesselrath (Milan 2005), pp. 151–63

Burns 1965/66 = Howard Burns, ‘A Peruzzi Drawing in Ferrara’, Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 12 (1965/66), pp. 245–70

Burns 1984 = Howard Burns, ‘I marmi antichi’, in Frommel–Ray–Tafuri 1984, pp. 409–28

Burns 1993 = Howard Burns, ‘I disegni di Francesco di Giorgio agli Uffizi di Firenze’, in Francesco di Giorgio architetto, ed. Francesco Paolo Fiore & Manfredo Tafuri (Milan 1993), pp. 330–57

Bury 1996 = Michael Bury, ‘A Newly-Discovered Architectural Treatise of the Early Cinquecento: The Codex of Antonio da Faenza’, Annali di architettura, 8 (1996), pp. 21–42

Butterfield 1998 = Andrew Butterfield, The Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio (New Haven & London 1997)

Butters–Pagliara 2009 = Suzanne B. Butters & Pier Nicola Pagliara, ‘Il palazzo dei Tribunali, via Giulia e la Giustizia: Strategie politiche e urbane di Giulio II’, in Il palazzo Falconieri e il palazzo barocco a Roma, ed. Gábor Hajnóczi & László Csorba (Soveria Mannelli 2009), pp. 29–279

Cafà 2002 = Valeria Cafà, ‘I disegni di architettura del taccuino KP668 all’Ashmolean Museum di Oxford’, Annali di architettura, 14 (2002), pp. 129–61

Caffiero 2021 = Marina Caffiero, ‘Valadier at the Arch of Titus: Papal Reconstruction and Archeological Restoration under Pius VII’, in The Arch of Titus: From Jerusalem to Rome – and Back, ed. Steven Fine (Leiden & Boston 2021), pp. 103–14

Calza Bini 1953 = Alberto Calza Bini, ‘Il teatro di Marcello (forma e strutture)’, Bollettino del centro di studi per la storia dell'architettura, 7 (1953), pp. 1–44

Camerota 2001 = Filippo Camerota, ‘Tribolo e Benevenuto della Volpaia: Il modello ligneo per l’assedio di Firenze’, in Niccolò detto il Tribolo tra arte, architettura e paesaggio, ed. Elisabetta Pieri (Poggio a Caiano 2001), pp. 87–104

Campbell 1981 = Ian Campbell, ‘The new St Peter’s: Basilica or Temple’, The Oxford Art Journal, 4 (1981), pp. 3–8

Campbell 1984 = Ian Campbell, ‘Reconstructions of Roman Temples Made in Italy Between 1450 and 1600, Doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Oxford (1984)

Campbell 2004 = Ian Campbell, Ancient Roman Topography and Architecture [The Paper Museum of Cassiano Dal Pozzo: Series A, Antiquities and Architecture, 9], 3 vols (London 2004)

Campbell 2011 = Ian Campbell, ‘The ’Minerva Medica’ and the Schola Medicorum: Pirro Ligorio and Roman Toponymy’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 79 (2011), pp. 299–328

Campbell 2016 = Ian Campbell, Pirro Ligorio, libri di diverse antichità di Roma: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canonici Ital. 138 (Rome 2016)

Campbell–Nesselrath 2006 = Ian Campbell & Arnold Nesselrath, ‘The Codex Stosch: Surveys of Ancient Buildings by Giovanni Battista da Sangallo’, Pegasus: Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike, 8 (2006), pp. 9–90

Cantatore 2017a = Flavia Cantatore (ed.), Il tempietto di Bramante nel monastero di San Pietro in Montorio (Rome 2017)

Cantatore 2017b = Flavia Cantatore, ‘La chiesa e il monastero di San Pietro in Montorio: Architettura e storia’, in Cantatore 2017a, pp. 67–110

Cantatore 2017c = Flavia Cantatore, ‘Bramante e il Tempietto: Il progetto e le sue trasformazioni’, in Cantatore 2017a, pp. 153–84

Caperna 2014 = Maurizio Caperna, La Basilica di Santa Prassede: Il significato della vicenda architettonica (Rome 2014)

Carettoni 1940 = Gian Filippo Carettoni, Casinum (presso Cassino): Regio I, Latium et Campania (Rome 1940)

Ceccarelli 2000 = Simonetta Ceccarelli, ‘La chiesa di S. Biagio della Pagnotta a Roma’, Storia dell'arte, 100 (2000), pp. 5–23

Cellauro 2015 = Louis Cellauro, ‘In Search of a Setting for Learning in Roman Antiquity: Renaissance Surveys of Varro’s Garden Musaeum at Casinum, Renaissance Studies, 29 (2015), pp. 204–26

Chicago Speculum 1973 = A Descriptive Catalogue of Engravings from the University of Chicago Library's Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae (Chicago 1973)

Christian 2010 = Kathleen Christian, Empire Without End: Antiquities Collections in Renaissance Rome, c.1350–1527 (New Haven, 2010)

Christian 2016 = Kathleen Christian, ‘Raphael's Vitruvius and Marcantonio Raimondi's Caryatid Façade’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 92 (2016) pp. 91–127

Claridge 2004 = Amanda Claridge, ‘Series A: Antiquities and Architecture’, in Campbell 2004, 1, pp. 9–16 (repeated in Davies–Hemsoll 2013, 1, pp. 9–16)

Claridge 2010 = Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford 2010, 2nd edition)

Clarke 1997 = Georgia Clarke, ‘“La più bella e meglio lavorata opera”: Beauty and Good Design in Italian Renaissance Architecture’, in Concepts of Beauty in Renaissance Art, ed. Francis Ames-Lewis & Mary Rogers (Aldershot 1997), pp. 107–23

Clarke 2003 = Georgia Clarke, Roman House – Renaissance Palaces: Inventing Antiquity in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Cambridge 2003)

Cogotti–Gigli 1995 = Marina Cogotti & Laura Gigli, Palazzo Baldassini (Rome 1995)

Comanducci 1995–96 = Rita Maria Comanducci, ‘Gli Orti Oricellari’, Interpres, 15 (1995–96), pp. 302–58

Comanducci 2017 = Rita Maria Comanducci, ‘Rucellai, Bernardo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 89 (2017), pp. 61–65

Corazza–Lombardi 2002 = Angelo Corazza & Leonardo Lombardi, ‘L’impianto idraulico’, in Rea (2002), pp. 46–65

Cortesi 1980 = Paolo Cortesi, The Renaissance Cardinal’s Ideal Palace: A Chapter from Cortesi’s De Cardinalatu, ed. Kathleen Weil Garris & John D’Amico (Rome 1980)

Cresy–Taylor 1821–22 = Edward Cresy & George Ledwell Taylor, The Architectural Antiquities of Rome, 2 vols (London 1821–22)

Crozzoli Aite 1981 = Livia Crozzoli Aite, I tre templi del Foro Olitorio (Rome 1981)

Cruciani 1968 = Fabrizio Cruciani, Il teatro del Campidoglio e le feste romane del 1513 (Milan 1968)

Da Felicidade Alves 1989 = José Da Felicidade Alves, Álbum dos Desenhos das Antigualhas de Francisco de Holanda: Introdução e notas (Lisbon 1989)

Darley 1999 = Gillian Darley, John Soane: An Accidental Romantic (New Haven & London 1999)

Davies 2017 = Paul Davies, ‘Giuliano da Sangallo e decorum negli edifici a pianta centrale: Santa Maria delle Carceri e la sagrestia di Santo Spirito’, in Giuliano da Sangallo, ed. Amedeo Belluzzi, Caroline Elam & Francesco Paolo Fiore (Milan 2017), pp. 304–18

Davies 2022 = Paul Davies, ‘Micro-architecture: Housing the Miraculous Image in Italy’, in Enshrining the Sacred: Microarchitecture in Ritual Spaces, ed. Ilia Rodov (New York 2022), pp. 215–60

Davies forthcoming = Paul Davies, ‘Templum Pacis: Santa Maria della Pace in the Quattrocento’, in Templum Pacis: Storia della chiesa di Santa Maria Della Pace a Roma tra Quattrocento e Ottocento, ed. Maria Beltramini, Paul Davies, Augusto Roca De Amicis & Giulia Spoltore, 2 vols (forthcoming)

Davies–Hemsoll 1992 = Paul Davies & David Hemsoll, ‘Entasis and Diminution in the Design of Renaissance Pilasters’, in L’Emploi des ordres dans l’architecture de la Renaissance, ed. Jean Guillaume (Paris 1992), pp. 339–53

Davies–Hemsoll 2004 = Paul Davies & David Hemsoll, Michele Sanmicheli (Milan 2004)

Davies–Hemsoll 2013 = Paul Davies & David Hemsoll, Renaissance and Later Architecture and Ornament [The Paper Museum of Cassiano Dal Pozzo: Series A, Antiquities and Architecture, 10], 2 vols (London 2013)

Davies–Schofield 2022 = Paul Davies & Richard V. Schofield, ‘Villa Medici at Poggio a Caiano: New Observations’, Palladio, 35 (2022), pp. 7–60

De Angeli 1992 = Stefano De Angeli, Templum Divi Vespasiani (Rome 1992)

De Angelis 1621 = Paolo De Angelis, Basilicae S. Mariae Majoris descriptio ac delineatio (Rome 1621)

De Angelis d’Ossat 1951 = Guglielmo De Angelis d’Ossat, ‘L’autore del codice londinese attribuito ad Andrea Coner’, Palladio, 2/3 (1951), pp. 94–98

De Blaauw 1996 = Sible de Blaauw, ‘Das Fastigium der Lateranbasilika: Schöpferische Innovation, Unikat oder Paradigma?', in Innovation in der Spätantike, ed. Beat Brenk (Wiesbaden 1996), pp. 53–65

De Caro–Greco 1981 = Stefano De Caro & Angela Greco, Campania (Rome 1981)

De Fine Licht 1968 = Kjeld De Fine Licht, The Rotunda in Rome: A Study of Hadrian's Pantheon (Copenhagen 1968)

De’Cavalieri 1569 = Giovanni Battista De’Cavalieri, Urbis Romae aedificiorum illustriumquae supersunt reliquiae summa cum diligentia a Ioanne Antonio Dosio stilo ferreo ut hodie cernuntur descriptae et a Io. Baptista de Cavaleriis aeneis tabulis incisis repraesentatae (Florence 1569)

De Franciscis–Pane 1957 = Alfonso De Franciscis & Roberto Pane, Mausolei romani in Campania (Naples 1957)

Del Monti 2010 = Claudia Del Monti et al., Il tempio di Venere e Roma nella storia (Milan 2010)

Della Torre–Schofield 1994 = Stefano Della Torre & Richard Schofield, Pellegrino Tibaldi architetto e il S. Fedele di Milano: Invenzione e costruzione di una chiesa esemplare (Milan 1994)

Denker Nesselrath 1990 = Christiane Denker Nesselrath, Die Säulenordnungen bei Bramante (Worms 1990)

Denker Nesselrath 1996 = Christiane Denker Nesselrath, Bramante’s Spiral Staircase (Rome 1996)

De Rossi (1684) = Giovan Giacomo De Rossi (ed.), Li cinque libri di architettura di Gio. Battista Montani milanese, 5 vols (Rome 1684)

Desgodetz 1682 = Antoine Desgodetz, Les Edifices antiques de Rome (Paris 1682)

De Tolnay 1975–80 = Charles De Tolnay, Corpus dei disegni di Michelangelo, 4 vols (Novara 1975–80)

Di Teodoro 1994 = Francesco Paolo Di Teodoro, Raffaello, Baldassar Castiglione e la Lettera a Leone X (Bologna 1994)

Di Teodoro 2011/12 = Francesco Paolo Di Teodoro, ‘Inediti rilievi dall’antico in alcuni fogli del XVI secolo alla Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France “... dont plusieurs paraissent être de la main de Donato d’Angeli Lazzari, dit Bramante, d’Urbino”’, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell'Architettura, 57/59 (2011/12), pp. 93–100

Di Teodoro 2021 = Francesco Paolo Di Teodoro, Lettera a Leone X di Raffaello e Baldassarre Castiglione: Edizione critica (Florence 2021)

Donetti 2017 = Dario Donetti, ‘Il Libro dei disegni: Copie e studio dell’Antico’, in Dario Donetti, Marzia Faietti & Sabine Frommel, Giuliano da Sangallo: Disegni degli Uffizi (Florence & Milan 2017)

Donetti 2022 = Dario Donetti, ‘Drawing by Emulation: The Codex Mellon, Varignana, and Raphael’, Annali di architettura, 34 (2022), pp. 79–102

D’Orgeix 2001 = Émilie d'Orgeix, ‘The Goldschmidt and Scholz Scrapbooks in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Study of Renaissance Architectural Drawings’, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 36 (2001), pp. 167–206

Dupérac 1575 = Étienne Dupérac, I vestigi dell’antichità di Roma (Rome 1575)

Egger 1903 = Hermann Egger, Kritisches Verzeichnis der Sammlung architektonischer Handzeichnungen der kaiserlich-königlich Hof-Bibliothek (Vienna 1903)

Egger 1905–06 = Hermann Egger, Codex Escurialensis: Ein Skizzenbuch aus der Werkstatt Domenico Ghirlandaios, 2 vols (Vienna 1905–06)

Egger 1906 = Hermann Egger, Review of Ashby 1904 in Kunstgeschichtliche Auzegen: Beiblatt der Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 3 (1906), pp. 91–97

Elam 2006 = Caroline Elam, ‘Funzione, tipo e ricezione dei disegni di architettura di Michelangelo’, in Michelangelo e il disegno di architettura, ed. Caroline Elam (Venice 2006), pp. 42–73

Elkins 2019 = Nathan T. Elkins, A Monument to Dynasty and Death: The Story of Rome's Colosseum and the Emperors Who Built It (Baltimore 2019)

Faietti–Nesselrath 1995 = Marzia Faietti & Arnold Nesselrath, ‘“Bizar più che reverso di Medaglia“: Un codex avec grotesques, monstres et ornements du jeune Amico Aspertini’, Revue de l’art, 107 (1995), pp. 44–88

Fairbairn 1998 = Lynda Fairbairn, Italian Renaissance Drawings from the Collection of Sir John Soane's Museum, 2 vols (London 1998)

Falb 1902 = Rudolf Falb, Il taccuino senese di Giuliano da San Gallo (Florence 1902)

Fauno 1552 = Lucio Fauno, Della antichita della citta di Roma (Venice 1552)

Ferrante (1638) = Calisto Ferrante (ed.), Raccolta de tempij, et sepolcri disegnati dall’antico da Gio: Batta Montano milanese (Rome 1638)

Ferri 1885 = Pasquale Nerrino Ferri, Indice geografico-analitico dei disegni di architettura civile e militare degli Uffizi (Rome 1885)

Filippi 2007 = Fedora Filippi (ed.), Ricostruire l’antico prima del virtuale: Italo Gismondi un architetto per l’archeologia (1887–1974) (Rome 2007)

Finocchi Ghersi 2011 = Lorenzo Finocchi Ghersi, La Basilica dei SS. Apostoli a Roma. Storia, arte e architettura (Rome 2011)

Fontana 1590 = Domenico Fontana, Della trasportatione dell'obelisco vaticano et delle fabriche di nostro signore Papa Sisto V (Rome 1590)

Forni 1991 = Giovanna Maria Forni, Monumenti antichi di Roma nei disegni di Alberto Albertii, 2 vols (Rome 1991)

Fra Giocondo 1511 = Fra Giocondo, M. Vitruvius per Iocundum solito castigatior factus cum figuris et tabula ut iam legi et intelligi possit (Venice 1511)

Franzini 1588 = Girolamo Franzini, Le cose maravigliose dell’alma città di Roma (Venice 1588)

Freiberg 1991 = Jack Freiburg, ‘The Lateran Patronage of Gregory XIII and the Holy Year 1575’, Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte, 57 (1991), pp. 66–87

Freiberg 2014 = Jack Freiberg, Bramante's Tempietto, the Roman Renaissance, and the Spanish Crown (New York 2014)

Frey 1915 = Dagobert Frey, Bramantes St. Peter-Entwurf und seine Apokryphen (Vienna 1915)

Freyberger–Ertel 2016 = Klaus S. Freyberger & Christine Ertel, Die Basilica Aemilia auf dem Forum Romanum in Rom: Bauphasen, Rekonstruktion, Funktion und Bedeutung (Wiesbaden 2016)

Friggeri–Magnani Cianetti 2014 = Rosanna Friggeri & Marina Magnani Cianetti (eds), Le Terme di Diocleziano, la Certosa di Santa Maria degli Angeli (Milan 2014)

Frommel 1973 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, Römische Palastbau der Hochrenaissance (Tübingen 1973)

Frommel 1977 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Bramantes “Disegno grandissimo” für den Vatikanpalast’, Kunstchronik, 30 (1977), 2, pp. 63–64

Frommel 1984 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘San Pietro: Storia della sua costruzione’, in Frommel–Ray–Tafuri 1984, pp. 241–309

Frommel 1986 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Raffael und Antonio da Sangallo Jüngere’, in Raffaello a Roma (Rome 1986), pp. 261–304

Frommel 1989a = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Bramante e il disegno 104 A degli Uffizi’, in Il disegno di architettura, ed. Paolo Carpeggiani & Luciano Patetta (Milan 1989), pp. 161–68

Frommel 1989b = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Il Palazzo della Cancelleria’, in Il palazzo dal Rinascimento a oggi, ed. Simonetta S. Valtieri (Rome 1989), pp. 29–53

Frommel 1994a = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Bernardino della Volpaia: Copy after a Project by Giuliano da Sangallo’, in Millon–Lampugnani 1994, p. 605

Frommel 1994b = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Bernardino della Volpaia: Study of a Plan of the Building’, in Millon–Lampugnani 1994, pp. 615–16

Frommel 1998 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘I tre progetti bramanteschi per il Cortile del Belvedere’, in Il cortile delle statue, ed. Matthias Winner, Bernard Andreae & Carlo Pietrangeli (Mainz 1998), pp. 17–66.

Frommel 2013–14 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Bramante, il Tempietto e il convento di San Pietro in Montorio’, Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 41 (2013–14), pp. 111–64

Frommel–Adams 2000 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel & Nicholas Adams (eds), The Architectural Drawings of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and His Circle, 2: Churches, Villas, the Pantheon, Tombs, and Ancient Inscriptions (Cambridge, Mass., 2000)

Frommel–Ray–Tafuri 1984 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel, Stefano Ray & Manfredo Tafuri (eds), Raffaello architetto (Milan 1984)

Frommel–Schelbert 2022 = Christoph Luitpold Frommel & Georg Schelbert (eds), The Architectural Drawings of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and His Circle, 3: Antiquity and Theory, 2 vols (Turnhout 2022)

S. Frommel 2014 = Sabine Frommel, Giuliano da Sangallo (Florence 2014)

S. Frommel 2018 = Sabine Frommel, ‘Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane e Andrea Palladio progettisti di ville’, Annali di architettura, 30 (2018), pp. 173–86

Fulvio 1527 = Andrea Fulvio, Antiquitates Urbis (Rome 1527)

Fusco–Corti 1991 = Laurie Smith Fusco & Gino Corti,’Giovanni Ciampolini (d. 1505), a Renaissance dealer in Rome and his Collection of Antiquities’, Xenia, 21 (1991), pp. 7–46

Gamucci 1569 = Bernardo Gamucci, Le antichita della città di Roma (Venice 1569)

Gans 1992 = Ulrich-Walter Gans, Korinthisierende Kapitelle der römischen Kaiserzeit: Schmuckkapitelle in Italien und den nordwestlichen Provinzen (Cologne 1992)

Gaspari 1979 = Carlo Gaspari, Aedes concordiae augustae (Rome 1979)

Gerding 2002 = Henrik Gerding, The Tomb of Caecilia Metella: Tumulus, Tropaeum and Thymele (Lund 2002)

Geymüller 1875 = Heinrich von Geymüller, Les Projets primitifs pour la basilique de Saint Pierre (Paris 1875)

Ghisetti Giavarina 1983 = Adriano Ghisetti Giavarina, ‘La Basilica Emilia e la rivalutazione del Dorico nel Rinascimento’, Bollettino del Centro di Studi per la Storia dell’Architettura Andrea Palladio, 29 (1983), pp. 7–36

Ghisetti Giavarina 1990 = Adriano Ghisetti Giavarina, Aristotile da Sangallo: Architettura, scenografia, e pittura tra Roma e Firenze nella prima metà del Cinquecento: Ipotesi di attribuzione dei disegni raccolti agli Uffizi (Rome 1990)

Giuliani 1970 = Cairoli Fulvio Giuliani, Tibur: Pars prima (Rome 1970)

Giovannoni 1904 = Gustavo Giovannoni, La sala termale della Villa Liciniana e le cupole romane (Rome, 1904)

Guiffrey–Marcel 1907–75 = Jean Guiffrey & Pierre Marcel, Inventaire général des dessins du Musée du Louvre et du Musée de Versailles, 12 vols (1907–75)

Grassi 1943 = Luigi Grassi, ‘Disegni inediti di Simone del Pollaiolo detto il Cronaca’, Palladio, 7, 1 (1943), pp. 14–22

Günther 1973 = Hubertus Günther, Bramantes Tempietto (Munich 1973)

Günther 1982 = Hubertus Günther, ‘Werke Bramantes im Spiegel einer Gruppe von Zeichnungen der Uffizien von Florenz’, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 33 (1982), pp. 77–108

Günther 1984 = Hubertus Günther, ‘Das Trivium vor Ponte S. Angelo. Ein Beitrag zur Urbanistik der Renaissance in Rom’, Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 21 (1984), pp. 165–251

Günther 1988 = Hubertus Günther, Das Studium der antiken Architektur in den Zeichnungen der Hochrenaissance (Tübingen 1988)

Hambly 1982 = Maya Hambly, Drawing Instruments: Their History, Purpose and Use for Architectural Drawings (London 1982)

Haskell–McBurney 2001 = Francis Haskell & Henrietta McBurney, ‘The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo’, in Helen Whitehouse, Ancient Mosaics and Wallpaintings [The Paper Museum of Cassiano Dal Pozzo: Series A, Antiquities and Architecture, 1] (London 2001), pp. 9–26 (repeated in abridged form at the starts of Campbell 2004 and Davies–Hemsoll 2013)

Helbig 1963–72 = Wolfgang Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, 4 vols (Tübingen 1963–72)

Hemsoll 2014 = David Hemsoll, ‘Drawings by Palladio and Others of the Porta dei Leoni in Verona’, Pegasus: Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike, 16 (2014), pp. 263–94

Hemsoll 2019a = David Hemsoll, ‘Drawing on the Past: Palladio, his Precursors and Knowledge of Ancient Architecture c.1550’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 82 (2019), pp. 195–249

Hemsoll 2019b = David Hemsoll, Emulating Antiquity: Renaissance Buildings from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo (New Haven & London 2019)

Hemsoll forthcoming = ‘Invention, Imitation and Reiteration: The Case of Bramante’s So-Called Palazzo Caprini and Its Progeny’

Hetland 2007 = Lise M. Hetland, ‘Dating the Pantheon’, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 20 (2007), pp. 95–112

Hetland 2015 = Lise M. Hetland, ‘New Perspectives on the Dating of the Pantheon’, in The Pantheon, ed. Tod A. Marder & Mark Wilson Jones (Cambridge 2015), pp. 79–98

Hirst 2011 = Michael Hirst, Michelangelo: The Achievement of Fame, 1475–1534 (New Haven & London 2011)

Hodges 2000 = Richard Hodges, Visions of Rome: Thomas Ashby, Archaeologist (London 2000)

Howard 1992 = Deborah Howard, ‘Bramante’s Tempietto: Spanish Royal Patronage in Rome', Apollo, 136 (1992), pp. 211–17

Hülsen 1902 = Christian Hülsen, Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Forum Romanum, 1898–1902 (Rome 1902)

Hülsen 1909 = Christian Hülsen, The Roman Forum. Its History and Its Monuments (Rome & New York 1909)

Hülsen 1910 = Christian Hülsen, Il libro di Giuliano da Sangallo, 2 vols (Leipzig 1910)

Hülsen 1913 = Christian Hülsen, Dei lavori archeologici di Giovannantonio Dosio (Rome 1913)

Hülsen 1921 = Christian Hülsen, 'Das Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae des Antonio Lafreri', in Collectanea varìae doctrinae Leoni S. Olschki (Munich 1921)

Hülsen 1927 = Christian Hülsen, Le chiese di Roma nel medio evo: Cataloghi ed appunti (Florence 1927)

Hülsen 1933 = Christian Hülsen, Das Skizzenbuch des Giovannantonio Dosio im Staatlichen Kupferstichkabinett zu Berlin (Berlin 1933)

Hülsen–Egger 1913–16 = Christian Hülsen & Hermann Egger, Die römischen Skizzenbücher von Marten van Heemskerck im Königlichen Kupferstichkabinett zu Berlin, 2 vols (Berlin 1913–16)

Impeciati 2006 = Sabrina Impeciati, Il mausoleo dei Plauzi presso il ponte Lucano a Tivoli: Il ponte, il mausoleo, l’antica osteria (Tivoli 2006)

Johnson 1995 = Mark J. Johnson, ‘The Fifth-Century Oratory of the Holy Cross at the Lateran in Rome’, Architectura, 25 (1995), pp. 128–55

Kantor-Kazovsky 2011 = Lola Kantor-Kazovsky, ‘”La zecca vecchia”: Myth, Archeology and Architectural Design in the High Renaissance Concept of Rustication’, Renaissance Studies, 25 (2011), pp. 248–75

Keller 1971 = Fritz-Eugen Keller, ‘Alvise Cornaro zitiert die Villa des Marcus Terentius Varro in Cassino’, L’arte, 4,14 (1971), pp. 29–53

Kent 1979 = F. William Kent, ‘Lorenzo de’Medici’s Acquisition of Poggio a Caiano in 1474 and an Early Reference to His Architectural Expertise’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 42 (1979), pp. 250–57

Krautheimer 1937–77 = Richard Krautheimer et al., Corpus basilicarum christianarum Romae, 5 vols (Vatican City 1937–77)

Krautheimer 1985 = Richard Krautheimer, The Rome of Alexander VII, 1665–1667 (Princeton 1985)

Lalande Biscontin 2015 = Jacqueline Lalande Biscontin, Feuilles de mémoire: Un Carnet de dessins florentins du Musée du Louvre de l'Académie du dessin à Filippo Baldinucci (Mainz 2015)

Labacco 1552 = Antonio Labacco, Libro d'Antonio Labacco appartenente a l’architettura nel qual si figurano alcune notabili antiquita di Roma (Rome 1552)

Lanciani 1893–1901 = Rodolfo Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (Milan 1893–1901)

Lanciani 1989–2002 = Rodolfo Lanciani, Storia degli scavi di Roma e notizie intorno le collezioni romane di antichità, 7 vols (Rome 1989–2002)

Lanzarini 2020 = Orietta Lanzarini, ‘Memorie antiquarie: Il frammento di un libro di disegni nel Codice Tarsia’, in Leonardo e il rinascimento nei codici napoletani: Influenze e modelli per l’architettura e l’ingegneria, ed. Alfredo Buccaro & Maria Rascaglia (Naples 2020), pp. 365–80 and 492–536

Lanzarini–Martinis 2015 = Orietta Lanzarini & Roberta Martinis, Questo libro fu di Andrea Palladio: Il codice Destailleur B dell’Hermitage (Rome 2015)

La Rocca 1985 = Eugenio La Rocca, Amazzonomachia: Le sculture frontonali del tempio di Apollo Sosiano (Rome 1985)

Laurenti–Serlorenzi 2002 = Stefania Laurenti & Mirella Serlorenzi, Terme di Diocleziano e S. Maria degli Angeli (Rome 2002)

Lauter 1980/81 = Hans Lauter, ‘Porticus Metelli, Porticus Octaviae: Die bauliche Reste’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica communale di Roma, 87 (1980/81), pp. 37–46

Lehmann 1982 = Phyllis Williams Lehmann, ‘The Basilica Aemilia and S. Biagio at Montepulciano’, The Art Bulletin, 64 (1982), pp. 124–31

Lembke 1994 = Katja Lembke, Das Iseum Campense in Rom: Studie über den Isiskult unter Domitian (Heidelberg 1994)

Lemerle 1997 = Frédérique Lemerle, ‘Livre de dessins de Michel-Ange’, in Catalogue des dessins italiens: Collections du Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille, ed. Barbara Brejon de Lavergnée (Paris 1997), pp. 281–324

Leoncini 1993 = Luca Leoncini, Il codice detto del Mantegna: Codice Destailleur OZ 111 della Kunstbibliothek di Berlino (Rome 1993)

Letarouilly 1963 = Paul Marie Letarouilly, The Vatican Buildings/Les Bâtiments du Vatican, 3 vols (London 1963)

Letarouilly 1984 = Paul Marie Letarouilly, Édifices de Rome moderne (New York 1984)

Lindgren 2007 = Uta Lindgren, ‘Land Surveys, Instruments, and Practitioners in the Renaissance’, in The History of Cartography, vol. 3, part 1: Cartography in the European Renaissance, ed. David Woodward (Chicago 2007), pp. 477–508

Lipps 2011 = Johannes Lipps, Die Basilica Aemilia am Forum Romanum: Der kaiserliche Bau und seine Ornamentik (Wiesbaden 2011)

Liu 2011 = Chen Liu, ‘Between Perception and Expression: The Codex Coner and the Genre of Architectural Sketchbooks’, Doctoral dissertation submitted to Princeton University (2011)

Liverani 1992–93 = Paolo Liverani, ‘Le colonne e il capitello in bronzo d’età romana dell’altare del SS. Sacramento in Laterano: Analisi archeologica e problematica storica’, Rendiconti. Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, 65 (1992–1993/1995), pp. 75–97

Lombardi–Corazza 1995 = Leonardo Lombardi & Angelo Corazza, Le Terme di Caracalla (Rome 1995)

L’Orme (1567) = Philibert de L’Orme, Le Premier Tome de l’architecture (Paris 1567)

Lotz 1956 = Wolfgang Lotz, ’Das Raumbild in der italienischen Architekturzeichnung der Renaissance’, Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 7 (1953–1956), pp. 193–226; translated as ‘The rendering of the Interior in Architectural Drawings of the Renaissance’, in Wolfgang Lotz, Studies in Italian Renaissance Architecture (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), pp. 1–65

Lotz 1962 = Wolfgang Lotz, ‘Osservazioni intorno ai disegni palladiani’, Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio, 4 (1962), pp. 61–68; translated as ‘Observations on Palladio’s Drawings’, in Wolfgang Lotz, Studies in Italian Renaissance Architecture (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), pp. 181– 86

Lotz 1967 = Wolfgang Lotz, ‘Zu Michelangelos Kopien nach dem Codex Coner’, in Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes, ed. Florenz Deuschler, 3 vols (Berlin 1967), 2, pp. 12–19

Lowry 1957 = Bates Lowry, Review of Ackerman 1954, The Art Bulletin, 39 (1957), pp. 159–68

LTUR 1993–2000 = Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae, ed. Eva Margareta Steinby, 6 vols (Rome 1993–2000)

LTUR Suburbium 2001–08 = Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae: Suburbium, ed. Adriano La Regina et al., 5 vols (Rome 2001–08)

Lusnia 2004 = Susann S. Lusnia, ‘Urban Planning and Sculptural Display in Severan Rome: Reconstructing the Septizodium and Its Role in Dynastic Politics’, American Journal of Archaeology, 108 (2004), pp. 517–44

Maltese 1967 = Corrado Maltese (ed.), Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Trattati di architettura ingegneria e arte militare, 2 vols (Milan 1967)

Marchini 1964 = Giuseppe Marchini, ‘Un pozzo a Roma’, Antichità Viva, 3 (1964), 2, pp. 28–37

Marder–Wilson Jones 2015 = Tod A. Marder & Mark Wilson Jones (eds), The Pantheon: From Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge 2015)

Marliani 1544 = Bartolomeo Marliani, Urbis Romae topographia (Rome 1544)

Martini 1883 = Angelo Martini, Manuale di metrologia ossia misure, pesi e monete in uso attualmente e anticamente presso tutti i popoli (Turin 1883)

Mateos–Pizzo–Ventura 2017 = Pedro Mateos, Antonio Pizzo & Ángel Ventura, Arcus Divi Constantini: An Architectural Analysis and Chronological Proposal for the Arch of Janus in the Forum Boarium in Rome’, The Journal of Roman Studies, 107 (2017), pp. 237–74

Mattern 2001 = Torsten Mattern, Gesims und Ornament: Zur stadtrömischen Architektur von der Republik bis Septimius Severus (Münster 2001)

Meneghini 2009 = Roberto Meneghini, I Fori Imperiali e i Mercati di Traiano: Storia e descrizione dei monumenti alla luce degli studi e degli scavi recenti (Rome 2009)

Meneghini–Messa–Ungaro 1998 = Roberto Meneghini, Luigi Messa & Lucrezia Ungaro, Il Foro di Traiano (Rome 1998)

Mercalli 1998 = Marisa Mercalli et al., Adriano e il suo mausoleo. Studi, indagini e interpretazioni (Milano 1998)

Minoprio 1932 = Anthony Minoprio, ‘A Restoration of the Basilica of Constantine, Rome’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 12 (1932), pp. 1–25

Micheli 1982 = Maria Elisa Micheli, Giovanni Colonna da Tivoli: 1554 (Rome 1982)

Miller 2019 = Elizabeth Miller, 'Antonio Lafreri's Architecture and Ornament Volumes: Crossing the Boundary Between Books and Volumes of Prints in Late Sixteenth-Century Rome', Renaissance Studies, 33 (2019), pp. 761–88

Mongeri 1875 = Giuseppe Mongeri, Le rovine di Roma (Milan 1875)

Muñoz 1912 = Antonio Muñoz, ‘La decorazione medioevale del Pantheon’, Nuovo bullettino di archeologia Cristiana, 18 (1912), pp. 25–35

Museo Nazionale Romano 1979–91 = Museo Nazionale Romano: Le sculture (Rome 1979–91)

Mussolin 2012 = Mauro Mussolin, ‘In controluce: Alcune osservazioni sull’uso della carta nei disegni architettonici di Michelangelo in Casa Buonarroti’, in Michelangelo e il linguaggio dei disegni di architettura, ed. Golo Maurer & Alessandro Nova (Venice 2012), pp. 287–311

Nardini 1666 = Famiano Nardini, Roma antica (Rome 1666)

Nesselrath 1986 = Arnold Nesselrath, ‘I libri di disegni di antichità: Tentativo di una tipologia’, in Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana: Dalla tradizione all'archeologia, ed. Salvatore Settis (Turin 1986), pp. 87–147

Nesselrath 1992 = Arnold Nesselrath, ‘Codex Coner – 85 years on’, in Cassiano Dal Pozzo’s Paper Museum, 2, ed. Jennifer Montagu (Milan 1992), pp. 145–67

Nesselrath 1993 = Arnold Nesselrath, Das Fossombroner Skizzenbuch (London 1993)

Nesselrath 1996 = Arnold Nesselrath, ‘Il “Codice Escurialense”’, in Domenico Ghirlandaio 1449-1494, ed. Wolfram Prinz & Max Seidel (Florence 1996), pp. 175–98

Nesselrath 2014 = Arnold Nesselrath, Der Zeichner und sein Buch: Die Darstellung der antiken Architektur im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert (Mainz 2014)

Nesselrath 2015a = Arnold Nesselrath, ‘The Afterlife of “Nachleben”: The Census of Antique Works of Art and Architecture Known in the Renaissance’, in Vorträge aus dem Warburg-Haus, 12 (2015), pp. 187–99

Nesselrath 2015b = Arnold Nesselrath, ‘Impressions of the Pantheon in the Renaissance’, in The Pantheon, ed. Tod A. Marder & Mark Wilson Jones (Cambridge 2015), pp. 255–95

Nicotra 2015 = Laura Nicotra, The Figurative Programme of the Architraval Friezes in the Forum of Trajan, Rome (Leicester 2015)

Niebaum 2021 = Jens Nebaum, ‘Bramantes Tegurio in St Peter: Architektur und Zeit,’ in Donato Bramante: ‘Luce & inventor de la buona & vera architettura', ed. Francesco P. di Teodoro & Jens Niebaum (Rome 2021), pp. 239–56

Nielsen–Poulsen 1992 = Inge Nielsen & Birte Poulsen (eds), The Temple of Castor and Pollux: The Pre-Augustan Temple Phases with Related Decorative Elements (Rome 1992)

Oakeshott 1980 = Ronald Ewart Oakeshott, European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution (Guildford 1980)

Oberhuber 1978 = Konrad Oberhuber (ed.), The Works of Marcantonio Raimondi and of his School [The Illustrated Bartsch, 27] (New York 1978)

Olivato 1978 = Loredana Olivato, ‘Due codici “veneti” cinquecenteschi d’architettura’, Arte Veneta, 32 (1978), pp. 153–60

Packer 1997 = James E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments, 3 vols (Berkeley & Oxford 1997)

Pacciani 2008 = Riccardo Pacciani, ‘Disegni di Cronaca’, Opvs incertvm, 3 (2008), 5, pp. 28–37

Pagano–Rougetet 1988–89 = Mario Pagano & Jacques Rougetet, ‘Le grandi terme dette ‘Tempio di Apollo’ sul lago di Averno, Puteoli: Studi di storia antica, 11 (1988–89), pp. 151–209

Pagliara 1984 = Pier Nicola Pagliara, ‘Palazzo Pandolfini’, in Frommel–Ray–Tafuri 1984, pp. 189–96

Pagliara 1989a = Pier Nicola Pagliara, ‘Della Volpaia, Benvenuto’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiana, 37 (1989), pp. 789–90

Pagliara 1989b = Pier Nicola Pagliara, ‘Della Volpaia, Bernardo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 37 (1989), pp. 795–97

Pagliara 1989c = Pier Nicola Pagliara, ‘Della Volpaia, Lorenzo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 37 (1989), pp. 799–802

Pagliara 1992 = Pier Nicola Pagliara, ‘Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane e gli ordini’, in L’Emploi des ordres dans l’architecture de la Renaissance, ed. Jean Guillaume (Paris 1992), pp. 137–56

Palladio 1570 = Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura (Venice 1570)

Parker 2003 = Grant Parker, ‘Narrating Monumentality: The Piazza Navona Obelisk’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 16 (2003), pp. 193–215

Parsons 2004 = Peter W. Parsons, ‘Between Typology and Geometry: Designs by Baldassarre Peruzzi for Carpi Cathedral’, Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 35 (2004), pp. 287–326

Percier–Fontaine 1798 = Charles Percier & Pierre François Léonard Fontaine, Palais, Maisons, et autres Édifices Modernes, dessinés à Rome (Paris 1798)

Pensabene 2015 = Patrizio Pensabene, Roma su Roma: Reimpiego architettonico, recupero dell'antico e trasformazioni urbane tra il III e il XIII secolo (Rome 2015)

Pensabene 1999 = Patrizio Pensabene, ‘Parte superiore dell’arco: composizione strutturale e classificazione dei marmi’, in Arco di Costantino: Tra archeologia e archeometria, ed. Patrizio Pensabene & Clementina Panella (Rome 1999), pp. 139–56.

Perosa 1960 = Alessando Perosa (ed.), Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, 2 vols (London 1960), 1: Il Zibaldone Quaresimale

Pfanner 1983 = Michael Pfanner, Der Titusbogen (Mainz 1983)

Pietrangeli 1968 = Carlo Pietrangeli (ed.), Rione V – Ponte, parte I (Rome 1968)

Pietrangeli 1975 = Carlo Pietrangeli (ed.), Rione X – Campitelli, Parte I (Rome 1975)

Piranesi 1761 = Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Della magnificenza ed architettvra de’Romani / De romanorvm magnificentia et architectvra (Rome 1761)

Platner–Ashby 1929 = Samuel Ball Platner & Thomas Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (London 1929)

Poggi et al. 1965–83 = Giovanni Poggi, Paola Barocchi & Renzo Ristori (eds), Il carteggio di Michelangelo, 5 vols (Florence 1965–83)

Pope-Hennessy 1964 = John Pope-Hennessy, Catalogue of Italian Sculpture in the Victoria and Albert Museum, 2 vols (London 1964)

Popham 1946 = Arthur E. Popham, The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci (London 1946)

Prosperi Valenti Rodinò 2007 = Simonetta Prosperi Valenti Rodinò, I disegni del Codice Resta di Palermo (Cinisello Balsamo 2007)

Puppi 1989 = Lionello Puppi, Palladio: Corpus dei disegni al Museo Civico di Vicenza (Milan 1989)

Pyhrr–Godoy 1998 = Stuart W. Pyhrr & José-A. Godoy, Heroic Armor of the Italian Renaissance: Filippo Negroli and His Contemporaries (New York 1998)

Rachele 2015 = Cara Rachele, ‘Building Through the Paper: Disegno and the Architectural Copybook in the Italian Renaissance’, Doctoral dissertation submitted to Harvard University (2015)

Rachele 2021 = Cara Rachele, ‘Spolia, Imitatio, and Detail Drawings in the Circle of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger’, in Building with Paper: The Materiality of Renaissance Architectural Drawings, ed. Dario Donetti & Cara Rachele (Turnhout 2021), pp. 80–105

Rakob–Heilmeyer 1973 = Friedrich Rakob & Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, Der Rundtempel am Tiber in Rom (Mainz 1973)

Rasch 1993 = Jürgen J. Rasch, Das Mausoleum bei Tor de Schiavi in Rom (Mainz 1993)

Rasch–Arbeiter 2007 = Jürgen Rasch & Achim Arbeiter, Das Mausoleum der Constantina in Rom (Mainz am Rhein 2007)

Raspe 2000 = Martin Raspe, ‘Das Schaubild als monumentale Form: Zur “Medialisierung” der Architektur bei Bramante, Domenichino, Cortona, Borromini und anderen’, in Kritische Berichte, 28 (2000), 3, pp. 5–20

Rausa 1997 = Federico Rausa, Pirro Ligorio: Tombe e mausolei dei romani (Rome 1997)

Rea 2001a = Rossella Rea, ‘The Architecture and Function of the Colosseum’, in The Colosseum, ed. Ada Gabucci (Los Angeles 2001), pp. 99–160

Rea 2001b = Rossella Rea, ‘The Colosseum Through the Centuries’, in The Colosseum, ed. Ada Gabucci (Los Angeles 2001), pp. 161–228

Rea 2002 = Rossella Rea (ed.), Rota Colisei: La Valle del Colosseo attraverso i secoli (Milan 2002)

Riccomini 2018 = Anna Maria Riccomini, ‘“In casa mia”: Sulla raccolta di marmi antichi di Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane’, in Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane, ed. Maria Beltramini & Cristina Conti (Milan 2018), pp. 17–32

Richardson 1992 = Lawrence Richardson, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore & London 1992)

Richmond–Gill 2004 = Ian A. Richmond, ‘Ashby, Thomas (1874–1931)’, rev. David Gill, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford & New York 2004), 2, pp. 625–27

Ridley 1989 = Ronald T. Ridley, ‘The Monuments of the Roman Forum: The Struggle for Identity’, Xenia, 17 (1989) pp. 69–90

Römische Skizzen 1988 = Römische Skizzen, Zwischen Phantasie und Wirklichkeit: Römische Ruinen in Zeichnungen des 16. bis 19. Jahrhunderts aus Beständen der Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Mainz 1988)

Rubinstein 1985 = Ruth Rubinstein, ‘“Tempus edax rerum”: A newly Discovered Painting by Hermannus Posthumus’, The Burlington Magazine, 127 (1985), pp. 425–33

Rucca 1828 = Giacomo Rucca, Capua vetere o sia descrizione di tutti i monumenti di Capua antica e particolarmente del suo nobilissimo anfiteatro (Naples 1828)

Rucellai 1770 = Bernardo Rucellai, ‘De urbe Roma’, Rerum italicarum scriptores, ed. D. M. Becucci, 2, Florence 1770, cols 786-1190.

Scaglia 1991 = Gustina Scaglia, ‘The “Colonnacce” of Forum Nervae as Cronaca’s Inspiration for the “Cornicione” of Palazzo Strozzi’, Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 35 (1991), pp. 153–70

Schraven 2012 = Minou Schraven, ‘Founding Rome Anew: Pope Sixtus IV and the Foundation of Ponte Sisto, 1473’, in Early Modern Rome 1341–1667, ed. Portia Prebys (Ferrara 2011), pp. 617–26

Schreiter 1995 = Charlotte Schreiter, ‘Römische Schmuckbasen’, Kölner Jahrbuch, 28 (1995), pp. 161–347

Schuller 2017 = Manfred Schuller, ‘Il Tempietto: Analisi basata su un nuovo rilievo architettonico’, in Cantatore 2017, pp. 225–56

Serlio 1537 = Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura sopra le cinque maniere de gliedifici (Venice 1537)

Serlio 1540 = Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro, nel qual si figurano e descrivono le antiquita di Roma, e le altre che sono in Italia e fuori d’Italia (Venice 1540)

Serlio 1619 = Sebastiano Serlio, Tutte l’opere d’architettura, et prospetiva (Venice 1619)

Shearman 1974 = John Shearman, ‘Il “Tiburio” di Bramante’, in Studi bramanteschi (Rome 1974), pp. 567–73

Shearman 1977 = John Shearman, ‘Raphael, Rome, and the Codex Escurialensis’, Master Drawings, 15 (1977) pp. 107–46

Shearman 2003 = John Shearman, Raphael in Early Modern Sources: 1483-1602, 2 vols (New Haven & London 2003)

Smith 1904 = Arthur H. Smith, Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities: The Later Greek and Graeco-Roman Reliefs, Decorative and Architectural Sculpture in the British Museum (London 1904)

Smyth-Pinney 2018 = Julia Smyth-Pinney, ‘The Medici Palace in Rome: Its Earliest History and the Designs by Giuliano and Antonio da Sangallo the Younger’, Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 42 (2015–16), pp. 151–205

Sparti 1992 = Donatella L. Sparti, Le collezioni dal Pozzo: Storia di una famiglia e del suo museo nella Roma seicentesca (Modena 1992)

Spike 1985 = John Spike (ed.), Italian Masters of the Sixteenth Century: Enea Vico [The Illustrated Bartsch, 30] (New York 1985)

Storz 1988 = Sebastian Storz, ‘Fragmente der Innenordnung des Mars-Ultor-Tempels und ihre Renaissance-Darstellungen’, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (Mainz am Rhein 1988) pp. 172–84

Strauch 2019 = Timo Strauch, Der Codex des Antonio da Faenza: Die Traktatsammlung eines Künstlers im frühen 16. Jahrhundert, 2 vols (Petersberg 2019)

Strong 1953 = Donald E. Strong, ‘Late Hadrianic Architectural Ornament in Rome’, Papers of the British School in Rome, 21 (1953), pp. 118–51.

Strocka 2009 = Volker Michael Strocka, ‘Die Quadriga auf dem Augustusforum in Rom’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 115 (2009), pp. 21–55

Swetnam-Burland 2010 = Molly Swetnam-Burland, ‘“Aegyptus Redacta”: The Egyptian Obelisk in the Augustan Campus Martius’, The Art Bulletin, 92 (2010), pp. 135–53

Tait 1978 = Alan A. Tait, ‘The Sale of Robert Adam's Drawings’, The Burlington Magazine, 120 (1978), pp. 449–54

Tedeschi Grisanti 1983 = Giovanna Tedeschi Grisanti, ‘“Dis manibus, pili epitaffi et altre cose antiche”: un codice inedito di disegni di Giovanantonio Dosio’, Bollettino d'Arte, 68 (1983), pp. 69–102

Tessari 1995 = Cristiano Tessari, Baldassarre Peruzzi: Il progetto dell’antico (Milan 1995)

Testaguzza 1970 = Otello Testaguzza, Portus: Illustrazione dei porti di Claudio e Traiano e della città di Porto a Fiumicino (Rome 1970)

Thelen 1967 = Heinrich Thelen, Francesco Borromini: Die Handzeichnungen, 2 vols (Graz 1967)

Thoenes 1966 = (untitled contribution) in Ss Celso e Giuliano. Collegiata e Cappella Papale (Le chiese di Roma illustrate, Rome 1966), eds Gabriele Segui, Christopher Thoenes & Luisa Mortari (Rome 1966), pp. 29-45

Thoenes 2013–14 = Christof Thoenes, ‘Elf Thesen zu Bramante und St. Peter’, Römisches Jahrbuch Der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 41, (2013–14), pp. 209–26

Thom 2021 = Colin Thom, ‘The Adam Brothers, Cardinal Albani, and the Sale of the Dal Pozzo–Albani Drawings Collection to George III’, in Cardinal Alessandro Albani, ed. Clare Hornsby & Mario Bevilacqua (Rome 2021), pp. 63–79

Thomas 2007 = Edmund Thomas, 'Metaphor and Identity in Severan Architecture: The Septizodium Between Reality and Fantasy', in Severan Culture, ed. Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison & Jaś Elsner (Cambridge & New York 2007), pp. 327–67

Toebelmann 1923 = Fritz Toebelmann, Römische Gebälke (Heidelberg 1923)

Torelli 1992 = Mario Torelli, Topografia e iconologia: Arco di Portogallo, ara pacis, ara providentiae, templum solis (Naples 1992)

Tomassetti 2000 = Alessandra Tomassetti, ‘Un edificio antico lungo il clivus Argentarius: ll monumentum di Gaio Publicio Bibulo’, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 101 (2000), pp. 39–80

Tronzo 1995/97 = William Tronzo, ‘Il tegurium di Bramante’, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell'Architettura, 25/30 (1995/97), pp. 161–66

Tucci 1994–95 = Pier Luigi Tucci, ‘Considerazioni sull’edificio di via di Santa Maria de’ Calderari’, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 96 (1994–95), pp. 95–124

Tucci 2017 = Pier Luigi Tucci, The Temple of Peace in Rome, 2 vols (New York 2017)

Tura 1999 = Adolfo Tura, ‘Codici di matematica di Fra Giocondo’, Bibliothèque d’humanisme et renaissance, 61 (1999), pp. 701–11

Vacca 1594 = Flaminio Vacca, Memorie di varie antichità trovate in diversi luoghi della città di Roma (Rome 1594)

Valentini-Zucchetti 1953 = Roberto Valentini & Giuseppe Zucchetti eds, Codice topografico della città di Roma (Rome 1953)

Valori 1985 = Susanna Valori, Disegni di antichità dell’Albertina di Vienna (Rome 1985)

Valtieri 1982 = Simonetta S. Valtieri, ‘La fabbrica del palazzo del cardinale Raffaele Riario (La Cancelleria)’, in Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell'Architettura, 27 (1982), pp. 3–23

Vasari–Milanesi 1878–85 = Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori, ed. Gaetano Milanesi, 9 vols (Florence, 1878–85)

Vasori 1981 = Orietta Vasori, I monumenti antichi in Italia nei disegni degli Uffizi (Rome 1981)

Verellen 1987 = Till R. Verellen, ‘Patterns of Patronage: Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and the Setta of Sculptors’, in Patronage, Art, and Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. F. William Kent & Patricia Simons (Oxford 1987), pp. 283–98

Vignola 1562 = Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola, Regola delli cinque ordini d'architettura (Rome 1562)

Viscogliosi 2000 = Alessandro Viscogliosi, I fori imperiali nei disegni d’architettura del primo Cinquecento: Ricerche sull’architettura e l’urbanistica di Roma (Rome 2000)

Von Hesberg 1981 = Henner von Hesberg, ‘Girlandenschmuck der republikanischen Zeit in Mittelitalien’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 88 (1981), pp. 201–45

Von Mercklin 1962 = Eugen von Mercklin, Antike Figuralkapitelle (Berlin 1962)

Von Pastor 1891–1953 = Ludwig Von Pastor, The History of the Popes From the Close of the Middle Ages, 40 vols (London 1891–1953)

Waters 2011 = Michael J. Waters, ‘Looking Beyond the Treatise: Single-Leaf Prints and Sixteenth-Century Architectural Culture’, in Renaissance Architectural Prints from Column to Cornice ed. Cammy Brothers & Michael J. Waters (Charlottesville 2011), pp. 18–48

Wegner 1966 = Max Wegner, Schmuckbasen des antiken Rom (Münster 1966)

Whitehouse 2001 = Helen Whitehouse, Ancient Mosaics and Wallpaintings [The Paper Museum of Cassiano Dal Pozzo: Series A, Antiquities and Architecture, 1] (London 2001)

Wilson Jones 1989 = Mark Wilson Jones, ‘Principles of Design in Roman Architecture: The Setting Out of Centralised Buildings’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 57 (1989), pp. 106–51

Wilson Jones 1990 = Mark Wilson Jones, ‘The Tempietto and the Roots of Coincidence’, Architectural History, 33 (1990), pp. 1–28

Wilson Jones 1993 = Mark Wilson Jones, ‘Designing Amphitheatres’, Römische Mitteilungen, 100 (1993), pp. 391–41

Wilson Jones 2000 = Mark Wilson Jones, The Principles of Roman Architecture (New Haven & London 2000)

Wittkower 1937 = Rudolf Wittkower, ‘Carlo Rainaldi and the Roman architecture of the full Baroque’, The Art Bulletin, 19 (1937), pp. 242-313

Wittkower 1978 = Rudolf Wittkower, ‘The “Menicantonio” Sketchbook in the Paul Mellon Collection’, in Rudolf Wittkower, Idea and Image: Studies in the Italian Renaissance (Over Wallop 1978), pp. 91–108

Wrede–Harprath 1986 = Henning Wrede & Richard Harprath, Der Codex Coburgensis, das erste systematische Archäologiebuch: Römische Antiken-Nachzeichnungen aus der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Coburg 1986)

Wurm 1984 = Heinrich Wurm, Baldassarre Peruzzi: Architekturzeichnungen (Tübingen 1984)

Yerkes 2013 = Carolyn Yorke Yerkes, ‘Drawings of the Pantheon in the Metropolitan Museum’s Goldschmidt Scrapbook’, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 48 (2013) pp. 87–120

Yerkes 2014 = Carolyn Yorke Yerkes, ‘The Lost Octagons of the Pantheon: Images and Evidence’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 77 (2014), pp. 115–43

Zampa 2008 = Paola Zampa, ‘Il Codice Strozzi: Alcune considerazioni’, Opus incertum, 5 (2008/2010), pp. 64–75

Zampa 2014 = Paola Zampa, ‘La basilica Emilia: Architettura, lessico, costruzione’, Pegasus: Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike, 16 (2014), pp. 207–40

Zampa 2017 = Paola Zampa, ‘Un bel tempietto d’ordine mescolato’, in Cantatore 2017, pp. 185–206

Zampa 2019 = Paola Zampa, ‘Una bella discrezione da esser considerata’: L’angolo della basilica Emilia (Rome 2019)

Zonghi’s Watermarks 1953 = Aurelio & Augusto Zonghi, Andrea Federico Gasparinetti et al., Zonghi’s Watermarks (ed. Hilversum 1953)

Zorzi 1959 = Giangiorgio Zorzi, I disegni delle antichità di Andrea Palladio (Venice 1959)