British School at Rome: Papers of the British School at Rome (2.1904)

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

P. io, 1. 20. —It is to be noticed that the artist of the Berlin drawings has twice miscopied the
legends attached to Coner's drawings. In 3826^ he has repertur (?) aput S. marcum for
reperta apud S. marcum (73a), and in 3827^ antoninj for antonii (116e).
P. 22, No. 233. —It is hardly necessary to state that Maxentius built two heroa in his son's
honour, and that the one here mentioned is that situated in the Forum, in contradistinction
to that (6, 9 supra) on the Via Appia.
P. 24, 1. 22. —It should be noticed that Francesco d'Olanda's representation of the arcades at the
back of the Nicchione does not agree with what we know of the condition of the Cortile
di Belvedere at the time. It may, therefore, be to a certain extent fanciful. Baron
von Geymuller informs me that a plan of the Nicchione by a French architect (circa
153°~154°) is to be found in vol. xii (according to Michaelis' list in Ancient Marbles in
Great Britain, 717-721: the volume is entitled Mosaici Antichi, vol. ii, and numbered
P. 248) of the Windsor drawings, f. 139 ; on the verso is the beginning of the arcades of
the Cortile di Belvedere drawn in perspective, and on f. 142, 144, 145 are other plans-
possibly studies by Bramante for the Vatican.
P. 34, No. 48. —Professor Michaelis has been good enough to inform me that the engraving of the
Menologium rusticum Vallense cited by him occurs in the Munich copy (the volume is
lettered Arch. 248, and the plates are not numbered) of the Speculum Urbis Romae. It
bears the signature Romee Claudij Duchetti formis.
P. 38, No. 67a. —It is noteworthy that Coner drew nothing on the Palatine: the name palatium
mains appears only here and 134a, in both cases serving to indicate the position of the
temple of Castor and Pollux.
P. 43, No. 79. —The cornice represented in this drawing is not reproduced by the artist of drawing
No. 3827 in the Kunstgewerbemuseum. The statement in the text is due to a confusion
with No. 116^.
P. 58, No. 118. —The question of the relation between the three drawings of the Caryatid, which
in the text are all referred to the same original, is a somewhat difficult one. There is
little doubt as to the identity of the Caryatid drawn by Giuliano da Sangallo and by the
unknown author of the Kunstgewerbemuseum drawing, though there is a slight difference
in their method of representing the hair at the sides and back of the head. But the
Caryatid drawn by Coner differs from these (1) in the absence of the roll of hair below
the reel-and-button moulding, and the consequent enlargement of the egg-and-da'rt
moulding; (2) in the simpler arrangement of the hair, without the knotted tress or
'forelock' over the centre of the forehead. On the other hand, both the indication of
the site and the measurements as given by Coner agree closely with those of the Berlin
drawing (Giuliano da Sangallo gives neither). Dr. Hiilsen informs me that the detailed
measurements of the latter are given in dita and minuti (12th and 144th parts) of a foot,
which corresponds somewhat roughly to the ancient Roman foot (0'295 metre). A
comparison of a drawing on the same leaf of the base given by Coner in No. 136a (that
of the columns of the portico of the Pantheon) shows that a dito is equivalent to rather
more than 3 minuti of the braccio fiorentino, so that the detail measurements bring the
foot out at 0'35 metre or more ;! but the width of the intercolumniations of the portico is

1 This seems so excessive that Mr. Stuart Jones suggests that the Caryatid drawn by Coner
may be slightly larger than the other,