DOI article:
Ashby, Thomas: Sixteenth-century drawings of roman buildings attributed to Andreas Coner
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.70293#0034
22
The British School at Rome.
23. (i6)
a. HICNOGRAPHIA-TENPLAr^sic.)-SOLIS-ET LUN^E.
A plan of the double temple of Venus and Rome, for which this is the
usual traditional name.
The steps are somewhat differently represented by Lanciani, Forma
Urbis, 29, where a smaller double flight is shown ascending to the roof
of each temple.
b. (d)erariu(m) romanu(m).
An interesting plan of the group of buildings formed by the heroon of
Romulus son of Maxentius and the so-called Templum Sacrae Urbis (cf.
Liber Font. i. 279, ed. Duchesne (who refers templum urbis Romae to the
Basilica of Constantine); Jordan, Forma Urbis, pp. 8, 9 ; De Rossi, Bull.
Crist. 1867, 61 ff.; Gilbert, Topographie der Stadt Rom, iii. 186. It differs
from the plans drawn by Pirro Ligorio ( Cat. 3439 f. 30 ; Bodl. Cauonici.
138 f. 13', 151': reproduced by Lanciani, Bull. Com. 1882, tav. iii. iv, and
Middleton, Archaeologia, Vol. li. pt. 2, pp. 495, 496) in some important
particulars.
The plan of the heroon Romuli is more accurate, though the niches are
not shown by Lanciani (Forma Urbis, 29): on the other hand, the windows
in what is now the church of SS. Cosma e Damiano (Lanciani, Bull. cit.
p. 35) are not indicated.
But the chief differences will be found in the representation of the
portion behind the apse of Felix IV. Each wall is shown as possessing
two rectangular niches with a round niche between them. This is the case
in regard to the back wall in Fat. 3439 f. 30, where the rectangular niches
of the side walls are also shown, but not opposite to one another ; while
Coner does not show the door in the middle of the N.W. side nor any traces
of the portico. Nor does he show any traces of the large apse at the back
shown in Fat. 3439 f. 30 and Bodl. f. 13', which is purely imaginary (Lan-
ciani, loc. cit. 42) and is entirely omitted in Bodl. f. 151 It is also to be
noted that neither of the two Bodleian plans shows any difference between
the width of the two halves of the building (as divided by the apse).
The measurements differ slightly in our drawing and in Fat. 3439
(neither of the plans in Bodl. has measurements) and are not absolutely
correct in either case, as the following table, in which they are reduced to
metres, will show.
The British School at Rome.
23. (i6)
a. HICNOGRAPHIA-TENPLAr^sic.)-SOLIS-ET LUN^E.
A plan of the double temple of Venus and Rome, for which this is the
usual traditional name.
The steps are somewhat differently represented by Lanciani, Forma
Urbis, 29, where a smaller double flight is shown ascending to the roof
of each temple.
b. (d)erariu(m) romanu(m).
An interesting plan of the group of buildings formed by the heroon of
Romulus son of Maxentius and the so-called Templum Sacrae Urbis (cf.
Liber Font. i. 279, ed. Duchesne (who refers templum urbis Romae to the
Basilica of Constantine); Jordan, Forma Urbis, pp. 8, 9 ; De Rossi, Bull.
Crist. 1867, 61 ff.; Gilbert, Topographie der Stadt Rom, iii. 186. It differs
from the plans drawn by Pirro Ligorio ( Cat. 3439 f. 30 ; Bodl. Cauonici.
138 f. 13', 151': reproduced by Lanciani, Bull. Com. 1882, tav. iii. iv, and
Middleton, Archaeologia, Vol. li. pt. 2, pp. 495, 496) in some important
particulars.
The plan of the heroon Romuli is more accurate, though the niches are
not shown by Lanciani (Forma Urbis, 29): on the other hand, the windows
in what is now the church of SS. Cosma e Damiano (Lanciani, Bull. cit.
p. 35) are not indicated.
But the chief differences will be found in the representation of the
portion behind the apse of Felix IV. Each wall is shown as possessing
two rectangular niches with a round niche between them. This is the case
in regard to the back wall in Fat. 3439 f. 30, where the rectangular niches
of the side walls are also shown, but not opposite to one another ; while
Coner does not show the door in the middle of the N.W. side nor any traces
of the portico. Nor does he show any traces of the large apse at the back
shown in Fat. 3439 f. 30 and Bodl. f. 13', which is purely imaginary (Lan-
ciani, loc. cit. 42) and is entirely omitted in Bodl. f. 151 It is also to be
noted that neither of the two Bodleian plans shows any difference between
the width of the two halves of the building (as divided by the apse).
The measurements differ slightly in our drawing and in Fat. 3439
(neither of the plans in Bodl. has measurements) and are not absolutely
correct in either case, as the following table, in which they are reduced to
metres, will show.