Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:08:21.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Late Hadrianic Architectural Ornament in Rome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

D. E. Strong
Get access

Extract

This article forms part of a larger study of Roman architectural ornament undertaken during two years of residence in the British School. The subject was first suggested to me by the Director, to whom I am grateful both for his constant encouragement of my work and for a great deal of practical advice and help in the preparation of this article for press. My friend, Dr. Enrico Paribeni, has been an unfailingly generous source of information, and I wish to thank him especially for drawing my attention to the fragments in the Via del Banco di Santo Spirito and for identifying some fragments from the Hadrianeum. Mrs. Sheila Rizzello has shown great patience and skill in the preparation of the drawings and tracings; and the text could not have been completed without the help of Miss Shirley Twallin.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 21 , November 1953 , pp. 118 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 According to Bloch (p. 117), the reconstruction of the Pantheon was begun in the second half of A.D. I 18 or in 119 and completed ‘entro pochi anni’; the buildings south of the Pantheon must be of about the same date (ibid., p. 115); the ‘Giano accanto alia Minerva’ is dated by Bloch (p. 103, n. 91) to a few years later than the Pantheon (see also Lanciani, Not. Scavi, 1881, pp. 279–80).

2 Gatti, G., ‘II Portico degli Argonauti e la Basilica di Nettuno’, Communicazioni presentate al III Convegno Nazionale di Storia dell' Architettura, Rome, 1940, pp. 61–73Google Scholar.

3 On the Baths, see especially Hülsen, Ch., Die Thermen des Agrippa, Rome, 1910Google Scholar; their form and extent is very uncertain.

4 Art. cit.; also in L'Urbe, ii, 1937, n. 9, pp. 8–23Google Scholar.

5 So far as can be judged without detailed investigation, the ancient ornament of the Pantheon is uniformly Hadrianic. It has been argued, principally to justify the rather extravagant terms of the inscription on the architrave of the portico (CIL VI 896, ‘Pantheum vetustate corruptum cum omni cultu restituerunt’), that the decoration between the first and second cornices of the interior, taken down in 1747 (a small portion of it was reconstructed in 1930), was the work of Septimius Severus and Caracalla (so Lanciani, , Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, London, 1897, p. 483Google Scholar; Hülsen, , Röm. Mitt. vii, 1893, p. 317Google Scholar; and more recently Guey, , Mélanges liii, 1936, p. 240Google Scholar, no. 6). The statement is based on a study by Dell (in Lutzow, Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, 1893, pp. 273–8), but there is no evidence for an earlier (Hadrianic) decorative scheme such as that proposed by Dell, and to judge from the drawings (e.g., Desgodetz, , Les Edifices Antiques de Rome, Paris, 1779, p. 21Google Scholar and pl. XVIII) the small ‘windows’ had mouldings of Hadrianic form. The pilaster capitals moved from this part of the building, of which a number still exist, are certainly of Hadrianic date. Severus and Caracallamay have restored the marble veneers. For the decoration of the Basilica of Neptune see especially Toebelmann, pp. 67–72, pl. XI.

6 For discoveries in the area, see R. Lanciani, Not. Scavi, 1882, pp. 347 ff.

7 Gatti, G., ‘Topografia dell'Iseo Campense’, Rend. Pont. Accad. xx, 1943–1944, pp. 117–63Google Scholar. A drawing of one of the cornice fragments is given in fig. 15 (p. 145).

8 Lanciani, Not. Scavi, 1881, p. 269, and 1882, pp. 346–7.

9 Uffizi Arch. 541 verso (Bartoli, ii, pl. CXXXVII, fig. 225).

10 See especially Lanciani, Bull. Ist., 1869, p. 237. The largest fragment of the main entablature is now in the garden of Villa Albani (see Richter, and Grifi, , Restauro del Foro Traiano, Rome, 1839, pl. IVa)Google Scholar.

11 The Capitolium at Ostia is another early Hadrianic building (Bloch, p. 346; see also Paschetto, L., ‘Ostia’, Diss. Pont. Accad. x, 2, 1912, pp. 357–65Google Scholar).

12 R. Paribeni, Le Terme di Diocleziano, 1928, p. 262, no. 802 (324), fig., p. 263, and E. Strong, La Scultura Romana, pp. 215–17.

13 The architect of Trajan's Forum seems to have studied especially the lower order of the flanking colonnades in the Forum of Augustus whence are taken most of the details given in fig. 1; see also pi. XXX. Most of the work on the Forum of Trajan was completed by A.D. 113, the date on the base of the Columna Traiana. Other buildings of the period carry on the elaborate Flavian style, as, for example, the Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum of Caesar, dedicated after reconstruction in A.D. 113 (for the decoration see von Blanckenhagen, pp. 77–9, Pallottino, , Atti del 4 Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani ii, pp. 77–83Google Scholar, Toynbee, and Perkins, Ward, PBSR xviii, 1950, p. 13Google Scholar). The Baths of Trajan, probably the work of Apollodorus (cf. Dio LXIX 4. 1) were built in the years immediately after A.D. 104 (Bloch, pp. 36–49) and dedicated in 109 (Fasti Ostienses, Not. Scavi, 1932, p. 194). To judge from the few surviving pieces, the style of ornamenrwas mainly Flavian; the egg-and-dart form was used, the dentils had arch-and-rings in the metopes, the cyma reversa (type B) had a tulip form similar to that adopted in the Forum of Trajan, but the palmettes and lotus pendants are not found in the plainer ornament of the Forum entablatures.

14 For the classification of the four principal types of formal cyma reversa ornament see fig. I; types A, B, and C correspond to the three types illustrated by Weickert, (Das Leskische Kymation, Leipzig, 1913, fig. p. 101Google Scholar); type D, the only other formal cyma reversa ornament, is especially common in the Flavian period, but is found earlier.

15 In describing the ovolo decoration, I use the terms advocated by Robertson, D. S. (Greek and Roman Archilecture, App. III, p. 383Google Scholar); the words ‘egg-and-dart’ applying to the form with arrow-head pendant. One or two examples of the egg-and-dart survive from the Forum of Trajan, but only on small mouldings.

16 von Blanckenhagen, esp. pp. 90–9. For Severan work in other styles, see below (esp. Appendix II, p. 149).

17 Uffizi Arch., 202 verso (Bartoli, pl. LVI, fig. 84); note the plain sima and corona, the distinctive type of egg-and-tongue, the dentils with recessed bar, and the B cymation.18A second fragment of this cornice lies near the Church of S. Teodoro, a third in the cortile of Palazzo Lante, and a fourth in the Lateran Museum (Sala II).

19 Found in 1933 near St. Maria in via Lata and published by Colini, , Rend. Pont. Accad. xi, 1935, p. 50Google Scholar, figs. 11 and 12. Colini sees ‘un confronto stringentissimo in quella del cosidetto laconico delle Terme di Agrippa (i.e. the Basilica of Neptune) che è universalmente giudicata di eta adrianea’. But he judges it to be earlier than the Basilica of Neptune, whereas in fact the C and B type cymatia are certainly later forms.

20 If Athenaeus is right in making the reorganisation of the festival of the Parilia, which is commemorated on coins of A.D. 121 (Strack, ii, p. 102, pl. I, 56; B.M. Cat. Hadrian, pl. 53, 5), contemporary with the inauguration of the Temple of Venus and Rome (Athenaeus VIII, 361 f.: . See also Strack, pp. 103, 104. Dio LXIX 4 also suggests an early date for the preparation of the plans; but this is a thoroughly untrustworthy passage.

21 So Strack, pp. 174–7. The only other definite date we have is given by Cassiodorus (Mommsen, , Chron. Min. ii, p. 142Google Scholar), who under A.D. 135 has ‘templum Romae et Veneris sub Hadriano in urbe factum’, by which is meant presumably ‘completed and dedicated’. The alternative date of Eusebius, A.D. 131 (ed. Helm, p. 200 d), must be rejected, since Hadrian was absent from Rome in this year (Nibby, ii, p. 724) The brick-stamps recently studied by Bloch, pp. 250–3, give very little help in the solution of the chronological problem. The majority of stamps from the podium (the only Hadrianic portion of the fabric; the cella walls belong to the reconstruction by Maxentius) are of 123, while a stamp of 134 comes from a part of the podium that was most probably added very late in the building. It is probable that little was done until after Hadrian's return from the East in 126.

22 Strack, ii, p. 176, B.M. Cat. Antoninus Pius, pl. 30, 1–3; the coins date from 140–3.

23 Hadrian was buried first at Puteoli (S.H.A., , vit. Hadr. 25.7Google Scholar) and later (in 139) transferred to the Mausoleum (S.H.A., vit. Pit. 5. 1Google Scholar and CIL VI 984).

24 Bloch, p. 256. (Only a few stamped bricks from the monument have been discovered and catalogued, and they give little help towards precise chronology.) The date 134 (cf. CIL VI 973, the dedication of the Pons Aelius) has been suggested for the beginning of construction but without good reason.

25 S.H.A., , vit. Veri 3. 1Google Scholar, ‘Qua die togam virilem Verus accepit, Antoninus Pius ea occasione qua patris templum dedicavit, populo liberalis fuit’, for if Verus assumed the toga virilis at the same age as Marcus he would have done so in this year and, further, Antonine coins of the year 145 bear the legend Liberalitas IV (Cohen ii, 318 f. 490–501, B.M. Cat. Antoninus Pius, pl. 40, 16).

26 Muñoz, A., La sistemazione del tempio di Venere e Roma, Rome—Governatorato, 1935Google Scholar. The most valuable early study is that by Nibby, ii, pp. 723–40; see also Canina, pls. LI–LVI, D'Espoiy, , Monuments ii, pls. 90–95Google Scholar, Hülsen-jordan I, 3, pp. 17–20.

27 For the surviving remains, see especially Passarelli, V., ‘Rilievo e studio di restituzione dell'Hadrianeum’, Communicazioni presentate al III Convegno Nazionale di Storia dell'Architettura, Rome, 1940, pp. 123–30Google Scholar. The building has been little studied; the important earlier work is Lucas, ‘Zur Geschichte der Neptunsbasilika in Rom’, in Jahresbericht Kaiser Wilhelms-Realgymnasium zu Berlin, 1904.

28 Lanciani, R., Bull. Com. vi, 1878, pp. 25–6Google Scholar, pls. IV, V; id., Forma Urbis Romae sheet 15.

29 The fullest and most recent general study is Borgatti, M., Castel Sant'Angela, Rome (Libreria dello Stato), 1931Google Scholar.

30 E. Fiechter, in Toebelmann, p. 83, draws a parallel between the decoration of the Hadrianeum and the so called Temple of Serapis on the Quirinal (see below, p. 139). See also Kähler, H., Röm. Mitt. lii, 1937, p. 94Google Scholar.

31 A rare example of the ovolo crowning occurs on a fragment in the Forum of Nerva (von Blanckenhagen, pl. 14, fig. 44).

32 In the, later Republican period architraves in tufa and travertine are frequently divided* into two fasciae, the lower generally taller than the upper (e.g. Delbrueck, , Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, ii, Strasbourg, 1912, fig. 2Google Scholar (Palestrina), pl. XIII (Tivoli), pl. XXII (Tomb of Bibulus)).

33 At the end of the Republic we occasionally find used cavetto and cyma reversa (see some of the examples given in note 32) or cavetto, ovolo, and astragal (for example, on an architrave with frieze of bulls' heads and garlands in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme), or ovolo crownings. Later, the architrave of the Temple of Apollo Sosianus has a crowning of cavetto and ovolo, one reason for suspecting that the architect was an Asiatic (see Colini, , Bull. Com. lxviii, 1940, p. 27Google Scholar, figs. 18 and 19).

34 Note, for example, the more elaborate consoles of the cornice of the main order and the cornice in Via delle Tre Pile; and the return of the cyma reversa, type D (soffit of the architrave of the main order) and type C (Tre Pile cornice).

35 ‘Zum Sonnentempel Aurelians‘, Röm. Mitt. lii, 1937, p. 94Google Scholar.

36 Stuart, J. and Revert, N., Antiquities of Athens, i, 1762, chap, v, pl. VIIGoogle Scholar; for the topography of the Stoa, Judeich, W., Topographie von Athen, Munich, 1931, pp. 375 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 20.

37 Stuart and Revett, iii, 1794, chap, iii, pls. VI–IX.

38 ibid., chap, iv, pls. II–IV. Judeich, op. cit., pp. 203–4.

39 Altertümer von Pergamon v, 2, Berlin, 1895Google Scholar. For architectural details, see especially pp. 17–35, Pls. X–XIII (main order ) and XXIII–XXIV (colonnades). Fig. 4 is traced from pls. X and XIII.

40 For the dating, see also von Massow, W., Führer durch das Pergamon-Museum, Berlin, 1932, 104–5Google Scholar.

41 These terms are used to describe, respectively, fan palmettes with the leaf ends curling downwards and upwards.

42 By ‘divided’ palmettes is meant the form consisting of two half-palmettes placed together to form a single motif; it is common in Greece and Asia Minor in Hellenistic and Roman times. At Priene, for example, it is used both in the Temple of Athena Polias (T. Wiegand and H. Schrader, Priene, 1904, fig. 74) and in the Temple of Asklepios (ibid.; fig. 117) to decorate the straight sima. ‘Open’ and ‘closed’ palmettes are used on both buildings for the gable sima.

43 This type of frieze is discussed by Weigand, E. in JDAI xxix, 1914, pp. 52–3Google Scholar.

44 Th. Wiegand, ‘Zweiter Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Pergamon 1928–32: Das Asklepieion’, Abh. preuss. Akad. Wiss., 1932, pl. V.

45 Mansel, Arif Müfid, Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Side im Jahre 1947, Ankara, 1951, pp. 16–22Google Scholar.

46 ibid., p. 21.

47 op. cit., p. 104.

48 Snijder, G. A. S., Mededeelingen van het Nederlandisch Historisch Instituut te Rome iii, 1923, pp. 73–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Judeich, op. at., pp. 256–7.

49 Hesperia xix, 1950, pp. 31–141.

50 The Captives façade in the Agora at Corinth, though of somewhat later date (c. A.D. 150), is typical of the style and quality of ornamental work; see Ccorinth Excavation, i, pt. 2 (Architecture) 1941, pp. 55–88, esp. figs. 53, 54.

51 See above, p. 131.

52 Hesperia cit. pl. 36b.

53 On the relation between Syrian and Roman ornament see Weigand, E. ‘Baalbek und Rom, Die römische Reicheskunst in ihrer Entwicklung und Differenzierung’, JDAI xxix, 1914, pp. 37–91Google Scholar.

54 It is significant that there does not seem to be a single example in Asia Minor of the popular Roman types C and D cymation.

55 JhÖAI xi, 1908, p. 121Google Scholar.

56 Commonest in the Hellenistic period is the angular ovolo profile without ornament, as used on the entablatures of the Temples of Athena Polias and Asklepios in Priene (Wiegand and Schrader, Priene, figs. 74 (Athena Polias) and 116 (Asklepios)). For a decorated ovolo see the entablature of the Smintheum, , Antiquities of Ionia, iv, pl. XXIXGoogle Scholar.

57 E.g. in the Propylaea to the east colonnade of the Agora at Magnesia (Kohte, J. and Watzinger, K., Magnesia am Maeander, Berlin, 1904, fig. 136)Google Scholar.

58 The cyma reversals used, for example, in both orders of the Library façade at Ephesus (see note 55); the two lower orders of the scaenae frons in the Theatre at Ephesus have ovolo (Forschungen in Ephesos, ii, figs. 110 and 142).

59 Of ten entablatures published by Lanckoronski, all of which belong to the second century A.D., five have ovolo in this position, two ovolo and astragal, and three astragal only.

60 Forschungen in Ephesos, ii, figs. 142, 144. According to the report the two lower orders were completed by A.D. 66; the upper order is dated (most probably wrongly) to the early third century.

61 Milet, i, (9) (Thermen und Palaestren) fig. 37; ibid. i, (5) (Das Nymphaeum); for the middle and upper orders see especially pls. 60 and 61.

62 Texier, , Description de L'Asie Mineure, i, pls. 31, 31Google Scholar bis (Temple) and 46, 47 (Theatre).

63 The architecture has not been published; for a reconstruction of the main entablature see Antiquities of Ionia, ii, pls. XLIV, XLV, and for the building generally JhÖAI xxiii, 1926Google Scholar, Beiblatt cols. 265–79.

64 Altenümer von Pergamon, iii, 1, pl. XVI.

65 Forschungen, iii, p. 30, fig. 46. The earliest example of its use, however, is in the interior Corinthian order of the Tholos at Epidaurus (H. Lechat and Defrasse, A.Epidaure, Paris, 1895, pl. VIIGoogle Scholar).

66 Forschungen, ii, fig. 142.

67 Lanckoronski, ii, pl. XXV.

68 The two lower orders have profiled friezes, which seem to have been designed as S-curved, but the profile is almost indistinguishable from the simple convex one, an indication that the latter type is a development of the former.

69 For examples see Krencker, D. and Zschietzschman, W., Römische Tempelin Syrien, Berlin and Leipzig, 1938Google Scholar.

70 Magnesia am Maeander, pl. 5, fig. 35.

71 Antiquities of Ionia, i, chap, i, pl. II.

72 For the three orders, Milet, i, (5), pls. 59–61.

73 Hellenistic examples of the two-fascia scheme on the main face—the Sacrificial Altar at Pergamon, (Altertümer von Pergamon, iii, i, pl. XVIGoogle Scholar), Propylaea to the Sanctuary of Athena, Pergamon (ibid., ii, pl. XXIX); Roman examples of the pre-Hadrianic period—Baths of Capito, in the upper order of the Palaestra, (Milet, i, (9), fig. 36Google Scholar) and the Nymphaeum, Miletus, in both upper orders (Milet, i, (5), pls. 60–61Google Scholar).

74 Lanckoronski, pl. VII.

75 Schede, M., Antikes Traufleisten-Ornament, Strasbourg, 1909, esp. pp. 94–100 and 102–3Google Scholar.

76 The only important difference is that in the Temple of Venus and Rome the base palmette leaves divide into two scrolls. The forms of the two different palmettes and the modelling of the leaf surfaces are very similar in both buildings. There are, besides, good Asiatic parallels to the lotiform and fan-palmettes design of the Mausoleum (see, for example, pls. XXXVI, d and e).

77 The quality of the workmanship on the cornice of the Temple is uneven; the best example of the ovolo is to be found on the fragment now in the Magazzino of the Cortile Ottagono (pl. XXXII, c), where the form differs very little from that on the architrave of the Trajaneum (see a detailed drawing published in Magnesia am Maea der, p. 58, fig. 42). Characteristic are the forms of the dart and the profiling of the casing; cf. also an example on a large console in the Basilica at Pergamon (pl. XXXVI, a).

78 It has been so reconstructed in fig. 6.

79 For the type see Weigand, , JDAI xxix, 1914, fig. 34 fGoogle Scholar and g. It develops out of the first-century Asiatic form, when the strongly marked outline ridges of the tongue are given a separate existence and it acquires the form of a tongue flanked by two bars. For the earlier form, see pl. XXXVI, f (from the ‘Temple of Bacchus’ at Pergamon, , Altenümer von Pergamon, iv, pl. 39Google Scholar), and for the later, pl. XXXVI, c (from the Library at Ephesus).

80 See above, p. 126.

81 For the characteristics of these forms, many of which continue in use throughout the second century, see Appendix II. One peculiar feature of the ovolo ornament in this period is the very sharp profile and the splayed-out casing of the egg, a feature which seems to be certainly Asiatic in origin and is found in Asia Minor as early as the Trajanic period (e.g. the form used in the Library façade at Ephesus, pl. XXXVI, c).

82 Examples: Temple of Apollo Sosianus (Colini, art. cit., see n. 33, figs. 18 and 19); Temple of Castor (Canina, ii, pl. XXVIII); architrave on south side of S. Nicola in Carcere (from the door of the central Temple—probably Tiberian). Pierre Jacques (S. Reinach, L'Album de Pierre Jacques, f. 29), draws an architrave fragment, probably from the Arch of Claudius, which has two decorated fasciae; the habit of decorating with elaborate ornament all the fasciae of the architrave seems to be later (there are a number of examples of the late third and fourth centuries).

83 Among other unusual features of the Hadrianeum entablature we may note the ovolo profile decorated with leaf-and-tongue ornament and the leaf-decorated cavetto on the inner face of the architrave (pl. XXXI, d).

84 For example, the cornice in the Antiquario Forense and the architrave illustrated by Canina, ii, pl. LIV, fig. 10.

85 For the identification of this and other marbles I am indebted to the Director of the British School and to Michael Ballance. The marble of Proconnesus was used in the fourth century B.C. according to Vitruvius (II, 8, 10) and Pliny (XXXVI, 47) for the palace of Mausolus at Halicarnassus; it was extensively used in the Roman period and is still quarried to-day. It was extremely popular in Rome during the later second century.

86 I know only one other example of the pure Asiatic cymation in Rome on an architectural fragment; it is now in the Magazzini of the Forum of Trajan, but its provenience is uncertain.

87 See above, p. 122.

88 This type of capital is discussed by Perkins, J. B. Ward in ‘Severan Art and Architecture at Lepcis Magna’, JRS xxxviii, 1948, pp. 67–70Google Scholar. The ‘flute-and acanthus' form seems to be Asiatic, and a number of examples in Athens are probably imported.

89 A fine example of this type of leaf carving occurs on a capital in the south exedra of the Forum of Augustus, which may be evidence for the Hadrianic restoration mentioned in S.H.A., , vit. Hadr. 19. 10Google Scholar.

90 The fragments from the colossal entablature in the garden of the Villa Colonna (Toebelmann, pl. XII and pp. 73–84) belonged to the south angle of the pediment over the rear (west) wall of the building and remained standing until 1630 (Lanciani, , Storia degli Scavi, ii, p. 250)Google Scholar. Santangelo, M. (‘Il Quirinale nell'Antichita Classica’, Mem. Pont. Accad. Rom. Arch. v, 1941, pp. 154–77Google Scholar) summarises earlier controversy and argues for Lanciani's identification with Aurelian's Temple of the Sun (contra, Kähler, in Röm. Mitt. lii, 1937, pp. 94–105Google Scholar); but the dating of the fragments to the later third century is impossible.

91 A rare mid-second century fragment on the Palatine; as evidence of its imitation from Castel Sant'Angelo one notes especially the curious angular ovolo moulding at the base of the architrave which is found only on these two fragments.

92 Bull. Com. lxvii, 1939, p. 202Google Scholar, figs. 11 and 12.

93 For the building to which these fragments belong see Colini, Storia e Topografia del Celio, pp. 322–7. He dates them much too late (early fourth century).

94 The fragments in the Triumphal Arch were assigned by Hülsen, (Diss. Pont. Accad. 2, xi, 1914, p. 174Google Scholar) to the ‘Arco di Portogallo‘; they certainly belong with the fragments in the entrance. The entablature is illustrated by Stucchi, (Bull. Com. lxxiii, 1950, p. 119Google Scholar, fig. 15), who rejects Hülsen's view. The cornice (late third century) certainly does not belong with the frieze and the architrave.

95 Stucchi art. cit. reproduces tile drawing in pl. IV; fragments of the entablature seem to have been re-used later in the Triumphal Arch of old S. Paolo fuori le mura (ibid., pp. 119–21) and are now lost.

96 In the courtyard by the Grotto delle Sorti.

97 Mentioned by Toynbee, J. M. C. and Perkins, J. B. Ward, ‘Peopled Scrolls’, PBSR xviii, 1950, p. 22Google Scholar.

98 This may have been another work of Asiatic craftsmen; for a comparison between the plan of the Temple and that of the Round Temple to Asklepios Soter in Pergamon see Abh. preuss. Akad. Wiss., 1932. p. 30.

99 See von Blanckenhagen's discussion of the ornament (pp. 90–2); also Toebelmann, pp. 88–96, and most recently Pallotino, M., L'Arco degli Argentarii, Rome, 1946, esp. pp. 57–72Google Scholar.

100 Dombart, T., Das Palatinische Septizonium zu Rom, Munich, 1922, pp. 111–12Google Scholar, fig. 31; also Ch. Hülsen, ‘Septizonium’, in Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Architektur, 1911–12, fig. 5.

101 A fragment of cornice from this building was found in Piazza S. Luigi de' Francesi in 1934 (Bull. Com. lxii, 1934 (Notiziario), p. 171Google Scholar); a large group of fragments in the same style are in the Museo Chiaramonti of the Vatican.

102 Kähler, , Röm. Mitt. lii, 1937, p. 94Google Scholar. Toebelmann, pp. 108–12, pl. XVII.

103 Toebelmann, fig. 96 and pl. XXII; it is copied in detail from the entablature now in the Antiquario Forense (pl. XXXII, a).

104 ibid., pp. 131–5, and pl. XXIII.

105 ibid., pp. 136-40, and pl. XXIV.

106 Palladio, A., I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura, Venice, 1581, iv, p. 47Google Scholar (Serapis) and 60 (Hadrianeum).

107 Pane, R., Andrea Palladio, Turin, 1948, pl. CXGoogle Scholar; see also the entablature in the façade of S. Giorgio Maggiore (pl. CIV), closely imitated from the Hadrianeum.

108 In North Africa Asiatics were certainly very active from the middle of the second century A.D. onwards; for their work at Lepcis see, for example, Squarciapino, M., La Scuola di Afrodisia, Rome, 1943, chap. IVGoogle Scholar, and Perkins, J. B. Ward in JRS xxxviii, 1948, pp. 59–80Google Scholar. One building in Tripoli, the Temple near the Arch of Aurelius, Marcus (Africa haliana vii, 1940, pp. 35–45Google Scholar) has a number of features in its profiling and decoration (e.g. corona projecting in front of rectangular consoles in two fasciae, palmette ornament on the sima, egg-and-tongue and bead-and-reel between sima and corona) in common widi the late Hadrianic group; it was erected in the reign of Commodus.

109 On the date of the Codex Escurialensis see Egger, H., Codex Escurialensis (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts iv, Vienna, 1906), pp. 45–6Google Scholar.

110 On the probable original of these drawings, Egger, op. cit., pp. 15 ff., Ch. Hülsen, , Il Libro di Giuliano da Sangallo, Leipzig, 1910, pp. xxxii–iiiGoogle Scholar, and id., ‘Escurialensis und Sangallo’ in JhÖAI xiii, 1910, p. 224.

111 i.e. earlier than the reconstruction of Castel Sant'-Angelo undertaken by Alexander VI in 1492-96 (Borgatti, pp. 224-54). There is a replica in Cod. Vat. Barb. Lat. f. 34V. If the author of the original was again Ghirlandaio, it may have been drawn during his second visit to Rome (1481-82), and the original of Escurialensis 30V. and Sangallo 37V. during his first visit in 1475.

112 It is so described by Gamucci, Bernardo, Libri Quattro dell'Antichità della citta di Roma, Venice, 1565, iv, p. 188Google Scholar.

113 Giovanni Alberti's drawings and description in the unpublished Codex Borgo San Sepolcro (see below) are contemporary with the demolition.

114 For the date, Hiilsen, op. cit., pp. xxvii–xxviii.

115 The cornice and upper mouldings of the frieze are certainly copied, as is clear from the different system of measurements used, and from the completely different rendering of the ornament.

116 Bartoli, iv, pl. CCCLV, fig. 620. The measurements for the cornice agree exactly with Sangallo f. 38. This architect, who studied the frieze, architrave and wallfacing on the south side (Arch. 4330 verso) seems to have altered the measurements for the upper mouldings of the frieze, since these do not agree with Sangallo's. we cannot know who was responsible for the original drawing; it may have been Antonio da Sangallo the elder, who worked on the Castello between 1492 and 1495.

117 For Coner's use of the same sources as Giuliano da Sangallo see Ashby, , PBSR ii, pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

118 Codex Borgo San Sepolcro B, ff. 33 verso and 34 (now in the Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe, F.N. 15948). See also Lanciani, , Storia degli Scavi di Roma iv, 57Google Scholar.

119 The soldo used in these drawings = 2·72 cm.

120 The decoration on this side is described by Gamucci (loc. cit.) as ‘una antica pariete di marmo, nella quale si vede un gran pezzo di fregio con teste di bue e festoni con il suo architrave …’

121 This seems to be an early sketch by Giuliano (Hülsen, op. cit., p. xxvii, dates it between 1485 and 1488); it is inaccurate and most probably copied.

122 L. Borsari, Not. Scavi, 1892, pp. 425-7. Well illustrated in Gusman, L'Art decoratifde Rome, pl. 176, 1.

123 Borsari, loc. cit.

124 It was rightly rejected by Hülsen, in Jordan, , Topographie der Stadt Rom i (3), p. 666, n. 116Google Scholar.

125 Reproduced in Borgatti (1890), pl. 9a.

126 The bull's head is not unlike the smaller bull's head in the Museo Romano, and the garland is similar to that shown in Coner's and Alberti's drawings. Another section of this frieze must have existed in the early seventeenth century, and was imitated by Alessandro Algardi in the south facade of the Villa Doria Pamphili, built between 1644 and 1647 (see Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Architektur iv, 1910–1911, pp. 51–60Google Scholar).

127 See Lazzarini, M. and Muñoz, A., Filarete, Scultore ed Architetto del Secolo XV, Rome, 1908, pl. IIIGoogle Scholar; reproduced in Borgatti, fig. 21.

128 On the larger frieze fragment there is definite evidence of later re-cutting, and it was most probably re-used in Alexander VI's tower. It is impossible to tell whether it was originally curved or flat, but the former seems more probable. One fragment, certainly, from the bridgehead tower (Borgatti, fig. 85), is Renaissance work; the decoration was cut flat when the fragment was re-used after the demolition of the tower.

129 Falb, R., Il Taccuino Senese di Giuliano da Sangallo, Siena, 1902Google Scholar.

130 Uffizi Arch. 1711 (Bartoli, i, XXIV).

131 It was completed in 1477. See Davies, G. S., Renascence, The Sculptured Tombs of the Fifteenth Century in Rome, London, 1910, fig. 35Google Scholar.

132 See Ronczewski, K., Variantes des Chapiteaux Romains (extract from the Annals of the University of Latvia viii, 1922), p. 156, figs. 44-7Google Scholar.

133 Stuart and Revert, iii, 1794, chap, iii, pls. VI–VIII.

134 Hesperia xix, 1950, pl. 74Google Scholar.

135 Mendel, , Catalogue, iii, 547–9Google Scholar. The exported form of this capital is fairly standardised; a number of individual variants upon it from Asia Minor, dating to the Hadrianic period, suggest that the type originated there. See, for example, the capitals in the Temple of Zeus and the Theatre at Aezani (Ch. Texier, , Description de l'Asie Mineure, i, pls. 32 and 47Google Scholar). Two pilaster capitals in the Lateran Museum (see above, p. 139) have distinctive Asiatic leaf-carving and are probably the earliest examples of the type in Italy.

136 Gusman, , op. cit. iii, pl. 177Google Scholar.

137 E.g. by Borgatti, p. 31. It was once in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, and is now in Castel Sant'Angelo.

138 Arch. Anz. 1934, cols. 17-50.

139 von Blanckenhagen, pp. 90-9.

140 Strack, H., Baudenkmäler des alten Rom, Berlin, 1890, pl. 36Google Scholar.

141 ibid., pl. 2 (shown in bottom right corner).

142 A very elaborate example with unusually broad leaves occurs on the cornice of the Temple of Serapis (Toebelmann, p. 79, fig. 66).

143 There is a fragment of the same architrave in the Magazzini of the Vatican. Only the rear face survives.

144 Toebelmann, p. 81, fig. 68.

145 von Blanckenhagen, pl. 30, fig. 84.

146 ibid., pl. 31, fig. 85.

147 Bull. Com. lxxiii, 1949–1950, pp. 80–3Google Scholar.

148 PBSR ii, 1904, pl. 106Google Scholar.

149 Found in Trastevere in 1912.

150 The Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum has ornament which compares more closely with second century work imitating the Flavian style than with ‘Flavian Renaissance’ work. Its reconstruction must belong to the very earliest years of the reign of Septimius Severus.