!!

Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco !!!

Piranesi’s appropriation of !the artistic powers of Rome!

!!!!!!!! Werkgroep Piranesi (Sep-Dec 2010)!! Martin Lok!! S0613053!!

Martin Lok 2010 - Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco; Piranesi’s appropriation of the artistic power of Rome Pagina "1

!!Figure 1: Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco (ca. 1761).

Piranesi’s appropriation of the artistic power of Rome  !1!Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco (ca. 1761)!!The Piazza Campidoglio, seen from the side. The viewing point is from the side of the concordata or central steps leading up to the Piazza. !!Text (in the banner on the foreground): Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco | 1. Statua enea Equestre di M. Aurelio nell’ aja Capitolina. 2. Palazzo di | Sua Eccza il Senator di Roma. 3. Palazzo degli Eccmi Conservatori di Roma | 4. Museo Capit-olino. | 5. Trofei d’Augusto, volgarmente detti di Mario. | 6 7 Colossi di Cajo e Lucio sotto il simbolo di Castore e Polluce. | 8 9 Statue di Constantino Magno. 10. Colonna milliaria. 11. Palazzo Caffarelli.!!First publication of the print: ca. 1761.!Signature: lower right, within the border. !Size of the print: 400x690 mm. !References: Hind 39  , Focillon 747  , Calcografia 761  , Wilton-Ely 189  .!2 3 4 5

!Table of contents!!Summary!!1. Piranesi’s glimpse on the Capitoline grandeur!2. Mons Capitolinus in Roman times!3. The hill from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance!4. Appropriation of Roman successes and power through sculptural decorations!5. Piranesi’s version of Capitoline appropriation!!Further reading: a selected bibliography!Notes!References of the figures!!!

Summary!!The Piazza Campidoglio, part of the Capitoline Hill, the ancient Capitolium in Rome, has been a sign of Roman power since an-tiquity. The Hill was the site of Rome’s most humiliating defeat by the barbarians, but also of the greatest military parades after yet an-other victory. The Capitolium housed Rome’s most important temple, dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus. In addition to this temple, the hill was filled with a wealth of other temples, triumphal arches, columns, military trophies and statues that all glorified the greatness of Rome and its exemplary citizens. No wonder that in later ages both popes and civic leaders were keen to affiliate them-selves with this sacred and ancient Roman ground, saturated with success and power. Through diverse actions they appropriated the hill, its ruins and history. It became a place were they remembered Roman successes and history, and tried to associate themselves with the successes from antiquity, in an attempt to raise themselves to the same level of antique greatness. However, the Capitol not only be-came a place to express political self-consciousness. Since Michelan-gelo designed around 1540 a new appearance for the piazza and its buildings, the Campidoglio also stands for self-confident artistic mastery, that builds on classical forebears, but nevertheless is an ori-ginal in its own. !In 1761, Giovanni Battista Piranesi added with his Veduta del Camp-idoglio di fianco (Fig. 1) his own version to all these appropriations of Roman success and power. In his print, with the triumphal sculp-ture highlighted on the foreground, he celebrates Rome’s military and political successes. But this celebration goes beyond politics. Piranesi’s Veduta is, above all, his celebration of Rome’s artistic power and an overwhelming and thrilling statement of the vedutist on Rome’s absolute dominating position in the history of art.

!

1. Piranesi’s glimpse on the Capitoline grandeur!!In his Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco Piranesi provides us with a glimpse on the Roman grandeur through the ages. The view shows the Capitol, the administrative centre of ancient and modern Rome. The Renaissance architecture of Michelangelo's Palazzo dei Conservatori fills the background. On the left we see the Palazzo del Senatore and, opposite to the Conservatori, the Palazzo Nuovo. However, the buildings around Piazza del Campidoglio aren’t the protagonists of this print. That position is occupied by the sculpture on the balustrade of the Campidoglio. The Dioscuri, or heavenly twins (Castor and Pollux) with their horses, the Constantine statues, the Roman Milliari (milestones) from the Via Appia Antica and, above all, the Trophies of Marius, all arranged symmetrically on the balustrade, tower above the spectator’s lower position. In the back, in the centre of the Piazza, we see the Equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius. The well-known Roman conqueror almost modestly completes the vision Piranesi wants to share with his audience on the Capitoline grandeur. Although the numbering that the printmaker used on the banner on his print might also suggest that the equestrian statue provides an important key to the understanding of the print.!In front of the Roman antiquities we see several figures that linger on the side of the Capitol hill, without any clear direction or activity. The fact that Piranesi drew them outside of the paved steps seems an in-dication that these figures do not take part of his vision of the Capit-oline grandeur. They are absorbed in their own day-to-day businesses, without noticing the towering history behind their backs.!!Piranesi staging of the Piazza Campidoglio and its sculptural decora-tions is an intriguing one. On a first sight, the print offers the spectator a view to the Piazza. However, on a second sight, one is bewildered by the approach taken by the printmaker. His viewpoint is from the farthest side on the left possible, in fact an impossible viewpoint, al-

most inside the crypt of the Santa Maria in Aracoeli, on the North-side of the the Piazza Campidoglio. Piranesi’s choice to select a low view-point and to arrange the balustrade diagonal across the print blocks the view of his audience on the buildings on the Campidoglio. He even strengthens this blocking-effect by presenting the Piazza and its build-ings from an oblique position, by adding the lingering figures on the foreground and by enlarging the sculptural decorations on the balus-trade. The entrance to the Campidoglio, flanked by the two Dioscuri (the heavenly twins, Castor and Pollux), is hardly visible. Even where there seems a ‘hole’ in the fence, to the left of the balustrade; where one sees Marcus Aurelius as a promising icon in the distance, and where one could get a feeling that there is a possibility to enter the sacred place, the affray of undefined figures amidst the rubble of time pre-vents a real entry. The result of all of this, one could say, is a staging that doesn’t invite the viewer to participate in the Capitoline grandeur, but to contemplate on it.  !6!Piranesi’s interpretation of the Campidoglio, compared to reality (Fig. 2), is more or less realistic. However, there are some distortions, with the aim to even aggrandise the status of the site and its buildings. Pir-anesi made the slope up to the Campidoglio look steeper. Furthermore, he strengthens the impression of the buildings around the Piazza. For example, he creates the impression that the Palazzo dei Conservatori is bigger then it is in reality. He does this by showing the roof and its statues on the far-side of the building. In reality both them cannot be seen from a the low viewpoint Piranesi took. Added to this, it looks like Piranesi is using a chimney on the roof of the adjacent building on the right of the Palazzo dei Conservatori to suggest even a further ag-grandisement of the Palazzo.  Another distortion is the creation of two 7

vistas on the print that cannot be seen in reality. The printmaker shows his viewers, peeping through the gallery of the Palazzo Nuovo, the left staircase in front of the Palazzo Senatori, and, on the right side of the print, the gate to the south. In reality both blocked by architecture and thus invisible. !!

!A last, and without doubt most essential, distortion of reality on the Veduta is, of course, the way Piranesi presents the sculptural decora-tions on the balustrade. The two Trofei, the statues of Constantino and the Son of Constant II and the milestone columns  are much bigger on 8

the print than in reality. Compared to the figures on the Veduta the Tro-fei seem to measure 10-12 meter high, while in reality they are 4.65 m.  9At the same time the size of the heavenly twins seems to be realistic.!Notwithstanding these distortions, the Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco in general presents a slightly turned and tilted but realistic view on the glorious past of Rome. As has been stated before, it is not inviting us to take part in the past, but to contemplate on its the greatness. Piranesi guides this contemplation in a certain direction, by distorting the real-

ity of his view, especially with respect to the sculptural decorations on the balustrade. With what intentions would Piranesi have invited his audience to this contemplation? And with what intention does he present his distorted view of reality? Of course, we cannot look into the inner thoughts of the eighteenth century printmaker. But we can follow the history of the Capitolium and the appropriation of its grandeur through the ages, in order to get a grasp on the tradition that underpins Piranesi’s interpretation of the Campidoglio. !!!2. Mons Capitolinus in Roman times!!Mons Capitolinus, in antiquity also known as Capitolium or Capitol, is the smallest of the seven Roman hills (measuring only 480 x 200 m). The hill was the religious and political centre of ancient Rome. It could be approached from the Forum via the Clivus Capitolinus (paved in 174 BC) and housed in Roman times several important temples: the temple of Juno Moneta, the temple of Virtus and the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus. The last one, build in 509 BC and al-most as big as the Pathenon, was the most important temple in ancient Rome. The Capitol also housed the Arx, a place of augury, where the omens were read in the flight of birds. Furthermore, on the east side of the hill, the emperor’s archive was located, a massive building, usually called the Tabularium.  !10!Notwithstanding its modest dimensions, the Capitoline hill, and par-ticular the temple of Jupiter, were symbols of Rome Caput Mundi, capi-tal city of the world. It must have been a splendid site, filled with the gold and glitter of its age. In her ‘guide to ancient Rome with guidance of contemporary Romans’ Jona Lendering paints in words a lively pic-ture of the place: !!

!

Figure 2: A view on the Campidoglio in current times

“One climbed the hill on a flight of stairs that, as sources tell us, counted exactly 100 steps. Arrived on top, the visitor entered a spa-cious terrace, dominated by the Temple of Jupiter. There was a mon-ument dedicated to Tiberius Sepronius Gracchus, murdered at the spot. Right across, there was a statue to honor the pontiff that killed the reformer as an act of patriotism. At the entrance of the temple there was a group of statues representing the Roman kings. The Ro-man’s thought that these statues dated from the times of the kings, but it is more likely that the group was inspired by a monument for seven Greek heroes, the so-called Epigones, that has been seen by the Ro-mans in the fourth century BC at the Oracle at Delphi. Across to the seven kings were statues of Brutus and Caesar, together with dozens

of other statues.”   !11!

Piranesi’s vision on the Campidoglio antico (Fig. 3), one of his fantasies in the Prima Parte di Architettura e Prospettive (1743), brings even more life to Lendering’s visual wording. It shows a spacious terrace, dotted with sculpture to remember the greatness of Rome and its exemplary inhabitants and leaders. A place saturated with Roman history. Ac-cording to Livy the Sabine women, the legendary mothers of the later Romans, settled here after their Rape (probably not entirely to their own wishes, of course).  In 387 BC the Gaul’s besieged the Roman’s 12

on the Capitol, during a battle that would become one of the most traumatic experiences of the proud Roman populace: the Roman’s could only free themselves by paying a ransom of 300 kilo’s of solid gold. A humiliation that would lead to the construction of the protec-tive walls and strongholds around the sacred hill.  !13

In more successful and glorious days the Capitol was the site were the Roman’s celebrated their victories with processions and games. And where they executed the enemies of the Roman Empire, such as over-come barbarians, Roman traitors and criminals, by throwing them down of the steep East wall.!!In short, the Capitoline hill in Roman times was the symbol of power and success, and the political and religious focus of society. It was the seat of the most important temple of the Empire and - through its sculptural decorations - a showcase of Roman achievements.

!

Figure 3: Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Campidoglio Antico, in Prima Parte di Architettua e Prospettive (1743)

3. The hill from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance!!During the Middle Ages the Capitol first became a deserted area, an outskirt to the growing Christian centers in the city. But the ambition for of a renovatio, a full restoration of Rome’s ancient grandeur, never was far away. So, when in the 12th century the city government want-ed to build a communal palace, the decision was made to build it on the Capitol, using the ruinous Tabularium as the new Palazzo del Sena-tore’s foundation.  This Palazzo was enlarged several times in the Late 14

Middle Ages. Around 1400 another palazzo, the Palazzo dei Conserva-tori, was build to house the legislators of the city, major guilds and bandieri (keepers of the banners of Roman rioni or districts). !Notwithstanding all these building activities and improvements, in the first half of the sixteenth century the Capitol still was an unpaved, hilly and irregular site, as can be seen on a drawing of Van Heemskerk of the period (Fig. 4). So, when emperor Charles V planned a visit to Rome in 1536, it turned out to be impossible for the proud and true Roman Pope Paul III, to call at the Capital, icon of the Roman grandeur, during a glorious entry to the city for the Emperor. Tradi-tionally one has labeled this situation, or one could say this urgency, as the stimulus to embellish the Capitol, or the Campidoglio, as the Ro-mans had start calling the hill during those days. Giorgio Vasari pro-vides a vivid description of this in his Vita di Michelangelo:!!

“The Roman people, with the sanction of that Pope [Paul III], had a desire to give some useful, commodious, and beautiful form to the Campidoglio, and to furnish it with colonnades, scents, and inclined approaches with and without steps, and also with the further adorn-ment of the ancient statues that were already there, in order to embell-ish that place.”   !15!

Vasari’s quotation could leave the impression that the wish to renovate the hill was primarily an initiative of the populace. According to

Charles Burroughs this is most certainly the case. He assumes that civic authorities played a lead role in developing the Campidoglio. A role that in his opinion especially surfaces in the design and sculptural decorations of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, the seat of the conservatori themselves. Burroughs points out that pope Paul III at that time was more involved with the embellishment of the Vatican. He therefore ar-gues that, notwithstanding papal involvement on a distance, the real-ization of the Campidoglio-project was seriously delayed by lack of papal interest.  However, according to Anna Bedon, there was no 16

equality between the pope and civic leaders, let alone a lead by the civic authorities in developing the new Campidoglio.  On the con17 -!

Figure 4: Van Heemskerk, Capitoline Hill, ca. 1535-36

trary, she states that during Paul III‘s reign (1534-49) civic power of the city of Rome was more and more restricted. Moreover, the city gover-nors had other priorities, due to the necessary construction works fol-lowing the sac of Rome in 1427. So, in 1538 not much had happened, and the Campidoglio so far remained the same ‘urban desert’ as be-fore. In order to spur the developments and inspire the Roman’s Paul III decided to bring the Equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius from the Lateran to the Campidoglio, where he inaugurated it on March 23, 1538. Shortly afterwards the Pope commissioned Michelangelo to de-sign a rebirth of the classical grandeur at the Campidoglio. In addition to Bedon’s argument, Argan and Contardi suggest that Paul III delib-erately decided to evoke the ancient Roman Empire on the Capitoline hill, in order to establish a laic pole that could supplement his religious pole in the Vatican. In doing so, he hoped to gain the support of the contemporary Holy Roman Emperor and, through this, secure his po-litical power.  !18!The new oval piazza-design (Fig. 5) comprised of a complete renova-tion of the North-West side of the hill, a refurnishing of the facades of the buildings present at the time (the Palazzo del Senatore and Palazzo dei Conservatori), a creation of a third palace (Palazzo Nuovo) opposite to Conservators-building and the construction of a new major entrance to the Campidoglio, the slowly ascending concordata (stairway) on the North-East side of the Piazza. From the start, sculptural decorations formed an integral part of Michelangelo’s disegno. The sculptor-archi-tect wanted to impress visitors to the new Campidoglio ‘at first sight’. To achieve this, the design of the balustrade incorporated pedestals for statues of renowned Roman rulers and the design of the new double staircase for the Palazzo del Senatore niches for reclining river-gods and a Jupiter. Showpiece of the modern Capitol would be the Equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, for which Michelangelo designed a new oval shaped base, to match with the overall shape of his design.!!! !!

Figure 5: Anonimo, Plan of the Campidoglio, based on an “architectu-ral plan by Michelangelo Buonarotti”, published by Bernardo Faletti, Rome, 1567

Thanks to the work of the French engraver Étienne Dupérac (1520-1607) we still have copies of Michelangelo’s design-drawings for the Campidoglio.  Dupérac created his prints making use of 19

Michelangelo’s originals, but adapted them following successive stages in the building process. Figure 6 presents Dupérac’s 1568-ver-sion of Michelangelo’s design. Four statues are placed on the balustrade, of which at least the middle two did not make it to the final decoration scheme. However, admittedly in 1568 the two existing palaces had received their new facades, and Marcus Aurelius has occu-pied his central place, but the Palazzo Nuovo was not yet constructed, and the Campidoglio itself was still paved in a very simple manner, without the intricate pattern that can be seen on Dupérac’s prints (such as Fig 6). Although the actual reconstruction of the Campidoglio and its bordering palaces started in 1546, work had just begun when Michelangelo died in 1564. At that time, only the stairs and the en-trance of the Palazzo del Senatore were finished. Even 35 years later, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, Michelangelo’s vision of a

reborn classical Capitol remained significantly unfinished, as can be seen on a drawing of ca. 1598-1603 (Fig. 7).  !20!It is worthwhile, for a moment, to focus on Michelangelo’s design for the facade of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Before Michelangelo’s inter-vention’s the facade was full of statues and sculptural fragments, such as the bronze wolf and fragments of the Constantine colossus (see Fig. 4). Michelangelo, however, would ban all sculpture from the facade, except for the ancient statues on the balustrade on top. From now on, as Burroughs points out, a strictly architectural mode of expression predominated on the facade.  But Michelangelo’s architectural lan21 -guage of the facade was not austerely classical. For example, the capi-tals of the portico order were far from classical and show a kind of Re-naissance Rollwerk (strap-work), that has been characterized by Bur-roughs as a leathery representation.  Although the Renaissance mas22 -ter, of course, was very well acquainted with the canonical Vitruvian architectural forms, he preferred as Burroughs says, “an art marked by originality in design and the free combination of elements, by respon-siveness to each particular project, and by coherence within the work itself and, by extension, the work of the artist”.  With this position 23

!

Figure 6: Étienne Dupérac, View of Capitoline complex, according to plan of Michelangelo, printed by Bernardo Faletti, Rome, 1568

Figure 7: View of the Campidoglio, pen and ink, ca. 1598-1603, 37 by 107 cm, private collection, England

Michelangelo was opposing the architectural school of Bramante and Antonio da Sangallo. It was a debate between the canonical rules of art on the one hand and artistic freedom on the other. A debate between approaches favoring mechanical and geometrical design techniques and approaches focusing on motion and gestures. Burroughs points to Vasari for a summary of Michelangelo’s position:!!

“Certainly Vasari, if not Michelangelo himself, gave a concise formula-tion to the debate in question; in his account of Michelangelo’s criti-cism of Sangallo’s project for St. Peter’s, Vasari reports Michelangelo’s assertion that Sangallo had followed neither the “buon modo antico” nor the “vaga e bella maniera moderna,” evidently as alternative if not rival forms, of expression. In his design for the Palazzo dei Conserva-tori, Michelangelo himself employed both, challenging the viewer not with an arbitrary and ill-considered mixture of idioms, the implicit charge against Sangallo, but with a willed confrontation of genres with substantive implications.”   !24!

Michelangelo’s recreation of a modern Capitol hill certainly was not a slavish copy to the antiques. His aim was to translate the grandeur of the past into a modern idiom. A translation that for the greater part took until the 17th century to be finalized, and that, following Michelangelo’s death, was worked out by several people, including his friend Tomasso de’Cavaliere and his successor-architect Giacomo della Porta. Therefore, some scholars challenge Michelangelo’s authorship for the complex as a whole. However, its has been documented that most of Michelangelo’s original designs were used as guidance for the ongoing work. Even in 1928, when the pavement was given a finishing touch, this was based on a design of the Renaissance master. And, as Argan and Contardi point out justly, the Campidoglio- complex as a whole is absolutely unitary.  Therefore one can states that the modern 25

Campidoglio, although finalized more than three centuries after the first designs, breathes the innovative ingenuity of a divine Renaissance genius.!!

!

!

4. Appropriation of Roman successes and power through sculptural decorations!

!As James Ackerman states in The Architecture of Michelangelo (1961), the significance of Michelangelo’s Campidoglio design can only be appre-ciated if we understand its subject matter. If we apprehend the Camp-idoglio as “a monumental symbol in which the haunting dream of an-cient grandeur became concrete”.  The sculptural decoration of the 26

Piazza Campidoglio was the most important agent to express this an-cient grandeur. In this, according to Ackerman, the Campidoglio mirrored the Vatican Belvedere: !!

“Sculpture played a peculiarly formative role in the evolution of the Belvedere and the Campidoglio. Distinguished collections of antiquit-ies assembled in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries stimulated the urge to build; the statues had priority, and the architecture took shape around them. The Belvedere was planned as a setting for an approach to the Papal Museum, and the resurgence of the Capitol awaited the arrival of its equestrian centrepiece.”   !27!

However, it didn’t start with Paul III bringing the Marcus Aurelius to the Campidoglio. Several popes before him donated statues and sculp-tural decorations to the Capitoline hill. Although every one of them had their own specific intentions, at the end they all wanted to achieve the same goal: to appropriate the ancient and sacred Capitoline hill in order to affiliate their successes with those of the classic Romans. This appropriation through sculptural means appears to to have started during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (r. 1471-84). Shortly after his inaug-uration, still in the year of 1471, he donated several ancient bronzes from the Lateran palaces to the Capitol: the Roman wolf, Spinario (Fig. 8), a colossal bronze head, a bronze hand with the Palla, and the Camil-lus. The aim of this donation was to return expropriated statues to the legitimate owners, the populus Romanus, incarnated in the civic power

on the Campidoglio.  According to Ackerman these donations were 28

not motivated by beauty but by the associations that were connected to the famous bronzes.  The suggestion is that Sixtus IV, with the placing 29

of the bronzes, symbols of Roman legal and imperial power, was ap-propriating the Campidoglio for the Church. However, Buddensieg introduces another possible explanation, when he labels the donation as a retribution to the Roman people, as a “reparation of injustice” for the destruction of antique sculpture by Gregory the Great.  !30

Whatever the intention of Sixtus IV has been, the result was that that the Campidoglio became an important ‘exhibition area’ for ancient sculpture. In the years to follow, more antique statues, such as two river-gods from the Quirinal, found their way to the old Capitol, thus creating a real antiquario, or museum of antiquities, providing oppor-tunities to an increasing number of people to see enjoy the roman past, however, still in a poor, unpaved and inappropriate environment.  !31!

!Figure 8: The Spinario and the Roman Wolf (Museo Capitolino, Rome)

Following in Sixtus IV’s footsteps, pope Leo X installed in 1515 three reliefs from the Triumphal Arch of Marcus Aurelius on the hill, thus re-minding the Roman people of the Imperial glory of their past back, with the aim to connect this glory to the current pontificate. Although the intentions of pope Paul III in 1538/39 with the transfer of the Mar-cus Aurelius (fig. 9) to the Capitoline hill were along the same lines, they were much stronger developed. Where, according to Buddensieg, Leo X “kindled” a feeling of nostalgia, Paul III would “enforce it” by placing the equestrian statue of the Roman conqueror on the hill.  32

With this and other statues he would emphasise the glorification of exemplary Roman Emperors and the continuation of the Roman Em-pire in the Christian Church. To stress this, for example, Paul III also brought four statues of the family of Constantino from the Quirinal to the Campidoglio and intended even to transfer also the two Colossi from the Quirinal.  A possible interpretation for this intention could 33

be the aim to bring the symbol of the protectors of the Rome to the Campidoglio, or to incarnate the secular and cleric power of the Em-peror and the Pope at the entrance of the Campidoglio.  Another ex34 -planation is suggested by Buddensieg, who points at a mid-sixteenth century interpretation that the Quirinal Colossi would present a double portrait of Alexander the Great. For Buddensieg this would create the defensible proposition that pope Paul III, Alessandro Farnese, wanted to erect the Colossi on the Campidoglio to honour the great ruler Alex-ander and to remind the Roman people of the direct lineage from this ancient ruler to himself.  !35!Important changes in the form of the Campidoglio and its sculptural decorations, that still determine the outlook of especially the entrance to the hill, were implemented during and shortly after the pontificate of pope Sixtus V. During his reign from 1585-90 the Dioscuri, Miliaria and Trophies found their way to the balustrade of the Piazza Camp-idoglio. Only the statues of Constantino and de Son of Constantino II were placed at a later stage, in 1653, following, as we can learn from Dupérac’s print from 1568 (Fig. 6), the intentions of pope Paul III (to !

Figure 9: The Equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius on Piazza Campidoglio (copy of the original).

emulate the grandeur of excellent Roman Emperors). However, the intended meaning of the placements of sculptures on the balustrade during Sixtus V’s reign (the Dioscuri, Milliaria and Trophies) altogether seems to be more focused on the remembrance of Rome’s invincibility and world dominance. The Dioscuri were considered to be the rescuers of Rome. The Miliaria were crowned with spheres and indicated the global dominance. The Trophies reminded of the obtained victories.  !36

According to Claudio Parisi Presicce, the placement of the sculptural decorations on the balustrade under Sixtus V was based on a precon-ceived plan, with the aim to appropriate the classical grandeur of the site:!!

“The available documentation on the sculptures indicates that there was a plan for the total sculptural decoration, that in fact is the most old programme to recover the antique concept with an ideological aim. The presence of the statues reestablished on the Capitoline hill the sacrality of antique times, and indicated that the Campidoglio, heir of the classical traditions, the locus publicum per excellence. In contemporary documents the sculpture was considered to be the property of the Popolo Romano. Through the activity of the magis-trates they exercised their own sovereignty over the res publica.”   !37!

However, it remains unclear to what extend Sixtus V was the driving force behind this intention. Although it would be a continuation of in-fluence of consecutive pontificates if the sculptural additions of the 1580s intended to link the papal power to that of the Roman Emper-or’s, with the aim to extend the clerical power to the secular domain. However, it has also been argued that in those days civic governors were powerful and self-assured, and that for them for example the Trophies of Mario constituted a symbol of the freedom and autonomy of the Roman people. In this line of thinking pope Sixtus V authorised the placement of the decorations on the balustrade, but did not initiate it.  38

The same argument can be used with respect to the Dioscuri. Presicce argues that these twin sons of Jupiter, the antique sovereign of the Capitoline hill, were in those days identified as the symbol of the di-

vine blessing, rooted in the virtus that Romans had shown on the bat-tlefield. The presence of two globes, symbols for Rome’s sovereignty, on the pedestals of the Dioscuri, in his opinion also point into this dir-ection.  !39!Whatever the differences in the points of departure of the different act-ors with respect to the decisions taken concerning the Campidoglio’s sculptural decorations, the dominant message remains the same: The Capitoline hill, the famous sacred and political centre of Roman times, continued to be appropriated as the symbol of power and success. And in this appropriation the sculptural decorations on the Campidoglio were the most important protagonists. They functioned as strong and condensed carriers of the Roman virtues and successes. For the visitor to the modern Campidoglio, climbing to the Piazza on Michelangelo’s concordata, they bring in mind the glorious past, while anticipating at the same time the new grandeur of contemporary Rome and its inhab-itants. Still, and undisputed, Caput Mundi and the world’s dominating power.!!!

!

!!

Figure 10: Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Prepatory drawing for the Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco (ca. 1761), British Museum.

5. Piranesi’s version of Capitoline appropriation!!!There is no doubt that Piranesi was aware of the general history of the Campidoglio and the importance of its sculptural decorations. His early print Campidoglio antico (Fig. 3) is a first witness to that. Further-more, it is likely that, in preparing his Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco, the continued importance of sculpture on the hill in later ages also was on his mind. He just couldn’t - or, better phrased, wouldn’t - ignore it. The hill, its decorations and the divine stature of Michelangelo as de-termining architect of the modern Campidoglio were simply to over-whelming and well-known through the ages. Furthermore, in 1533, just 7 years before Piranesi’s arrival in Rome, the history of sculpture on the Capitoline hill had come to another phase when pope Clement XII bought the sculpture collection of cardinal Alessandro Albani and made them the nucleus of a new sculpture museum on the hill. Moreover, new excavations in the 1730s and 1740s led to spectacular new discoveries of antique sculptures.  The consequence of all these 40

developments was that the Capitol became exactly in the years in which Piranesi created his Veduta del Campdoglio di fianco, more than ever before, the agglomerate of antique sculpture and through that of the ancient past in the world. Abbé Bartélemy made this quite clear in a thrilling passage in his letter to the Comte de Caylus:!!

“The first time that I went into the Capitoline Museum I felt a shock of electricity. I do not know how to describe to you the impression made on me by the bringing together of so much richness. This is no longer just a collection: it is the dwelling place of the gods of ancient Rome; the school of the philosophers; a senate composed of the kings of the East. What can I tell you of it? A whole population of statues inhabits the Capitol; it is the great book of antiquarians.”   !41!

With all this in mind, it is no surprise that the Veduta , and especially its preparatory drawing that is in the collection of the British Museum

(Fig. 10) clearly shows that also for Piranesi the sculptural decorations on the balustrade play a crucial role. This becomes even more evident if we compare his print with that of Giuseppe Vasi (1710-82), a con-temporary of Piranesi. Whereas in Vasi’s print (Fig. 11) the palaces around the Campidoglio and the 18th century Roman citizens on the foreground attract all attention, in Piranesi’s view on the piazza the sculptural decorations are the real protagonists of the print. They carry the message of Rome’s achievements through the ages. However, in my opinion it is quite likely that for Piranesi this message was not only about political and military victories, but also (and may be primarily) about an artistic triumph. !!

Since the early 1550s Piranesi pursued in a lot of his work a double ob-jective: he wanted to show the grandeur of antique Rome, while at the !

Figure 11: Giuseppe Vasi, Palazzi di Campidoglio, 1753

same time teaching his contemporary colleagues in the fields of design, architecture, painting and sculpture that they should emulate and sur-pass their classical forebears. Probably his starting point in this en-deavor was the album he published in 1753 on the Trophies of Ottaviano Augusto. This study was dealing with the two trophies on the balustrade of the Campidoglio, known as Trophies of Marius. The alter-native nomenclature of Piranesi indicates that he thought that the tro-phies had a different origin and commemorated August’s victory at Actium. However, Piranesi’s opinion cannot be supported. Based on an inscription on the bottom of the two trophies there is nowadays an agreement amongst scholars that these trophies should be dated in the Domitian era, around the years 70-90 AD.  !42

Anyway, in the context of interpretation of the Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco there are more important issues than an accurate date. With the publication of the Trophies of Ottaviano Augusto Piranesi pursued a di-dactic aim. The frontispiece to the first edition makes this quite explic-it:!!

“Trophies of Octavian Augustus erected to commemorate the victory at Actium and the conquest of Egypt with various other ornaments carefully recovered from the most valuable fragments of ancient Ro-man buildings, useful to painters, sculptors and architects, drawn and etched by G.B. Piranesi, Venetian architect.”   !43!

With this emphasis on ornament, Piranesi’s album on the Trofei di Otta-viano Augusto can be considered a turning point in his activities. From this moment on in the work of the printmaker not architecture and its structural aspects were in the lead, but sculpture and ornament. In the Trofei-album Piranesi advocates the importance of the skillful use of a varied and multiple ornament. This didactic aim should be understood in the context of the Graeco-Roman discourse, that was in those days in the heart and minds of the European intelligentsia. According to Corinna Höper the Trophies of Ottaviano Augusto was Piranesi’s answer to the ‘noble simplicity of Greek art’, that the Comte de Caylus had put on the forefront in his Recueil d’antiquetés égyptiennes, étrusques, grec-

ques, romaines et gauloises (1752).  In the core, Piranesi’s answer con44 -sists of very detailed studies of complex Roman sculptural composi-tions (Fig. 12), to which he added an elaborate explanation. Thus, his answer to the supposed noble simplicity of Greek art is a detailed ren-dering of the textures of the fragments and elements that shape the trophies. A rendering that makes the viewer forget that he is looking to an image of a marble depiction of a collection of spoils of war. On the contrary, Piranesi’s rendering brings the trophies to life, and suggests real cuirasses, real plume, and real shields. One could say that Piranesi creates through his technical skills in his depiction of the stone rem-nants of the Roman Empire a realism and liveliness that more than

!

Figure 12: Gian Battista Piranesi, the two trophies as they appear in the Trophies di Ottaviano Augusto (1753)

anything else, celebrates the creative achievement of the Romans in the battle on the dominance and origin of Western art. And he invites his contemporary artists to build on that in order to extend the sovereign-ty of Roman art in the world.!!The Trophies di Ottaviano Augusto would anticipate the Antichità Romane (1756) and Piranesi’s later adoration of ornament in the Parere su l’Archittetura (1765) and the Diverse Maniere d’Adornare i Cammini (1769). In in the words of Wilton-Ely, Piranesi stresses in these three works that for him, “the formal properties of movement and complexi-ty in architectural design, as well as in ornament, possessed the imagi-native vitality that he considered to be the creative legacy of ancient Rome, a birthright not to be proscribed by the doctrinaire precepts of the Greek Revitalists”.  !45!So, firstly Piranesi underlines both the importance of decorative forms and the importance of the Roman accomplishments in this field. And, secondly, he emphasizes that it is important for an artist to always add something of himself. His thoughts are almost an exact repetition of Michelangelo’s plea for a combination of a “buon modo antico” with a “vaga e bella maniera moderna” two centuries earlier. Like the Renais-sance master before him, Piranesi is against a slavishly copying from the ancients, and always wants artists to reach - again in the words of Wilton-Ely - to “new truths and a fresh kind of historical information”.  With this position Piranesi is not only opposing Comte 46

the Caylus, but also Johann Joachim Winckelmann, who had published in 1755 his Gedanken über die nachnahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und die Bilhauerkunst, and the French Academy, with its empha-sis on theoretical and structural basis, based on the primacy of Greek art. For Winckelmann an increased use of ornament and complexity of a design coincided with a decline in taste. For Piranesi rather, within certain limits, it was a symptom of a skillful artist, who was standing on the shoulders of his antique predecessors, bus was nevertheless working in complete freedom and was adding an own personal hall-

mark to his designs. Not only for the personal pleasure of the artist or his Principal, but also, as Piranesi stresses in his Parere, to bring plea-sure to the public.  !47!Given the prominence of one of the trophies on the Veduta del Campi-doglio di fianco it is unmistakable that Piranesi in 1761 wanted to reiter-ate his claim of 1753 on the artistic achievements of the Romans. With again the trophy as the artistic apogee of a glorious past. He backs this call with the most sacred and powerful site that was available to him: the Campidoglio, the ancient Capitolium. By choosing this site he could call impressive witnesses to the defense of the artistic greatness of Rome: the Dioscuri, rescuers of Rome; Constantino and the Son of Constantine II, exemplary Roman rulers; the Milaria from the Via Ap-pia, ancient tokens of the greatness of the Roman Empire; the Trophies, silent testimonies to past victories; and the impressive facades of the divine Michelangelo, like Piranesi a defender of an artistic practice that favors artistic craftsmanship over slavish copying of the past. And, in the far background of the Campidoglio, Piranesi’s calls on his last but nevertheless number 1 witness, the commanding Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. Raising his hand as to to salute - in the name of the printmaker - the magnificence of Roman art. Or to signify clemency to the Greek art, conquered and overcome by the great Roman artistry.

!

Further reading: a selected bibliography!!On Giovanni Battista Piranesi and his art:!‣ Rudolf Wittkower, “Piranesi’s Architectural Creed”, Studies in the Italian

Baroque, London, 1975, pp. 236-246.!‣ John Wilton-Ely, The Mind and Art of Giovanni Battista Piranesi, London,

1978!‣ Alessandro Bettango, Carlo Betelli and Bruno Visentini, Piranesi. Incisioni,

rami, legature, architetture, Vicenza, 1978.!‣ John Wilton-Ely, Piranesi as Architect and Designer, The Piermont Morgan

Library New York, New Haven and London, 1993!‣ John Wilton-Ely (ed.), Giovanni Battista Piranesi: The complete etchings (2

volumes), San Francisco, 1994.!‣ Corinna Höper, i.s.m. Jeanette Stoschek en Stefan Heinlein, Giovanni Battista

Piranesi. Die poetische Wahrheit, Verlag Gerd Hatje, Stuttgartt, 1999.!‣ Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Observations on the Letter of Monsieur Mariette,

with opinions on architecture, and a preface to a new treatise on the introduction and progress of the fine arts in ancient times, Los Angeles, 2002.!!

On the history of the Capitoline Hill/the Campidoglio and its sculptural dec-orations:!‣ Carlo Pietrangeli (ed.), Piazza del Campidoglio, Milano, 1955.!‣ James S. Ackerman, The architecture of Michelangelo, 2 volumes, London,

1961, Volume ‘Text and plates’, pp. 54-74; Volume ‘Catalogue’, pp. 49-66.!‣ Tilmann Buddensieg, “Zum Statuenprogramm im Kapitolsplan Paul III.

Paul Künzle zum Gedächtnis”, in Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 32 Bd., H. 3/4 (1969), pp. 177-228.!

‣ Giovanna Tedeschi Grisanti, I “Trofei di Mario”; il Ninfelo dell’Acqua Giulia sull’Esquilino, Rome, 1977.!

‣ Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique. The lure of classical sculpture, New Haven and London, 1981!

‣ Serena Ensoli Vittozzi and Claudio Parisi Presicce, “Il reimpiego dell’antico sul colle Capitolino sotto il pontificato di Sisto V”, Luigi Spezzaferro and Maria Elisa Tittoni (eds.), Il Campidoglio e Sisto V. Roma - Musei Capitolini; 20 aprile - 31 maggio 1991, 1991, pp. 85-94.!

‣ Giulio Carlo Argan and Bruno Contardi, Michelangelo architect, translated from the Italian by Marion L. Grayson, Londen, 1993 (1990).!

‣ Charles Burroughts, “Michelangelo at the Campidoglio: Artistic Identity, Patronage, and Manufacture”, Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 14, No. 28, 1993, pp. 85-111.!

‣ Luisa Vertova, “A late Renaissance view of Rome”, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 137, no. 1108, July 1995, pp. 445-51.!

‣ Amanda Claridge, with contributions by Judith Toms and Tony Cubberley, Rome. An Oxford Archaeological Guide, Oxford and New York, 1998, pp. 229-241.!

‣ Jona Lendering, Stad in marmer. Gids voor het antieke Rome aan de hand van tijdgenoten, Amsterdam, 2007.!

‣ Anna Bedon, “Piazza del Campidoglio”, in Mauro Mussolin en Clara Altav-ista, Michelangelo. Architetto a Roma, Milano, 2009, pp. 128-137.!

‣ Claudio Parisi Presicce, “Michelangelo e la decorazione scultorea della Piazza Capitolina”, in Mauro Mussolin en Clara Altavista, Michelangelo. Ar-chitetto a Roma, Milano, 2009, pp. 142-157.!!!!!

!

Notes

!

� This catalogue entry on Piranesi’s Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco has been written in the context of the Masters research course ‘History and theory of architecture: Piranesi and archi1 -tectural history in Rome’ (September - December 2010). I would like to thank the teachers and organizers of this research course, prof.dr. Caroline van Eck and dr. Sigrid de Jong, for their guidance and inspiration in working on this catalogue entry. " Arthur M. Hind, Giovanni Battista Piranesi: A critical studi with a list of his published works and detailed catalogues of the prisons and views of Rome, London, 1922.2

" Henri Focillon, Giovanni Battista Piranesi: Essai de catalogue raissonné de son oeuvre, Paris, 1918.3

" Carlo A. Petrucci, Catalogo generale delle stampe tratte dai rami incisi posseduti dalla Calcografia Nazionale, Rome, 1953.4

" John Wilton-Ely (ed.), Giovanni Battista Piranesi: The complete etchings (2 volumes), San Francisco, 19945

" Piranesi’s inclination to block the viewer from the setting he presents in his Veduta has been suggested to me by professor Bart Verschaffel (University of Gent). Prof. Verschaffel sug6 -gested in a lecture on Piranesi’s prints (December 8th, 2010) that Piranesi structures his Vedute as if it were landscapes. Usually this is a genre that invites the viewer to participate. However, according to Verschaffel, Piranesi structures his urban landscapes in his Vedute in such a way that there is always a barrier between the viewer and the scene, thus prevent-ing involvement. The human figures, added by the vedutist to his prints, play a crucial role in this blocking of involvement. In the Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco this effect is clear and even strengthened by the diagonal balustrade and its towering sculptural decorations.

� This effect occurs especially in the print, which is only in black and white. Looking at the preparatory drawing (Fig. 10) one could deny the willful intent of this effect. In this draw7 -ing Piranesi uses different colors for the sculpture and chimneys on top of the buildings. As a result the aggrandizing effect is less prominent on the drawing, compared to print." On the print the milestone columns are crowned with a sphere. A coronation that nowadays cannot be seen. However, this is likely no distortion, but at the time of Piranesi a reality. 8

The same sphere’s for example are visible on prints that Giuseppe Vasi made of the Campidoglio (Fig. 11), more or less contemporary to Piranesi’s print.

� Of course it is dangerous to deduce, in any Piranesi print, the size of sculptures from that of the figures in the same print. Indeed, it is well known that he frequently makes his fig9 -ures relatively small, in order to aggrandize the monumentality of their architectural surroundings. However, in the case of the Veduta del Campidoglio di fianco, it is evident, that Pirane-si is not playing with the size of the figures on his print, but with that of the sculptural decorations. For example, when comparing the relative size of the Trofei with that of the architec-ture, it is clear that the first is depicted on a larger scale than the latter." Claridge, 1998, pp. 229-241.10

" Lendering, 2007, pp. 131-32. The translation of the quotation to English is the translation by the author of this article. Original Dutch text: “Men beklom de heuvel over een trap met, 11

zo staat in onze bronnen, precies honderd treden. Eenmaal boven gekomen, bevond de bezoeker zich op een groot, door de Jupitertempel gedomineerd terras. er stond een monument voor Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, die hier was vermoord. Een standbeeld ter ere van de opperpriester die de hervormer uit vaderlandsliefde had vermoord, stond ertegenover. Bij de ingang van de tempel was een beeldengroep die de Romeinse koningen voorstelde. De Romeinen dachten dat ze uit de koningstijd stamde, maar waarschijnlijk was de groep geïn-spireerd door een monument voor zeven Griekse helden, de zogenaamde Epigonen, dat de Romeinen in de vierde eeuw hadden gezien bij het orakel van Delphi. Tegenover de zeven koningen stond Brutus, even verderop Julius Ceasar, en zo waren er nog tientallen beelden.”" Livy, Ab urbe condita, 1:33; monumental history of ancient Rome written sometime between 27 and 25 BC.12

" Lendering, 2007, pp. 25-26.13

" Ackerman, 1961, p. 54.14

" Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 1996, London; translation from Italian by Gaston du C. de Vere with an introduction and notes by David Ekserdjian, 2 15

volumes, volume 2, p.700." Burroughs, 1993, pp. 88-90. Burroughs emphasises that Paul III entrusted Michelangelo in that time with several papal commissions in the Vatical (the Last Judgment in the Sistine 16

Chapel and the Pauline fresco’s). Commissions that would allow the master to spent a lot of time on the Campidoglio." Bedon, 2009, pp. 128.17

� Argan and Contardi, 1993, p. 213.18

" For a presentation of three consecutive Vedute by Stefano Dupérac (1768, 1783 and 1790), see Presicce, 2009, p. 151.19

" For a more complete presentation of drawings that illustrate the consecutive building stages in the creation of the modern Campidoglio see Bedon (2009), Presicce (2009) and Vertova 20

(1995). " Burroughs, 1993, p. 92.21

" Burroughs, 1993, p. 94.22

" Burroughs, 1993, pp. 98-99. Burroughs builds on David Summers’ thinking in Michelangelo’s and the language of art, 1981. 23

" Burroughs, 1993, p. 98-99. The quotations are from Vasari’s Vita di Michelangelo (redazioni del 1550 e 1568). 24

" Argan and Contardi, 1993, p. 213.25

" Ackerman, 1961, p. 65.26

" Ackerman, 1961, p. 66.27

" Buddensieg, 1969, p.179. See also Haskell and Penny, 1981, p. 7.28

" Ackerman, 1961, p.66.29

" Buddensieg, 1969, pp.179-8030

" See Haskell and Penny (1981) for a further context on this growing museum properties. 31

" Buddensieg, 1969, pp. 182-86. Paul III’s move was attacked by Michelangelo, who, according to a letter written by Giovanni Maria della Porta to Francesco Maria della Rovere, 32

“argued strongly ... that this horse not be taken away, thinking that it was better where it was, but he had not to any degree dissuaded the pope”. (Argan and Contardi, 1993, p. 252) " Vittozzi and Presicce, 1991, p. 8633

" Ackerman, 1961, pp. 69-70.34

" Buddensieg, 1969, pp. 195-96.35

" See for detailed infomation on the Trophies of Marius the monograph of Grisanti (1977).36

!

" Presicce, 2009, p.148. The translation of the quotation to English is the translation by the author of this article. Original Italian text: “La disposizione delle sculture documenta l’esist37 -enza di un progetto complessivo di arredo scultoreo, che rappresenta il più antico programma di rupero dell’antico concepito con finalità di carattere ideologico. La presenza delle statue restituiva al capitolono la sacralità dell’età antica e nel contempo indicava nel Campidoglio, erede della tradizione classica, il locus publicum per eccellenza. Nei documenti con-temporanei le sculture vengono considerate proprietà del Popolo Romano, che attraverso le attività dei magistrati esercitava la propria sovranità sulla res publicum." Vittozzi and Presicce, 1991, p. 88-89.38

" Presicce, 2009, p. 148.39

" Haskell and Penny, 1981, pp. 63-64.40

" Letter dated 10 February 1756, Abbé Jean Jacques Barthélemy, Voyages en Italie ... imprimé sur les lettres originales écrites au Comte de Caylus, Paris, 1801, p. 95 (Quotation drawn from 41

Haskell and Penny, 1981, p. 64)." Vittozzi and Presicce, 1991, p.88.42

" Wilton-Ely, 1994, P. 314. Original Italian text: “Trofie di Ottaviano Augusto innalzati per la vittoria ad actium e conquista dell’Egito con varj altri ornamenti diligentemente ricavati 43

dagli avanzi pui preziosi delle fabbriche atiche di Roma utili a pittore scultori ed architette, disegnati ed incisi da Giambattista Piranesi architetto Veneziano.”" Höper, 1991, p.163.44

" Wilton Ely, The Introduction, in Piranesi, 2002, p.33. 45

" Wilton-Ely, 1978, p.64.46

" Piranesi, 2002, p. 102.47

!

References of the figures!!!

!!!!! !

Nr Reference

1 www.flickr.com

2 www.backtoclassics.com

3 www.art.com

4 Copy from Buddensieg, 1969, p. 177.

5 www.melissarome10.blogspot.com

6 Copy from Buddensieg, 1969, p. 183.

7 Copy from Vertova, 1995, p. 446.

8 www.commons.wikimedia.org and http://pages.uoregon.edu/arthist/arthist_204/monuments.html

9 http://www.billcasselman.com/wording_room/horse_sense.htm

10 British Museum, London

11 www2.siba.fi

12 http://www.piranesiprints.co.uk

!