‘The Forma Urbis Romae before Nolli: Antiquarian Scholarship in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries William Stenhouse fhe fate of the fragments of the forma urbis "Tice ons between 203 and 211 CE in the reign of the emperor Septimius Severus, presents an awkward problem for anyone trying to understand early modern antiquarian scholarship.’ Most of the fragments were discovered in excavations in the Roman Forum in 1562, at @ time when scholars were increasingly looking towards non-textual evidence in their efforts to understand the ancient world. Agents of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, then the most distinguished patron of scholarship on classical remains in Rome, removed the fragments to his collection, where some ofthe most prominent antiquarians of the day recorded them. But then, they more or less disappeared. Little is known of their whereabouts until shortly before 1655, when some were used in the construction of a “giardino segreto” at the back of the Palazzo Farnese at Rome. Giovanni Pietro Bellori printed engravings of some fragments in 1673, buteven then took until 1741 for the government of the city of Rome to persuade the Farnese family to hand them over so that they could be exhibited publicly ‘on the Campidoglio. Only then did Giambattista Noli arrange the fragments for display, and observe at first hand evidence of the ancient ichnographic plan that he was to study and surpass.” Why is it that such a puzzling and unusual relic from antiquity was ignored {The undamental starting point for any discussion ofthe feagmente ars Gianflippo Caetoni etal, La pianta marmosa i Roma antce: Fora Urbis Romae, 2 vols (Rome Ripatiione de Comune di Rom, 160) and he adlitions in Emilio Rodriguez Almeida, Forma Urbis Marmoree.Aggornamento Generale 1980 (Rome: Quasar, 1981), Seas the recent electronic publication of the fragments, with photographs and tree-dimensionl medals by the Stanford Digal Forma Urbis Rome Project itp formas. stanford.eda).A version ofthis paper was est presentedat the Stadium Urbis conference, iambatita Noli Imago Urbis and ‘ome! Lam ratefl forthe comments the audience there, and especially to M-H. Crawford and Tanya Pll fr thelr comments fon the wate version 2 On Noliand the plan see Allan Ceen, "Introductory essay" in {La Panta Grande di Roma di Glambatista Nal in Facile Aronson (Highmount N¥- Aronson, 1991), 34nd lem, oka olliana (Rome: Stadium Urbis, 2003), 221, and discarded before Bellori? One reason is probably the sheer unwieldiness of the material, comprising well, over a hundred large fragments, but only representing just over ten percent of the whole map. But there are other reasons as well. This essay attempts to answer the question by examining the scholarly context of the fragments’ discovery, and argues that practical barriers and intellectual frameworks prevented any widespread investigation of their function or value as evidence for ancient Rome. If they had been displayed more publicly, or if scholars had had more comparative material against which to judge them, perhaps they would not have been forgotten. But they were, and their story presents a salutary reminder of the tenuousness of the survival of material remains, as well as of the distance that separates sixteenth- and seventeenth- century antiquarian scholars from their successors in departments of ancient history or Latin and Greek today. THE FRAGMENTS’ REDISCOVERY AND EARLY MODERN FORTUNA. fhe date and place of the discovery of the I fragments, and the early uses to which they were put, are relatively well documented.* They were found in May 1562, in excavations behind the church of Santi Cosma e Damiano in the Forum, on the site of the classical Roman templum pacis, which was dedicated by the Roman emperor Vespasian in 75 CE. The map had originally been mounted on the wall ofa building added to the temple, probably in the course of repairs after a severe fie of 192 CE, Torquato Conti, condottiere and Duke of Poli, sponsored the dig, Its circumstances are 43. Forthe history ofthe Fagments, see Antonio Meri Coin, *Scopetaevicende dei frammenti della pant in La pant ‘marmorea, ed. Carton et al, 125-37. Fora valuable survey, looklng especialy at Belorscontbution, see Maia Pia Marzo, "Bellon te lapubblicasione dei framment dela panta mermores di Roms sntica” in lea dal Ballo: Viaggio per Roma nel Sint cn Giovan Pietro Bello, vels (Rome: Edit de Luc, 2000), 880°316 rather murky, but eventually his wife's uncle, Cardinal ‘Alessandro Farnese, acquired the fragments,‘ Some ‘were most likely discarded,’ and Farnese men took the ‘others to his palace, so denying any interested scholars the opportunity to work on the pieces in situ, in a typical Renaissance example of plunder-archaeology In the Palazzo Farnese, however, antiquarians got their chance. Onofrio Panvinio, a member of the cardinal’s familia, wrote that he was appointed as their curator, and Bernardo Gamucci, @ contemporary observer, claimed that Farnese “has not failed to assign to this antiquity learned men, who ate looking for the trut ‘Whatever Gamucei thought that “truth” would be, it did not turn up quickly. Panvinio wrote that he was ‘curator in 1565, when he also claimed that he would shortly use the fragments in his topographia of Rome. But there is no evidence that he did, and in fact the fist datable scholarly use of the fragments is Fulvio Orsini Imagines et elogia virorwn illstrium et eruditorum, of 1570. Panvinio had died in 1568, and Orsini seems to have assumed curatorial responsibilities for the whole Farnese collection. A work on famous and learned men. is certainly a surprising place for a fragment of the {forma urbis to appear, and Orsini made no real attempt to hide the fact. In his section on Roman doctors, he noted that two doctors were connected in inscriptions with the ludus magnus and ludus matutinus, two ladiatorial schools. One fragment of the forma urbis 4 Forageneraacount ofthe main sources, e Colin Scopeta vende! 252% Chitin Riel Di Sent des Karnal ‘Aes aes En Su fi Kater und Gtr (ele VCH Acta human, 969,367 css Canto nd pints thereat eto ofthe leer wrote to Farnese at 17-8 Secale Lion Dare ‘Nonvesucdoarents ra découverte de In Forma Ubi ome Academe ds rons & blr tres amps nas de ances de ne 19108 99-508 5 Se Riccar Sentngelalenvan,"Ditrerone edsperione deta orn bis seein lice delat archeologist in Formac Us ona: Niemen ponte manor dale ‘Sano for period Roberte Menghi nd Ricardo Sang Valera, Dalle dela CommissoneArchesoges comune di Rom, Sapement 15 (ome: [Era i retacheier, 50s 3, bling on Denise anaconda “Un nuovo ramen dla Forna Utsler romane dl Cinguecento nate dela Cea Babi lng deal raat de Rome, Antigt 1142 (20025 695-715 C112 6 Seethecomplints of Rado Canc.“ movi famment dla Forma Uti Bletine dla commision arc comanale Ronas5, 27899578 7 Jean-Louis Ferry, Ono Pavia romaine. Cotton de Eck ngs de Re 214 (Rone: ene rani de Rome 196), 5. 48 “non ha mancato dl mettre a questa antici uomin dot quali cerchino i vera” Bernardo Gamucc, Le antichtd dla ct dt oma, 2nd ed (Venice: Giovanni Vaviseo, 1569), fl 3¥. happened to show the ludus magnus. Orsint noted this, and illustrated the fragment beneath (Fig. 1)? “The next datable record is the map of the ancient city that Etienne Dupérac engraved in 1574, In the notes to the map, Dupérac wrote that in creating his reconstruction of classical Rome, he had used the fragments of the forma urbis, and he acknowledged Farnese for allowing him to do so.” Unlike the forma urbis, an ichnographic plan, Dupérac’s map was a bird's-eye view ofthe city, and so he was unable simply to copy fragments of the marble, But it is possible to identify areas where Dupérac used the evidence of the ancient plan to recreate buildings. One is in his reconstruction of the ludus magnus, where he engraved a three-dimensional building closely based on the forma urbis fragment of the structure (Figs. 2 and 3): itis no coincidence, I would suggest, that he used the same piece as Orsini. Here, because of the lack of surviving remains for the building where Dupérac thought it was (modern scholars have placed it in a completely different part of the city, by the Colosseum and south- cast from Dupérac’s sit), itis clear that Dupérac used the stone fragment. In other cases, the direct connection ‘cannot be proved, butitis likely For example, Dupérac’ reconstruction of the Theatre of Pompey probably also was based on the fragment of this edifice from the Jorma urbis. ‘The work of Orsini and Dupérac can be dated because it was printed: in addition, two sets of drawings of the fragments survive, which probably also come from the period soon after the fragments’ discovery." One set 9 “Publius Vitor and Sextes Rufus mention the Ladus Matutinus and the Lads Magnus, doctors of which ~ utychus freedman [f Nero, and CalpuriueHilarus~ are named in inscriptions have sen the plan ofthe Ludus Magnus represented thus in the recently discovered remains ofthe plan] of ancient Rome (Ladi vero Marutini& Lad Magn, quoram medic in lpidibus fominanturEutychus Neronis Libertas, & Calpurius Hila, ‘mentionem facintP Victor, 8 Sex Rufus. Lad autem magni ‘hnographiam in vetustae Romae nuper reper reliquls it ‘ofatam animadvertimus") Fulvio Orsini magne et elagiavrorum itstrium et erutor[ur] ex antiqusapdibus et nomismatibs) ‘expres (Rote: Antonio Lafréry, 1570), 96. Oa the work, ee ‘Giuseppina Alessandra Clini contibuto Fabio Orsin alla ricerca antiquaria, ti della Accederia Nazionale dei Lincei 2004, Classe di sclenze moral storchee lologche, Memori 31K ‘XVII fas2 (Rome Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 200). 10 Amato Frutar, Le planted Roma, 3 vos (Rome: Istituto di st romani, 1962), i67-8 (commentary) and ita. (illustration ‘ofthe tet), Se Ferry, Onojrio Pavino, 35 n.99. On Dupérac see Emmanuel Lrin, "Un homie entre deux mondes: Etienne Dupérac, pint, gaveur et architec, en alle en France (€ 15357-1604)" In Renaissance en France rnalseance fangs, ed. Hen Zeer and ‘Mare Bayard (Rome: Academie de France & Rome, 2008), 37-59. 11 Forgeneral details ofthese two sets (and ofthe thirst fom the Barberini fondo, which I il argue below probably date fom theconsists of only three fragments drawn on one folio, now in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. Because this folio is included in a codex (MS frangais 382) with other material that belonged to Dupérac, it probably represents copies made when he was preparing his map. When Gianfilippo Carettoni examined these drawings, he argued that they in fact derived from the other, far more extensive set from this period, contained in a codex in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Vat. lat. 3439), This collection of material is known as the Codex Ursinianus, named after Fulvio Orsini, because it ‘was assumed in the seventeenth century he had owned the drawings in the manuscript. In the Codex Ursinianus there ae illustrations of ninety-one fragments on eleven folios (Fig. 3). If Carrettoni is right to argue that the Dupérac drawings are based on the Codex Ursinianus, and not on the stones themselves, it is likely that both Dupérac’s drawings and those of the Codex Ursinianus predate Dupérac’ map of 1574. Even if that dating is ‘wrong, it is important to note that both these sets of drawings are probably connected with the same two men who used the evidence ofthe forma urbis in print. ‘Alessandro Farnese died in 1589 and Orsini in 1600. After Orsinis death the collection lacked @ curator competent to work with its contents and to develop its holdings of antiquities. Odoardo Farnese, Alessandro successor and Orsinis pupil, started his tenure by working to maintain the collection (for example by “obtaining the Cesarini collection of antiquities in 1593), and reorganized its holdings some time in the 1590s or early seventeenth century. In general, however, he had a narrower interest in antiquities, and less money for their acquisition, than Alessandro, focusing on monumental sculpture and its arrangement alongside the modern art he commissioned." When he died, in 1626, the palace seventeenth century) and an analysis of individual fragments, see GGianflippo Careton,“Framment prodotti nei disepn del ‘Rinascleato” in La planta marmora, ed, Caretton et al 43-52 12 Pais, Bibliotheque nationale, MS fangas 382 fo 8, See CCarettoni, “Framment riprodoti 52 andthe illustrations in Cart- ‘onl etal La plata marmorea, ax, fg. 13 Biblioteca ApostoicaVaticana, MS Vt lt 3438, fl. 13-23 See Caetton,"Prammentrprodot 43 and the ilusrtions in| (Carettoni etal, La planta armor, tv -XIV. 14 See Christin Riebesel, "Die Antikensammlung Farnese nae (Caraei:Zeitin Les Carrache eles décor profane, Aces di Cllgue ongonisé par cole fangs de Rome Rome, 2-4 octobre 1986), ‘Cletion de Pole francaise de Rome 106 (Rome: Ecole Fangave de Rome, 1988), 373-417; Federico Raus, "Le collecon! farnesiane dt scultureentiche: storia eformazion’ in Le sculturefamese storia e document ed. Carlo Gaspari (Naples Flct, 2007), 15-80, ep. 30- 533; Clare Robertson, The vention of Aroibale Carma Stud della [Biliteca Hrtrana 4 (Mile: Silvana, 2008), 131-32 ‘was no longer regularly inhabited, and the collection had lost its preeminent position in the city, surpassed in the early seventeenth century by the collections of the Giustiniani, Borghese and Barberini families." While the major statues inthe collection, like the Farnese bull, remained on the tourist trail for educated visitors, the less accessible material seems to have been forgotten."® "This included the forma urbis fragments. There are a few exceptions: Giacomo Lauro, who included a map of the city in @ guide he wrote in 1612, referred to them as a useful topographical aid;” similarly, when Giangiacomo de Rossi reprinted Etienne Dupérac’s ‘map in the second half of the seventeenth century, hhe implied that Dupérac had used the fragments, and wrote that he had been helped by Fulvio Orsini 18. SeeBertand esta, “Le collenion! Farnese di Romain Farnese: Arte cllecionisma, eds Leia Forni Schianehi and [Nicola Spinosa (Milan: let, 1995) 49-67, and esp. 58-61. On other collections, ee Beatsce Palma,“ collezionismo eg studi fntguac” In Dopo Sisto V.Latranseione of Barocco (1590-1630) (Rome: stato nsonale di stud romtn, 1997), 26783. 16 Itis lea fom sevententh-century accounts that antiquities from the palace collection were acessible to visitors although not ‘ecesstly without permission: ohn Evelyn, an English vstor wo ame to Rome ia 16445, sw the Farnese Hercule nd Flora on bis first vst to the palace, and then returned ates, o be accompanied bythe majordomo tose other statues andthe guardaroba (John Evely, The Diary of on Evelyn, ed. ES. de Ber 6 vol (ford: (Carenion Press, 1958), i:214-6 nd 308-10) Anne Brookes, “Richard Symonds andthe Palazzo Farnese, 1649-50; Journ! of ‘the History of Coletions 10 (1988): 139-157, demonstrates that Richard Symonds sw les than Bvelyn and id not have such rvleged access. See also Wiliam Steahouse “Visors, Display, ‘nd Reception inthe Antiqlty Collections of Late Renalsance Rome” Renaissance Quarter 58 (2005), 397-434, 17 “sand Thave annoated the maps and ruins, for which that ‘marble stone found in the time of Pope Pel Il inthe Forum, i the temple of Romulus and Remus, was helpful: i was kept bythe Musteous and Reverend Alessandro Farnese, of besed memory, rong the ices of hie mos lustrous fai inckaded an Inscribed map ofthe ancient cy, which our two antiquarian, io Ligorio and Benardo Gamice sertinized and copied down, securely and accurately ther own tacings[)"(-plantasque & ruines annotavimusqulbusadiumento fle armor ia epertum Paulo Pont Max apud Forum Romanum in Romull, Remigue templo per Must. Reverendiss fel mem. Alerandrum Famesum intr opes lusts elus Familias conservatur, quod Incisam antiquae Urbis planta contneba, quam Antiquari sa [sic— for duo, a translated above} nos Peru Lgorius, 8 [Bernardus Gamutiasobeervantes poligraphas tuto accurate suas conscripsee”) Giacomo Lauro, Antiquae Urbis splendor (Rome: ‘npa 1612), elt. See Thomas Ashby, “Un incisor antquario dl Scientia” La Bb 28 (1926-7): 454, Ie interesting that both gore and Gamce ate invoked here for the Birt ime; tis doubt that the later would have made copies and not informed his readers about them, bur that Ligrio coped the drawings snot unlikely. Ir so. they have not survived unless the copes in the Codex Usiniams| se by him, The codex does contain ether Ligorio materi: but the band ofthe forma urbiscoples does nt seem tome tobe his18 ‘when he did so, something Dupérac himself had not explicitly acknowledged in his original map." ‘Apart from Lauro, there is only one other indication that scholars might have been using the fragments independently: anotherset of drawings fthe,orma urbis, from the early modern period, collected in a manuscript in the Barberini fondo (Barb. lat. 4423), now also in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.” There are four folios, depicting six fragments. These drawings are hard to date: they were made after the Ursinianus set and seem to be independent of it, as they include two fragments in a more damaged state than the Ursinianus Given, this fact, they may be from the seventeenth century. They are collected with material from the Barberini circle of antiquarians. This material can be dated from the 1620s until the 1650s," and so it is likely, but not provable, that these drawings were collected or made then. Three have numbers ~ 16, 17 and 18 ~ and so they seem to have been part of a series. But without further information, we cannot know when exactly they were drawn, Whatever the origins of the drawings, no one in the Palazzo Farnese in the seventeenth century seems to have recognized the potential value of the fragments Bertrand Jestaz suggests that they are among the “one hhundred and eleven pieces of marble and travertine, large and small? of one entry in the otherwise very 18 De Rossi eprnted the map some time between 1649 and 1691 (Petar Le pat, k67), He inchaded a key (bid its) in onder that users could find various buildings and underneath, he wrote. “The Iehnographia of the cy of Rome which the architect Bene Dupérac designed - from the ea of the emperor Septimis Severus under the influence and advide of some great men, and ‘pecially Fulvio Orsini he abandoned in obscurity fr along time by leaving out the title and names of the noble bulings” "Urbis Romae[chnogrephi, quam Stephanus Duperacus Architects, tex summorum vgorum, ac pracipue Flv Ursin sententa, que auctoritate, Septimi Sever Imperatoris cate, descrpeers, petebscute dia, absque tls, ac nominibus nobiioram Selifciorur del”) Dupérac had originally refered to the help Ine ha received rom lene antquarians "hominis antiuitais staiosis Fata Le plant, istar45). See Ferrary, OnfioPanviio, $346.100, The eather awkward Latin of De Ross key sugaest that ine had misundetstood Depéracs original dedication, or that his engraver had fled to include all the words. 19 On Biblioteca Apostolic Vtiana, MS Barb. at. 4423 see Marco Buonacore, "Miscellanea epigraphicae Codicibus ibllthecae Vaicanae VI Bpigrphica 53 (1991): 233-34. 20 Biblioteca Apostolic Vatiana, MS Bab at 4423, fls4S-48. See Carettoni, “Framment prodotti” 51-2, and the illustrations in Cvetoni etal La planta marmerea, tae, Og. 21 One drawing i dated to 1656 on foL29r material on els. 9 nd 10 was probaly sent to Giovanni Batista Dont in the 1620s 101 1630s See Wiliam Stenhouse, Ancient scriptions, The Papet ‘Museum of Cassiano dal Pozo series A part 7 (London: The Royal Collection, 2002), 27, detailed 1644 inventory of the Farnese collection.” Soon, probably before 1655, came what one modern scholar of the fragments called the “brutto giorno!” the day on which builders used some of the fragments to make the palace’ hidden garden.” This meant that when Giovanni Pietro Bellori came to print his edition of the forma urbis, he worked using the drawings and those fragments that were not adapted as construction material: the remainder of the fragments were found only in the late nineteenth century. This account of the fragments’ discovery and conservation shows how they ‘were ignored, and deposited in storage somewhere: in the remainder of the article I will explain why this happened, SIXTEENTH-CENTURY CONTEXTS AND THE RECEPTION OF THE FRAGMENTS lorquato Conti was in no doubt ofthe significance | of his discovery: as he wrote to Farnese shortly after the map was found, he described it as “a rare and beautiful thing” His enthusiasm is reflected in various antiquarian sources from shortly after 1562 “The existence ofthe fragments was certainly not hushed ‘up. For example, we know some of the details of their discovery thanks to two letters written in May and June 1562 to Pier Vettori, who was in Florence. Bernardo Gamucct wrote about them in his guidebook of 1565, ‘which was printed, and the information was certainly known in 1594 to Flaminio Vacea, who included tin his list of various recent excavations undertaken at Rome. Panvinio included the record of his curatorship in his 1565 essay entitled “De his qui Romanas antiquitates scripto comprehenderunt” (‘On those who wrote examined Roman antiquities in writing”): this was never published, but there is no reason to believe that Panvinio would not have tried to gain a wider audience for his work, had he not died in 1568.” While this is an impressive range of testimony, though, i is not unusual for a notable discovery at Rome from this period. 22 Bertand fests Le Palas Forse 3: Linentaie du Palais tes proprcésFaréze & Rome en 1644 (Rome: Ecole franaise ‘de Rome, 1994), 198 0.482. 23 Colin "Scopertae vicende28 24 “cost rare bella” Ribesell, Die Sammlung 177-78, 25 For the letters to Vettori, and deals of Gamucei and Vacca, fee Dorez, “Nouveaux document and fr Panvini invobrement ‘Ferrary,Onofrio Pavinio, $1, a5 in 1.6 above.A reasonable, but not unusually large scholarly audience, therefore, would have known about the forma urbis, Once knowledge of the fragments had spread, the next task would have been to arrange for them to be drawn and then printed. The drawings from the Codex. Ursinianus and from the Dupérac collection could have been preliminary copies for this process. Both sets seem to be fairly accurate renditions of the fragments, and suitable for copying by an engravers, ‘two hands produced the former, which suggests that some checking may have gone on.” But the fragments ‘were not printed and published. The primary reason for this is probably cost. Then, as now, the market among private buyers for scholarly, illustrated representations ‘of classical remains was not large. Some types of books, id sell, and the genre of portraits of famous men, ‘whether living or dead, was one of them. The reason, that Orsini inserted the ludus magnus fragment rather awkwardly in his 1570 imagines et elogia was almost certainly because that was the only practical way he could get the illustration published. In general, @ rich patron was needed for deluxe antiquarian books. Alessandro Farnese had subsidized the publication of the lists of the Capitoline Fasti, which were discovered in Rome in 1546 and 1547, but chose not to do the same for the forma urbis:” One reason for this could be that he thought it would have been unseemly for a prominent cardinal to promote scholarship on pagan remains as the new Council of Trent decrees for the behaviour of churchmen were coming into effect. ‘As well as the probable lack of funds to support printing, there may be one other practical reason why more information about the fragments did not spread, a reason related to the scholarly ethics of Fulvio Orsini. Orsini was lucky to find an extremely sympathetic, biographer at the end of the nineteenth century, in the person of Pierre de Nolhac. De Nolhac could not, overlook the various accusations of plagiarism that circulated around his subject, but he resolutely denied them Although standards at 26 Foran examination ofthe avaracy ofthe drawings see David ‘West Reynolds, “Forma Urbis Romae: The Severan Marble Plan and the Urban Form of Ancient Rome’ (PRD dss, Unversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1996), 107-114 27 Por Farnese support of publishing inthe context of his wider patronage of entiquaian scholarship, see Christina Reese, “Die Sammlung des Kardinal Alessandro Farnese (1520-1589) ls Selverteterin for das anti Rom in Macrocsmes in Micocosme: ce Welt in der Stub. Zur Geschichte des Samal, 1450 bis 180, e ‘Areas Grote (Oplade Leske and Budeich, 1998), 397-416 ep. aun 28. Plere de Noac, La bblithique de Fulio Orsini (Paris: the end of the sixteenth century should not be compared with those of today, Orsin’s attitude to intellectual property was certainly loose. His one-time friend Girolamo Mercuriale, for example, pointed out quite reasonably that the treatise of Pedro Chacén on the trilinium (De triclinio, 1588), edited by Orsini, bore a close connection to the earlier treatment of the subject in his De arte gymnastica, although with rno acknowledgement of that work.” In this case, the fault may have been Chacén’s - Chacdn may have been planning to revise the essay before he died in 1582: ‘Orsini then edited the work for publication ~ but if so, (Orsini as editor should have been aware ofthe problem. Before the publication of that work, Orsini had been ‘working on his friend Antonio Agustin’ De legibus et senatusconsultis, which was published in 1583. Here, Orsini seems to have passed off the emendations and suggestions ofthe newly-deceased Chacén as his own.” Not surprisingly in someone so ready to ignore the provenance of some of his ideas, Orsini was jealous of his own material. A hint ofthis attitude comes in a letter written by Claude Dupuy to Pierre del Bene, when the latter was planning a visit to Rome. Dupuy informed his correspondent that he should not expect to see all of Orsini’s manuscript collection on any one visit, and that, Orsini would be sure to hold his visitor to any promises ‘made in return." Given Orsin’s character, therefore, it ‘would not be implausible to assume that in the final years of his life, alone in the Farnese éollection, he planned some project involving the fragments of the marble plan, which meant that he was extremely unwilling to allow others access to them, Such an accusation cannot be proved, however. Beyond simple pragmatism - the real cost of publication and Orsini’ possible jealous possessiveness ~ it is also possible to identify two other reasons why these fragments failed to reach a wider audience. First, and most important, the fragments did not realy fit into the categories of evidence that sixteenth-century antiquarians expected the ancient world to provide. They ‘were similar to inscriptions, but not exactly the same; they did not offer easy figures for interpretation like Bouillon and F. Vieweg, 1887), 54-55. 29. Jean-Michel Agasse, “Entre antiquaria et archologle moderne: Jelaps tharsnusanus" Les Cahiers de Hamanieme 2 (2001: 29-30 30 Jean-Louis Ferary, La ges du De legis et senatue consti in Antoni Agustin between Renaisance and Counter- “jor, ed. MH. Crawford (London: The Warburg Insitute, 1993), uh 31 Gianvincenoo Pinel and Claude Dupuy, Une correspondance tntre des humanists, ed. Aaa Maria Raugel.2 vols (lvence: ‘Oishi, 2001, 520 the iconographical representation of deities and other forces on ancient coins. The best parallel, which suggests that the fragments did not really fit in, is the fate of an ichnographic plan that seems to have been discovered in the mid-1540s, during building work undertaken for the Spinelli family.” This piece shows what is probably ‘a tomb, and the buildings to house the tomb’ caretaker (Fig, 4)" The text on the plan gives the dedicators of the plan and the monuments, and the numerals indicate the length of the various walls. Pirro Ligorio recorded ‘this monument in notes he made, but did not recopy it, and our only other sixteenth-century representation is ‘one among Panvinio’ epigraphic manuscripts, in which he transcribed only the text, and not the plan.” This method of representation was by no means unusual for Panvinio ~ he regularly recorded inscriptions in ower case, and usually only chose to represent the verbal content of decorated funerary monuments ~ but ‘even so, there is no sense in his work that the plan was intriguing, or worth examining further. Even the words, in faet, were more or less forgotten. The plan was copied ‘once in the seventeenth century from Ligoria's notes, and not from the original, even though at some point the prominent Florentine collector Niccolo Gaddi acquired it. Tt was not published until the eighteenth century. This example, now in Perugia, was not the only one of these small-scale plans to be discovered in this period. ‘Another simpler example is recorded in a manuscript dated to 1603 in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan. Christian Hilsen, although he thought on balance that this plan was probably a forgery, suggested that the architect and antiquarian Giovanni Antonio Dosio ‘ight have originally found it in Ameria. Dosio may ‘well also have worked for Conti during the discovery of the forma urbis, and so details of the Ameria plan could well have reached men working at Rome.” But if that 2 For what follows, Lam indebted tothe account of Ginette ‘Vagenheim, “Pirro Lgori et la découverte un plan ichnographigue ‘grave sur mare (CIL VI9015 = 298470)" Manges de Beale ‘ramgaise de Rome, Aiquté 103.2 (1981): 575-597. ‘33 See the analysis of Christan Hilsen, "Pane enogratche ince in marmot Mittheitingen dds Kaserich Deutschen Archaologichen Ina, Roemische Abed Bulletin delfimperiae isto rheolgio germane 5 (1890): 4652; Carettont et a La pana smarmore, (207-210 Reynols, Forma Urbis Roma, 38-6; and Emilio Rodriguer-Almeta, Formac Uris Antigua: Le mappe ‘marmorce i Roa tala Republica eSttinio Severo, Cllestion {deolefrangais de Rome 305 (Rome Ecole franaise de Rome, 202), 37-1. 5 Biblioteca Apostlica Vaticana, MS Va. at. 6036, foL 108% 35. For thisexample, ee Halse, “Plant icnografiche” 60: em, “Mcllanea eigafica” Mithtkngen des Keiserlich Devischen Avchaeologichen Institut Roemische Abthllung/Balltino ‘tiers archeologiengermanico 5 (1890): 205; Caren ‘tal La planta marmore, 208-09 Reynolds, Forma Urbis Remae 52-33 (ho argues that its genuine) Rodrguez- Almeida, Formae Urbis Antigua, 5-36 (who alo argues that its genuine) For Dosio was the case, there is no proof, and this plan too seems to have remained unexamined until it was published in the nineteenth century. These other plans do not seem to have caught the attention of sixteenth-century scholars, interested primarily in coins and inscriptions. Despite the fact that they include words, Gruterus did rot think to include either these plans or the fragments of the forma urbis in his huge collection of inscriptions that he compiled at the turn of the seventeenth century, and so they were easily forgotten. “The second reason that sixteenth-century scholars did not explore the forma urbis further is connected to their approach to topographical problems. Identifying classical remains in the city and connecting them with references in literary texts had been a central concern of humanists for nearly one hundred and fifty years before the fragments were found." These humanists hhad done a good job of collating available information. ‘The results of their work included serviceable written, guides to the ancient city, such as Bartolomeo Marliani’s ‘Topographia and Georg Fabriciuss Roma, In some editions, guidebooks came with plans that showed the state of the city in different periods, and scholars also produced impressive stand-alone maps, most notably the 1551 ichnographic plan by Leonardo Bufalini, which included many ancient monuments, and Pirro Ligorias 1561 bird’s-eye map of the classical city.” “Although the fragments could tell scholars about the structures of individual buildings ~ and so Dupérac was able to reconstruct the ludus magnus ~ they could rot offer much immediate information ebout how those buildings fitted together to supplement what had already been discovered. And even though the and the discovery, se Gamuck Le ut dla ci dt Roma, {6152 Like Dost, however, Garnucci came from San Gimignano, fabs account of the extent of Dosio involvement hs tobe taken wath pinch of sl. Léon Dorez disputed it see Doren, "Nouveaux ocuments 505, 136 See Philip Jacks, The Antiquarian and the Myth of Anti The Origins of Rome ix Renaissance Thought (Cambridge: Cambrldge University Press, 1993) 37 See Jessica Mae, “Mapping Past and Present Leonardo Bullinis Plan of Rome (1581) Imago Mund $9 (2007), 1-23.0n Tigris map. and the range of sources he used to compli, see Howard Burs, Piro Ligorios Reconstruction of Ancient Rome: the Antelgvae Vis ago of L561” kn Pro Ligori: Artist and ‘Antiquarian ed. Robert Gaston. Vila Tat Stas 10 (Milan Silvana Editoriale, 1988), 19-92. Antiquarian scholars ofthis period proved tobe adept at producing ground plans and brds-ee views [tparticular monuments for which evidence survived: forthe work of some Low Countries scholas on the Arx Britannia, ee Tine ‘Meganck "Abraham Ortelis, Hubertus Goltzis en Guido Laueinus tide tdi van de Ary Bianca” Bulletin Koninklje Nederlandse ‘Oudhedladige Bond 98 20.516 (1999) 226-236. For the forma urbis inthe tradition of urban mapping sce John Pinto, “Forma Urbis Romae Fragment and Fatssy in Arcectural Stadis in Memory (f Richard Krahl, ed Cel L Striker (Mainz: von Zabern, 1986), 108-6fragments showed how to represent the structures of {individual buildings, enough of those buildings still stood to provide humanists with more than enough details for another favourite topic of inquiry, Roman, building techniques and the evidence of Vitruvius. The concerns of modern scholars who use the fragments, which include building density, or the ideology of this, form of representation of the city, were not ones that ‘were shared by their sixteenth-century predecessors. THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. find, therefore, but didnt really know what to do with the fragments once they were safely installed in the Palazzo Farnese, Why did the situation not change for so long in the seventeenth century? If anything, seventeenth-century antiquarians’ interests ‘were even less likely to embrace the forma urbis than their immediate predecessors. The fragments were not ignored quite as completely as some previous accounts have suggested ~ as I sald above, without necessarily having seen them, both Lauro and de Rossi referred to them in maps, and one set of drawings may come from this period ~ but certainly they were very nearly forgotten. One immediate reason for this, very broadly speaking, was that the scholarly centre of gravity, at east as far asthe study of the classical world was concerned, hhad shifted north from Rome, mainly to Venice and Padua, and to the Low Countries. Scholars sil visited the city and examined her monuments, but the spirit of collaborative endeavour that marked the middle of the sixteenth century was absent. Shortly after the election ‘of pope Urban VIII Barberini, however, the position changed, The cardinal-nephew, Francesco Barberini, supported scholars Keenly, inviting both Italians and men from beyond the Alps to court. Other cardinals ‘were slow to rediscover the sixteenth-century habit of giving out patronage to antiquarians, but at the same time, Cassiano dal Pozzo started to develop alongside his library a paper museum, which was to be a visual resource for scholars and artists and include images of antiquities and natural historical phenomena.* Despite a general increase in antiquarian scholarship luting the 1630s, 40s and 50s, however, when we look at these scholars we see that their interests took them Sama scholars were excited by the 38 Fora comprehensive overview ofthis project, see Ingo elo, Castano dal Poezo und die Archdolgi ds 17 Jahrhunderts Romische Forschungen der blioteca Hertiana 28 (Munich: Hlrmer, 1998), and forthe lack of oppor from cardinals ether than Basberni see ibid eg. 41-2 further from the forma urbis rather than closer to it. ‘They tried to collect inscriptions, but in general they turned away from the more textual concerns of their predecessors towards the examination of small objects and iconography. Using these objects, they became ‘more interested not in the city of Rome, but in what wwe would now call the everyday life and structures of ancient Rome, what Ingo Herklotz defines as the Varronian “customs and institutions” (“mores et insttuta”) Lorenzo Pignoria, for example, a scholar from Padua, wrote a work on Roman slaves in 1613; when. he realized that the records dal Pozz0 was collecting would help his work, he and dal Pozzo corresponded and prepared what would have been a much expanded and illustrated second edition. This did not actually appear, but the titles of the works that were published give some idea of where scholarly interest was headed: Giacomo Filippo Tomasinis De donariis ac tabellis votivis (1639), Fortunio Licetis De anulis antiquorum et eorum admirandis virtutibus (1645) and De lucernis antiquorwm reconditis libri quatuor (1621; 2" ed 1652), or Johann Rhodes De acia dissertatio (1639), which is really more about needles." As well as looking to small, “objects as sources, scholars also picked up on sixteenth- century interests in the value of relief sculpture and other pictorial representations of classical scenes or people; one project Cassiano dal Pozzo planned with Johann Faber was a third edition of Orsinis Imagines et elogia:" At Rome at least, scholars ofthe period had ready access to published work of the sixteenth century, and so where necessary they usualy referred to books for details of topography and architecture. Bird's-eye ‘maps of the city produced in this period tended also to be heavily derivative from what had come before It is important to note that had these mid-seventeenth century scholars seen a reference to the forma urbis in published work - when, for example, dal Pozzo and Faber were working on Orsini’ text - and been inspired to follow it up, they would have been able to do so. Most, importantly, Orsini had let books and papers to the Vatican Library, including the Codex Ursinianus, which ‘was available for consultation." Several of the drawings from this manuscript were copied for the dal Pozzo paper museum, as some of Cassiano’ first commissions, and so it seems highly likely that he would have been 39° Herklots, Caslana dal Poe, 153-164 40 _ Francesco Soins, “Other Sources of Drawing inthe Paper ‘Maseum” in The Paper Museum of Cassano dal Pozzo, Quaderai Pateani 4 (Milan: Olivet, 1988), 230, 4 Heroes, Castano dal Porz, 254 6 aeEEE—_—_—____ 2 ‘aware ofthe illustrations of the fragments. Dal Pozzo and his cicle also had access to the Farnese collections nthey devoted much time to copying material from ‘manuscripts drawn by Pirro Ligorio, which were in the Farnese library - and so had they been interested in seeing the fragments as wel as material from the library, at the very least they would probably have had access to whomever had responsibility for the antiquities.* But the only surviving traces of interest from this period are the drawings of six fragments in a Barberini codex, which I referred to above as the third set. Here a smaller piece, whose fortuna parallels that of the forma turbis fragments, is worth noting, the so-called Fasti ‘Maffefani In the second half of the sixteenth century, this inscription was sufficiently famous for Antoine Lafréry to include engravings of it in his Speculum Romanae magnifcentae. Its text was used by scholarly Juminaries such as Antonio Agustin and Joseph Scaliger, and was edited by Pedro Chacén in 1574.° Like the forma urbis fragments, it became part of the Farnese collection, but disappeared from scholarly view until it was rediscovered in 1704; like the fragments, its recondite information, in this case connected with, Roman chronology, was not immediately applicable to the work of seventeenth-century scholars. ‘Given this apparent lack of interest, the final question, therefore, is what inspired Giovanni Pietro Belloti to produce his edition of the map in 1673. His preface is not very illuminating, and in it he even manages to rmisdate the discovery of the fragments to the reign of Pope Paul [Il (1534-49), presumably having muddled the two Alessandro Farneses." We can, however, make some guesses. Bellori was engaged in a program to record various antiquities peculiar to Rome in order to supplement the less city-specific “mores et insituta” approach of the Barberini circle for such & program, he believed that prints had a vital role.* He was appointed —— 42 For examples of draiogs coped from the Ligrio manuscripts forthe dal Pozo collection, see Stenhouse, Ancien! Inscriptions 19.102, 483 Anthony Grafton, Josep eager Stay inte istry of lascal Scholarship, vol2, Oxford- Warburg Stades (Oxford: Oxford ‘University Press, 1983), 557 “44 oran llstrtion and noes on this antiquity see Agaio Dt Somme, Delrin dllanno Santo ed de Leo (Soveria Mannell RubbetinoEdtore, 2000), no [164-65] 445 Bello may though, have been relying onthe ereroncous information in Giacomo Laut Anuiquae Urbissplendor: see shove, 16. {46 Evelina Bore, “Giovan Pietro Ballot ea commodt delle Stampe” in Documentary Culture: Florence and Rome from Grand Duk Ferdi [to Pope Alexander Vil ed. Eiabeth Cropper ‘ologns: Nuova. Al, 1990), 263-85. commissioner for antiquities in 1670, and as well as publishing the forma urbis fragments, he wrote a guidebook to the city, and collaborated with Pietro Santi Bartoli to produce illustrated accounts of major ‘monuments like Trajan’s column.” In research on the papers of Camillo Massimi (to whom Belloris edition is dedicated) Massimo Pomponi has demonstrated that Massimi was largely responsible for paying for ‘the volumes production, and Massimi also seems to have arranged for the copying of the fragments." ‘This explains how such an expensive publication ‘was practicable. Massimi was Maestro di Camera to Pope Clement X (1670-76), and we know that in the reign of this pope the Codex Ursinianus was reboun Bellori’s interest in the fragments may have prompted this rebinding, therefore, or the binder may have called ‘Massimi’s or Belloris attention to the fragments, and hence spurred them to find out what had happened to the originals with the Farnese. in fact, the damage to the fragments in the Farnese collection forced Bellorito rely on the Ursinianus drawings to supplement what could bbe seen of the originals. Belloris rather lackadaisical altitude to representation has invited criticism of his editions accuracy, especially in comparison with the Ursinianus drawings, but the book did at least remind scholars of the existence of these pieces. They were not yet safe though: when the pieces were rescued for the ‘communal government in 1741, the surviving fragments suffered further damage on the way to the Campidoglio, and then even Nolli saw fit to trim some pieces in order tat they would fit in his arrangement.” CONCLUSION he fate of the fragments of the forma urbis offers an important insight into the state of ‘early modern antiquarianism, and in particular the variety of scholarly interests, practical problems and patrons’ resources that determined the form that 47 On the programme, see Muzzil, “Bello la pubblicezone dei famnments 580-1; on Bello as commissioner, se Ronald Ridley. ‘fo Protect the Monuments: The Papal Antiquarian (1534-1870)" Xenia antigua 1 (1992) 132-35, ‘48 Massimo Pomponi, “La collesione del cardinale Massimo ¢ Tinventario del 16777 in Camille Maso colonia di antici Toni e material, Xenia antiqua monograie 3 (Rome: “EErma” di retschnelder, 1996), 104070, 145m 144and 147 9.21, 49 For details ofthe donation by the Farnese tothe pope, 922 Oliver Michel "Les peipéies dune donation. La orm urbisen DAL et 1742? MAanges de Beale frangaise de Rome, Ariquité 95.2 (4985: 97-1018.antiquarianism would take. The plight of the pieces in the Farnese collection demonstrates the importance of individual collectors (and of the curators of their antiquities) to the antiquarian enterprise, More fundamentally, though, early modern antiquarians lacked the intellectual framework to understand and use the fragments. They did not offer much evidence that could helpfully supplement what was already known about the ancient city, and on their own, they were not enough to provoke sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholars to ask different questions of the evidence. Even. after the publication and display ofthe fragments, they remained a curio, and it was not until the late nineteenth century, that their potential value was really explored. It is tempting to see the cautious and diligent sixteenth- and seventeenth-century antiquarians as the intellectual forebears ofthe cautious and diligent classical scholars of the twenty-first century. The sidelining ofthe fragments discussed here is a useful corrective to that view, and. proof thatthe river of scholarship rarely runs straight. 2Ba : ‘go ME D4O-T: f A Epicoxv, qui in antiquis his infcriptionibus nominantur, no excepto Menceraté nulls extat apud feriptores, quos ego et oan quamuis fuerine fais temporibus no- les, & medicinae artis fecientiaclari. Menecrates autcmn hic ij» & Til yeratorum , 8 corum fortaffe me- .colligimus qui cius iptumad- editos medicinae libros ‘monumentum é marmo- Matutini & ludi Magni, a rinm & Sex. Rufus in reg. i fe gladiatores foleeat b Horatio defcribieurin m gladiatorium inuetuftae Ro- oe Pe 4Figure 3: Anonymous, Fragments ofthe forma urbis (BAV Vat. lat 3439, ol 135 detail) (@Bibliotece Apostolica ‘Vaticana. Repoduced by permission of Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, All rights reserved.) L ae o// 1WVDVS lt MAGNVS | | Sree Figure : Perugia, Museo Archeologico nazionale, Inv com, 486, chnographic plan (drawing from Hflsen. “Piante ienografiche” pl. II) | CLAVE CLAVDIA:OCTAVIAE E-DIVICLAVDIF /FLIBPELORIS | * wh]