This page was created by Adiv Srinitesh Sivakumar.  The last update was by Zoe Langer.

The Digital Piranesi

View of Two Dining Rooms Belonging to Nero’s Golden House, taken erroneously for the Temples of the Sun and Moon, or of Isis and Serapis

This engraving features in a bold argument that appears across Piranesi’s works in images, maps, and their related texts. From the outset of this work, he declares his disagreement with his peers in its very title“View of Two Dining Rooms Belonging to Nero’s Golden House, taken erroneously for the Temples of the Sun and Moon, or of Isis and Serapis.” Piranesi embraced controversial claims but usually reserved his most brazen statements for the footnotes or annotations of his publications. By presenting his central argument in this engraving’s title, he strategically highlights his novel identification of the site as part of the larger complex of the Domus Aurea of Nero, a claim that he also makes in three separate engravings in the Vedute di Roma. Perhaps this boldness arises from Piranesi’s challenge to a long and established history of attribution. He contended, in text and image, with sources as authoritative as Andrea Palladio’s foundational treatise, Quattro libri dell'architettura (1570). Although Giuseppe Vasi, in his Prospetto di Roma (1765), mentions a possible link to the Domus Aurea (Indice, 54-55), the majority of eighteenth-century artists and antiquarians, such as Hubert Robert, Giovanni Canaletto, and Jean Barbault, largely upheld Palladio’s description and reconstruction of the imperial monument (see images below). 
Piranesi agreed with both Palladio and contemporary authors on certain key points: first, as the key’s first and second annotations explain, that the main structure was composed of two large hemicircular chambers used in either summer or winter, second, that the vaults of these chambers were decorated with stucco in a diamond and square pattern (seen in the central arch and in the upper story visible below the number 2), and, finally, that sculptures of illustrious figures occupied niches throughout the building. Piranesi visually alludes to Palladio's second plate of the monument, seen above, which shows the ornamental reliefs of the upper vault in detail. Tempering a bold claim with an established visual source, while ultimately correcting or disproving that source, was typical of Piranesi’s approach to argumentation.
 

Piranesi cites archeological and geographical evidence to support his claims, which he first elaborates in the Antichità Romane. Piranesi asserts that modern writers have not sufficiently “considerata la forma, la quale sarebbe bastata a ricredergli dalle loro supposizioni.” The assumption of his contemporaries that any sort of apse or hemicycle would automatically indicate a temple demonstrates just how “little knowledge” they have of Roman architecture (“Pianta di Roma,” Antichità Romane, vol. 1, no. 284). Anyone with the most basic understanding of domestic architecture, he continues, would know that virtually all Roman buildings have such features. The hallmarks of ancient temples, such as a portico or pronaos (evident, for example, in the Pantheon), Piranesi demonstrates, are notably absent. 

In addition to the formal features of the ruins, Piranesi argues that their geographical location, adjacent to the main hall of the Domus Aurea and the Colosseum, supports his revision of previous authors. Piranesi further elaborates this argument in his reconstruction of the Roman Forum (detail below).
The print seen above corresponds to number 62 in the map, while the main complex of the Golden House of Nero is indicated at 57 and 58. The light hatching indicates Piranesi’s conjectural plan of the buildings, while the darker shading indicates the extant ruins. Piranesi’s topographical reconstruction of the Golden House, in tandem with the visual evidence provided in the three engravings of the structure in the Vedute di Roma, prove his argument that this particular ruin was a natural extension of the domestic complex built by Nero (Wilton-Ely 1978, 52). It should be noted that contemporaries did not agree with Piranesi’s assessment, and the building was considered to be the Temple of the Sun until only recently and has now been identified as the Temple of Venus and Roma. What is notable, beyond the accuracy of Piranesi’s identification, is his method of challenging scholarly authorities through the textual and visual elements of the Vedute di Roma. (ZL)

To see this image in the Vedute di Roma, volume 17 of Piranesi’s Opereclick here.

This page has paths:

This page has tags: