This print is conceived on a double register. Within the upper quadrant, a map apperars on an invented stone fragment in the style of the Marble Plan (labelled Figure I), flanked by two coins showing reproductions of the temples built on the Capitoline Hill (one dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the other to Jupiter Feretrius and Mars Capitolinus). The lower quadrant contains a conjectural drawing of two cliffs that rise from the sides of the hill (Figure II). These two compositional methods—the map and the conjectural veduta—correspond to distinct operational modalities aimed at obtaining two different types of images: the first of a technical or geometric nature, the second of a pictorial type.  

Susan Dixon identifies these types of images as “multi-informational,” linking this print with the Voyages pittoresques genre of travel literature of the eighteenth century (Dixon 2002, 475), and Lola Kantor-Kazovsky describes a similar image in this group of plans as “two-storied” (Kantor-Kazovsky 86). In such images, the artist combines various types of representation on one sheet and within a single visual frame. Piranesi also includes further information about archaeological details of the Capitoline Hill in the individual index for this image, located earlier in the volume. The multi-informational image lends itself well to Piranesi’s argumentation in this print since “The creator of the multi-informational image – perhaps more than most images – always shows his authoritative hand” (Dixon 2002, 484).  

Indeed, in the caption, Piranesi signals to the viewer the addition of his own conjectural supplement to the archaeological map: the map’s “tinta più nera” indicates the extant ruins of the buildings, and the “la meno nera” demonstrates an informed reconstruction that he specifies is “supplito da me.” This phrasing emphasize the first-person pronoun (“me”), and thus the person whose addition or supplement filled the void of information. Similar phrasing is also found in the description of the Plan of the Baths of Titus. This kind of archaeological supplement is fundamental to the study of antiquity, and it is also not unlike the linguistic supplement that is central to Jacques Derrida's theory of deconstruction. The Italian verb supplire implies a missing element which is already inscribed within that to which it is added. Thus, Piranesi’s “dual role as antiquarian and designer” (Pinto 2012, 142) that is visually apparent in this group of plans at the end of this volume also appears verbally in this image. Piranesi is providing a hypothesized supplement as well as restoring what the has been lost. While for Derrida it is language that always contains successive absences, which “supplements” can only somewhat complete, it is for Piranesi the material reality of the past that always entails the imaginative creation and visual and verbal presentation of evidence.  

The map, accompanying image, caption, and index all work together symbiotically to argue against what “moderni scrittori” believed about the archaeology and history of this site (“Index to the Map of the Capitoline Hill”). Specifically, he argues against the idea that the Capitoline Hill was historically surrounded by walls. The index uses the Histories of Tacitus’ (c. 56-120 AD) along with cross-references to both his map and his image to lead his audience around the specific features that Tacitus describes. Piranesi inserts himself into the citations of Tacitus’ account of the battle of Vitellius (67 AD) against Antonius Primus (circa 20 CE – 81 AD), interrupting the quotations with parenthetical intrusions that aim to lead the reader meticulously through his own map in Figure I. Indeed, Piranesi frames his parenthetical breaks in the vein of a tour guide with the didactical Italian adverb “cioè,” which establishes a declarative or corrective tone. By merging this classical source with his visual supplement, the “authoritative hand” that is often on display in Piranesi’s multi-informational images also appears to insert his own map retroactively onto Tacitus’ Histories, using one and the other together, to support his argument about the presence of ancient walls around the hill. 

According to Piranesi’s index, the hypothesis about the wall was misconstrued from a passage from Tacitus, where he says: “Tum diversos Capitola aditus invadunt” (“Index to the Map of the Capitoline Hill”). The “moderni scrittori” took this to mean the entrances of the walls, but Piranesi’s map, image, and index work to show his audience that Tacitus was truly talking about the perimeter of the Capitoline Stronghold (shown in Figure II). Perhaps Piranesi places the two staffage figures next to the remains of the wall towers, to catch the viewer’s attention as one of the main focal points of the dramatic, supplementary image. This type of image did not catch on, and contemporary practitioners of archaeology sought out more objective methods of representation (Dixon 2002, 484). The following two images by Piranesi’s son Francesco testify to this shift in visual methods. (AD)