This content was created by Avery Freeman. The last update was by Zoe Langer.

This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

The Digital Piranesi

Porta San Lorenzo built by Aurelian

This page has annotations:

This page is referenced by:

Porta San Lorenzo Built by Aurelian A. Porta San Lorenzo di Aureliano. B. Canale per uso della porta levatora a costume di que tempi. C. Mura, e torri di Bellisario. D. Acquedotto dell’Acqua Marcia. E. Porta interna. F. Facciata della porta. A. in tutto simile alla chiusa G. vicina alla Maggiore H. I. Merli della Porta F. in forma più grande. K. Modinatura della Cornice. L. Acquedotto dell’Acqua Claudia. M. Porta interna alla Maggiore.; Piranesi Archit(etto) dis(egnò) inc(ise). A. Porta San Lorenzo, built by Aurelian. B. Canal used for the drawbridge, in the custom of the times. C. Walls and towers built by Belisarius. D. Aqueduct of the Acqua Marcia. E. Interior gate. F. Facade of Gate A, which is similar to the closed gate near the Porta Maggiore H. I. Close-up of the Merlons of Gate F. K. Moulding of the Cornice. L. Aqueduct of the Acqua Claudia. M. Interior gate to the Porta Maggiore.; Drawn and engraved by the Architect Piranesi.
The rudimentary quality of this diagrammatic image, which depicts both a topographical plan for the Porta San Lorenzo (the original Porta Tiburtina) as well as an elevation of the gate itself, corresponds to claims Piranesi makes elsewhere about its construction. The key explains the different parts of the gate as well as the nearby aqueducts of the Acqua Marcia and Claudia. The façade view along with the close-up of the merlons of the gate (I) and the profile of the cornice (K) are, however, depicted with deeper etching lines and some attention to illustrating depth (Wilton-Ely 1978, 51). Indeed, the two-dimensional style of these two components in the image sets them apart from the rest of the plan, whose unsophisticated quality shows simple etching with basic geometric figures to demarcate everything from drawbridges to aqueducts. Furthermore, the reconstruction of the gate’s façade extends beyond the image’s border at the top left, which breaks the two-dimensional illusion of the image, but also leads the viewer’s eye to this portion of the print.

Within the depiction of the gate’s façade, Piranesi includes the inscription by Arcadius (circa 377-408 CE) and Honorius (circa 384-423 CE) located above the gate. The inscription is indicated on the façade, but only the letters S, P, Q, and R are legible. Instead, Piranesi includes the full inscription in the subsequent plate, “Cross Section of the Giulia, Tepula, and Marcia Aqueducts,” as well as in his index to the Map of Rome (no.18). Within the index, Piranesi reflects upon the many reasons why the gate must have been built by Aurelian and restored by his successors. Among the many reasons mentioned—which include considerations of ground level changes during Aurelian’s time (circa 214-275 CE) and backfill outside the walls—the most compelling is the simplicity and poor structure of the gate itself. Piranesi argues that Aurelian, occupied by difficult wars, was unconcerned with architectural magnificence and luxury since his principal concern was simply to finish the gate with great haste (a task that Aurelian’s predecessors had undertaken but not accomplished).

With the meager façade of the gate as the primary focus in this print, it appears that Piranesi may be using this plan not only to focus on the details of the surrounding area to Porta San Lorenzo, but also to buttress his argument about the gate’s creator. The sketch of the façade portrays a humble structure including a door with five windows above and an inscription between the top of the door and the bottom of the windows. Piranesi shows in his image that attention was not paid to aesthetics as the five windows are neither perfectly the same size, nor are they aligned symmetrically over the gate’s door with equidistance between each one. This could have been simply a quick sketch in which the artist, or his workshop assistants, paid little attention to details and symmetry, or it could reflect the poor quality of the façade’s construction. If we consider this depiction of the gate next to the engraving by Piranesi’s mentor Giuseppe Vasi of the same gate from the same period (below), the rugged, rudimentary design of Piranesi’s gate becomes even more apparent.
The nearby Porta Maggiore is indicated on Piranesi’s plan (H) because it was built by similar methods. The fact that Piranesi did not choose to include the façade of this gate in the print perhaps implies his intentions of drawing the viewer’s focus specifically to Porta San Lorenzo’s façade, its inscription, and the conclusions that can be drawn from analyzing the inscription together with the gate’s simple construction. (AD)