This page has annotations:

1. 1 2020-05-08T12:43:28-07:00 Aniruth Sivakumar a921b78c454763598f1523de5631457adad031a1 A Jeanne Britton 4 plain 2021-04-10T13:18:22-07:00 Jeanne Britton e120651dde677d5cf1fd515358b14d86eb289f11
2. 1 2020-05-08T12:44:02-07:00 Aniruth Sivakumar a921b78c454763598f1523de5631457adad031a1 B Jeanne Britton 3 plain 2021-04-10T13:18:22-07:00 Jeanne Britton e120651dde677d5cf1fd515358b14d86eb289f11

This page is referenced by:

• 1 2021-03-30T11:16:10-07:00 Remains of the Temple of Minerva Medica 8 Avanzo del Tempio di Minerva Medica plain 2025-01-17T06:37:03-08:00

  This image adopts a perspective on the Temple of Minerva Medica that closely resembles that of Piranesi’s later, more dramatic etching in the Vedute di Roma. Here, Piranesi places significant visual emphasis on the material presence of what the caption identifies as the temple’s “avanzo” (remains). With this term, Piranesi stresses the strength and durability of ancient Rome’s structures rather than their destruction, which the otherwise similar term “rovine” (ruins) can indicate (Kantor-Kazovsky 134-5n). The brief illusionistic captions here and in the image from the Vedute di Roma both share the later addition of the supporting wall on the left (B in this image). The larger veduta isolates the temple with a sharp recession on the left and a deep shadow along the severed wall on the right, and its illuminated foreground leaves ample room for the two figures and, by extension, the viewer, to enter the scene. By contrast, this smaller image’s wispy suggestions of a distant arch on the right, the botanical growth on the left, and its dramatic foreshortening bring these remains closer to the viewer and embed them in their surroundings. Piranesi often, in his Vedute di Roma, uses such elements of composition to combine a sense of immediacy and accessibility with a competing sense of impediment (Verschaffel).    
  
  The shadow of a fallen column that interrupts the image’s caption nearly obscures the word “fabbrica” (building, or construction). In keeping with a tendency for such illusions to suggest issues of preservation and representation in antiquarian illustration (Lolla), Piranesi invites viewers and readers into his simulation of the temple’s almost palpable presence as a remnant (“avanzo”) rather than ruins (“rovine”) while calling attention to his own methods of fabrication. The “Pianta di Roma” also emphasizes the temple’s presence and allows both a cartographic and visual orientation to this image. Pointing readers from the Index to the Map of Rome to this plate, Piranesi observes that “Vi si vedono alcuni avanzi di muri, che investendo all’intorno la di lui parte inferiore” [Here one can see some remains of the walls that surrounded its lower level]. Pointing deictically to the image (“Vi” [here/there]), he emphasizes the bibliographical presence of his archaeological argument, his claim that the wall that hides the original prospect (and spoils the appearance of the temple) must be modern. Reading the index, we gain information about the temple’s architectural preservation. Looking at the image, we gain a sense of immediacy and witness Piranesi’s emphasis on the construction of the building and his own image. (JB)