ÉTIENNE DUPÉRAC (1543-1604)

TRAJAN'S COLUMN AND THE CAMPIDOGLIO, FORUM ROMANA
Pen & ink on laid paper
19.2 x 29.7 cm
 
 
PROVENANCE
Acquired by Dr Robert Weil (1843-1923) in Paris before 1870; [a]
Sold anonymously at auction in Paris, 2025
 
LITERATURE
Étienne Dupérac, I Vestigi dell'Anticha di Roma, Paris (1575), pl.XXXIII (see fig. I)
 
 
 
 
 
This outstandingly-preserved drawing is a remarkable rediscovery, being the only extant preparatory drawing by Dupérac for this series which is not held in an institutional collection. [1] Our drawing relates to a plate from one of the most important series of Roman views to be published, I Vestigi dell'Anticha di Roma, a seminal publication which comprised the very first visual presentation of the topography of contemporary Rome. [2] The publication, orchestrated by the Roman publisher Lorenzo della Vaccheria, was timed to coincide with the Jubilee Year of 1575, an event which saw more than 100,000 pilgrims descend upon Rome, and the series was understandably an instant bestseller thanks in part to this context. Indeed, between the date of publication and 1773 (when the original plates seem either  to have vanished or been disposed of having degraded from repeated use), the Vestigi ran to no fewer than ten editions (as well as being copied by Sadeler in Prague in 1606). 
 
 
The presentation of the prints, which measured 21.5 x 37.5 cm each and were almost certainly bound in albums by della Vaccheria, allowed pilgrims and visitors to carry them around with them as a sort of proto-guidebook. Each plate was accompanied by a legend written in Italian and a basic key identifying the main sites of interest, both contemporary and classical. Previous publications of Roman views had never depicted the city with such verisimilitude, nor had the perspectives of their views included so much in a single picture. Hieronymus Cock, in his series of prints from 1551 (a bestseller in its time and very influential in the Low Countries particularly), admitted in their preface that the views were 'vivis prospectibus ad veri imitationem', and the publication's scope was limited and the locations depicted were not presented in a methodical order. Dupérac's Vestigi by contrast allowed the viewer to walk along designated routes following the series, a radical invention in its time. Similarly, Giovanni Antonio Dosio's Urbis Romae aedificiorum illustrium (Rome, 1569) included picturesque interpolations and recreations and did not have the same 'unité d’intention en comparaison des Vestigi'. [3]
 
 
 
The condition of our drawing is an important element to understand when comparing it with the other known preparatory drawings by Dupérac for the Vestigi. The nineteen sheets that are now bound in the Codice Resta in Palermo [4] are noticeably very different in their state of repair: they are, like our sheet, drawn in mettalic-gall ink, however this has oxidised considerably to the extent that the paper has degraded. Furthermore, these drawings were (likely by the artist himself) incised with some sort of stylus, so much so that there are areas of perforation in the paper of some of them. There are also small graffiti and interpolations in pen & ink, which Fiorani states are later attempts to restore damaged or incomplete areas. The same is true of the examples in Florence, and Fiorani has concluded that these are sheets which were actually used in the printing process, being impregnated with fatty substances and reduced almost to transparency as the stylus carved into the copper plate. [5] This usage is further confirmed by the fact that the drawings in Palermo and Florence are, unlike our sheet, the same dimensions as the prints. It should be noted of course that those works are, just as ours is, not in reverse to the prints, as is sometimes the case in the etching process.
 
 
Unlike the aforementioned examples, the present work shows no physical signs of having been used for the plate, precisely as one would expect given the notable differences between it and the print. These include notable losses among the staffage of the finished print when compared to our sheet (see fig. V), simplifying the composition to make it less 'busy' perhaps. Furthermore, upon close examination of our sheet, one can see another tell-tale indication of our drawing having been simplified to some extent once it was composed for the print: the number of windows in the right-hand edifices has been reduced here and there (see fig. VI), notably to the uppermost turret on the far right and the building situated on the right hand of the square's corner in the upper right. 
 
 
By contrast, the detailing in our drawing is not always as clear as it is in the print, particularly in areas where it is particularly fine in the print such as the decorations of the Column itself (see fig. VII). This makes sense, as the purpose of the prints was in part to satisfy antiquarian's desire to have a proper record of the ruins, and the reliefs on the column (together with the ancient text) were particularly important in this regard.
 
 
When comparing our drawing stylistically to those in Florence and Palermo, one thing becomes immediately obvious: the latter drawings are very rigid, with lines evidently drawn using a ruling device and a strict geometry employed in parts; our sheet by contrast has a fluidity that suggests it could have been the original study sketched in situ, which was then adapted and altered for the purposes of publication. Our drawing therefore constitutes an even rarer example of Dupérac's oeuvre, as the only extant example of a topographical Roman subject to have potentially been drawn from life by the artist.